You are not logged in.
NASA's Ames Research Center developed DurAFRSI in 2003. It uses a foil of Inconel 617 metal over a quilt of Nextel 440 fabric and Saffil batting. Both Nextel 440 and Saffil are synthetic ceramic fibres. The metal foil surface should make it durable, as long as it's not struck by a solid object like a chunk of ice from an external tank. However, although it can withstand greater temperatures than other thermal blanket systems, it still can't handle the heat of the belly of a Shuttle orbiter re-entering the atmosphere at mach 25. Apollo capsule re-entered the atmosphere about mach 32 when returning from the Moon. DurAFRSI cannot handle either case.
I'm concerned. The heat shield on Starship appears to be an incremental improvement of the same technology as heat shield tiles on Shuttle. The black tiles were high purity silica (99.9%), foam with 94% air by volume. Densified on the side where it attaches to the spacecraft. Outer surface coated in a black glaze to radiate heat. Able to withstand up to 1,260°C (2,300°F). It can withstand extreme heat and extreme quenching (cooling) without fracture or cracking. My concern is whether that is good enough when returning from Mars.
AVCOAT was used by Apollo to return from the Moon. In 1969, after Apollo 11 returned form the Moon, NASA said their next target was Mars. The problem was returning from Mars required entering Earth's atmosphere at even higher speed. AVCOAT was not good enough. In 1970, NASA announced PICA. It was 3 times as heavy as AVCOAT, but would physically fit in the compartment for the Apollo heat shield, and would withstand the heat of returning from Mars. PICA was used for an unmanned mission in 1995, modified to be lighter, known as PICA-95. And SpaceX based their heat shield for Dragon on that, calling theirs PICA-X.
Ok, great. So Dragon has an ablative heat shield that will survive return from Mars. A one-time expendable heat shield. It could return from Low Earth Orbit 5 times, or from Mars once. But the heat shield on Starship? Is that able to return from Mars at all?
Forest fires in areas actively managed such as parks and areas harvested for lumber can have controlled burns. Since forest fire is a natural feature of the forest. As I said, pioneer species of trees tend to be less flammable. They are replaced by slower growing trees and trees that require forest cover for young seedlings. Later growth forest tends to be more flammable. Controlled burn required establishing a fire break to contain the burn before igniting it.
The planet has been warming for the last 20,000 years. It has gone through dramatic changes. Ice over Canada and the northern states has melted. Sahara changed from a cold subarctic desert to grassland 14,500-14,600 years ago, then to the hot desert we know today 6,000-5,000 years ago. It will continue. As the planet warms, agriculture will be possible farther north. Some of Canada's forest could be cleared for farmland. There are already areas limited by soil rather than climate. East of Lake Winnipeg is thin soil just inches thick over bedrock: rugged Canadian Shield. I have suggested a couple ways to make that area productive. Northwest Ontario at similar latitude could use the same methods.
I posted about the "talk" about an alternate route for a pipeline, because the person who sent me a private message about Alberta, also asked about this. I'm sure a number of Americans will deliberately try to avoid the point of this entire thread. Alberta separatists were as few as those calling for Vermont to separate from the United States. Yes, there are some. But now Trump and his team is interfering in internal politics in Canada, causing serious problems. There are some Americans who don't like when Canadians comment on American internal politics. But Americans are interfering in Canadian politics. So yes, we will continue.
There is a discussion of a pipeline for oil and/or a pipeline for natural gas to the coast of Hudson's Bay. Premiers of all 3 prairie provinces are in favour: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba. The premier of Manitoba is most enthusiastic. But there are practical problems. That far north means running a pipeline over tundra with permafrost. There is a port on Hudson's Bay, the town of Churchill is basically the port. It's ba grain export terminal, oil and/or natural gas facilities would have to be built. The Bay freezes over in winter, currently only used when it's ice free.
There is no road to Churchill, the only access is by air, sea, or the one rail line. The rail runs over eskers wherever possible. That's ridges of gravel. But they must reduce weight per rail car in summer when tundra melts. Rail over tundra requires constant maintenance. Pipeline supports have been built over tundra before, issues are known.
