# Have we killed ourselves finally?



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

Say, this doesn't sound too good.

http://www.helium.com/items/1882339...ster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event

*



			Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a 'world-killing' event
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Big Don (Jul 11, 2010)

> *Have we killed ourselves finally?*


No, but, only because we lack the ability.


----------



## Haakon (Jul 11, 2010)

> The bottom line: BP&#8217;s Deepwater Horizon drilling operation may have triggered an irreversible, cascading geological Apocalypse that will culminate with the first mass extinction of life on Earth in many millions of years.



At least they're not taking a worst case view of the problem. Hopefully this is another case where the scientists got it wrong. If not NASA had better get busy working on self sustaining space colonies.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 11, 2010)

I'm sure the mammoths didn't have the technology or the knowledge to deal with methane in the atmosphere.  It's gonna be disastrous, but not world killing.  We will be fine.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2010)

As far as I can gather from various sources, the pollution coming out of the well is real.  The fracturing of the well and the fissures opening up on the ocean floor are real.  The high well head pressure, high enough to blow any safety equipment known to man, is also real.  

Methane coming out of the well makes perfect sense.  Oil and gas are regularly found with each other and they separate inside oil bearing strata.  That methane mixing with water can be bad news on the local level because it will poison the ocean environment and kill everything that tries to breath that water.

Regarding the massive methane explosions that reputedly ended the Permian and paved the way for the dinosaurs, that is just a theory, one of several competing theories to explain the Permian extinction.  The way it works is that massive areas of ocean bed are suddenly disturbed, causing methane hydride crystals to break down and release the trapped methane suddenly.  Global Warming alarmists have jumped on this theory because they can point to the Permian extinction and say , "see, runaway global warming nearly killed everything on Earth!!!"

As far as I know, scientists don't know if this is even really possible or if it has even occurred in the past.  So, I'm going to remain skeptical on that until I read something more convincing on the matter of methane hydride crystals.

So, to sum things up, yes, this disaster could create a massive dead zone in the Gulf.  Yes, it could poison and displace millions along the Gulf Coast and possibly Atlantic coast.  It may very well be the event that puts an end to our country's government through bankruptcy and social unrest.  I don't think it will kill everything on the planet, however.  Things are bad, just not that bad.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 11, 2010)

The theory on methane hydride is a fairly sound one.  

What has been missing until recently was a way to explain how it tied in with the huge extinction event that wiped out 95% of all life.

It is calculated that the global heat increase from the monumental lava eruptions of the Siberian Traps was about 5 degrees centigrade, not enough to cause the great death, which 'needs' a 10 degree change.  What it did do was raise the temperature of the seas which in turn released the methane hydride which in turn raised global temperatures another 5 degrees.

Life is tenacious and it took some tens of thousands of years for the catastrophe to unfold ... so even if the doom-sayers on the oil spill are right, I think we have a while to try and set things aright.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 11, 2010)

I think it's possible for us to kill ourselves and maybe a lot of other forms of life on this planet, but I don't think it's possible for us to kill Earth. And I really don't think it's going to happen anyway.

Ultimately, this planet was a heaving ball of molten rock at one point, and blossomed into this. I have a feeling that anything we could do to it might be _temporarily _damaging, but even if we wipe ourselves out, Earth will endure. And eventually something better than us will inherit it.

But I really think people take Earth for granted. It's bigger, and stronger than I think a lot of people realize. We might kill all the humans, or all the trees, or all the fish, but Earth could see us come and go and barely bat an eye.

Will this oil spill be what kills us all? I doubt it. I think it might kill _some of us_, and will certainly cause widespread hunger, poverty, and hardship. Especially if it becomes a serious problem for third world countries that don't have anywhere near our resources.

It does just keep getting worse though doesn't it?


-Rob


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jul 11, 2010)

> If not NASA had better get busy working on self sustaining space colonies.



We are actually working on things way way beyond this.

Like self sustainig nano life forms which we will be able to transfer our consciousness to.

Sounds like science fiction but believe it of not it's being worked on and it's coming.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 11, 2010)

Ok, so....I guess I can wait a little longer to pay on my student loans....I'll queue them up for 2013.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 11, 2010)

Any of you guys know how much oil leaks from the sea beds across the globe?

And guys, they have had bigger 'gushers' off Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

And in WW2 you guys know how many OIL TANKERS German subs sank off the coast of America?

Do some research and find out why the sky is not falling.

Google is your friend (when they are not spying on you!)

Deaf


----------



## K-man (Jul 11, 2010)

Maximum distance you can get away from GOM ... about 12,000 miles (off the coast of Western Australia). Where I live ... about 9,000 miles.   All I need is another 40 years or so!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ok, so....I guess I can wait a little longer to pay on my student loans....I'll queue them up for 2013.


ok, I was a little flippant here.  Short version: if this is true, if the worst happens, there isn't much I can do about it.  Can't move far enough, can't afford to build a shelter, in the worst case, I die and well, that's about it.  So, I'm not going to worry.

That said, what can you do to survive this?  The US lacks the ability to put more than a few people in space, we're decades away from having survivable habitats in orbit, much less going to say Mars. So space isn't an option.

We can try the Logan's Run option. Build some enclosed cities, and strictly control access and resources. But that would also take decades to build, and who decides who gets in? Not to mention the trillions of dollars it would cost to build. I mean, what would NYC cost to build from scratch today, AND enclose it in thick walls, impenetrable flooring and a shatter proof roof? More than even Scrooge McDuck's got.

We could go the 2012 Ark route. Again, time and money come into play. 

So, if such an event were to occur, to quote the Klingon, "We Die".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Any of you guys know how much oil leaks from the sea beds across the globe?



But this isn't about oil, it's about methane.



> And guys, they have had bigger 'gushers' off Mexico and Saudi Arabia.



Bigger gushers of methane?



> And in WW2 you guys know how many OIL TANKERS German subs sank off the coast of America?



How many of them were full of methane?



> Do some research and find out why the sky is not falling.
> 
> Google is your friend (when they are not spying on you!)
> 
> Deaf



The tenor of the article seems to be that this particular undersea oil gusher is comprised of a lot of methane, in addition to the oil itself.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it's what the article says.

I do know that I've seen specials on TV about the methane frozen under the ice in the antarctic, which they say sequesters a lot of methane that might otherwise cause real problems with our environment.  The worry about that frozen methane is that it could cause rapid temperature climbs if released - much more than just 'global warming' might otherwise cause.  I have no idea if that's true either, but it's interesting.

The article points out that there have been 'extinction events' in earths history, which may or may not have been caused by massive methane releases from the sea floor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

I'm no scientist; I don't know if methane caused the Permian Extinction Event or not.  I also don't know if there is actually a huge quantity of methane being releases along with the oil down there at the bottom of the BP well disaster.  But that's what the article is suggesting.

I'd say it's worthy of further study, and it's a tad bit frightening if the information the author provides are true.

Hardly 'the sky is falling', and nothing to do with sunken oil transport ships in WWII.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 12, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Any of you guys know how much oil leaks from the sea beds across the globe?
> 
> And guys, they have had bigger 'gushers' off Mexico and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> ...



But that's kind of the point.  It's not the oil that's the real problem, *if the OP's article is correct*, but the massive methane deposits that could be destabilized by the leak.

It could happen, and evidence points to similar events as described in the past, causing mass extinctions across the globe.  Hopefully this won't be the butterfly wing that ends up causing the hurricane.

But if humanity does end up offing itself, my money definitely goes that it happens via an "oops" method brought on by arrogance and disregard for the systems we're messing with, rather than more deliberate means such as nuclear war.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Nomad said:


> But if humanity does end up offing itself, my money definitely goes that it happens via an "oops" method brought on by arrogance and disregard for the systems we're messing with, rather than more deliberate means such as nuclear war.



