20/20 last night

[Syrch]

Originally posted by: everman
The other thread is here: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1920281

I don't think it's anything we can stop, either because there's too much momentum or it's just a natural cycle we have no control over. I'm not really opposed to trying though, we should be able to develop some nice cool new tech like better power generation and ultimately a cleaner environment.

Thanks, reading the thread 🙂

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: JS80
barbara walters causing panic is the biggest threat imo

word.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: sinucus
And who buys land where massive earthquakes can destroy your home?
Los Angeles: Population, 2005 estimate 9,935,475!

<---- Lives in interior Alaska. Very low risk of natural disasters. We do have a LOT of earthquakes, but they are generally very small (imperceivable to humans) OR they are located in an unpopulated area.

Alaska had two mega thrust (9.0+) quakes in the last 100 years.

Please don't forget that if we cut Alaska in half, Texas would be the 3rd largest state.

Alaska is HUGE. I live in the interior. The earthquakes happen down south, generally, and when they do happen, there are so few populated areas that it nary has an effect. Sure, if we placed LA over the areas where those quakes were in waould be bad...

Earthquakes happen along the tectonic plates at fault lines. Please refer to such a map to see where these lines are.

 

[sinucus]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: sinucus
And who buys land where massive earthquakes can destroy your home?
Los Angeles: Population, 2005 estimate 9,935,475!

<---- Lives in interior Alaska. Very low risk of natural disasters. We do have a LOT of earthquakes, but they are generally very small (imperceivable to humans) OR they are located in an unpopulated area.

You could freeze to death in a freak 50' blizzard.

My point is that I'm sick of all the people who said it was stupid to live in New Orleans. The city did the best they could to protect itself. Everyone in this country lives in an area that is prone to some form of Natural Disaster, whether it be fire, flood, hurricane, blizzard, tornado, earthquick, or freak 30' wave of Molasses. The point is, everyone is in danger of something no matter where you live. You just take your chances and make life the best that it can be.

 

[StarGazerVSP]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: sinucus
And who buys land where massive earthquakes can destroy your home?
Los Angeles: Population, 2005 estimate 9,935,475!

<---- Lives in interior Alaska. Very low risk of natural disasters. We do have a LOT of earthquakes, but they are generally very small (imperceivable to humans) OR they are located in an unpopulated area.

Alaska had two mega thrust (9.0+) quakes in the last 100 years.

Please don't forget that if we cut Alaska in half, Texas would be the 3rd largest state.

Alaska is HUGE. I live in the interior. The earthquakes happen down south, generally, and when they do happen, there are so few populated areas that it nary has an effect. Sure, if we placed LA over the areas where those quakes were in waould be bad...

Earthquakes happen along the tectonic plates at fault lines. Please refer to such a map to see where these lines are.

You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Syrch
Any watch this special I Found it very interesting. Basically it had the top 10 ways that our civilization can end today and the #1 way is global warming and it seems to be a much bigger threat than I imagined.

The glaciers in the antartic and what not are melting at such a high rate that most of japan/china and part of US such as Florida, New Orleans etc would be gone. London would be no more as well. They said its predicted that 100 million people would be come refugee and they compared tha tto the 100 thousand people that were refugee after Katrina (no this isn't a katrina thread i promise). They said that the melting has increased drastically and this is a very real threat and can be as early as 50-100 years from now.

Heres a link to an article of it from their site....like i said, this really was a wake up call to me.

Sensationalistic media fearmongering. Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's good for their ratings.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: sinucus
You could freeze to death in a freak 50' blizzard.

Freak blizzard is not generally considered a natural disaster. And it routinely hits 60 below. And it takes some time to freeze to death. People can escape by simply going to a warm building. Fires, earthquakes, floods, there is no escape.

Originally posted by: sinucus

My point is that I'm sick of all the people who said it was stupid to live in New Orleans. The city did the best they could to protect itself. The country lives in an area that is prone to some form of Natural Disaster, whether it be fire, flood, hurricane, blizzard, tornado, earthquick, or freak 30' wave of Molasses. The point is, everyone is in danger of something no matter where you live. You just take your chances and make life the best that it can be.

Yes, but you can always make smart choices about where to live. Don't live on a fault line. Don't live on a coast where hurricanes hit routinely, or you have mudslides. And don't live in a fish bowl on the ocean.