Route has not been determined. Straight east from Fort McMurray to Churchill, or connect to line 3 in southern Manitoba, run practically straight north to Churchill? Is there a private developer willing to build it? Lots of unknowns, at this point it's just talk.
I have received a private email asking what's going on with Alberta. I have to start with Quebec.
In the 1500s & 1600 both Britain and France established colonies in North America. Those two countries fought for centuries. In 1759 Britain won a major battle, and assumed control over the colony of Quebec. To appease the population, Britain allowed Quebec to continue to speak French, continue French culture, and the French legal system, which was different than British. Modern Canadian and American legal system is based on British Common Law. In 1867 politicians from Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) proposed forming a new country. Canada would be an independent country, and would live together peacefully. If Britain and France went to war with each other, then the people of Canada would not also war with each other, but treat each other as good neighbours. They sailed a river boat with a cargo hold filled with crates of champagne to the Maritime colonies to convince them to join. So Canada was born.
However, the British monarch continued to be the monarch of Canada, and the Canadian federal government was based on British parliament. Some citizens in Quebec didn't like this. Still resented being ruled by the British.
In the 20th century, after TV was invented, US corporations tried to export American culture. The corporations tried to establish a monopoly, and control Canadian TV. The Canadian federal government created the CBC to reflect Canadian culture, with federal government subsidies, and a mandate to maintain Canadian culture. Still, some French people in Quebec felt pressured, and resented all English speaking people.
In 1970, and organization called the FLQ (Front for the Liberation of Quebec, spelled and pronounced in French) was a terrorist organization with the goal of making Quebec an independent country. In October 1970, the FLQ murdered a provincial cabinet minister. And the FLQ said the rest of the government was next, they would continue to murder until Quebec became independent. The rest of the government of Quebec took this very seriously. They escaped under police escort to a nuclear bomb shelter. And the Premier of Quebec demanded the federal government enact the War Measures Act. The Prime Minster of Canada didn't want to, but the Quebec Premier said what's the point of being part of Canada if they can't be protected. So the War Measures act was enacted. This meant Canadian soldiers, in uniform with combat rifles, on every street corner of the largest cities in Quebec. The RCMP (federal police) had authority to detain people for questioning for a certain number of days without a warrant and without reason. Just because. The citizens of Quebec were outraged! This was too much! However, the RCMP succeeded in rooting out the FLQ, arrested them. In one arrest, they found plans to demolish the tallest office building in Montreal, and sufficient explosives to do it. RCMP analysts said it would have worked. But they were arrested before the explosives could be placed. If they hadn't been stopped, the building would have come down like the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11.
Some members of the FLQ who were not involved directly with any crime were released, did not serve significant jail time. They formed a political party with the same goal as the FLQ: separate Quebec to become an independent country. This was known as the Parti Québécois (PQ). The name literally means Quebec Party. The PQ used politics, not violence. In 1980 they were elected as the provincial government of Quebec. Later that same year, they held a referendum to separate. Result: 40% voted to separate. That's less than 50%, so nothing happened. The PQ claimed the federal government rushed the referendum, that they cheated. In 1995, they were allowed to hold a second referendum. In the years between the two referendums, citizens of Quebec noticed the provincial government could use the threat of separation to extort all sorts of goodies out of the federal government. They wanted the gravy train to continue. Some citizens who didn't want to separate, voted for separation anyway. Result: voter turnout 93.52%, with 49.41% voting to separate vs 50.58% to remain. This was insanely close! A CBC exit poll asked voters how they voted and why. The number who actually wanted to separate was still only 40%, the same as 1980. When those who didn't want to separate but just wanted the gravy train to continue saw what they almost did, they got very very scared. They said no referendum at all ever again!!!