My money is still on the LHC.  It hasn't ramped up to full power yet, but when it does, and starts creating black holes on earth...well, I hope I'll have the time for a rude raspberry sound followed by "I told you so!" before we're all sucked into each other's bellybuttons and pop out of existence.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My money is still on the LHC.  It hasn't ramped up to full power yet, but when it does, and starts creating black holes on earth...



Nope, you'll have to look for your Apocalypse elsewhere.  Any such black holes created would have masses so small that they would quickly evaporate, and could not consume enough matter to even sustain themselves, much less grow.  Chandrasekhar, bitches.

Gamma Ray Bursts on the other hand...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 12, 2010)

Any Human Extinction event that doesn't include Cylons or Daleks will be a big disappointment for me. I mean, I'm ok with the annihilation of the entire human race, but it has to involve aliens.  This methane death idea's just not working for me.  It's like, we worried all this time over cow farts, and now this.

Yes, sarcasm and humor, but a bit of serious irony also.


----------



## crushing (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Nope, you'll have to look for your Apocalypse elsewhere. Any such black holes created would have masses so small that they would quickly evaporate, and could not consume enough matter to even sustain themselves, much less grow. Chandrasekhar, bitches.
> 
> Gamma Ray Bursts on the other hand...


 
Thanks for that link. With people being diagnosed with orthorexia nervosa as a mental disorder, I am more inclined towards #17.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13695.php



> *The Bratman Test for Orthorexia*
> 
> -- Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Any Human Extinction event that doesn't include Cylons or Daleks will be a big disappointment for me. I mean, I'm ok with the annihilation of the entire human race, but it has to involve aliens. This methane death idea's just not working for me. It's like, we worried all this time over cow farts, and now this.
> 
> Yes, sarcasm and humor, but a bit of serious irony also.


 
Knowing you, i'm sure any type of alien intervention would also involve green skined, pointed earred, "hot" females dominating the males of this little blue rock. 
Dude, keep a place in line for me. K?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Any Human Extinction event that doesn't include *Cylons* or Daleks will be a big disappointment for me.



Don't worry, They Have a Plan.  I hope that plan involves me and #6 somehow.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't worry, They Have a Plan.  I hope that plan involves me and #6 somehow.


I'll take a 3 and a pair of 8's.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm gonna be fine.

Yall however are screwed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Nope, you'll have to look for your Apocalypse elsewhere.  Any such black holes created would have masses so small that they would quickly evaporate, and could not consume enough matter to even sustain themselves, much less grow.  Chandrasekhar, bitches.



That's the theory.  Some scientists dispute it.  I note that the scientist who runs LHC said that the chances of a black hole being created that would consume the world were 'extremely small'.  He did not say they did not exist.

Hell, we don't even know how big across an electron is.  Check it yourself - today's news.  Turns out we were wrong about the diameter of an electron, which makes a whole bunch of constants, er, not so constant.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do understand the difference between 'no chance' and 'very small chance'.  Very small chance means MAYBE it could happen.  I think MAYBE is a very ugly word when it comes to sucking the entire planet into a tiny speck of compressed goo.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's the theory.  Some scientists dispute it.



Who?  I can't imagine too many mainstream physicists reject Hawking Radiation and the blackbody temperature of small vs. large black holes.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I note that the scientist who runs LHC said that the chances of a black hole being created that would consume the world were 'extremely small'.  He did not say they did not exist.



That's scientist-ese for you.  On here, I use a lot of definite language.  My scientific publications on the other hand are full of "supports", "is consistent with", "suggests" and similar language, as are those of other scientists.  It's just the culture and the epistemology, the recognition that nothing is 100% definite.  Even when it basically is.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Hell, we don't even know how big across an electron is.  Check it yourself - today's news.  Turns out we were wrong about the diameter of an electron, which makes a whole bunch of constants, er, not so constant.



