Things have wildly changed, haven't they?
Anyone who speaks to or writes for the public KNOWS all the politically correct statements to make and also knows that truth and honesty and logic can be ignored in carefully worded phrasing. (Did I mention that I can guarantee that you will have your job for life, and that your home and investments will all become enormously valuable, and that gasoline will be cheap, and your health care will also be cheap?)
There are so MANY different areas where total deception is presented or that total incompetence is displayed to the public that it is now difficult to find any cases where actual honesty and truth and accuracy are present! A few examples will be mentioned here. There are dozens of web-pages in this Domain which extensively discuss these and other matters, in efforts to try to provide some actual facts and honesty for anyone who still cares.
But then you need to listen REALLY CLOSE to hear the funniest error. The 'Doctor' is describing the product and he very briefly refers to Okinawa, EXCEPT he says that name wrong! He says 'Okina'. There is no way that ANY Japanese person woulf forget to say the last syllable of that name, especially if he had spent 25 years on that island studying the residents and their diets! The ad also includes several other errors in it, but that one is the most obvious.
One would think that if a company was going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make an ad, and then millions more in airing it repeatedly in many American markets, they would have examined their completed ad to make sure that their alleged Doctor did not horribly mispronounce the name Okinawa! But to apparently claim that the man IS a Doctor when no Official Records seem to indicate that, compounds their crudeness of deception.
And there is NO WAY that they will ever get into any trouble regarding such things. They will some day claim that THE DID NOT KNOW that he was not an actual Doctor, even though their ENTIRE advertising campaign was built on that claim. They will also claim that THEY DID NOT KNOW that he apparently had never been to Okinawa, (or else he would have known how to pronounce the island's name)! There are no Fines or Punishments for such things. THEY KNOW that they can always just call up Central Casting to request an Oriental man in a Lab Coat, and presto, they could generate a TV ad that is primarily based on soybeans, and a lot of persuasive hot air!
What was KNOWN was simple basic science. Natural air pressure is commonly around 30.00" of Mercury, which means about 15 pounds per square inch. Every schoolkid is taught that! If a tornado passes through, the fast winds can cause some damage but they are not remotely the cause for virtually all the damage in structures. The DIFFERENCE OF AIR PRESSURE inside the tornado is actually the main problem. I think that Ben Franklin may even have known that 250 years ago!
Inside a tornado, the atmospheric pressure often drops to around 27.50" of Mercury, which means about 13.5 pounds per square inch. Big deal? Yes, it IS! This is a change of air pressure of about 1/10 or 1.5 PSI difference. Notice that we normally describe atmospheric pressure per square INCH. This is therefore the same as 216 pounds per square foot (pressure).
So there's a roof on your 1500 square-foot moderate-sized house. If a tornado comes, then the PRESSURE INSIDE the house is still at the natural pressure, while ABOVE the house, there is that lowered air pressure inside the tornado. So suddenly, your roof will experience an UPWARD force of 1500 sf times 216 PSF or 324,000 pounds! How well built is your house? Right! The roof structure may WEIGH 5 tons, but it now experiences an UPWARD FORCE of 162 tons! The roof of your house will ACCELERATE UPWARD (at around 30 Gs, astoundingly fast). The construction of your roof is nowhere near strong enough to withstand being shredded into toothpicks. This is what you see on every news report where a tornado has gone through a residential area. A few days ago, it was Harrisburg, Illinois, and the devastation in the helicopter news tapes is so complete that you cannot even GUESS where houses used to be!
This actually occurs because "modern thinking" (or lack thereof) describes attitudes toward tornadoes which are scientifically wrong!. Again, the interesting part of this is that EVERYONE USED TO KNOW the right answers and what they needed to do to best ensure that their house had the best chance of survival in a tornado.
But that actual science is now laughed at as being foolish. The "experts" seem to prefer guaranteeing nearly complete desolation! Why is that? Have we gotten stupider? (Maybe!)
