Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#101

Post by jpc0 »

genewitch wrote: post #79
twoodfin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If for some unimaginable reason the western world had embraced this philosophy wholeheartedly in 1985, literally billions of people would be struggling in grinding poverty (or worse!) instead of living significantly better lives than their parents or grandparents. Is it different now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... i don't know, you tell me. And billions are in poverty now so i'm not sure this is a productive conversation. 44.9% of the global population is under $6.85 per day . 740mm try to survive on less than $2.15 a day. 45% of the earth's population is 3,700,000,000 or so, which, if my counting of commas…

> Three-quarters of all people in extreme poverty live in Sub-Saharan Africa or in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

The people in extreme poverty are not the people you are making the argument for. Changing your consumption isn't going to do a thing for sub Saharan Africa and latin America, as a matter of fact increasing consumption of goods from those countries will improve their quality of life.

If you are ever in South Africa contact me, really. I'll take you to those people in povery, tell them yourself how you think Americans spending less money is going to change their lives in any way.

You will probably find some peoplewho are just trying their best to make it through the day. You will also find a lot of their lack of wealth comes from a lack of education.

You want to make a lasting difference, stop donating to feel good charities or animals or nonsense. Find an organisation that is focussed on improving education in these areas and donate to that.

Because nothing kills corrupt governments quite like an educated voting base.

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#103

Post by genewitch »

jpc0 wrote: post #101
genewitch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... i don't know, you tell me. And billions are in poverty now so i'm not sure this is a productive conversation. 44.9% of the global population is under $6.85 per day . 740mm try to survive on less than $2.15 a day. 45% of the earth's population is 3,700,000,000 or so, which, if my counting of commas…

> Three-quarters of all people in extreme poverty live in Sub-Saharan Africa or in fragile and conflict-affected countries. The people in extreme poverty are not the people you are making the argument for. Changing your consumption isn't going to do a thing for sub Saharan Africa and latin America, as a matter of fact increasing consumption of goods from those countries will improve their quality of life. If you are…

"see, rampant consumerism is good for the people in sub-saharan africa! it's okay to buy disposable land-fill!"

another way to look at this is, we export our pollution to another country until their citizens get tired of the pollution, and thus charge more for production. So we pull up stakes and move on to the next country that's too poor to complain.

But i guess bootstrapping economies by dumping toxins everywhere on the planet is ok.

The goal should be to bootstrap sustainable, clean technologies, not the same 1800s era industrialization that coats the land in a fine sheen of toxic waste.

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#104

Post by fc417fc802 »

concordDance wrote: post #89
somishere wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Marshall Islands tests were carried out after the end of WWII. It's worth considering that the US also used the islands as a dumping ground for waste from previous tests in the US [1] ... At a site which is now under threat of leaking due to the effects of climate change [2] [1] https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runit_Island

Why would leaking matter? The ocean will dilute the leakage to irrelevance (recall that there's 4 billion tons of Uranium already in the ocean).

It's a reasonable question. I think the linked wiki article addresses it though. There are at least concerns about ground water contamination and about heavy metals.

If dilution is so straightforward then why wasn't the waste mixed with a large volume of sea water and then dumped far out at sea to begin with? That probably would have been cheaper.

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#105

Post by hulitu »

concordDance wrote: post #89
somishere wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Marshall Islands tests were carried out after the end of WWII. It's worth considering that the US also used the islands as a dumping ground for waste from previous tests in the US [1] ... At a site which is now under threat of leaking due to the effects of climate change [2] [1] https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runit_Island

Why would leaking matter? The ocean will dilute the leakage to irrelevance (recall that there's 4 billion tons of Uranium already in the ocean).

> Why would leaking matter?

Go and see for yourself. /s

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#106

Post by hulitu »

margalabargala wrote: post #18
jmyeet wrote: post #14

I only learned last year that you can dive the atomic fleet [1][2]. What is the atomic fleet? As part of the nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, they dragged a bunch of WW2 ships (from both the US and Japan) and detonated bombs above them to test how effective such weapons were at sinking ships. As part of this, you can often get to set foot on Bikini Atoll, something normally not possible AFAIK where you can only stay…

> something normally not possible AFAIK where you can only stay a few hours to stay below radiation thresholds. As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet. Just don't eat the coconuts or crabs.

> As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet.

Time ?

Re: What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

#108

Post by margalabargala »

hulitu wrote: post #106
margalabargala wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something normally not possible AFAIK where you can only stay a few hours to stay below radiation thresholds. As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet. Just don't eat the coconuts or crabs.

> As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet. Time ?

Not really sure what you're asking. Time spent in an airplane passes at the same rate as time spent on an island. One hour on either is an equivalent dose.
Post reply on HN