I am sick of all the people who build houses in terrible locations that are constantly being hit with natural disasters, and then my tax money going to rebuild EXACTLY IN THE SAME PLACE where the disaster occured. I believe that if you live in a place that is pretty prone to terrible natural disasters (not some freak molasses accident, WHICH IS NOT A NATURAL DISASTER) then you should live there at your own risk and I shouldn't have to pay to rebuild it each time. 3.7 billion dollars is being spent on simply rebuilding the levee that failed. That is ridiculous.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Fvck global warming, I?m sure we will kill each other off before any of that sh!t happens. Mankind will be the downfall of mankind.

Many scientist believe global warming is anthropogenic, so your statement pertains to global warming too. BTW, Steven Hawking made the same point, so you are in good company.



I watched the special last night, my first thought, was that it is a damned shame so many people rely on dumbed down, sensationalistic ,TV programing, for information. Valid concerns were brought up, but sci-fi writers and techno-thrillers have written about all the potential catastrophic events for decades, so it is a well beaten path. If it was a wake-up call for you, you waaaay overslept IMO.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

I do. Anchorage is build on a bed of silt and you would have to be an idiot to live in the actual city. Palmer, Eagle River, or Wasilla are fine. Living in the islands? Only a matter of time until a Tsunami hits you.

Not all of Alaska is safe. However, I do live in Fairbanks, and that is pretty darn safe. Not saying nothing will ever happen, but it is a low probability and we are built in a large valley of bedrock. No oceans for 350 miles, no real fault lines, no chance of tornado, nothing.

 

[lokiju]

I think a little piece of me died from reading this thread.

🙁

 

[StarGazerVSP]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

I do. Anchorage is build on a bed of silt and you would have to be an idiot to live in the actual city. Palmer, Eagle River, or Wasilla are fine. Living in the islands? Only a matter of time until a Tsunami hits you.

Not all of Alaska is safe. However, I do live in Fairbanks, and that is pretty darn safe. Not saying nothing will ever happen, but it is a low probability and we are built in a large valley of bedrock. No oceans for 350 miles, no real fault lines, no chance of tornado, nothing.

Isn't the lack of sunlight in the winter depressing.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: lokiju
I think a little piece of me died from reading this thread.
🙁

Oh, you hardly used that piece anyway, and when you did, you abused it. 🙂

 

[Staples]

Global warming won't kill off the human race however it will kill off a few billion if worst comes to worst.

That is hardly an extinction. (I don't want to sound insensitive, yes I view global warming as a bad thing but just stating the truth).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: archiloco
errrr.......if there is global warming to the point where the oceans become desalinated enough to stop the flow of warm water to the northern hemisphere, then it's going ot be an ice age...not massive flooding as yo say.

Yep, kill the GOCB and the cool off will start.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
Isn't the lack of sunlight in the winter depressing.

I don't think so. We often have very long dusks/dawns, meaning it isn't considered sunlight because the sun isn't over the horizon, but it is still light out. Why do people think sun is an anti-depressant? What is so depressing about short daylight hours? How many of us spend a lot of time outside, or even looking outside, anyway?

It is worth it though for the 24 hour light we get in the summer.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

I do. Anchorage is build on a bed of silt and you would have to be an idiot to live in the actual city. Palmer, Eagle River, or Wasilla are fine. Living in the islands? Only a matter of time until a Tsunami hits you.

Not all of Alaska is safe. However, I do live in Fairbanks, and that is pretty darn safe. Not saying nothing will ever happen, but it is a low probability and we are built in a large valley of bedrock. No oceans for 350 miles, no real fault lines, no chance of tornado, nothing.

Gee, thanks...

<----lives in Anchorage and not Squarebanks

 

[acemcmac]

I don't know what these guys are talking about... I live in a city, in a sedimentary valley outside of Philadelphia. The river floods, but I'm more than 150 vertical feet above the 100 year flood plain. I have a three story house that measures 4 stories from ground level in the basement. Not even a 50' foot blizzard and its snow drifts would be able to completley bury my house or keep me inside of it. It's awfully hard to have a tornado in a valley and my entire neighborhood was redone about 5 years ago to make it practically immune to street level flash flooding (we're on a hill, so how bad can it get anyway).

I declare my home natural-disaster proof.

 

[StarGazerVSP]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

I do. Anchorage is build on a bed of silt and you would have to be an idiot to live in the actual city. Palmer, Eagle River, or Wasilla are fine. Living in the islands? Only a matter of time until a Tsunami hits you.

Not all of Alaska is safe. However, I do live in Fairbanks, and that is pretty darn safe. Not saying nothing will ever happen, but it is a low probability and we are built in a large valley of bedrock. No oceans for 350 miles, no real fault lines, no chance of tornado, nothing.

Gee, thanks...

<----lives in Anchorage and not Squarebanks

Aren't you worried about another good friday quake.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
Isn't the lack of sunlight in the winter depressing.

I don't think so. We often have very long dusks/dawns, meaning it isn't considered sunlight because the sun isn't over the horizon, but it is still light out. Why do people think sun is an anti-depressant? What is so depressing about short daylight hours?

Never heard of S.A.D.? Text

 

[cw42]

I like the disaster where the Earth gets sucked up by a black hole, and your body gets ripped apart as you float into the air. 🙂

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
Isn't the lack of sunlight in the winter depressing.

I don't think so. We often have very long dusks/dawns, meaning it isn't considered sunlight because the sun isn't over the horizon, but it is still light out. Why do people think sun is an anti-depressant? What is so depressing about short daylight hours?

Never heard of S.A.D.? Text

I have, and I don't believe in it. Normal well adjusted people with healthy lifestyles generally are not affected by such a thing, in my experience.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
Gee, thanks...

<----lives in Anchorage and not Squarebanks

Heh...heh. I like Anchorage. A lot. But you have very proximal volcanoes, fault lines, and the city is literally built on silt. When a quake hits, much damage is done because the ground itself acts like a bowl of Jell-O.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
You live as far inland as Fairbanks?

Anchorage has the biggest threat to those quakes.

I do. Anchorage is build on a bed of silt and you would have to be an idiot to live in the actual city. Palmer, Eagle River, or Wasilla are fine. Living in the islands? Only a matter of time until a Tsunami hits you.

Not all of Alaska is safe. However, I do live in Fairbanks, and that is pretty darn safe. Not saying nothing will ever happen, but it is a low probability and we are built in a large valley of bedrock. No oceans for 350 miles, no real fault lines, no chance of tornado, nothing.

Gee, thanks...

<----lives in Anchorage and not Squarebanks

Aren't you worried about another good friday quake.

Nope, not really. I don't consider the risk heavy enough to worry about it. As we've seen in this thread, most anywhere is at risk from something or another. If I moved away from an earthquake zone, I might end up in a tornado zone. Or a hurricane zone. Or a heat wave zone. Or a terrorist target zone.

 

[hans030390]

I think this global warming thing is crap. Our Earth changes naturally. At one point the Sahara desert (I believe it's that one) was not a desert, but full of life. Earth changed. We've had periods on earth where it's very hot (dinosaurs maybe?), and very cold (ice age).

Also, people are worried that cars will do this to us because what they put out destroys the ozone layer. First off, Volcanoes put out more stuff (has something to do with carbon, forget the exact term though) than we do...a lot more. I believe one volcano eruption is equal to about one year of what we put out...correct me if I'm wrong, but it's something like that. Considering volcanoes still exist, and the Earth is still doing quite well, I don't think it's going anywhere.

Not to mention, the ozone layer is known to have patterns...sometimes it's not as strong as other times.

So for global warming killing us...Hmm, no. Even if it was true and happened, we'd know far ahead of time and adapt.

As far as things like nuclear wars...well, that could happen.

I think it's silly to worry about this stuff. Just live for now, and face stuff when it comes.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: StarGazerVSP
Isn't the lack of sunlight in the winter depressing.

I don't think so. We often have very long dusks/dawns, meaning it isn't considered sunlight because the sun isn't over the horizon, but it is still light out. Why do people think sun is an anti-depressant? What is so depressing about short daylight hours?

Never heard of S.A.D.? Text

I have, and I don't believe in it. Normal well adjusted people with healthy lifestyles generally are not affected by such a thing, in my experience.

Agreed. and I think part of the misconception is that the findings suggesting the occurrence of S.A.D. increases as latitude increases, don't take into account that as latitude increases, you also find (generally) smaller population centers, weaker education facilities, less adequate medical facilities... and especially in Alaska this is very evident. So even without SAD, going farther north puts you around people who don't have the same quality of life most of us do. They're likely to be less normal, less well-adjusted anyway. So continuing on this slippery slope, more people in the north are susceptible to SAD but not because they're "north" so much as because there are simply a higher percentage of people susceptible to it in the first place. Ow, I made my head hurt.

But personally... it doesn't affect me, and by my profession I've spent lots of time in nearly every city in Alaska, from Anchorage to Barrow to Juneau to Kotzebue to Shemya to Adak to... well, everywhere. There are plenty of balanced folks in Barrow just as there are here, but there's also a lot of weird ones there... More so than in Anchortown.