AFAIK worst thing in Chernobyl is not any single element itself. Rather it is "hot particles", that is very small particles with high radiation output. A single particle (perhaps size of tens of micrometers) can cause radiation burns.
My estimate is that nobody is going to live there for several hundred years, a storm might release those particles from ground.
A "passive" house does not address washing. Not washing clothes, washing yourself or washing dishes. Not even flushing toilet.
You cannot recover all (most?) the heat in those as the exit temperature must be well above zero (and input temperature of water is close to four degrees C. The question 'why four' is left as an exercise to the reader).
Besides, a "passive" house does use energy to heat itself up, in Finland 4000kWh per year (for 150m2 house) is allowed for passive energy house, I bet the value is for "average" winter.
Then there are "low energy" (maybe around 22000kWh/150m2) and "zero-energy" (definitions differ from case to case) and...
In Finland a bit similar sticker system has made all fridges to be "A" (or "A+"). However, the energy consumption difference of "A" and e.g. "B" is very small (negligible compared to anything) but price or internal dimensions might not... except that there no longer is "B" class fridges.
You are talking about internet when a guy tries to get cash? You've got to be pulling my leg.
My still unanswered question remains: what should the lady/gentleman behind the counter do when a you ask to raise serious sum of cash from account X. Ask you to go to the ATM and do 100 transactions? Go to the internet and... print the money?
This is not as easy a question as you seem to imply by saying it as a fact.
True, the last decade was warmest on the very few decades we have measured, but it is not statistically significantly warmer. That is, the reason for it being warmer could very well be just due to random fluctuations.
So was last decade really warmest? Yes, but it cannot be used as evidence of anything.
Then what do we know about CO2? We know that CO2 absorbs more energy than most, but not all, gases in atmosphere. We know that e.g. H2O absorbs much more. Could it be so that increasing CO2 decreases H2O in the air? I have seen a claim that there now are less clouds than previously, but I do not know how scientific this claim is.
You are effectively denying all science by grouping AGW sceptics with "useful idiots".
There is one huge problem with AGW: we cannot measure it. So how can you claim it is a scientific fact? If Earth is warming we certainly should be able to measure it, right? Why cannot we?
See, last decade "warming" could be, according to statistics, due to just random fluctuations. This is a mathematical fact and there is no way to deny it. Yet you never hear that fact, you only hear "last decade was warmest ever measured". Why should I trust AGW proponents when they do bad math while knowing it is bad math? Similarly for purposefully claiming Himalayas will dry off in 30 years while knowing it is 100% bogus. What else have they done, cherry picked "scientific" papers perhaps? Who know as they will not tell.
Then there is another, even bigger, problem in the news. Everything "could be caused by global warming", everything, even the Icelandic volcano eruption! But no matter what happens (last winter was exceptionally cold in many, many places) it does not show anything, it is "just weather". This, although true, does not make good science and is very sickening.
I do not claim CO2 emissions are not bad, I do not claim we are not raping the Earth in many ways, I am not even claiming AGW is not true. All I am saying: stick to the science, please, don't deny it.
Then you get a specific pop-up telling exactly what is going to happen, "script requires read access to file personal.txt" or "to open a socket to blackhat.cn".
Not "do you want to run... tough luck, you are now pwned".
The solution is not to give choice of "run" / "don't run at all" where "run" means "run with full privileges - bloody hell, let's give administrator while we are at it!".
Why, after who know how many years of Java, cannot there be a sandbox?
- if you use any electronics, or wear shoes for that matter, you're partially responsible for the sweatshops in China.
True (unless you know the stuff was not done in one which is extremely unlikely)
- if you ever used anything cocoa-based, you're partially responsible for child slave labour in Africa.
True (again unless you know for sure...)
- if you or any relative ever used opiates (e.g., as painkillers for a cancer), then you're at least partially responsible for funding the taliban in Afghanistan. (There is no opium poppy grown in the USA to the best of my knowledge, you know.)
Wrong, the opiates are not bought from Afganistan (some are even synthetic). That stuff is not clean enough.
- if you ever bought bread, whiskey, beer or anything made from grain, really, then you're at least partially responsible for the destruction of agriculture in third world countries and the extinction of several species because of pesticides.
True, unless you buy local organic stuff (or know fore sure...).
You really got to take the responsibility of what you do, not hide behind "I cannot control it" as it usually is a blatant lie. But then I am not surprised to see someone lying to him or herself.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so Assange published locations of girl schools?
Or did he publish the arrogance and war crimes of the "war machine"?
Without a doubt, at an absolute minimum, some innocent person and/or family is going to pay for his arrogance, with torture and their life.
Yes, we do know CIA is doing horrible things, no need to repeat it.
AFAIK worst thing in Chernobyl is not any single element itself.
Rather it is "hot particles", that is very small particles with high radiation output. A single particle (perhaps size of tens of micrometers) can cause radiation burns.
My estimate is that nobody is going to live there for several hundred years, a storm might release those particles from ground.
Small $10k turbine = 5k kwh per year, expensive. $1M turbine = 1M kwh per year
This is something far too many wind power enthusiasts forget, thanks for pointing it out.
Actually situation is likely even more against small turbines, not only is bigger cheaper to build, it is cheaper to maintain.
A "passive" house does not address washing. Not washing clothes, washing yourself or washing dishes. Not even flushing toilet.
You cannot recover all (most?) the heat in those as the exit temperature must be well above zero (and input temperature of water is close to four degrees C. The question 'why four' is left as an exercise to the reader).