Proton, yes.  One experiment though.  In the end though that's the beauty of science - ever self-correcting.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 12, 2010)

Methane bubble story de-bunked for all you paranoids.  http://io9.com/5585294/methane-bubble-doomsday-story-debunked


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 12, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Methane bubble story de-bunked for all you paranoids.  http://io9.com/5585294/methane-bubble-doomsday-story-debunked



We're safe...until the Unobtanium mines blow.  The entire galaxy is finished then.


----------



## crushing (Jul 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> We're safe...until the Unobtanium mines blow. The entire galaxy is finished then.


 
Don't worry, Lunsanto Energy Corp. says the mining operations are perfectly safe and they have the government approvals to proceed with the operations.  In fact, it is considered so safe that the administration exempted the mining operations from the often required environmental impact studies.  The media hasn't said a thing about these exemptions being related to the record campaign contributions, so only the waco wingnuts from the other side would even consider such a thing. 

_"The events depicted in this post are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental." _


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Who?  I can't imagine too many mainstream physicists reject Hawking Radiation and the blackbody temperature of small vs. large black holes.



Clever! Because if they say there might be a remote danger of creating a stable black hole, they're by definition not mainstream, are they?



> That's scientist-ese for you.  On here, I use a lot of definite language.  My scientific publications on the other hand are full of "supports", "is consistent with", "suggests" and similar language, as are those of other scientists.  It's just the culture and the epistemology, the recognition that nothing is 100% definite.  Even when it basically is.



Here's the thing.  Science is full of unknowns and of course the purpose of experimentation is to find out what happens, to solve for X.  I love that stuff, I'm a science geek.  However, in scenarios involving planetary destruction, I tend to err on the side of caution.  Even a very small possibility that the LHC would create a stable black hole and suck us all into it seems to me to be something with which one might reasonably be concerned.  I'm not at all happy about the 'well it most likely won't happen' philosophy being displayed.

The press and the public reaction has been worse.  They crowed when the world failed to disappear in a puff of smoke when the LHC was turned on; well no screaming eagle caca, that wasn't the danger.  They laughed derisively when the world failed to exit stage left when the LHC actually began colliding particles; at nothing like the rated full power when CERN scientists themselves say that they'll be producing up to hundreds of mini black-holes per day (theoretically).  The press likes a good sneer, as does the unwashed public.  Of course, if at full power the LHC does manage to produce a stable black hole, there won't be enough time for me to smash each of those idiots in the mouth before we all get sucked into it.

So perhaps it doesn't matter.  Get it, matter?  I slay myself.  Or maybe the LHC will slay me.  And you.



> Proton, yes.  One experiment though.  In the end though that's the beauty of science - ever self-correcting.



Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  The basis, the underpinning quantum math used to make these calculations for the safety of the LHC at monstrous power is changing.  It's unstable information, and yet we're using it as if it were accurate to produce our 'ta-dah, no danger' pronouncements.

Let's face it, scientists are eager to see the Higgs boson if it exists.  And if there is a tiny chance it might destroy the world, hey, no pain no gain.  I'm just not quite as Nutsy Fagen happy about it as they are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Any Human Extinction event that doesn't include Cylons or Daleks will be a big disappointment for me. I mean, I'm ok with the annihilation of the entire human race, but it has to involve aliens.  This methane death idea's just not working for me.  It's like, we worried all this time over cow farts, and now this.
> 
> Yes, sarcasm and humor, but a bit of serious irony also.



Everybody knows it's the Xists.  Duh.

http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Church_of_the_SubGenius/Dictionary_of_the_Gods.htm#x


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Clever! Because if they say there might be a remote danger of creating a stable black hole, they're by definition not mainstream, are they?



