The Smiley Smile Message Board

Personally sending good wishes out to the people of Japan today, and I do believe we have a couple Japanese members on the board as well - best of luck to you all over the next few days.

I happened to turn on the news about a half hour after the quake struck. Parts of the country are looking pretty bad. Reminded me of seeing the pictures from after Hurricane Katrina. It sounds like most people were trained to deal with tsunamis and were able to get to higher ground, the latest update had the death toll around 200.



Some pictures. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/earthquake-in-japan/100022/

Too early to make jokes about the fairy tale girl somewhere near Japan?

Good topic. As long as I am a BBs fan, I have been observing that the Japanese have some special relationship with the band. Special editions, excellent remastering and packaging, deluxe editions, bonus tracks, you name it. They must be fond of the Boys.

My very best wishes to all people in Japan, after the three gigantic tragedies that sought to hit the country in a timespan of a couple of days. I wish all folks that got homeless, lack food, clean water, and shelter, got ill and traumatized, lost their occupation, and most of all: lost one or more of their dearest, all the strength they need, and condolences where due. And to the deceased: may all of you rest in peace.

(My God, one tries to phrase some comprehensive set of expressions of commiseration, and at the end one realizes that everything falls short.)

Considering that Japan is on the brink of nuclear meltdown, it is a little shocking and unnerving at just how silent the rest of the world has been over this crisis.  Where are the benefit concerts?  Where's George Clooney when you need him?  We can gather all of today's top music stars to record a truly dreadful cover of "We Are The World" for Haiti, but *nothing* for Japan?? 

We're all too busy filling out NCAA brackets, filling out golf score-cards, and booking tickets for Rio de Janeiro.

I am utterly shocked at how calm the Japanese people are. If this had happened in America there would be looting and utter chaos. In Japan, even in the meltdown area, it appears the people are evacuating in an orderly fashion considering the circumstances. So much devastation - It's incredibly sad.

I keep trying to post something here, but it all seems so trite and worthless. It's awful. I had to make myself stop watching the footage of when it hit. So terrifying. And the whole nuclear issue. I mean, good god.

It is eternally ironic that the same nation the United States claimed was "uncivilized" in World War II handles a crisis on this kind of scale with that kind of calm restraint. Spit up in the air...?

One would have thought that Mike would have rerecorded Sumahama by now. And that's not necessarily meant as a joke.

I don't doubt that he has considered it!

Actually, if done right, it could actually be very tastefully done, and it would definitely be a worthy cause.

Hasn't Japan suffered enough? 

It really puts things into perspective. Reading about the workers at the Fukushima plant is tear inducing.

Bravo to nuclear energy. We are the most capable/intelligent people of any generation on earth and yet we find the most dangerous ways to create energy.

Couple things there. One, what generation are you talking about? Unless you're in your, what, 70s? 80s? your generation didn't create nuclear energy. Two, who says this (or some other) generation is the most intelligent? Three, as long as we all continue to demand the modern way of life--lots of ready energy at low cost--we don't have a lot of great options knocking at the door. Our options are either running out, filthy, not readily available, dangerous, or expensive. Or some combination thereof.

1) I shouldn't have said generation, I meant more or less the people in the last century.
2) It is all relative to what humans consider "intelligent" - this could mean spiritually intelligent, or mentally intelligent - who knows. I just meant that we live in the age where man has walked on the moon. We have invented ways to harness solar energy, wind energy, water energy (dams), and yet due to corporate greed we are stuck in this disgusting nuclear age. There are many things that engineers have invented that harness many types of clean energy, but Nuclear Power/Coal companies put a stop to that through lobbying and buyouts. In this case, you're right: who knows....we are probably the least intelligent humans to ever grace the planet.

Really I just don't see much difference between us and previous people. Technology has advanced, certainly, but we're otherwise more or less the same as those who came before (in my opinion). And the energy problem is just huge and difficult. I don't see a devil or a savior among the options.

It is sadly unfortunate that now 3 very dangerous nuclear disasters have occurred in within the last 40 years and yet very few in the position of power have stepped up to say "hey, this stuff may be dangerous"

Heck, my governor just got on the airwaves and said that nuclear power is very safe. Yet they don't take nature into account....human nature, or nature itself. In a universe ruled by chaos and Murphy's Law it is quite a stupid to keep these plants running...especially when history has proved my point and will continue to prove my point: nuclear energy is unsafe in the hands of human beings.

