Really Good Quotes

Greetings, Quotaholics:

Just a few days ago the 22nd anniversary of a shattering event passed quietly, without public notice or media coverage.  On April 26, 1986, the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine partially exploded and melted down, unquestionably the worst nuclear accident in history.

While the main reason for writing was an article I found on FoxNews.com, I had to go to Wikipedia for a more complete background on the accident itself. 

The disaster began as a test.  There are backup diesel generators on site to power cooling pumps, but they take about 40 seconds to come online.  Engineers wanted to know if the electricity generated by the momentum from the spinning turbines would be sufficient to power the pumps during that 40 second period in the event of an unplanned shutdown, so a test was devised.

Unfortunately, the reactor crews were poorly trained, and the test spun out of control into a meltdown and explosion.  The radioactive fallout from the explosion covered at least 33 countries and territories, but official casualty figures are moderate considering the gravity of the event.  In the aftermath of the accident, two hundred and thirty-seven people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom thirty-one died within the first three months.  Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the radiation exposure from the smoke was. 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from the nearby city of Pripyat.  No one knows how many will eventually die from the effects of the explosion, but the number could run to many thousands.  The UN estimates as many as 9,300 could die from cancers, while Greenpeace estimates nearly ten times that number. 

To help you appreciate the scale of the disaster, I’ve reprinted the picture of the reactor building after the explosion that was on the Wikipedia site..

To contain the radiation, Soviet authorities did all they could do, dumping concrete and other materials from helicopters to seal the damaged facility in what became known as the sarcophagus.  But that was never intended to be a permanent fix.  The concrete, exposed to high levels of radiation over the last 22 years, is crumbling, and something more had to be done.  There was a concern that a tornado or earthquake could bring down the shelter, releasing clouds of poisonous dust.

The new solution is to build a huge steel arch building big enough to contain the Statue of Liberty on rails, and when it is complete the whole structure will be rolled into place to seal the old reactor site.  The structure is designed to last a hundred years.  Fifty years from now efforts will be made to recover the nuclear fuel still stored at the bottom of the collapsed reactor,

The United States had its Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and though no significant radiation was released, it was perilously close to a meltdown.  With Chernobyl following seven years later, the real dangers of nuclear power became evident, and public opinion essentially shut down the nuclear industry in the United States.  Other countries have continued to build nuclear plants, while the US has not.

Nuclear power is a touchy issue.  To be fair, millions of gigawatt hours of reliable electricity that powers our homes and lives has been generated safely.  Nuclear energy creates no greenhouse gases, any power coming from them would otherwise be generated from far dirtier sources, and all the fuel is domestically produced.  There are good sides to nuclear power.

In the same spirit of objectivity, I also point to the mega issues of the long term storage of nuclear waste that have not been resolved, and frankly may never really be resolved.  Can anyone imagine a reliable means of storing continuously deadly waste for a period just about equal to the entire human history on the planet.?  With no permant storage available, the only thing that can be done is pile the stuff up around the reactor site, thousands and thousands of tons of it worldwide.

We need affordable, reliable power and we need to reduce greenhouse gases.  It’s a conundrum. 

How do you see nuclear power?  Are you in favor of continued expansion of the nuclear industry?  Would you be object if they wanted to build one just down the road from you?  Would you prefer more coal plants as an alternative?

Before anyone suggests more wind or solar usage, I need to explain that these sources are all dependent on natural variations, and therefore can not be constant, but our demand for power is.  These two will gain in importance, but they will always be secondary to some source can run at night when the wind dies down.  It just isn’t possible to maintain our lifestyles and rely only on the renewables available.

You all know I’m very involved in providing a new source of electrical power to be tapped, and if I get lucky I’ll have a hand in making a difference, but the sad fact is that we don’t have a lot of choices, and the demand for electricity keeps rising.

What do you think?  To nuke, or not to nuke…that is the question.

Energetically,

Isn’t it worth $1 a month to you to keep RGQ going?  Please click the link and direct your contribution to reallygoodquotes@yahoo.com.