If they reject Hawking Radiation and the blackbody radiation of small vs. large black holes, then they are not mainstream.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's face it, scientists are eager to see the Higgs boson if it exists.  And if there is a tiny chance it might destroy the world, hey, no pain no gain.



I see your point, but it just doesn't jive with the other infinitesimal risks we face every day.  See the list of world-enders I posted before.  There is a non-zero chance a gamma ray burst will hit before I finish typing this and we all die.  I won't stay up nights about it.  The scientists in the Manhattan Project felt there was a reasonable chance that the atomic bomb would start a nuclear chain reaction that would not stop until the entire world was consumed.  They went and exploded it anyhow.  You face a risk orders of magnitude higher to your personal safety every time you get in your car than you do from the LHC.

There comes a time when even if the risk is non-zero, it isn't really worth worrying about.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> If they reject Hawking Radiation and the blackbody radiation of small vs. large black holes, then they are not mainstream.



That's my point, again.  If a scientist has a problem with the probability of microscopic black holes being stable, he has put himself outside of the mainstream, and from your argument, is therefore wrong.  The one does not demand the other.  Mainstream is mainstream, it is not synonymous with 'correct'.



> I see your point, but it just doesn't jive with the other infinitesimal risks we face every day.  See the list of world-enders I posted before.  There is a non-zero chance a gamma ray burst will hit before I finish typing this and we all die.  I won't stay up nights about it.  The scientists in the Manhattan Project felt there was a reasonable chance that the atomic bomb would start a nuclear chain reaction that would not stop until the entire world was consumed.  They went and exploded it anyhow.  You face a risk orders of magnitude higher to your personal safety every time you get in your car than you do from the LHC.
> 
> There comes a time when even if the risk is non-zero, it isn't really worth worrying about.



Here's the differences...

With regard to Gamma Ray Bursts (or super-calderas, or meteor strike, etc), there is nothing we can do to stop them.  Out of our control, and I agree, no point to fretting about them.

With regard to the Manhattan project, it happened before I was born, and I could not very well object to it.  If I had been alive, and aware of the risks, I would most likely have urged caution.  That it did not turn out to be a world-ender is a Good Thing, but doesn't mean that all similar risks are equally safe.

With regard to my personal safety, I quite agree.  However, my choices affect myself and a small subset of the populace.  My overeating or poor diet or lack of exercise or poor driving skills or riding a motorcycle without a helmet or smoking or drinking too much are all not going to end the world - only my world.  My life, my risk.  To the extent that my choices affect the rights of others, they are right to fret and to pass laws to try to keep me from killing them (DUI laws and that sort of thing).

Here we are talking about a very small cadre of scientists (in proportion to the population of the world) who propose a series of tests designed to push back the frontiers of theoretical science and get some answers.  Very good, I love it.  Then there is a small issue that the proposed collisions, will, by their own estimates, create thousands of microscopic black holes.  They believe that these black holes are not stable, and will quickly evaporate.  However, the risk is not zero (I read the 2002 summary report).

While unlikely, the risk is not to themselves but to the entire planet, as it was when the Manhattan Project was in full swing.  The fears of some scientists about what happened when you detonated an atomic bomb in the atmosphere were wrong; but that has zero impact on this new set of risks and fears.

I submit that when the risk involves self-destruction, the requirements for safety are rightfully lower than when the risk involves the destruction of this entire ball of mud we live on.  At least until we're done with it.


----------



## cdunn (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here we are talking about a very small cadre of scientists (in proportion to the population of the world) who propose a series of tests designed to push back the frontiers of theoretical science and get some answers. Very good, I love it. Then there is a small issue that the proposed collisions, will, by their own estimates, create thousands of microscopic black holes. They believe that these black holes are not stable, and will quickly evaporate. However, the risk is not zero (I read the 2002 summary report).
> 
> I submit that when the risk involves self-destruction, the requirements for safety are rightfully lower than when the risk involves the destruction of this entire ball of mud we live on. At least until we're done with it.