Maybe The Terminator was right? It's in our nature as human beings to self destruct.

Still, what viable altertnatives do you suggest?  
Take Japan for an example, with their millions of people, constantly needing energy. What will you Dam to produce the same energy. Where will you get enough Wind energy to power everything.
 Possibly, they should have picked locations not on the oceanfront for nuclear? But there's a negative side to almost any energy source, whether that be danger or low output.  

Nobody in power thinks it is a bad idea? I don't know about that: my state, for example, has had a ban on building new nuclear facilities for nearly 20 years. No new nuclear facilities have been ordered in the US since 1978 or completed since 1996. Sure, we've had 3 disasters of varying degrees, and the thought of a significant disaster is terrifying. But how many dozens of oil- or coal-related disasters have we had? A few dozen blown up here in a mine, a bay or gulf polluted for decades there... I'm not defending anything, mind you. It's just that there really is not a good answer for as populated a world as we have and as demanding a population as we have.

I think that solar panels on roofs can help. Depending on how large your property is, you can have some small windmills. There have been many creative minds that have invented ways that solar energy can really help us (such as putting nearly microscopic bubbles on the surface of solar panels to help refract the sun more to get more energy - somehow this works). And it also means lowering our consumption of energy. I honestly don't need to spend 5 hours at my computer every day. I don't need my porch light on 24/7. I don't need to use a dryer to dry my clothes (as I have space for a clothesline).

There are plenty of ways to get clean energy...but it takes sacrifice and patience. Nuclear energy is only still around because corporations lobby for them to stay open. This is why my governor was just on praising nuclear energy as thousands are now being radiated by this toxic mess.

I was a very idealistic college student a few years ago - some of it hasn't left me lol

I said very few politicians think it is a good idea to rid our world of this nightmare....not none. You are correct that no new plants have been started since 1978 but there hasn't been the need to create new ones. And there also hasn't been a major push to close them either.

If humans decide to change their way of life then population won't matter in terms of energy usage.

I don't know if that is true. Note, I am not disagreeing, I am saying I literally don't know. Could the planet support a population of 7 billion living by Iron Age energy usage, burning wood or peat or whatever else we burned? Are you talking just personal usage, or overall consumption--because the latter would require giving up all the things that cost-effective energy allows to happen (transportation of goods, for example). It seems a relatively consistent position of the sorts of people who study such things that population actually is a huge problem (even if the whole world doesnt follow western / developed energy usage habits).

I think we are basing our theories on the idea that humans need fire to stay warm and need to burn incandescent (or even fluorescent) lightbulbs to see in the dark. Technology has the means to evolve to help accommodate our changing world...we could probably come up with ways to keep warm without harming the atmosphere. There are probably ways we can see in the dark without needing a nuclear plant.

Unfortunately we are adaptive creatures - We will adapt to the problem but we are ignorant to foresee the problem and therefore ignorant to help stop the problem before it occurs....this "problem" being climate change or other ecological disasters that occur because of our ignorance.

Stay warm and see in the dark without building nuclear plants, sure. But without harming the environment? I wonder. I'd love to think so, but we certainly haven't stumbled across anything so far. (Granted, the "and is financially rewarding to provide" is part of the situation.) But even burning wood emits pollution--just less of it. And solar--transmitting it to those areas where it can't be gathered means environmental impact as well. (Impacts on wildlife makes large-scale solar projects an administrative hurdle in California, for example.) I guess I'm just not a very optimistic person, is all. And what I often see is, the latest disaster is the one that people get excited about, so this week was nuclear energy. Our attention spans are short, though. (BP? Gulf of Mexico? What?) Hell, we almost seem to have forgotten revolutions in the Middle East, except for the past day's Libya news pushing it back above the fold. Anyway ... just my pessimism/cynicism about it all, i guess.