I am guessing that there MUST BE some tornado which has encountered an army Tank! And that the force calculations above suggest that even a twenty-ton army Tank would likely fly up into the air in a tornado. The good news is that the Tank would probably not get bent when it landed! But a Tank is probably one of the few types of structures that could survive a tornado unscathed.
EXCEPT for if you applied some common sense! In that case, MOST houses would likely structurally survive a direct hit of a tornado, although repairs would certainly be needed.
What WAS the common sense which EVERYONE used to know? If it is clear that a tornado is coming in this direction, OPEN ALL THE WINDOWS YOU CAN before going into the inner bathroom or the cellar!
And WHY did people know to do this? Probably NOT from having known science, but instead from seeing SOME of their neighbors' houses come out in excellent shape while others were disintegrated.
We need to remember that it is the DIFFERENCE IN AIR PRESSURE inside and outside the house which is the power for the houses exploding.
Consider that the calculations above were for a MidWest farmhouse which had 12 large windows. For simplicity in the math here, we will say that each of those windows was 3 feet wide and 6 feet tall, or 18 square feet area. Twelve such windows would have a total area of about 216 square feet of windows. The AIR inside the house would be maybe 16,000 cubic feet.
So the science behind the "open all the windows" attitude is this. As the tornado gets really near, let as much of the house air to escape out through all those open areas, where less remaining pressure or force would remain to actually cause structural damage.
For argument's sake, let's say that we can get the air to speed up to around 200 mph going out through those windows, and we have 1/4 second for some of the house air to leave. The math? You can now do it! 200 mph is about 300 f/sec. With as much as 216 square feet of available window space, that means we could have as much as 300 * 216 or 64,800 cubic feet leave per second. But since we only have 1/4 of a second available, only about 16,000 cubic feet of air would actually leave. Do you see the result? The house has NO explosive pressure inside it which might otherwise have blown the roof up and the walls out. In fact, doilies and papers would certainly be gone, and very high windspeeds might have broken a few lamps and vases, but the basic house would be essentially fine!
Again, EVERYONE KNEW THIS for at least a hundred years! And it was relatively rare that a house or two got demolished in a tornado.
As to the HIGH WINDS that newspeople talk about, 120 mph or 140 mph or 170 mph? Essentially ANY building that is permitted to be built today can withstand such windspeeds. Even the flimsy "trailers" (mobile homes) are built to withstand such windspeeds, but trailers DO have to be ANCHORED DOWN to keep from being lifted up into the sky.
You might have noted that the example math used above involved the ENTIRE window areas, as though you were going to throw bowling balls through them to open up the entire area, while actual windows only have an easy clear opening of about half the area. But also, we were discussing ALL the air inside the house, where that was not the amount of air we need to send out through the windows. Actually, we had earlier determined that the pressure difference is about 1/10, which meant we actually only needed to send about 1/10 of the house's air out through the windows. These two adjustments makes clear that even if we only had time to open HALF of the house's windows before heading for the cellar, we would still save the house! It is also true that no one has ever documented what fraction of a second it takes for the air pressure to change, and we estimated 1/4 second. However, our calculations make clear that EVERY window you can open can have HUGE benefits regarding saving the structure of the house. IF it should happen that you do not have enough time to open enough windows, yes, the house MIGHT have some structural damage.
The point is that the EXPERIENCE of many thousands of MidWest farmers during the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century had taught everyone that IT MAKES SENSE to try to open as many windows as possible just before a tornado hits.
But "modern bureaucratic geniuses" seem to have discarded all that hard-learned knowledge, to replace it all with their own PERSONAL ASSUMPTIONS.
That implies that millions of tons of what had been houses and cars and everything else of life had been washed away by the tsunami. Some of that material has been found miles away from where it began, but it seems clear that extremely large quantities of that debris was washed out into the Pacific Ocean.
This presentation was first placed on the Internet in June 2011.
