|
AlbieQuirky posted:There are formal programs for disrupting adoptions, though. "Go on Internet and foist them on strangers" is a poo poo way to approach the issue. But if they do things the proper way they get flagged and can't adopt more kids. "We want a kid, we just dont want this kid, we didn't think being a parent should be hard work!" They need to channel their inner Angelina Jolie and collect their rainbow of perfect, well-behaved foreign children, if they surrender them properly they can't keep trying to amass kids like others horde cats. Better to just give them to pedophiles and fellow child-horders who care even less than you do, or those who've already had kids taken away due to beig unfit. Power of attorney is still somehow legal even if you've had other kids taken away. Seriously that article is the hugest bummer. Edit: Whatev posted:Americans use the Internet to abandon children adopted from overseas PopRocks has a new favorite as of 07:40 on Sep 19, 2013 |
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
My one-house-past-next-door neighbors, who were very poor caregivers to begin with, if not outright molesting their children, adopted two Chinese twins my little sisters age at 5. One of them ended up having food issues (stealing from other kids lunch boxes, basically any food that wasn't fully secured she'd take). This is not something she carried over from her parents; or if it was, it was only reinforced by my neighbors. Aside to explain the neighbors, feel free to disregard if you don't distrust me. I remember going to hang out with the child my age in the home after school in second grade, because my mother was busy. His mother made us lunch, and it was bologna sandwiches. I don't, and never have by choice, eaten pork. I said, "I'm sorry, my family doesn't eat this, I don't need something else, but if anyone else wants it, they can have it." I'm sure it wasn't in those words, but that was the message. In her exact words, she said, "You sit and you eat, you are a guest in this house and this is what we eat in this house, or you go home!" So, I went home, and waited outside for a few hours until my mother came home. This is the same parental group that would yell at their children to fight to the end to resolve differences as opposed to, y'know, be parents. They would do this with guests over, be they children or adults. After that day, I wasn't allowed inside their house. Anyway, at age thirteen they had had enough, so they put one of the two twins up for adoption again and told the other that she has no sister. I thought that was the most heartless thing I had ever heard and, to this day, still is in the top 3. There is a happy(ish) ending, however. I went to a Maggiano's in a bigger city, and the abandoned twin ended up being our server. I said "I'm sorry to bring up bad memories, but were you my neighbor for a while?" She said that she was, after I told her my name, and she's doing well for herself--working service to pay for school, back in contact with her twin, who moved out and cut contact the day she turned 18, and getting promoted as often as it happens in a restaurant. I know this isn't an unnerving Wikipedia page, but after the creepy adoption run, I wanted everyone to know that once in a while, things work out. Note: I am not justifying the social media child trade; I find it disgusting and wrong. Lord, if this had been around back then, I'm sure she wouldn't have found better parents. I just thought that this thread was really hitting home and some people would appreciate a story that ends up okay in the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash The United States actually had several examples of an accidental nuclear explosion on U.S territory, the scary part is the fact that we only know about the declassified ones - there are apparently several more that remain secret - a 1970 study by one of America's nuclear weapon laboratories, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, stated that at least 1,200 weapons were involved in accidents between 1950 and 1968: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/14/nuclear-weapons-accident-waiting-to-happen The Guardian posted:Two of the more dangerous accidents occurred in one month. On 15 September 1980, one of the engines on a B-52 bomber caught fire at Grand Forks air force base in North Dakota. The plane was carrying four hydrogen bombs and eight short-range missiles with nuclear warheads. A strong wind kept the flames away from the weapons, and a fireman climbed into the burning plane, put out the fire, and averted a disaster. Three days later a technician dropped a tool in the silo of a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile near Damascus, Arkansas. The tool hit the bottom of the silo, bounced, struck the side of the missile, pierced the skin and caused a fuel leak. The Titan II was carrying the most powerful nuclear warhead ever built by the US. Despite a heroic effort to save the missile, it exploded – but the warhead didn't detonate. Both states could have been destroyed. Averrences has a new favorite as of 09:10 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Averrences posted:The United States actually had several examples of an accidental nuclear explosion on U.S territory, the scary part is the fact that we only know about the declassified ones - there are apparently several more that remain secret - a 1970 study by one of America's nuclear weapon laboratories, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, stated that at least 1,200 weapons were involved in accidents between 1950 and 1968:
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Eh. Nuclear explosives aren't like dynamite - they're actually quite tricky to set off. Certainly it's not like fire is going to ignite a nuclear reaction in any realistic sense, as that passage seems to be suggesting. Yeah, when you're dealing with something so dangerous, you take a whole loving lot of precautions to make sure it's stable and not just gonna go off at the drop of a hat. It's not like nitroglycerin where, if you drop it, it's gonna explode. That article doesn't really make it clear, it makes it sound like luck that stopped the Titan II's warhead exploding, it was actually the safety measures built into the warhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