“They say dollar bills carry germs on them. Even a germ couldn’t live on a dollar these days.” – Anonymous

“I believe there is something out there watching us. Unfortunately, it’s the government.” – Anonymous

The Jewelry Shop
[Thanks to Bonnie in Louisiana]

A white haired man walked into a jeweler’s shop late one Friday, with a beautiful young lady on his side. “I’m looking for a special ring for my girlfriend” he said.

The jeweler looked through his stock, and took out an outstanding ring priced at $5,000.

“I don’t think you understand … I want something very unique,” he said.

At that, the jeweler went and fetched his special stock from the safe. “Here’s one stunning ring at $40,000.”

The girls’ eyes sparkled, and the man said that he would take it.

“How are you paying?”

“I’ll pay by check, but, of course, the bank would want to make sure that everything is in order, so I’ll write a check and you can phone the bank tomorrow, then I’ll fetch the ring on Monday”.

Monday morning a very irate jeweler phones the man. “You crook, you lied. There’s no money in that account.”

“I know, but can you imagine what a fantastic weekend I had?

E-Mail the Imp

Discover Magazine has a review of a new book, Big Brain: the Origins and Future of Human Intelligence by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger. The book discusses, in part, the Boskops of Southern Africa.

In the early part of the 20th century several skulls were found that were very similar to modern humans except for the size of the brain cavity. It appears that their forebrains were 50% larger than modern humans. That would make them smarter than us, or at least have the capability to be smarter than us. Scientists say we’re smarter than the great apes because our brain is larger than theirs. However the great apes haven’t screwed up the environment, so that debate on who’s smarter is yet to be resolved.

The Boskops existed for a very short period on the evolutionary tree according to the book. They co-existed with modern man between 30,000 and 10,000 years ago, but that’s one part of the human evolutionary tree I don’t remember hearing about or seeing on the recent documentaries on Discover channel, History channel, or National Geographic channel specials. Anthropologists have simply stopped talking or thinking about them.

Current thinking is that Boskops were not a separate species of human, but merely a different looking member of our species; like Maasai’s being very tall or Bushman being very small. Even though their brains were larger which indicates more than a cosmetic difference between the Boskops and modern humans, the “species” languishes in the dead letter office of academia.

It’s time for “What if?” What if the Boskops were truly a different primate on the human tree? What if they were really more intelligent than modern man? Why did they only last for about 20,000 years? They would have inherited all the knowledge man had accumulated to that point on tool making and tool use, and with a larger brain should have soon outpaced modern man in the technology race. They should have leaped ahead with metal working, invention of the wheel, developed agriculture sooner and started civilization a few thousand years earlier than we actually did.

In the book, the authors hypothesize that Bokops may have used that brain power to turn into a species that thought instead of did; a philosopher race that couldn’t feed itself and died out. Another theory is that they were an alien race who spent some time observing and “gently prodding” humans along the path to civilization and then departed for home. This theory is supported (?) by comparing the head shape of Boskops to the composite drawings of the “Gray Aliens” that are supposed to visit us every now and then.

Personally I think they were precognizant and saw how bad we were to screw up the planet. They did this early on and then spent a few thousand years perfecting teleportation and distant viewing. As soon as they found a suitable planet, the Boskops merely teleported en masse to their new home. That should prove that there is no relationship between the Boskops and the Gray Aliens. The Gray Aliens need flying saucers to get around and the Boskops merely need to think about being somewhere and they’re there.

The Bad Sied 

Email Kirsten

“I do not like broccoli. And I haven’t liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I’m President of the United States and I’m not going to eat any more broccoli.”
~ George Bush ~

The game is on! As of Monday morning, I am an official contender in the 2008 Body for Life Challenge. I have shed my undisciplined, impulse-eating, sedentary ways in favour of goal-setting, nutrition and exercise. In twelve weeks’ time, I’m going to look absolutely stunning, and at the end of the year, I will win the $10,000 grand prize. My chiropractor, who introduced me to the challenge and is competing along with me and a handful of other people, is convinced that he will be the winner. But seriously, who are the judges going to pick? Some doctor guy wearing swimming trunks, or a thin woman with big boobs wearing a bikini?