Some weeks later, an airplane or a ship (I don't remember which) happened to sight a "huge island of debris" several hundred miles out in the ocean. At least one dog was found alive on that garbage island, and rescued, apparently having scavenged for those days to survive. The Reporter at the time said that "experts" thought that in future months, there would be large amounts of Japanese debris washing ashore on the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington.
I do not remember the details as to "how many months" but it has now been six months (as of September 2011).
I guess I am HOPING that there is someone, somewhere, who is monitoring the movement of "islands of garbage that are still many square miles in size". I would think that Ship Navigation would need to know such information to avoid it, sort of like the iceberg data in the North Atlantic Ocean.
So I feel SURE that "someone", whether it is Greenpeace or some Ocean Navigation Service or someone else, must be daily monitoring the movements of however many separate "garbage islands" in the Pacific Ocean that the debris has broken into.
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions|
Public Services Home Page
Maybe even "whale watchers" or "dolphin watchers" might have interest in such monitoring, both for the safety of whales and the possibility that there might be organic food sources for them in the debris (as well as dangerous things).
My limited skills is searching for such information is such that I have NOT found any evidence that ANYONE has ever seen those garbage islands, and I cannot even find reference to the time when it was on the news!
It seems astounding that NO ONE seems to have given any thought to even care about possible navigation hazards in the ocean regarding this matter! I guess I look forward to someone finding such information and proving me wrong regarding this tentative conclusion.
Japanese Officials claims that around 40,000 people TOTAL are living in shelters now.
It seems to me that we need so somehow do some population auditing to try to account for around a million people! No one seems to know any population estimates for Sendai today, but with such a lack of remaining structures, it seems hard to imagine that it could even be half a million today. IF the population of Sendai dropped from over a million down to half a million, and the entire country only has 40,000 people now living in shelters, that seems to imply that there are more than 400,000 people who are unaccounted for today.
NO ONE seems to have considered this situation! I understand that Officials have had far too many problems to deal with, such as clearing roads for traffic and scraping off radioactive topsoil so that school playgrounds might be safe, but this matter of a population audit seems incredibly important to me!
I actually think these two matters are related. When that one garbage island had been encountered, there was at least one dog that got rescued from it, which had somehow survived for many days. It seems CERTAIN that a large number of HUMANS were in those hundreds of thousands of homes and other buildings when they were destroyed and washed away by the tsunami. COULD THERE be the remains of 400,000 people mixed in with those garbage islands? I do not know much about that, but I think that at first, a dead body bloats and floats, but then after the skin and organs have come off, the bones would probably sink.
I am amazed that NO ONE seems to have done any decent "accounting of people" after the tsunami. The people who are counted are only those where relatives had filed reports of missing persons. But if entire neighborhoods "vanished" in an instant, who could have filed any reports in Sendai?
So I have long suspected that the ACTUAL death toll of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami is far, far higher than the modest number that the Japanese Officials seem willing to admit to.
A couple days later, Officials started saying that there were "about 1400 people unaccounted for". That estimate remains to this day, six years later!). I am SURE that many of those vehicles got washed off of the bridges and/or the bridges got washed away or are now sitting on the bottom of the water near where the bridges used to be. In other words, it seemed absolutely obvious to me that a LOT of people died while in their vehicles on those bridges, either by being blown off the highway by the strong winds or by being thrown off when the bridges shifted and fell. Even if only FIVE bodies were sitting in vehicles in the water there, THEY DESERVED A GOOD EFFORT to find them! But the fact that I feel certain that well over a THOUSAND PEOPLE likely died in their vehicles that night and morning, seemed to suggest that an IMMEDIATE effort should have been made to try to see of ANY of them might have still been alive. (Inside a brand new vehicle, the air might not have leaked out and there might have been sufficient air for a person to breathe for several hours, at least.)