Besides, a "passive" house does use energy to heat itself up, in Finland 4000kWh per year (for 150m2 house) is allowed for passive energy house, I bet the value is for "average" winter.
Then there are "low energy" (maybe around 22000kWh/150m2) and "zero-energy" (definitions differ from case to case) and ...
Please NO!
In Finland a bit similar sticker system has made all fridges to be "A" (or "A+"). However, the energy consumption difference of "A" and e.g. "B" is very small (negligible compared to anything) but price or internal dimensions might not ... except that there no longer is "B" class fridges.
You are talking about internet when a guy tries to get cash? You've got to be pulling my leg.
My still unanswered question remains: what should the lady/gentleman behind the counter do when a you ask to raise serious sum of cash from account X. Ask you to go to the ATM and do 100 transactions? Go to the internet and ... print the money?
You are hilarious!
They do ask ID in Finland.
So what happens when your account has lost money, who takes the loss? You or the bank?
How often you take money out of a bank account? Or get a loan? How do you show the account 112233-445566 is yours to empty?
While ID cards are far from "waterproof" and have a lot of weaknesses they are significantly better than the alternative.
YM "rent".
You have completely wrong data set. None of the decades start at 1995.
I got confused in the morning - too early for me? You are right, we do have.
Last decade is warmer than any previous decade measured (16 decades or so). But not statistically significantly warmer.
Is sea level rising only because warming? Can you prove there cannot be any other factor?
If not, then the warming cannot be proved by that.
The fact that you cannot imagine any other reason does not make it a scientific fact.
Sure sea level rising, glaciers disappearing, etc. do make AGW very likely to be true, but again, that is not enough to make it a scientific fact.
Dr. Jones does not say that you get statistical significance with any data set, he says it would be easier if we had a longer data set.
Unfortunately we do not have comparable data before 1995.
Is last decade really warmest or not?
This is not as easy a question as you seem to imply by saying it as a fact.
True, the last decade was warmest on the very few decades we have measured, but it is not statistically significantly warmer. That is, the reason for it being warmer could very well be just due to random fluctuations.
So was last decade really warmest? Yes, but it cannot be used as evidence of anything.
Then what do we know about CO2? We know that CO2 absorbs more energy than most, but not all, gases in atmosphere. We know that e.g. H2O absorbs much more. Could it be so that increasing CO2 decreases H2O in the air? I have seen a claim that there now are less clouds than previously, but I do not know how scientific this claim is.
You are effectively denying all science by grouping AGW sceptics with "useful idiots".
There is one huge problem with AGW: we cannot measure it. So how can you claim it is a scientific fact? If Earth is warming we certainly should be able to measure it, right? Why cannot we?
See, last decade "warming" could be, according to statistics, due to just random fluctuations. This is a mathematical fact and there is no way to deny it. Yet you never hear that fact, you only hear "last decade was warmest ever measured". Why should I trust AGW proponents when they do bad math while knowing it is bad math? Similarly for purposefully claiming Himalayas will dry off in 30 years while knowing it is 100% bogus. What else have they done, cherry picked "scientific" papers perhaps? Who know as they will not tell.
Then there is another, even bigger, problem in the news. Everything "could be caused by global warming", everything, even the Icelandic volcano eruption! But no matter what happens (last winter was exceptionally cold in many, many places) it does not show anything, it is "just weather". This, although true, does not make good science and is very sickening.
I do not claim CO2 emissions are not bad, I do not claim we are not raping the Earth in many ways, I am not even claiming AGW is not true. All I am saying: stick to the science, please, don't deny it.
Go fuck yourself and keep your elitist views outta here ja se on sama ruottiksi.
Because local people, which are much more important to them than you, cannot read, remember and write that.
Then you get a specific pop-up telling exactly what is going to happen, "script requires read access to file personal.txt" or "to open a socket to blackhat.cn".
Not "do you want to run ... tough luck, you are now pwned".
Because there are huge number of JavaScript methods that cannot, if properly written, cause any problems.
Why not allow only them?
NO!
The solution is not to give choice of "run" / "don't run at all" where "run" means "run with full privileges - bloody hell, let's give administrator while we are at it!".
Why, after who know how many years of Java, cannot there be a sandbox?
And how are they going to raise rates when none of their competitors face a multi-billion dollar charge?
Easy. Oil price has already gone up.
Have you ever even attempted? A teeniest bit? Do you know what is "local food" or what "organic" stands for?
Sure there are cases when those are fraudulently set up, but even in the worst case they are usually better than the alternative.
I know for certain I have done far too little.
- if you use any electronics, or wear shoes for that matter, you're partially responsible for the sweatshops in China.
True (unless you know the stuff was not done in one which is extremely unlikely)
- if you ever used anything cocoa-based, you're partially responsible for child slave labour in Africa.
True (again unless you know for sure ...)
- if you or any relative ever used opiates (e.g., as painkillers for a cancer), then you're at least partially responsible for funding the taliban in Afghanistan. (There is no opium poppy grown in the USA to the best of my knowledge, you know.)
Wrong, the opiates are not bought from Afganistan (some are even synthetic). That stuff is not clean enough.
- if you ever bought bread, whiskey, beer or anything made from grain, really, then you're at least partially responsible for the destruction of agriculture in third world countries and the extinction of several species because of pesticides.
True, unless you buy local organic stuff (or know fore sure ...).
You really got to take the responsibility of what you do, not hide behind "I cannot control it" as it usually is a blatant lie. But then I am not surprised to see someone lying to him or herself.
I fucking hope they put taxes on the gas. Should have happened 20 years ago, but better late than never.