At the start of the challenge, I had to do the unthinkable. Actually, I had to do two unthinkables. First, I had to weigh myself and discover that I weighed thirty pounds more than I thought I did. Second, I had to squash my various bits into a bikini and have full-length pictures taken, front and back. The result was scarier than I had imagined, but at least the pictures will serve as a great contrast to the “after shots” which will be taken at the end of the challenge.

Of the three pivotal aspects of the Body for Life Challenge – nutrition, exercise, and a positive mindset – planning for good nutrition has presented me with the most difficulty. The guidelines themselves are not hard to follow, but various elements of our lifestyle make it so much easier to eat unhealthy food. If I have had no lunch, and I’m passing through a food court trying to get to a meeting on time, the quickest way for me to get something into my stomach is by grabbing a burger.

The key to success is planning. I cannot just wake up in the morning not knowing what I’m going to eat that day, as I have been doing. Each night, I have to sit down and plan six small, balanced meals for the following day. Body for Life guidelines state that each meal should contain one serving of protein and one of carbohydrates. Wholewheat bread (carbs) with cottage cheese (protein). An apple (carbs) with a handful of nuts (protein). Brown rice (carbs) with salmon (protein). At least two meals a day should include vegetables, but really, there is no such thing as “too many veggies”.

Some of my old habits have been dispensed with. I cannot just grab a bagel on my way to work in the mornings (too many carbs, not enough protein). Bacon-and-egg breakfasts, apart from the obvious problem of being too fatty, are too high in protein. Oatmeal is a good source of carbs, but does not contain any protein. Many sandwiches contain too much of both. Practically everything available in the food court where I work is out of bounds to me, with the exception of a few salads. And this does not present me with a problem as long as I plan what I want to eat.

Even the planning can be difficult, because the nutrition labels on food packaging in grocery stores can be confusing or misleading. Take soup, for instance. I was looking for those Cuppa-Soup things yesterday, under the belief that non-cream-based chicken soup could be a good source of protein. I found the soup aisle in the grocery store, and stood there staring at rows of soup claiming to be low in fat. When I looked at the nutrition labels, I saw that the soups were indeed low in fat, but they also had sodium levels reaching up into the stratosphere. Then my eye caught some fancy-looking script on a box of soup that said, “33% less salt than our regular brand”. I thought this was the answer to my problem, until I realised that 33% of a very high number is still going to be a very high number.

Despite the difficulties in all of this, I am already finding, on Day Three, that I am finding my groove. The eating plan is not as restrictive as I initially thought. I find that I am starting my days with more energy and purpose than before, and that I no longer experience that drowsy slump right after lunchtime.

One rule of the challenge is that on Sundays, there are no rules. Contenders can slouch around in front of the TV eating Big Macs all day if they so choose. The physiological benefit to a day of no restrictions is that the body is prevented from thinking it’s starving, so it doesn’t start storing up fat reserves. The psychological benefit is simply that a free day gives a sense of choice and empowerment that might otherwise be missing.

Right now, I am a thin woman hiding in a fat woman’s body. By the end of twelve weeks, I will have emerged from my hiding place, never to return again.

Kaleidoscopically yours,
Kirsten

Home run!

Next opening line…
But honey, please let me explain!…

Hints:  There’s a great rhyming dictionary at http://www.rhymezone.com/
Limerick rules.  http://freespace.virgin.net/merrick.sheldon/limerickrules.htm 

Submit Opening Line
Submit Limerick

Questions? Comments? Want to contribute a joke or a quote or an image? Feel free to e-mail at reallygoodquotes@yahoo.com. We’d love to hear from you! We’ll even publish your comments, if they make any sense!

If you’d like to receive RGQ by email, please send a blank e-mail to reallygoodquotes-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

We can’t imagine why you’d want to, but if you choose to unsubscribe, please send a blank e-mail to reallygoodquotes-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. Should you choose to unsubscribe, please e-mail us and tell us why. We listen to what people say, even if they’re leaving us.