But NO ONE had any interest in my thought! I realize that they had a lot of other things to be thinking about, but I wanted them to send scuba teams to look in that relatively shallow water, and I was sure they would have found a LOT of vehicles down there. Maybe even a surviving person in one of the vehicles! The Louisiana Governor's Office, the New Orleans Mayor's Office, the Louisiana State Police and New Orleans Police, the major newspapers in New Orleans, the Federal government, and even a number of Louisiana Universities; NO ONE even answered my letters, phone calls or e-mails.
Today, they still say that there are around 1400 people unaccounted for from Katrina. I think I know what happened to many of them and even where remains of their bodies probably still are!
But either my skills of persuasion are too weak or I am too unimportant to listen to!
Actually, I have a feeling that there are probably about 1400 families in or near New Orleans who miss their lost loved ones and would someday want to try to find remains to bury properly.
NOT to leave the remains of their loved ones remain where I strongly believe where they still are. Yes, over the six years since Katrina, ocean tides and other water flows probably has moved many of the vehicles, but certainly not even a mile. And silt and sediment may have covered over some or all of the vehicles in six years, but metal detectors would certainly EASILY detect the mass of a two-ton car, in relatively shallow waters.
Since no Authorities have seemed interested in pursuing this in the six years since Katrina, I am wondering if someone with a fishing boat might NOW try dragging a submerged metal detector and criss-crossing some of the waters near where those bridges used to be. If even ONE vehicle happens to be found, that would at least be ONE family which might then be able to have a proper burial for their loved ones.
As of around 1992, the United States has had to IMPORT virtually 100% of the Uranium that has been used in nuclear power plants during the past twenty years! (No one seems to have ever told the public about this amazing fact!)
Shouldn't someone have NOTICED that ALL of the US Uranium mines ran out of Uranium to mine by about 1992? But US Politicians do not seem to have learned about this obvious fact either, as they keep talking about "building a hundred new nuclear power plants", which they think would solve the energy crisis! No it wouldn't, and THEY should certainly know better. It is hard to see how they could be ignorant of such an obvious fact! (EVERY Congressman and Senator has a Staff of around 400 employees, all of whom are paid very nice Salaries by YOU. Shouldn't at least ONE of those 20,000 highly-paid members of Congressional Staffs have learned that we have NO URANIUM? WHAT DO THEY DO to earn all the money WE give them?)
It turns out that there are many countries which have very small amounts of Uranium under them, but only THREE countries have had significant amounts. Fortunately, two of the three are close friends of the US, Canada and Australia. (The third is Kazakhstan in Asia).
The US has very QUIETLY been buying all the Uranium that Canadian and Australian mines can produce, and our nuclear power plants have had adequate supplies to operate with.
But it turns out that we have caused both Canadian and Australian mines to become nearing depletion. Realistically, in only around another TEN YEARS, and likely far sooner than that, the US consumption will have used up enough more Uranium from Canada and Australia where the mines in those two countries will near closing. The Uranium industry is VERY aware of this, especially in Australia and Canada!
NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE!
The US operates approximately 100 nuclear power plants. In around ten years, certainly by around 2020 or 2025, neither Canada nor Australia will have any Uranium remaining to be mined for us to buy from them! Has anyone THOUGHT ABOUT what we will do with those 100 EXISTING nuclear power plants which could then no longer make any electricity? Clearly not! And Senators and Congressmen have given thousands of speeches regarding their wanting to build ANOTHER HUNDRED nuclear power plants in the US! (THAT sentiment seems to have faded since the Japanese nuclear catastrophe in March 2011.)
A couple years ago, President Obama even authorized the planning and construction of two NEW nuclear power plants, the first since about 1976. It takes around ten years for such nuclear power plants to be built. I see it as darkly laughable that by the time those TWO bright shiny new nuclear power plants are ready to start making electricity (in the early 2020s), THERE WILL BE NO URANIUM AVAILABLE to use in them! Or even in any of the existing hundred nuclear powerplants in the US! Since those nuclear powerplants currently supply about ONE-FIFTH of all the electricity the United States uses, imagine the panic in the late 2010s when the public finds that they must live on far less electricity!
