Aja on 15/3/2011 at 23:31
Ten bucks, to red cross. No it's not much, but think if everyone did it.
CCCToad on 16/3/2011 at 00:35
and with luck, one of those dollars will actually go towards relief efforts instead of new computers.
Yakoob on 16/3/2011 at 01:04
CCCToad, do you share my grand distaste towards Red Cross as well?
Way way back when I was a wee high school student, I used to volunteer for Red Cross to boost my college application resumes. My few months as a volunteer database manager left me with a rather bitter attitude towards the organizations. I should have figured they werent up to snuff after they scrapped several months of FREE custom data management software development (by a nearby university CS post grad students) in favor of some shitty expensive online package, mere weeks before the work was completed. But I finally started to lose hope right around the time I realized that a good 1/3 (!) of all the data of our branch was completely missing. And when I spent a few hours preparing reports summarizing all the volunteer activity from the past several years, my superior promptly discarded all of it and instead replaced it with random numbers she pulled out of her ass on the spot, because they "made more sense" and made up for the 1/3 missing data. I did not show up again after that day.
But then, I suppose, I should not let one really shitty branch completely color my perception of the whole organization, huh?
CCCToad on 16/3/2011 at 01:28
Me? Not enough to have any personal distaste. I view them as yet another corrupt charity, and am aware that the majority of the donations they receive don't make it to the people they're supposed to help. They also make a huge profit off selling blood donations, which is a bit shady because of the way they advertise their blood drives.
I did have one professor who passionately hated them, though. Ever semester he'd pass out copies of a thirty page paper he'd written documenting their mismanagement to any student who would take one.
Briareos H on 16/3/2011 at 08:35
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
So any of you armchair pundits actually donated anything yet?
I have a friend living there currently giving all his time to the relief effort, so I'm paypaling him 7€ every time he reports back safe and sound after a day with the jap' red cross. Just a small incentive :)
35€ in the piggy bank as of now
Kolya on 16/3/2011 at 13:38
Wikileaks has released documents showing that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned the Japanese Government as early as December 2008 about massive security problems in the Japanese reactors, especially regarding earthquake security. (sources: (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html) Daily Telegraph, (
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,751212,00.html) SPIEGEL)
Quote Posted by Ulukai
I see Nuclear Power more as a necessary evil with calculated risk than craziness - although building them in highly geologically active areas has got to be questionable.
Quote Posted by demagogue
Because it's exactly when people get emotional that they push through bad policy as a knee-jerk reaction without debate and without fully understanding the situation.
Quote Posted by d0om
No-one has been harmed by the Japanese nuclear plants. Tens of thousands have died from the Earthquake. The nuclear power is perfectly safe.
It ain't over till it's over. Meanwhile you probably want to prepare your arguments why misgovernment and mismanagement could never happen in the US, the UK or wherever you live.
Or is that just "human failure" to you? One of those nonsensical explanations that nuclear apologists like to point at every time disaster strikes. As if nuclear energy was not managed by humans where you live.
Humans who make millions by downplaying the risks of these reactors. And when others suffer the consequences of their mistakes, they will at best display an unbelieving expression, that they failed yet again at predicting the future. It's this hubris and greed that keeps nuclear power going.
So yeah, surprise surprise, humans make mistakes and unpredictable shit happens. Who would have thought? Except in your country of course, I'm sure.
Best of luck, but we're dropping out of this game. It's a german angst thing, you wouldn't understand.
Briareos H on 16/3/2011 at 15:12
It's nice that the german people are refusing to pay the price of risk for obtaining cheap energy - thus accepting to either change their consumer lifestyle or increase their impact on greenhouse gas emission.
Let's hope that the former solution is retained :)
Eldron on 16/3/2011 at 15:24
it's okay, germany can buy electricity from neighboring nuclear power producing countries.
Kolya on 16/3/2011 at 15:26
For one thing consumer lifestyle has continuously changed here since the 80s. For another you're still believing the tale that alternative energy sources could not substitute for nuclear energy.
Yes, we will need a bridging energy source. But that will be natural gas, which is low on emissions compared to petroleum and coal.
Oh and we're still exporting energy after just turning off 7 reactors.
Brian The Dog on 16/3/2011 at 15:28
Indeed, energy policy is either (a) we build nuclear reactors, (b) we build lots of renewables and have ~10x the energy bills, or (c) we all wear lots of sweaters, walk everywhere and buy locally produced goods. Option (d) (to carry on burning lots of coal, oil and gas) will need to be moved away from in a few centuries anyway due to raw materials running out :D
