In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?
So, I guess my real question is: Where's the control population that gets the same checks as the Fukushima population? And what's their rate of thyroid cancer?
Is thyroid cancer one of those benign cancers that doesn't cause you to get ill? I ask because only if that's true is it possible for the rate in a control population to be the same as for the Fukushima children and we're not aware of it. Given a rate of 20-50 times the normal rates it doesn't seem possible that it's not related to the reactor meltdown.
Economics has always been one of the least predictive of "sciences". Economists with an ideological bent make things up with no relationship to the real world and people believe them.
I've never seen the show either. When I first read the headline I was thinking it was going to be a story about how non-geeks don't like the big bang theory because it implies the Universe is far older than their religious teachings say it is.
The problem with that libertarian idea is that many harms, especially environmental harms are only obvious in the compilations of statistics and it's difficult if not impossible for an individual to show the harms apply to them directly and it's difficult in many cases to assign the harm to a specific cause. The only way to address those sorts of problems is collectively whether you like it or not.
Cut the budget to zero and we can all be free of government organizations ran but unelected bureaucrats interfering with the noble purpose of free enterprise. *cough,cough*.
Why do we assume that all government agencies need an endlessly increasing budget to do their job? Why do we accept endlessly increasing government budgets? We have a kneejerk belief that money fixes everything, but it seems only to bring more corruption, entitlement and fewer freedoms.
The population grows meaning more people to serve. Inflation causes costs to go up. It's true that just throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily fix it but it's also true that spending too little money on a problem is a sure way to not fix it.
1,000 km (621 miles) is around 10 hours of driving. That's about as long as I care to spend on the road regardless of where I'm going. Even if you're going to drive longer you're probably going to stop just for a break in the driving where you can add some more charge. If you're driving that far on an IC engine you'll have to stop to fuel up (I know there are a few vehicles that have the range for that but mostly it's trucks with multiple fuel tanks).
If the range increase is more from better battery technology rather than just more batteries they can potentially put the better batteries in the Model S and increase its range as well.
When you're burning in a single year what took trees 10s of thousands of years to lay down it's not possible to plant enough trees to make any significant difference to the problem.
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
What are you talking about? The predictions cited were published in 2001 and 2007. The observations they compared them to went to the end of 2011. That's 10 and 4 years ahead of the observations.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually the thyroid is surgically removed and the person goes on thyroid hormones for the rest of their life.
Just so.
In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?
So, I guess my real question is: Where's the control population that gets the same checks as the Fukushima population? And what's their rate of thyroid cancer?
Is thyroid cancer one of those benign cancers that doesn't cause you to get ill? I ask because only if that's true is it possible for the rate in a control population to be the same as for the Fukushima children and we're not aware of it. Given a rate of 20-50 times the normal rates it doesn't seem possible that it's not related to the reactor meltdown.
Big deal, I was saying in 2004 that the real estate market was way overheated and bound to crash before too long and I'm not even an economist.
Even the person in the hot dog stand selling them could make a difference. Some people are naturally better at sales than others.
As opposed to the likes of the Chicago and Austrian school who yell "Austerity!" and "Inflation!" with no evidence to back them up?
Economics has always been one of the least predictive of "sciences". Economists with an ideological bent make things up with no relationship to the real world and people believe them.
They looked like fine Corinthian leather.
The last time I saw them they were hanging from the trailer hitch of a pick-up truck.
I've never seen the show either. When I first read the headline I was thinking it was going to be a story about how non-geeks don't like the big bang theory because it implies the Universe is far older than their religious teachings say it is.
You should see his balls.
(Oh, to be young and idealistic again.)
The problem with that libertarian idea is that many harms, especially environmental harms are only obvious in the compilations of statistics and it's difficult if not impossible for an individual to show the harms apply to them directly and it's difficult in many cases to assign the harm to a specific cause. The only way to address those sorts of problems is collectively whether you like it or not.
Cut the budget to zero and we can all be free of government organizations ran but unelected bureaucrats interfering with the noble purpose of free enterprise. *cough,cough*.
Cough, cough is right.
Why do we assume that all government agencies need an endlessly increasing budget to do their job? Why do we accept endlessly increasing government budgets? We have a kneejerk belief that money fixes everything, but it seems only to bring more corruption, entitlement and fewer freedoms.
The population grows meaning more people to serve. Inflation causes costs to go up. It's true that just throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily fix it but it's also true that spending too little money on a problem is a sure way to not fix it.
Nah, I think this will be my last reply in this thread. You argue like a lawyer, not a scientist.
You're going to have to tie the rails and ties down a lot better than they do now to put that kind of braking force on rails.
It's still cheaper than the equivalent amount of gasoline.
1,000 km (621 miles) is around 10 hours of driving. That's about as long as I care to spend on the road regardless of where I'm going. Even if you're going to drive longer you're probably going to stop just for a break in the driving where you can add some more charge. If you're driving that far on an IC engine you'll have to stop to fuel up (I know there are a few vehicles that have the range for that but mostly it's trucks with multiple fuel tanks).
I don't know about you but 1,000 km is about as far as I care to drive in a day. I can recharge it overnight.
If the range increase is more from better battery technology rather than just more batteries they can potentially put the better batteries in the Model S and increase its range as well.
When you're burning in a single year what took trees 10s of thousands of years to lay down it's not possible to plant enough trees to make any significant difference to the problem.
If the price is right 1,000 km range electric cars will signal the beginning of the end for IC engined cars.
I question whether there could ever be enough demand for these products to put a real dent in carbon emissions.
No, I'm too lazy to hand you everything on a silver platter. The references are all at the bottom of the paper.
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
What are you talking about? The predictions cited were published in 2001 and 2007. The observations they compared them to went to the end of 2011. That's 10 and 4 years ahead of the observations.