The entire world seems to be oblivious to this issue of SUPPLY of Uranium. China is planning to build 470 new nuclear power plants, because they are in desperate need for more electricity. Doesn't it seem like an OBVIOUS first concern to ensure that there would be a SUPPLY of Uranium for all those power plants? And there is not the remotest chance that enough Uranium could ever be found or mined!
They note that each year, 68,000 metric tonnes are used up. Consider that fact in examining the world supplies which they published in Sept 2005.
|Country||Reasonably assured||Inferred, Speculative|
Just in case you need clarification, the GRAND TOTAL of ALL Uranium under Canada, Australia and the United States totaled about 1,100,000 metric tonnes in 2005, and the US is consuming MOST of the 68,000 tonnes that get used up each year. Duh??? Even using data which is likely to be as optimistic as the Nuclear Industry can get away with, the US consumption WILL entirely use up ALL the Uranium under Canada, Australia and the United States, BY the year 2020, which even includes Inferred deposits which are not even proven to exist and which would certainly be immensely costly to mine.
There is NO realistic future for nuclear power generation beyond the year 2020, and even that is based on several assumptions which may be too optimistic! This statement is CERTAINLY true in the United States, but it seems unlikely that even France and Japan and Germany will be able to find or buy enough Uranium to keep THEIR existing nuclear power plants in operation after about 2020.
In 1975, the estimated total amount of Reasonably Assured Plus Inferred Resources in just the United States was 3,700,000 tons, which as noted was recognized as the largest amount in any country in the world. We are certainly efficient at mining, aren't we? In just 15 years after that, we had dug up nearly all the Uranium under the United States and all those mines closed down for not having any more Uranium to mine! We reduced our supply of Uranium in US mines from 3,700,000 tons down to a possible remaining 100,000 tons, which are considered to be in locations that are too difficult and too expensive to mine, so our current total is actually closer to ZERO tons!
The IAEA had previously published similar information for Jan 1, 2003:
|Country||(Reasonably Assured Plus Inferred Resources)|
Specifically about Australia and Canada, we can see that in around three years (2003-2005), Australia's (inferred) remaining amount dropped from 1,074,000 to 710,000; and Canada's remaining amount dropped from 439,000 to 340,000 metric tonnes. Of course, the number given for the United States has not changed since about 1992 since we no longer have ANY working Uranium mines!
IF these rates of reduction (between the published 2003 and 2005 data) have remained valid during the six more years after the Sept 2005 data, we might estimate that Australia might have mined NEARLY ALL the remaining Uranium there ALREADY, while Canada might have mined an additional 200,000 metric tonnes, to now have maybe 140,000 metric tonnes left under Canada.
THIS PUBLISHED DATA seems to suggest that even the year 2020 is unreasonably optimistic! As terrifying as it might seem, the US may start having immense difficulty in obtaining enough Uranium for EXISTING nuclear power plants by 2015 or 2017!
SEE why this is really important stuff?
It seems realistic to conclude that both Australia's and Canada's mines will run out of Uranium WITHIN A COUPLE YEARS of now (2011)! Even in the most optimistic view, the likelihood that EITHER of those countries will have any Uranium to sell to us in 2020 seems very unlikely.
You might also note that the US has NO remaining Uranium that is Reasonably Accessible, which is why all those 39 mines closed nearly 20 years ago. Even if all those mines might be re-opened (at massive cost) there is barely even one-year's-supply of INFERRED Uranium that is believed to be in the total of the 39 mines!
So, LOGIC seems to be that the US will NOT have Uranium from the US mines and the two friendly countries will have also run out fairly soon. WHERE will the Uranium come from for the EXISTING US nuclear power plants in 2020 and afterward? If China actually builds 470 new nuclear reactors, or even a hundred or twenty, doesn't it seem that China would certainly out-bid the US for any Uranium that Kazakhstan might be willing to sell?