Ronald Reagan gave a speech where he conveyed the reality that when he was a child the air in the town he lived was much more polluted then because everyone was heating their home by burning wood and coal..and not only that but one would have to wake up in the wee hours to replenish the wood or coal...now we have come a long way. I personally think the cost of solar should be cheaper, and the whole lobbying thing that rab was conveying is a harsh reality. HOWEVER, the biggest problem of nuke plants is not the threat of nuclear meltdown, it is the nuclear waste that is left ON SITE at each plant....here in the Hudson Valley that means that there is nuclear waste sitting on the banks of our beloved river. President W. Bush wanted to have that waste transported to the Yucca mountains to be buried well under the desert but the environmental scardy-cats and Obama nixed all that. So instead that nuclear waste will stay on the banks of the Hudson...

As Americans, we should be the LEADERS in solar, wind, and whatever energy in the world. I'm not convinced we are. Install windmills off the coast off Massachusetts? No, Ted Kennedy and his rich-liberal elite didn't want their view of the oceanic horizon ruined. As Luther said, there hasn't been any new nuke plants built in too long of a time..All of our nuke plants are scheduled to be pahsed out over the next 50 years. With 100 plants in this country that means there would have to be at least 2 new plants built each year until 2060- not going to happen because of the enviromentalists. How do we meet our ever growing energy demands?

My point is that IMO we need to drill for domestic oil (instead of giving it to foreign companies...do your research), mine for coal, and build nuke plants WHILE AT THE SAME TIME give EQUAL OR MORE INCENTIVE to create Solar and Wind Farms, and residential solar panels. Imagine not having to pay a damn utilities bill...this technology is here. While the left drives me nuts with their B.S. on energy, the conservatives drive me nuts (and I am one) because of their downright negligence of Solar and Wind energy. After all, THINK about the true definition of CONSERVATIVE..(Conserve...right?)

I think that when people refer to ALTERNATIVE energy they should be referring to OIL and nuclear...as the alternative to Solar and wind...but that is yet to come...

BTW, Luther I am glad to see you on this board, your posts are always great...

Thanks, noname. I'm struggling to care much about discussing BBs these days--even the Smile thing has me surprisingly unexcited--but other things pique my interest sometimes. And guess what ... I think we agree somewhat on energy policy (even though I tend to be more lefty and definitely am concerned about environmental damage). Society isn't going to reverse itself in a short time: we're not going to stop flying, driving, heating, lighting, etc. We, as a world, just aren't. And with China and India building wealth, we're actually going to do more of it. Drilling for more oil scares me because it is limited and it is a serious pollutant. But I regret to admit you're probably right, with the huge caveat that I'd also raise the gas tax (and cut subsidies to oil companies) to instead make a major push toward finding ways to make cleaner, renewable energy sources financially feasible.

Oh, and also (re the part about building new nuke plants) ... I really, really cautiously sort-of agree. The reason? Newer plants would presumably be safer than older ones. But they are hugely expensive. That is an issue. And obviously, I am not for cutting the regulatory hurdles, because we need to hold these plants to the highest levels of safety. Obvious reasons. In the end, though, there are risks. Just like when we step onto planes, drive 75 down the highway, or breathe air that may contain SARS (speaking of long-since forgotten, but in no way gone, threats...).

I hear ya...I just learned of some Solar farms in NY and was amazed...I love the environment as much as anybody...which is one thing that conservatives need to convey better...if they wish to hold true to that label...for instance, I am not so much concerned about Global Warming. However talk of an oil spill, smog, air pollution and I'm all ears. IMO, anyone who AUTOMATICALLY dismisses wind and solar are ignorant.

I do not want anymore nuke plants, but the fact is that newer plants would be better than those broken down. I wonder how if all of the nuke and oil facilties were closed down how the job markets would be affected. Do these people succesfully lobby by conveying that too many jobs would be lost?

I wonder if all of the power lines in the country were buried that in the long run there would be less jobs because the lines wouldn't have to be serviced as often. Could green jobs make up for all the jobs that would be lost if there were only a tiny fraction of fossil fuel plants around?

You don't need fire to stay warm - just a good insulated home...perhaps buried underneath the ground. And attach solar panels to the "roof" to conduct electricity to run warm water around the walls of the house - giving you warm water for showers as well as heat for the house.