After all this, the federal government chose to give Quebec all sorts of goodies. One program was to pay "equalization payments" to poor developing provinces, to jump-start their economy. This was intended for new provinces, and was an old program by 1980. Quebec was one of the old, established provinces with a strong economy, so got very little. However, after the 1995 referendum, the formula was changed to give Quebec a lot of money. Ontario had a strong healthy manufacturing sector. Through the 1960s/'70s/'80s up to 1995, Ontario had 26% of Canada's population, Quebec had 25%. Until 1980, Quebec had an economy as strong as Ontario. After the referendum of 1980, a number of companies moved out of Quebec to other parts of Canada. After the referendum of 1995, and even greater number of companies moved out of Quebec. But after 1995, the federal government gave several choice contracts to Quebec, as well as dramatically increasing money under the "equalization program".
The federal government collected taxes under corporate income tax, personal income tax, and other taxes that are equal in all provinces. But most of that money came from provinces with a strong economy. Money paid as "equalization" was paid directly to provincial governments. This meant more money was collected in taxes from wealthy provinces than poor provinces, but proportionately poor provinces got more. Again, this was supposed to be temporary, until developing provinces could support themselves. But provinces have become dependant on the handouts. And if you trace the money, that meant money from Ontario and Alberta subsidized Quebec.
Then globalization gutted Canada's manufacturing sector. Ontario was hit hard. This left Alberta as the only strong economy. Then environmentalists demanded end to oil, and all fossil fuels. Ironically, this environmental movement was strongest in Quebec. So stop and think about this: Quebec was being bribed to stay in Canada with money coming from Alberta. But at the same time, Quebec wanted to destroy Alberta's economy.
In 2006, the Conservative party was elected to the federal government. Before this, the only parties to be elected were either the Liberal party, or the Progressive Conservative party. Rich businessmen and old-money elites in southern Ontario and southern Quebec subsidized both parties, ensured they effectively controlled both parties. One writer for a Canadian national newspaper called them the "Laurentian Consensus", named for the Saint Lawrence river. But due to stuff that happened in the 1980s, ending in 1993, the Progressive Conservative party fell apart. The conservative movement struggled for years. Managed to put itself back together as the Conservative party, and got elected in 2006. But he new Conservative party had a base in Alberta. The Laurentian Consensus didn't like the fact they weren't in control. So once the Liberal party got elected in 2015, one objective was to destroy the economy of Alberta, ensure no "upstart" party ever got elected again. But after the political shake-up in 1993-2006, the only two major parties were the Liberal and Conservative. The Laurentian Consensus wants to ensure one of those two parties never gets elected again. That means a single party state. Canada doesn't work that way.
So many people in Alberta resent the federal government using environmental excuses to destroy the economy of Alberta. Actions taken go way beyond any reasonable environmental action. What's going on is to destroy Alberta in such a way that it will never be the base for a political party that holds power in Canada.
There has been resentment in western provinces against southern Ontario and Quebec. This resentment started with history from when Canada was formed. (won't get into that) There was a western separatist movement since the early 1960s, but it was a tiny fringe group that never got any attention. But since the Liberals got elected in 2015, that movement has grown in Alberta. Now, Alberta's economy is primarily paying for the "bribe" payments to Quebec, and Alberta resents it. At the same time, draconian overbearing federal regulation has hindered Alberta's economy. Many people in Alberta have said this has to stop! NOW!!! This has resulted in a growing separatist movement.
At this time, Alberta separatists are still a minority, but a large and loud-mouth minority. They have demanded a referendum to separate Alberta from Canada. Separatists control or influence a significant part of the political base for the current provincial Premier of Alberta. She doesn't want Alberta to separate, but a flat "no" would alienate her political base. So she is now attempting a trick. There will be a referendum, whether to hold a referendum. Yes, the current referendum is not whether Alberta will separate. The current referendum is whether to hold a referendum to separate. Certain individuals in Ontario who believe Ontario should be in control, resent the fact any referendum is being held. As a result, Canadian mainstream media is strongly against the Premier of Alberta.