Those publications stated that we were currently using up Uranium at the rate of 68,000 metric tonnes per year. This is in reasonable agreement with the figures above, where around 400,000 metric tonnes of Uranium has been used up in the six years since the 2005 figures.
The overall point here is that neither Australia nor Canada can possibly have enough remaining Uranium to mine for even ten years from now, and that is at CURRENT usage rates! With China planning to build 470 nuclear power plants and many other countries also planning their own, the available supplies will disappear far faster than even that!
LOGICALLY, it is hard to see how ANY nuclear power plant can possibly have any Uranium to use, even TEN YEARS FROM NOW, UNLESS the cost of Uranium skyrockets so that every country that has even a few tonnes sends miners down to try to find it.
That World Nuclear Association, in its impressive enthusiasm to promote nuclear energy, found a way to make every imaginable assumption, in claiming that the entire world (probably) contains enough remaining Uranium to last for as long as 50 years! When even they struggle to find a positive statement to make only a reference to 50 years maxx, it is NOT a good sign! No one is going to invest in a billion dollar Uranium mine to try to find one or two tons of Uranium which MAY BE down there!
Certainly, BY 2020, no one will be able to ignore the fact that the price of Uranium will have increased by ten times or more (to motivate additional attempts at mining around the world), and the fact that nuclear power plants will even then (2020) have become far too expensive to operate to supply electricity to anyone!
So how can anyone explain the wild enthusiasm for building and operating nuclear power plants, at least up until the March 2011 nuclear power plant disasters in Japan?
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions|
Public Services Home Page
It was accurately determined in 1979 that there was then a total of 18,000 cubic kilometers of ice in the Arctic Ocean. In 2009, the same research showed that there were then 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice in that Arctic Ocean.
It seems hard to believe that anyone could not see that as describing that MORE THAN THREE-FOURTHS of all the ice in the Arctic Ocean had melted during that thirty years! That ACTUAL DATA seems to suggest to any logical person that the remaining 1/4 of the ice figures to melt in the NEXT nine years after 2009. In other words, by 2018. Of course, the RATE of Global Warming is speeding up a lot! A couple paragraphs down includes some predictions from many respected Researchers who feel that the ENTIRE Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in September 2013!
But there are people who get in front of Reporters and say that there is NO melting of glaciers or ice caps or even any global warming at all! Pretty amazing that anyone could have the gall to say such things, but it is sadder that so many of the public accept such statements as being true!
YOU could make a simple graph to make a prediction of when ALL the Arctic Ocean ice will have melted. It is NOT five hundred years from now! In fact, IF the warming effect had been CONSTANT during those 30 years, the graph would be a straight line (linear graph), and your graph would then show that all the ice would be gone by the year 2017 or 2018. And THIS is actually the LONGEST the ice could still be there!
The burning of fossil fuels has caused the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be rising much faster in recent years. In addition, as the WHITE (reflective) ice is disappearing and it is being replaced by DARKER color water, it turns out that solar energy is absorbed a LOT better now than in 1979! This all makes the actual graph a CURVED shape. Many researchers who study this subject now feel certain that in September 2013, there will be NO ICE anywhere in the Arctic Ocean! NOT five hundred years from now, but amazingly soon.
In 2004, a group of over two thousand scientists stated that when all the ice which is now ON TOP OF Greenland melts, and runs into the oceans, the ocean level of ALL the world's oceans will RISE BY 22 FEET vertically! You can see many time lapse videos of that ice melting and falling off the edges of Greenland. For several years, EVERY DAY around 150 feet wide of the ice melts and falls off of all the edges of Greenland! That is more than ten miles wide of the entire thickness of Greenland ice that drops into the Atlantic Ocean each year!