PopRocks posted:But if they do things the proper way they get flagged and can't adopt more kids. "We want a kid, we just dont want this kid, we didn't think being a parent should be hard work!" They need to channel their inner Angelina Jolie and collect their rainbow of perfect, well-behaved foreign children, if they surrender them properly they can't keep trying to amass kids like others horde cats. It's usually a bit more complex than this. You have a family with three adopted kids. Two are doing fine, with the typical problems associated with being kids. The third is a scary bastard. He attacks the others, sets fires, stabs the dog, kills the cat, gropes the sister, runs away, does drugs, and fights constantly. Get CPS involved, and all three could be taken away. Therapy can only do so much, and you may have to try several therapists and a variety of meds. Even then you may not be able to do anything to help him. The entire family is at the mercy of this jerk. What do you do? Or you take in a girl who was molested. After years of therapy, whenever she gets around boys she's openly sexual and behaves in a way that is more appropriate in a brothel. Therapy and intervention get her to 'tone it down' in company, but as soon as she's at school she's offering herself to every boy she can. You have to watch your other kids around her every minute, because she'll try 'recreating' her molestation with them as victims. Right after her 13th birthday, she gets pregnant. What do you do? I can't condone handing kids off to strangers. I can't condone child 'collectors'. But when you're dealing with a kid that is so out of control they're a danger to themselves and others, what do you do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
Whatev posted:Americans use the Internet to abandon children adopted from overseas This seriously scared the poo poo out of me. God drat! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Eh. Nuclear explosives aren't like dynamite - they're actually quite tricky to set off. Certainly it's not like fire is going to ignite a nuclear reaction in any realistic sense, as that passage seems to be suggesting. Yeah, they require such precise timing on the bomb's part that there's no way to create a nuclear blast without actually activating the detonator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Yeah, they require such precise timing on the bomb's part that there's no way to create a nuclear blast without actually activating the detonator. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the only reason 'actual' explosives are present in a nuclear weapon to shoot the NUKULAR BITS (scientific term) at each other with sufficient speed to start the reaction? A safety that would allow the explosives to explode without it all going hiroshima sounds pretty easy to implement. (And as such probably is present in every warhead, I mean.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:I can't condone handing kids off to strangers. I can't condone child 'collectors'. But when you're dealing with a kid that is so out of control they're a danger to themselves and others, what do you do? So what exactly do you condone in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It has been documented as a CIA experiment more thoroughly than the wiki article suggests. The book mentioned in the wiki article bases its claims on actual CIA documents that the author identified or realized the significance of--there's a lot of documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act that place CIA operatives in Pont-Saint-Esprit at the time of the event, and references to covering up or burying the evidence of something they don't name outright. Another person who has appeared in this thread, Frank Olsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson) comes up in a lot of the memos and was himself in Pont-Saint-Esprit at the time. It's pretty well established (as much as such a thing can be) that he was killed by the CIA for threatening to go public about Pont-Saint-Esprit (they spiked his drink with LSD and threw him out a window, though nobody can prove he didn't spontaneously decide to dose himself and then commit suicide). He was a leading figure in the MKULTRA experiments, which have also come up in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra drat. I knew it was plausible, but there's even more evidence in favor of it than I originally thought. Still, nothing definitive, sadly. MKULTRA feels even more like a real life X-Files plot line, now. duckmaster posted:I really don't understand why people continue to say things like, "it's a bit far fetched that the CIA were behind it". Did you only say that because you think that any conspiracy theory can be assumed to be a crazy idea with little basis in fact? In reality, whilst many conspiracy theories are thought up by nutjobs, some are based in fact and many have been proven to be correct. Thanks for the link, but your reading comprehension needs some work if you think that post indicates I'm naive enough to have complete trust in the US government. My natural inclination is to be skeptical of something until there is sufficient evidence for it to be believed. I did quite a bit of reading on MKULTRA years ago, and I remember most of the basics, but not so much the specific details, which is why I was asking for more information. Believing in conspiracy theories is not something that comes naturally to me, but in this case I knew enough to know it was a possibility, but wanted confirmation one way or another. I compared it to the NSA surveillance as an example of having been wrong about shady government poo poo in the past, in an effort to show that I know it is indeed possible for the CIA to be up to something insidious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