Just random a random idea. Many people have come up with these ideas, but have either been stifled by corporations or laughed at by investors. Anything that challenges the status quo of our large society is thrown out immediately. People don't like change (especially change that effects their ability to have whatever they want). Take Al Gore for instance, he preaches this sh*t, but he owns multiple houses and uses a tremendous amount of energy...even people who see the light don't change.

Large Scale Solar panel placement can be destructive to nature, but I think they would be less destructive than the radiation that plows into chromosomes from a nuclear disaster. Maybe not. Even wind energy is dangerous to nature (birds for instance). Nothing is perfect, but a huge nuclear accident is far more dangerous in the longterm than a few dead birds and misplaced squirrel nests, in my opinion.

I'm in Minnesota. It's cold. (Well, not at this moment, it is a balmy 35 F.) In winter, we regularly have multiple days, and even weeks, of temps below zero. Insulation alone doesnt cut it. And houses would have to be pretty far beneath ground, too, considering how deep it freezes. (Just like solar energy being a regional solution, so is this.)

I think it is important to keep in mind that there is more to it than just "new" or "change," too. Remember, we have international systems set up a certain way. If everyone does everything according to their own particular whims--or, to make it sound less flip, even according to their own locally practical solutions--it makes those huge systems less efficient, maybe impossible. Now, that might be for the best. But it's not as easy as "oh, cool idea. let's do this here now." If you develop some great new automobile fuel, for example ... who cares? You need stations everywhere to fill it. Same concept goes for pretty much everything. You need a tremendous buy-in, and a tremendous investment, to get anything done on a big enough scale to matter.

Point being, there are many people a lot smarter than I that have the ability to figure these things out ;D

Yep. But them being human, they also tend to want to make a good living. Guess which pays better: working for some major oil company (or whatever major industrial power), or researcher at some university or nonprofit.

I envy the Amish for being incredibly self-sufficient. They could care less about ipods and cars. Thus they are not directly effected by international markets and new technological advancements.

Unfortunately, in this society, humans can't really act on their own whims - lest they be branded outcasts by the group (Amish are somewhat labelled outcasts, yet they are admired by most). Humans are so enamored with short-term survival that we will follow the group just to ensure our own safety...without thinking long-term (100s of years ahead). It really isn't our fault, as we are wired this way, but it will probably lead to our downfall...or our society's downfall.

Part of a community's self reliance is also its isolationism and exclusivity, though. What this means is, you take care of your own ... but you make sure "your own" is a small enough unit to take care of in the manner which you all more or less agree to be taken care of. And outsiders are on their own. We've established society with larger boundaries--approaching worldwide, albeit with hit-and-miss enforcement--which means you can't really do it that way. You can't just take care of your own and f*** the rest once you've taken that position. So if the USA, for example, is to be 300+ million people across 50 states, then it's not acceptable for Washington DC to allow Connecticut to do well for itself while Mississippi goes to hell. You can say "everyone take care of yourselves," but you have to be ready to let them fail at it.

I agree with that statement...I say in a society with limited gov't then it is eaier to be successful in these endeavors. I imagine we differ on these sentiments, and that the thread has tangented beyond intent. IMO I don't need to be paying for anybody's problems but my own...

Yeah, we disagree. Though I'm not sure how far I go on it. Obviously, it's easier not to be responsible for other communities but your own. But there is a certain sense of shared humanity, a larger community, compassion, empathy, that makes most societies throughout history believe in some sort of sharing one's excess with the needy. How to dole it out, to whom, when ... these are the big questions.

All these proposed ideas are just ways of trying to bend to what is the root of the real problem here, overpopulation. The planet is ridiculously overcrowed and just can't sustain this many people. What governments really need to act upon, is measures to curb the population increase. Two children per family max and only if the parents can completely support them fiscally - no State handouts. Make it Law! The system China has in place needs to be made mandatory woldwide. 7 billion people is just too much. We cannot feed them without plundering our oceans and tearing down our forrests to make room for grazing. We are running out of ways to hide all the waste this amount of humanity produces. We pollute our water,air and endanger our wildlife (plus risk blowing ourselves to Hell) to fuel and power such a number. And as the populace expands it's only going to get worse.