Antarctica has more than ten times as much ice (stacked above sea level) which is also melting, and its ice is generally estimated to someday cause all the world's oceans to rise by MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED FEET vertically! (Roughly, the 5.5 million square miles of Antarctica is known by sonar and radar mapping to have an average of about 1.5 mile depth. This is therefore around 8 million cubic miles of ice which is now above sea level, that once it melts, will add around 8 million cubic miles of water into the oceans. Any world map shows that there are around 140 million square miles of oceans on Earth. Dividing shows that the melted Antarctic ice will increase the level of all the world's oceans by 8/140 or about 1/18 vertical mile, which is about 270 vertical feet. It is even worse than that! The immense weight of ice which is now stacked up on Antarctica had caused the Crust of the Earth to be depressed there, by around half a vertical mile. When the weight of the ice is removed, the Crust will rebound and rise that half mile, meaning as much as another two million cubic miles of ice which is currently BELOW sea level (and would therefore NOT cause an increase in sea levels) would then rise above sealevel, where its melting might add even more increase in ocean levels. But even without considering such effects, the FACT that the simple melting of all the ice on Antarctica WILL cause at least 270 vertical feet increase of ocean levels, will be catastrophic to most large cities. Most such cities were built on or near ocean coasts, for the ease of ship access. For a city like New York City to have the Atlantic Ocean to rise by even 270 vertical feet, means that the lowest 20 floors of all those tall buildings WILL BE forever under water! Where will all those millions of people and those millions of businesses go?
I have been describing this concern since 2004. Interestingly, in 2004, nearly all world leaders were in Denial regarding such issues, and I received vicious e-mails from men who claimed to be scientists who ordered me to remove my web-page information on this matter, insisting to me that sea levels will rise by ONE MILLIMETER PER YEAR during this century, or just FOUR INCHES by the year 2100! By 2007, many scientists had started talking about TWO FEET SEA LEVEL RISE by the year 2100. More recently, researchers in Antarctica have been astounded by how fast the Antarctic ice is melting and they are now saying that they EXPECT to see the world's oceans to rise by 17 to 20 vertical feet by the year 2100. It seems that the period of Denial is beginning to end! Even a 20-foot increase in ocean levels means that the East River and Hudson River will permanently fill all the streets in Manhattan, and the future of New York City seems certain to end before the year 2100! There seems still total Denial about that coming situation! And not just NYC, but London and Tokyo and hundreds of other enormous cities, which will no longer be able to exist, in just NINETY YEARS! But Denial is a lot easier to handle, I guess.
There are glaciers melting, like on the Himalayas and Andes, which will also dump more water into the oceans. In addition, as the ocean WATER warms up, its DENSITY becomes slightly less, and for each degree (F) that the world's oceans warm, the expansion of all that water will also cause the ocean levels to rise another 40 feet or so. A total of over FOUR HUNDRED FEET rise of all the world's sea levels.
WHY is this important? Most major cities in the world were built ON THE OCEAN SHORE. Once the oceans rise by a mere 20 vertical feet, nearly all of Manhattan and the rest of New York City will have every one of the buildings in more than 10 feet deep water! NO CARS will be possible, just boats, because no streets would be usable. No subways because they will all be flooded. No businesses, which could only operate above the third floor of any building, and probably without any electricity!
But no one seems to have the slightest care about any of this!
The FICTION is that a French-Haitian Black man built a house in 1778 near what is Chicago, and that he allegedly lived there for twenty years, allegedly establishing the city of Chicago. The fiction-makers neglect to notice that the United States did not even exist at that time and was in the Revolutionary War with England. Du Sable only lived in that house for a couple months until British troops chased him out later in 1778. England only ceded the area to the United States after that war, in 1783. The Northwest Territories were only formed by the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. In July 1800, the District of Indiana was formed, and the Illinois Territory was organized in Feb 1809. Illinois only became a State of the U.S. in 1818. To now re-write history to credit a Black man for having formed Chicago is simply not credible! (Chicago was only finally Incorporated in 1837.)
The REALITY is that the United States BOUGHT a small tract of land in 1795, from Indians, and by 1803, Fort Dearborn was built (to protect the surrounding region.)