VogeGandire posted:Yeah, when you're dealing with something so dangerous, you take a whole loving lot of precautions to make sure it's stable and not just gonna go off at the drop of a hat. It's not like nitroglycerin where, if you drop it, it's gonna explode. It's not even a safety feature. At least, not an intentional one. The placement of the explosives and the timing of their detonation must be so precise that if something in the environment (like a fire or another explosion) causes the explosives to detonate, there's an almost 0 chance that they'll detonate in the exact way needed in order to cause a fission reaction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Backyard Blacksmith posted:drat. I knew it was plausible, but there's even more evidence in favor of it than I originally thought. Still, nothing definitive, sadly. MKULTRA feels even more like a real life X-Files plot line, now. The X-Files straight-up mentions MKULTRA and Operation Paperclip as plot points. It was very much inspired by the CIA's history of illegal human testing, and many episodes mention historically real things. I think the effect of it is that people who watch the X-Files come to consider the whole thing fiction, which is unfortunate because it makes discussion of established, academically documented fact sound like crazy conspiracy theories. MKULTRA was a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. Like all conspiracies, it fell apart because it couldn't control the evidence of its own existence indefinitely. Conspiracy theories are almost always nonsense because no evidence ever appears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Averrences posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/14/nuclear-weapons-accident-waiting-to-happen It should be noted that the last sentence of the article may be the most idiotic thing the Guardian has ever written. Both states could have been destroyed? Really? A Titan warhead wouldn't completely destroy Little Rock, much less the entire state of Arkansas. Don't even get me started on how big of a bomb it would take to destroy Montana. That being said, the above poster was right when he says that fire and impact will not cause a nuclear weapon to detonate. The fire at Grand Forks could have burned the plane and weapons to the ground without a nuclear yield, though my understanding is that you don't really want to be around a burning physics package. Interestingly, the Titan explosion blew the warhead up and out of the silo through its concrete launcher closure door, subjecting the warhead to both heat and impact, and the warhead not only failed to explode, but was recovered in one piece from a farmer's field about 500 yards away. On the other hand, nuclear related classified data isn't like regular classified data in that it never declassifies. It's plausible that there are accidents that didn't go as well that we will never know about, barring a leak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
There's a good reason why it took us so long and so much money and effort to get from atomic theory to a functional weapon - its actually really loving hard to make things go supercritical in a way that causes a nuclear detonation and not just a radioactive firecracker. There's a bunch of shaped charges in most modern bombs that have to go off all at once (basically they use the blast wave as a lens of sorts). Set them off even microseconds out of sync and you just get a regular old explosion dusted with plutonium and uranium particles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Seems like the worst you'd get in those scenarios is a dirty bomb. On a North Korean nuke. Same difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Stormtroopman posted:A Titan warhead wouldn't completely destroy Little Rock, much less the entire state of Arkansas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb posted:Assuming a detonation at optimum height, a 9 megaton blast would result in a fireball with an approximate 4 to 5 km (2.5 to 3.1 mi) diameter.[12] The radiated heat would be sufficient to cause lethal burns to any unprotected person within a 28.7 kilometers (17.8 mi) radius (995 square miles (2,580 km2)). Blast effects would be sufficient to collapse most residential and industrial structures within a 14.9 km (9.3 mi) radius (300 square miles (780 km2)); within 5.7 kilometers (3.5 mi) virtually all above-ground structures would be destroyed and blast effects would inflict near 100% fatalities. Within 4.7 km (2.9 mi) a 500 rem dose of ionizing radiation would be received by the average person, sufficient to cause a 50% to 90% casualty rate independent of thermal or blast effects at this distance. 1000 square mile kill zone is the entirety of Pulaski County. 300 square mile structure destruction zone is much more than the size of Little Rock. Nothing to sneeze at. Dross has a new favorite as of 22:03 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Lucid Nonsense posted:Seems like the worst you'd get in those scenarios is a dirty bomb. On a North Korean nuke. Same difference. That's why I found the Goldsboro incident so frightening. When one of the hydrogen bombs separated from the disintegrating B-52, somehow all but one of the necessary activations took place. It was a single two-dollar switch that prevented it from detonating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:That's why I found the Goldsboro incident so frightening. When one of the hydrogen bombs separated from the disintegrating B-52, somehow all but one of the necessary activations took place. It was a single two-dollar switch that prevented it from detonating. I assume that was before Permissive Action Locks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I assume that was before Permissive Action Locks? Correct. In 1961, PAL was only in the prototype stage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
quote:Nuclear Stuff Check this site out, it uses Google maps and then shows what/where a nuclear blast would be based on how many kilos it is. Morbid yet interesting! http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/classic/ Sorry if repost. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Crossposting from the quote thread because spontaneous human combustion has interested me for years, and this was pretty drat unnervingKimmalah posted:[The Wick Effect is] actually one of the theories to explain supposed cases of human combustion (people burning like candles basically). Wick Effect posted:2006 Geneva case Choking to death on the smoke from your burning owner sounds like one hell of a lovely way to go  e: As a bonus, the entry for SHC
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