Canada's new federal Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has changed policies somewhat. He will allow Alberta to build another oil pipeline. Instead of the federal government creating regulations that flatly prevent any such pipeline, there is now effort to build one. And regulations to hinder Alberta's oil industry are being eased. Not completely lifted, just eased enough to appease Alberta. But Mark Carney is trying to please Alberta just enough to not separate, while pleasing Quebec enough to continue to vote for his party. And Mark Carney comes from the old-money elite himself, so he wants to appease them as well.
And now things get worse. Donald Trump has said he wants all of Canada to join the US. And Trump said he wants to use economic pressure to force Canada to do it. So Trump is sending operatives to stir up trouble with Alberta separatists, while creating economic problems that make Alberta resent what the federal government is doing to defend Canada from those same tariffs. Trump's team believes Alberta is the most likely province to separate from Canada, and if Alberta separates, then it will join the US. All Alberta separatists that I've spoken with say there's no way they would join the US, they want to be an independent country. But I've seen social media try to convince Alberta separatists to join the US.
If Alberta were to separate, they would actually be in a lot of trouble. Because they're land-locked. No ocean access. The province of BC is between Alberta and the Pacific ocean. The Trans-Mountain pipeline has been twinned, and the oil terminal in Burnaby has been expanded. Burnaby is right beside Vancouver. And there's a natural gas pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast farther north. Both pipelines are operational, both sea terminals are operational. But if BC remains in Canada, what happens? The current Premier of BC is anti-oil. The pacific coast of BC is as strongly environmental as the pacific coast of California. Inland BC, that is inland of the Rocky Mountains, is as Conservative as Alberta. But the large population is in and around Vancouver, on the Pacific coast.
Copper wire for lightning rod: 32 strand, 17 gauge, braided, not insulated, 7/16" diameter, a 5-foot section weighs 17.1 ounces.
Protection extends 45° from tip of lightning rod. Maximum coverage is 30-metre radius. To protect tops of trees, must extend 30-metre taller than the trees. In a forest with 20-metre tall trees, to prevent lightning strike, requires rod total of 30+20=50 metre height. Assume 1 metre (3' 3.7") taller than a tree, then cable must extend 49 metres. Add a copper spike for the soil, at least 1 metre deep copper spike. To hold rod so tip is 30 metres taller than tip of tree, assume it must attack to the top 2 metre of tree for sufficient strength so it doesn't bend. That means the holder must be 31 metres tall.
Rod could be made of brass instead of pure copper, for strength, and to prevent corrosion. Standard 1.1 meter brass spike (0.1 meter for mounting). 16 mm (0.63 in) diameter. Mass 1.9kg of brass.
Cable alone: 48 meter, plus slack. 48 metre = 157.48 feet. For slack, round to 160 feet. At 17.1 ounces per 5 feet, that's 547.2 ounces of copper = 15.5 kg of copper for cable.
A 1 meter long spike, also known as a ground rod, mass will vary depending on thickness. Assume 3/8" thickness, the thinnest with enough strength to penetrate ground. Mass 0.93 kg (2.05 pounds).
For 4.73427 billion lightning rods, the cable plus ground spike will require 77.7840561 billion kg of copper = 77.7840561 million metric tonnes. 700 million metric tonnes of copper have been mined in the world through all of human history.
Rod itself will require 8.995113 billion kg of brass = 8.995113 million metric tonnes. Lightning rods are often made of C23000 (Red Brass) which is 85% copper, 15% zinc. This requires 8.995113 Mt * 85% = 7.64584605 million tonnes. Rod mass * 15% = 1.34926695 million tonnes of zinc.
Total now comes to 85.42990215 million metric tonnes of copper + 1.34926695 million metric tonnes of zinc.
And that doesn't include the mount to hold the lightning rod above the tree top. Does that sound practical to you?
So you excuse war and murder because you were in a "bad mood"? Grow up.
And you think USA was indigenous? Try saying that to the aboriginal people of North America.
Void, please stop. Just tell your Congressmen to put a stop to this. Stop attacking Canada. Just stop.
For Canadians, the War of 1812 was the successful defence of a small colony against attack by a much larger neighbour.