 
I submit for your consideration the existence of millions of high energy collisions in the earth's upper atmosphere every day, and the continued existance of the earth. There are velocity differences, yes, but the fact remains that it has been likely that a micro-hole has been generated at low relative velocity to the earth untold millions of times in the last 5 billion years.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

cdunn said:


> I submit for your consideration the existence of millions of high energy collisions in the earth's upper atmosphere every day, and the continued existance of the earth. There are velocity differences, yes, but the fact remains that it has been likely that a micro-hole has been generated at low relative velocity to the earth untold millions of times in the last 5 billion years.



Once again, there is a difference between risks we cannot control and risks which we can.  I can't condone us doing it just because there are similar risks which happen in nature and we cannot control.  

Furthermore, I don't know that they are identical, therefore I don't accept that the risks are identical.

People say _"It's more risky to walk across the street than to run the LHC at rated power." _ OK, let's look at that.  If you walking across the street only endangers yourself, it's none of my business.  If somehow you walking across the street puts *my* life at risk, I think I have a right to object to it.  The LHC doesn't just pose a risk to the boffins involved, but to all of us.  We all have a stake in the safety of the bloody thing.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 13, 2010)

I can't believe that you really believe the line of reasoning you are carrying forward here, Bill.

The fact that you drive a car, even tho your are in America, is a risk to my health.  The fact that you, along with your countrymen, consume a disproportionate amount of resources that is beggaring the planet, is a risk to my health.  I don't lose any sleep over either of those risks because they are infinitesimally small.

All that is at risk in the Hadron Collider is that we might learn something.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 27, 2010)

Hmmm. Where da Oil at?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252



> For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it.





> Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.



Mother Nature may be able to deal with an organic substance that came out of the Earth? Without human help? Say it isn't so!!!

Well at least we still have 2012 to worry about.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 27, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Mother Nature may be able to deal with an organic substance that came out of the Earth? Without human help? Say it isn't so!!!
> 
> Well at least we still have 2012 to worry about.



Not visible in giant patches doesn't mean "gone."  Nor does "reabsorbed".  It may very well mean "dispersed into tiny particles and currently poisoning the microbial food chain."  Or "congealed in giant clumps in 300 feet of water".


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 27, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Any Human Extinction event that doesn't include Cylons or Daleks will be a big disappointment for me. I mean, I'm ok with the annihilation of the entire human race, but it has to involve aliens. This methane death idea's just not working for me. It's like, we worried all this time over cow farts, and now this.
> 
> Yes, sarcasm and humor, but a bit of serious irony also.


 
Romulans Bob, Romulans.

Always wondered what would have happend if the Battlestar Galactica and the Cylons had bumped into a decloaking Warbird or a Klingon Bird of Prey (it looks cooler to me but didn't have the decloaking feature.)

Galactica and the Cylons were low-tech and would not have had a chance.

Deaf


----------



## Senjojutsu (Jul 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Once again, there is a difference between risks we cannot control and risks which we can. I can't condone us doing it just because there are similar risks which happen in nature and we cannot control.


Here's an environmental risk we can control Bill:​ 
Late night dining at Taco Bell + sunrise = methane eruptions  ​ 
Going through all the hyperlinks within this thread I feel comfort retreating to the sage of one of Americas greatest living intellects, Homer J. Simpson:​ 
"Eggheads, what do they know!"​


----------



## chaos1551 (Aug 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My money is still on the LHC.  It hasn't ramped up to full power yet, but when it does, and starts creating black holes on earth...well, I hope I'll have the time for a rude raspberry sound followed by "I told you so!" before we're all sucked into each other's bellybuttons and pop out of existence.



I kinda hope you're right.  I was really rooting for nuclear technology to cause a chain reaction that would wipe out all matter in the universe, too.  Er.. from my mother's ovaries, anyway.  I was rather disappointed and I am highly inconvenienced.


----------