Given how many thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads there are in the US - not to mention all the construction, delivery etc systems, plus nuclear plants - it's actually kind of surprising there hasn't been an enormous disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Given how many thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads there are in the US - not to mention all the construction, delivery etc systems, plus nuclear plants - it's actually kind of surprising there hasn't been an enormous disaster. I don't really think it's surprising. If other forms of power generation were as strict about safety as the nuclear industry is, then hydroelectric dams would be built with anti-aircraft guns and torpedo nets just in case. In my Nuclear Plant Operations class, the teacher (who is a longtime veteran of the Canadian nuclear industry and a licensed plant shift manager) told a story about an incident where a car in the parking lot of his plant had an antifreeze leak. It got reported in newspapers the next day as "LEAK AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT" and he found himself dragged in front of city council to explain what the danger was. The industry is well aware that even the smallest thing will be the end of it and so they bend over backwards to prevent even the tiniest issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
All of the engineers I've worked with who have had experience working in the nuclear industry are far more paranoid about standards and accountability than, say, people who have only worked in oil and gas. Not to say that the others are lax, but the nuclear industry seems incredibly tightly regulated - at least in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Nastyman posted:Crossposting from the quote thread because spontaneous human combustion has interested me for years, and this was pretty drat unnerving Wikipedia posted:In February 1991, in woodland near Medford, Oregon, USA, two hikers came across the burning body of a female adult, lying face down in fallen leaves. The body slowly burned for thirteen hours
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
This is not Wikipedia, but it's probably in the process of being edited into an entry as I type. Two nuclear bombs were dropped on North Carolina: quote:The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast. As it went into a tailspin, the hydrogen bombs it was carrying became separated. One fell into a field near Faro, North Carolina, its parachute draped in the branches of a tree; the other plummeted into a meadow off Big Daddy's Road. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961 Whoopsies
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Tagra posted:This is not Wikipedia, but it's probably in the process of being edited into an entry as I type. Literally last page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:The body slowly burned for thirteen hours I can believe it smoldering for hours. It takes hours in a crematorium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Tagra posted:This is not Wikipedia, but it's probably in the process of being edited into an entry as I type. This thread beat The Guardian in posting that. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Oh bah. It had today's date on it so I thought it might actually be new news. Whoopsies 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Tagra posted:Oh bah. It had today's date on it so I thought it might actually be new news. Whoopsies It turns out that there is one piece of "new news" in the Guardian piece. It includes a recently declassified government document on the Goldsboro incident.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
serious norman posted:Some of my favorites: What's scary or unnerving about the pro wrestlers you posted in the D section?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What's scary or unnerving about the pro wrestlers you posted in the D section? The most recent reunion was full of horrors like the little peoples court skit. Edit: quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_big_cats Wow I didn't know there had been confirmed ones as recently as 2001, maybe all the people in 1998 who told me there was supposed to be a panther up near Asda were correct. jalopybrown has a new favorite as of 19:23 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
I've seen a big cat on an abandoned railway line where I walk my dogs, so have my sister and mum on separete occasions and maybe a decade apart. Mum saw hers in the 90s I think. I saw my one about 4 years ago. We have a steam railway here I used to work on and half the drivers have seen one too since they spend day after day driving a train through the vast Norfolk countryside. Nobody bothers reporting them anymore because 1) it's a waste of time/no point and 2) people call you a liar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Escaped big cats are plausible, though. It's not like people are claiming there's some unknown population of English tigers living out in the woods. I don't get why people would treat them like Bigfoot. Here in the US, illegally kept big cats get discovered fairly regularly, sometimes because they escape. I'm pretty sure there was a drug dealer in New York a few years ago who got eaten by his pet lion, and then his lion went out for a night on the town.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Here we actually have a very rare somewhat hidden big cat population, the Florida Panther. I've only seen one, darting out of the woods by a highway then running alongside it and darting back in just as fast as it had appeared. Really amazing and majestic thing to see.
Shame Boy has a new favorite as of 20:35 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
serious norman posted:Some of my favorites: The scary and unnerving thing is that I cannot find any link between all those articles. I mean they're all a great read but what Geomancy, Albert Fish, Cargo Cults and Nøkker have to do with each other? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
It would be great and a bit creepy if that list were just a compilation of all the links posted in this thread up to now. Maybe it is for all I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:48
|
|