Canadians endured repeated invasions and occasional occupations, but each invasion ultimately ended with an American withdrawal. The Royal Navy and British Army supported by Canadian regulars, Canadian militia, and First Peoples warriors, successfully defended Canada. Isaac Brock, Charles de Salaberry, Laura Secord, and Tecumseh became, and remain, iconic Canadian figures. The successful defence of Canada allowed British North America to evolve into an independent transcontinental country.
"“The Americans were in high spirits, and when I said I was Canadian, one of the officers laughed and said, “You'll soon be under the Yankey government, my boy.” I was sassy, like most boys of my age, and I said, “I'm not so sure about that.”"
— Jacob Cline, Canadian, 13 years old, 1813
The United States tried to annex Canada by military force in 1812. The US lost. I'm told US citizens are taught in school that Britain attacked the US. That's bullshit. President Madison ordered invasion of Canada. At the time Canada was still a colony of Britain, so Britain defended. I saw a YouTube video from an American about it; apparently the US had some legitimate complaints against Britain, but rather than addressing them with Britain, President Madison chose to invade Canada. Madison wrote that invading Canada would be a simple matter of marching. He was wrong. Turned out when an American soldier faced against a Canadian soldier, he might as well be facing against himself. Canada defended well. Then Britain sent troops, veterans fresh off the war with Napoleon. Canadian troops defended while British forces counter attacked deep within the US. Long story short, the US lost. The goal was to annex Canada; notice Canada is not annexed.
President Trump has said he intends to put economic pressure on Canada until Canada acquiesces. That won't happen. But Trump is interfering with Canadian internal politics. There's now a referendum for Alberta to separate. The separatists are few but passionate. There's not enough to cause Alberta to separate, and the separatists said they will never join the US, they just want to be on their own. But Trump is causing serious problems. Now, yesterday, Trump announced another 50% tariff on Canadian goods. Canada doesn't pay any tariff, that's not how tariffs work. Americans who buy goods from Canada pay that. But it increased prices, harms sales.
Stop telling me to stop. Tell your President to stop. Or tell your Congressmen to take away Trump's authority to impose tariffs. After all, US Constitution says taxes are authority of Congress. So tell your Congressmen to show some backbone, and stop this crap.
There's something weird going on with the Gordie Howe bridge as well.
I saw a brief report that Canada (?Carney) says Canada will NOT share revenue from the bridge with the US until the loans are paid off.
Yea. The original deal negotiated with Michigan before construction of the bridge began was that Canada pay 100% of the construction cost, then 100% of all tolls would go to Canada until the cost of construction is paid off. Then profits would be split 50/50 between Michigan and Canada. The owner of the Ambassador Bridge contributed to Trump's election campaign, and demanded some of the profits. No, he's not going to get that. But Trump demands 50% of the profits go to the US federal government. So Carney agreed: 50% of the profits will go to the US federal government. But notice the wording: profits. That agreement doesn't say revenue, doesn't say tolls, it says profits. The bridge won't earn any profits until cost of construction is paid off. So what has Trump accomplished? Money that was supposed to go to Michigan will go to the US federal government instead. How will that US money be distributed? Any to the donar to Trump's campaign? From Canada's perspective, has anything changed?
Peter Zeihan posted a video 1 and a half years ago. He had a number of people asking what it would be like if Canada did join the US. He pointed out aging demographics, and politics around Quebec. But there's a more important point.
Amending the US Constitution requires 2/3 majority of both the House of Representatives and Senate, and must be ratified by state legislatures of 3/4 of the states. That is just not going to happen. However, adding a new state only requires a simple majority of both the House and Senate, and sign-off by the President like any other bill. So Canada could not join as a unit, but each province could join as a state. So 10 new states, and 3 territories.
This would mean 2 senators for each state, so 20 new senators. The House of Representatives is proportional by population, so 54 new Representatives. Alberta is a rich oil province with cattle, and Saskatchewan has lots of land but much smaller population, a little oil, and mostly agriculture. Culture of Saskatchewan is very similar to North Dakota. Those two provinces would be Republican, but Texas Ronald Regan Republican, more libertarian, and socially moderate. They would not get along with MAGA. The provinces with the largest populations are BC, Ontario, and Quebec. They're politics would be Elizabeth Warren style Democrat. Of the 54 new Representatives, 40 would come from BC, Ontario, and Quebec.
The Maritime provinces are the Atlantic coast. They would also be Elizabeth Warren Democrat. There are 4 Maritime provinces, but based on population they would only get 3 Representatives. Can one Congressional district span 2 states?
For senators, this means 7 of the 10 new states would be Democrat, so 14 Democrat senators.
Manitoba is... different. They tend to not vote for moderates. One neighbourhood is Elizabeth Warren Democrat, the next neighbourhood is Regan Republican. They're polite Canadians most of the time, but have strong views toward politicians. Well, I should qualify that. When the extreme fringe element gets control of either party, that party does not get elected. The party has to be relatively moderate to get elected. But an actual moderate party has no chance. So... go figure.
Given all this and how it would change the balance of power in Congress, do you think Congress would agree to do this?
::Edit:: The smallest province of Canada is Prince Edward Island, on the Atlantic coast. It's just slightly more than double land area of Rhode Island, but much smaller population. The US state with the smallest population is Wyoming, with 587,600. PEI only has 181,715. The population of PEI is smaller than Puerto Rico is 3.2 million. If PEI gets to be a state, Puerto Rico may demand they become a state too.
Tod Maffin is a former radio host for CBC: Canadian mainstream media. He has an interesting take on the smoke:
YouTube: When disasters happen, some countries send invoices, others bring a shovel.
CBC: Trump threatens Canada with new 50% tariffs in latest ramp-up of trade war
The Latest
U.S. President Donald Trump signed three proclamations today that will impose 50 per cent tariffs on a swath of Canadian exports in the latest ramp-up in the president's trade war against Canada.
The tariffs are meant to offset Canada's "retaliation and discrimination" against U.S. exports, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said.
The new rate is expected to take effect in 30 days.
Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement saying Canada is "ready to engage" with the U.S. to resolve the months-long trade dispute.
Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Canada should retaliate, while Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette called the new threats "unjustified and concerning."
Let's review: the US created tariffs in retaliation for Canada's response, which was in retaliation for US actions. Where did it start? Trump created tariffs on Canadian goods, and threatened to make Canada the 51st state.
Please ensure the latest crap doesn't happen.
Canada has 3.69 million square kilometres of forest. Assuming a hexagonal pattern with hexagons 30 metres apart centre-to-centre, will require 1,283 hexagons per square kilometre. To prevent lightning strikes, the tower must extend 30 metres taller than the trees. Trees of the Boreal Forest grow 15 to 20 metres tall (50 to 65 feet). To protect from lightning towers must be 50 metres tall. Trees of the Pacific coast can grow 70 metres tall (230 feet) or higher, but let's focus on the majority. So that's 4.73427 billion towers, each 50 metres tall. The whole tower need not be copper, but requires a copper cable heavy enough to carry a lightning strike. Then there's the steel for the tower.
Tom suggested lightning rods to prevent forest fires. That won't work in Canadian forests. Canadian forests are vast, too vast. For structures up to 30 metres high (just over 30 yards) it protects a cone 45° from the top tip of the rod. Above that, protection does not cover a larger area. So 30 metre radius.
Canadian forests are vast. This map shows most of Canada is covered by forest. Agricultural land has fields. Northern area shown here in pink is tundra, so no trees. A lot of southern Ontario is built-up. The rest is forest.
Taiga forest is Boreal forest growing over permafrost. Result is smaller trees, and the trees often grow at odd angles, not necessarily perfectly straight.
Fire is a natural part of any forest. When a forest has spent too much time without fire, the mix of trees change. For one, jack pine have pine cones that only open with fire. So they only seed by fire. Result can change the forest to more deciduous trees, fewer evergreen. That makes the forest more vulnerable to forest fire. If a large area is like that, instead of forest fire being just a small patch of forest, it can cover a much larger area. After fire jack pine and other fast-growth trees grow. Fast growth trees have more moisture, so more resistant to fire.
Canada has provided firefighters to the US to help with your forest fires. And will continue to do so. Now accept forest fires are a fact of nature, a fundamental characteristic of all forests, and wind does not respect borders.
Lightning rods will not help. Canada is vast. The Boreal Forest is vast. Preventing forest fires is a fools errand. Forests are just too vast.
Canada has aluminum smelters, but not really bauxite ore. Bauxite is formed by a tropical rain forest; it only exists were there's a tropical rain forest, or was millions of years ago. What Canada does have is rivers flowing through valleys that can be flooded by a hydroelectric dam to produce copious quantities of cheap electricity. That electricity is necessary to smelt aluminum. And Canada has valleys where no one lives, so we can afford to flood them.
"Trump Towers" in Canada? Not unless you want to be lynched. Canadians take the 51st state rhetoric as a serious threat.
The flight was scheduled for Wednesday/Thursday July 22 & 23. Unfortunately the trip has been placed on hold. The flight is for the Post Office, but most offices are in stores of the Northern Store. Management for the Northern Store have asked local staff to try to install the equipment themselves. If I don't hear back, then the trip is cancelled.
Actual work to reduce aging. Tested on monkeys. A long way from being ready for humans. But it's progress.
YouTube: HUMAN Stem Cells Have Reversed Age In Monkey's with ZERO Side Effects
Wednesday 4 US Republican Senators, John James, Jack Bergman, John Moolenaar and Lisa McClain, released a letter. They complained about smoke from Canadian forest fires. With more threats of the 51st state. If you don't want Canada critiquing internal things within the US, then don't complain about internal things within Canada. Yes, Canada does have forests. The US has cleared so much forest, that there aren't enough trees in the US to produce enough lumber to meet the US market demand for lumber. A long-winded way of saying Canada does still have vast forests, the US doesn't. Forests in the US are comparatively small.
CBC: Republicans blast Canada over wildfire smoke, air quality in northern U.S.
Posted on Facebook, from the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
On this day, July 17th, 1984, the national drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 through federal pressure on states via highway funding, imposing centralized control over what had traditionally been a state matter. This policy was justified on safety grounds but represented a clear federal overreach into personal and state autonomy. It limited individual choice for young adults while expanding Washington’s influence.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania critiques state coercion and advocates for individual choice in personal decisions such as alcohol consumption. We believe adults should have the freedom to make their own choices without federal mandates. Let's return such matters to states and individuals.
I live in the Canadian province of Manitoba. On April 25, 1970, it was lowered from 21 to 18. The reason was military recruitment age is 18. And Canada does have the draft; Canada uses the British term Conscription. Conscription has only been activated twice in Canadian history: World War 1 and 2. It was highly controversial both times, and had to be cancelled as soon as the war was over. Conscription age is 18. If an individual is old enough to die in war, and old enough to kill in war, then they're old enough to drink. So I see what the US did as backwards.
US military recruitment age is 17 with parental consent, or 18 without. So the same justification used in Canada applies to the US.
Wow! Just got a request to fly to another location to service computer equipment for the Post Office. This time it's Arviat, Nunavut. The farthest north I've ever been was Churchill, and that was a previous job. Work took me to Churchill a few times. Arviat is straight north from that. So far north there are no trees, just tundra. This job is really showing me remote parts of Canada that I would never have seen. Still on the shore of Hudson Bay; Devon Island is 1,600km farther north.
An image from Google image search:
Today it's +35°C = +95°F, 50% humidity.
Am I a wuss? I just bought my first air conditioner. Never had one as a child. My house was built in 1907. Got a window air conditioner. 700 sq ft house. Temperature outside today is 34°C = 93.2°F. 60% humidity. And my home office computer has an 800 watt power supply. It can reduce power when components demand less but the video card draws a lot.