Any claim that any ACTUAL DEED was owned by Du Sable in 1778, would require SOME country to actually have official written records, which certainly was not true. Modern Blacks claim that Du Sable HAD such legal ownership for a period of twenty years, 1778-1799. It is also well known that Du Sable was still uneducated and illiterate, as he later went to New Orleans to get educated there. So even if there was anyone capable of writing who might have tried to create a Deed, Du Sable certainly would not have been able to read it!
The FICTION was built up around very uncertain and variable claims about a Jean Du Sable. That person was apparently born in Haiti around either 1745 or 1750, apparently to a French trader father and a Haitian mother. The father never seems to have been around after that, unless claims of getting an education in France are considered. The more likely facts seem to be that Du Sable grew up without any contact with a father, and with a mother who may have been murdered by Spanish when he was about ten years old.
Du Sable may have moved to New Orleans when he was around 19 years old, but there is no indication that he received any education, there or elsewhere, which would have been unheard of for a dark-skinned man in that era. A few years later, possibly in the late 1770s, apparently in 1778, Du Sable moved to the Chicago area and built a small cabin. He may have married an Indian woman about then. But by 1778, British troops had taken over the buildings and other structures in the area, as the American Revolution was under way, and Du Sable had to abandon the region.
So it appears possible that Du Sable had built a small cabin adjacent to what is now called the Chicago River some time in the late 1770s, but he certainly had to abandon it by 1778. Some stories about Du Sable claim that he built the cabin in 1779, which is apparently impossible due to the British already having taken over the region.
He certainly did NOT start a community or a city, and was apparently only there for a limited number of months.
The real history shows that the British were eventually driven out in the early 1780s and the area was again unpopulated. When the United States government bought the small area from Indians in 1795, there was certainly no remaining evidence that Du Sable had ever been there! And when Fort Dearborn was later built in 1803, it again had no connection with Du Sable.
So how could there be constant TV commercials which insist that a Black man, Du Sable, had started Chicago, where the commercials then flaunt the claim that Du Sable was the first Black man to have built a large city! THAT CLAIM IS NOT REMOTELY TRUE!
IF someone could claim to have created a city for every location that he passed through, then the Lewis and Clark Expedition probably could be stretched to claim that Lewis and Clark deserve to get claim for starting THOUSANDS of cities! Such a claim would be silly!
In case someone someday tries to do that idea, it was based on offering REWARDS to eagle-eyed people, of maybe $100 for being the FIRST person to add a Forum entry regarding some aspect of dishonesty or deception in any advertising, in any format, with another $50 going to the second person to add such a Forum entry regarding that company or product.
The premise was that it would encourage potential customers to become aware and alert to possible deceptions, and additionally, that Forum web-site might become a central data base regarding such companies.
The basis of the concept was to encourage a lot of HONEST companies to each provide a $500 fee to be listed on a DIFFERENT listing, that of apparently honest companies. Again. part of the premise was that such companies would be aware that there might be millions of eagle-eyes that will examine any future advertising they might do, where they might then put effort into staying very close to the truth. But even being listed on the Apparently Honest list might be immensely valuable to businesses. However, if a company became listed on the Potentially Deceptive listing, they would have to be removed from the Apparently Honest list, which would be another motivation for being careful that future advertising was accurate and honest.
There would be a Jury of sorts which would examine all Forum entries regarding possible dishonesty or possible deception, where each Jury member would assign a rating of from 0 to 100 for each such complaint. In order for a Reward Payment to be made, the average complaint score would have to be at least 70. This would be to eliminate an ad which might contain an insignificant error (comparable to the fact that the famous Titanic movie apparently showed astronomical star patterns that were wrong f0r that location and that time). Only clear attempts at deception or dishonesty would be the core of a Reward situation.
The premise would be that the fees sent in by the many businesses would provide the money needed to send out a lot of Rewards, where the idea might have neutral cash flow.
This page - -
- - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago