• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marshall Islands Paying the Price for US

WCH said:
How would America not be responsible?

I still maintain we might not exist as a country today without testing and producing viable weapons to offset those by our enemies at the time. I'm sorry people suffered but, that's unfortunately part of freedom.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with blighting the lives of innocent islanders for your personal "salvation". Their suffering is ongoing.
 
longview said:
It has to start increasing first?
But let's check your math.
The data shows the rate was high between 1994 and 2011 at 7.8 mm/year,
Your article cited 400 mm (40 cm) as the point where the island's aquifers would be contaminated
with sea water. Even at the higher rate, it would take 50 years.
At the observed rate since 2011, it would never get there.
Interesting enough the same flattening to slight drop can be see at Wake Island.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/595.rlrdata
and other Pacific islands.
Click to expand...
I though you wrote 40 mm. 40 cm would be 10x that.
 
calamity said:
If it was in the 70's or early 80's, you lucked out by not getting that job. And, if you were US military, you really lucked out by not being sent there.

It was supposed to be a trip to paradise, instead it sealed their fate
Click to expand...

My wife is a 100% service connected disabled Navy veteran who suffered from exposure to ionizing radiation at a US military site stateside:
Hunter's Point and Treasure Island, California, home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.

The NRDL often experimented with and disposed of nuclear material with little apparent concern that it was operating in the middle of a major metropolitan area. Among other things, historical documents show, scientists at the NRDL:

– Oversaw the dumping of huge amounts of contaminated sand and acid into San Francisco Bay after they were used in attempts to clean irradiated ships.
– Spread radioactive material on- and off-base, as if it were fertilizer, to practice decontamination.
– Burned radioactive fuel oil in a boiler, discharging the smoke into the atmosphere.
– Sold radioactive ships as scrap metal to a private company in Alameda.
– Hung a source of cobalt-60, a nuclear isotope that emits high-energy electromagnetic radiation similar to X-rays, in San Francisco Bay for two weeks, apparently just to see what would happen.
– Conducted human experiments that included requiring people to drink radioactive elements.
– Experimented with significant amounts of a wide variety of long-lived radiological poisons, including plutonium, cesium, uranium, thorium and radium.
– Studied and disposed of thousands of irradiated mice, rats, dogs, goats, mules, and pigs, among other animals. At one point, the lab owned a ranch in Contra Costa County used specifically to raise animals for radiation testing.
– Sought permission to dump 1,000 gallons of liquid waste containing "small amounts of fission products" into San Francisco Bay, as an experiment to study how tidal action would dilute the radioactivity. The experiment was meant as a precursor to the disposal of 1,000 gallons of liquid radioactive waste in the bay every day. (The documents do not say whether the experiment or the daily dumping occurred.)

In my humble opinion, every man or woman who has ever worked or served at Hunter's Point or Treasure Island is in a class equivalent to the Atomic Soldiers of Nevada, or the Agent Orange veterans. Karen might have served in peacetime but her illness is the result of war.

karenhat2_000.jpg
 
calamity said:
I though you wrote 40 mm. 40 cm would be 10x that.
Click to expand...

longview said:
The 40 cm was from your citation.
Click to expand...

never mind....I was tired. 40 mm is about an inch and a half; 40 cm is 16 inches.


16 inches of sea level rise is going to happen within a decade. That you can bank on.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Swallowed Islands: Getting Sea Level Rise Out of Variability[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Essay by Kip Hansen Damien Cave, the NY Times Australia bureau chief, writes yet another heart-rending story with great personal touches about how the Solomon Islands are being “swallowed by the sea”. His latest offering is titled: Solomon Islands Dispatch — His Pacific Island Was Swallowed by Rising Seas. So He Moved to…



July 26, 2018 in Sea level.
[/FONT]
 
calamity said:
never mind....I was tired. 40 mm is about an inch and a half; 40 cm is 16 inches.


16 inches of sea level rise is going to happen within a decade. That you can bank on.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would you think 16 inches of sea level rise (406.4 mm)will occur within 10 years?
Consider that even if the global rate of rise were the claimed 3.3mm/year, it would take 123 years to
increase sea levels by 16 inches.
Think about it this way, if we are on a slope of 330 mm/century, and we change to a slope of
4064 mm/century, that slope change should be really obvious on any graph.
You can look for such an inflection in the graphs, but most of the sea level rises are very consistent.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
 
calamity said:
There's the dome...you never heard of that, have you?

Marshall Islands: Concrete dome holding nuclear waste could leak



Translation: the thing is already leaking like a sieve. So, any damage done by rising sea levels will have no effect.

And, rising sea levels are certainly an issue on the Marshall Islands; the one place on earth where the innocent are paying a huge price for the sins of the guilty.

Within Decades, Floods May Render Many Islands Uninhabitable


To me, the saddest part of this story is the complete lack of concern anyone in the US had/has for the residents of the Marshall Islands. First there were 23 nuclear tests on the islands, followed by leaving behind a giant radioactive waste pit; the result of shoddy cleanup and a feeble attempt to seal it off. And now, the US territory is on the verge of becoming uninhabitable thanks to our giant hunger to devour all the resources on earth; a greed fueled by the constant burning of fossil fuels.

No wonder so many Americans go to church and beg for forgiveness. Maybe this thread will give some of them a clue to what they are praying to be forgiven about.
Click to expand...

Modern snowflake children of past American fathers have a lot of gripes about the way things were done before they came along with their 'improved genius.' I have no more confidence in modern 'geniuses' than I did in past geniuses. If modern scorners want to help then let them deal with issues they find now that must be dealt with and stop trying to assess blame on people who are long past dead and gone.
 
longview said:
Why on earth would you think 16 inches of sea level rise (406.4 mm)will occur within 10 years?
Consider that even if the global rate of rise were the claimed 3.3mm/year, it would take 123 years to
increase sea levels by 16 inches.
Think about it this way, if we are on a slope of 330 mm/century, and we change to a slope of
4064 mm/century, that slope change should be really obvious on any graph.
You can look for such an inflection in the graphs, but most of the sea level rises are very consistent.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
Click to expand...

Because we've already seen up to 8 inches of rise, and the place is only just beginning to heat up.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Because we've already seen up to 8 inches of rise, and the place is only just beginning to heat up.
Click to expand...

There was 6.25 inches of rise per the PSMSL between 1994 and 2012.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1838.rlrdata
but after 2012, it has been flat, so 18 years at .35 inches a year followed by 5 years of no increase.
Even if you projected the rate observed between 1994 and 2012 forward,
it would still take 45 years to get to 16 inches, but even that would be to high, as the
actual average rate of rise for 23 years is 6.25"/23 years = .27"per year.
 
longview said:
There was 6.25 inches of rise per the PSMSL between 1994 and 2012.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1838.rlrdata
but after 2012, it has been flat, so 18 years at .35 inches a year followed by 5 years of no increase.
Even if you projected the rate observed between 1994 and 2012 forward,
it would still take 45 years to get to 16 inches, but even that would be to high, as the
actual average rate of rise for 23 years is 6.25"/23 years = .27"per year.
Click to expand...

IMO you are being short sighted and failing to take into account the fact that we have crossed the threshold.

And, no.

Sea level rise has not automagically come to a grinding halt over the past 6 years. Where on earth did you ever get that idea?:lol:

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
YOU asked if anyone else was doing this.
Click to expand...

No, I asked whether or not someone else was responsible for the Marshall Islands tests.
 
marke said:
Modern snowflake children of past American fathers have a lot of gripes about the way things were done before they came along with their 'improved genius.' I have no more confidence in modern 'geniuses' than I did in past geniuses. If modern scorners want to help then let them deal with issues they find now that must be dealt with and stop trying to assess blame on people who are long past dead and gone.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you don't say that whenever a discussion about FDR's New Deal comes up.
 
calamity said:
IMO you are being short sighted and failing to take into account the fact that we have crossed the threshold.

And, no.

Sea level rise has not automagically come to a grinding halt over the past 6 years. Where on earth did you ever get that idea?:lol:
Click to expand...
What threshold? and for the Marshall Islands sea levels have not risen much in the last 6 years.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1838.rlrdata
Those numbers mean something, they are in mm.
 
longview said:
What threshold? and for the Marshall Islands sea levels have not risen much in the last 6 years.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1838.rlrdata
Those numbers mean something, they are in mm.
Click to expand...
lol...yes, there is something to see here.

Marshall Islands King Tide Floods

Yesterday 21 January 2015, a king tide flooded wide areas of the capital, Majuro, as well as several of the country’s outer islands, including Mejit, Kili, Utrik and Ailuk. Further flooding is expected, and could be worsened if accompanied by strong winds and storm surges.

...

In March last year, a storm surge combined with a an extreme high tide flooded parts of the Marshall Islands, including the capital Majuro, early on Monday 3 March 2014. Around 800 people had to evacuate their homes and stay in temporary accommodation.

Later in the year, during October 2014, high waves and tide caused yet more coastal damage and flooding.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
lol...yes, there is something to see here.

Marshall Islands King Tide Floods
Click to expand...
You do understand that a King tide is still a tide, and not a change in sea level, right?
Everywhere with a coast on an ocean gets tides, and sometimes those tides are much higher than normal.
If you look at any tide station, the difference between the predicted and the observed tide is the error
between the astronomical tide and the actual measurement.
PS, that error is always hard coded into the satellite measurements.
 
longview said:
You do understand that a King tide is still a tide, and not a change in sea level, right?
Everywhere with a coast on an ocean gets tides, and sometimes those tides are much higher than normal.
If you look at any tide station, the difference between the predicted and the observed tide is the error
between the astronomical tide and the actual measurement.
PS, that error is always hard coded into the satellite measurements.
Click to expand...

It's telling you that the island is already being over run with water, on a fairly frequent basis. This too is happening in coastal Florida, although the cities themselves try to keep it quiet for obvious reasons.
 
calamity said:
It's telling you that the island is already being over run with water, on a fairly frequent basis. This too is happening in coastal Florida, although the cities themselves try to keep it quiet for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Places on the ocean have always had rouge tides, king tides, storm tides,
they are a fact of life, living on the coast.
When we talk about sea level rise, we are talking about between 2 and 3 mm/year,
A tide event can easily be 1000 mm in a few hours.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8631044
This example is 963mm change in 5 hours.
 
Deuce said:
Did some other nation test nukes at that site?
Click to expand...

All US research was being shared with the British who eventually became the third nuclear power. So, they did play a part in those tests at that site and others.

Wanna argue some more semantics?
 
WCH said:
All US research was being shared with the British who eventually became the third nuclear power. So, they did play a part in those tests at that site and others.

Wanna argue some more semantics?
Click to expand...

So now you are blaming the British
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom