3: It's DC so it's more prone to arcing making all your switches and protective devices more expensive and basically ruling out the use of plug and socket connections for anything other than final connection of individual devices
The combination of these factors make a 48V DC system expensive.
This is the exact opposite from a comment on arcing that I saw earlier on this topic. Thinking about the physics of it I'm not quite sure it makes sense: AC has a much higher local difference in the electric field (due to the oscillation), which would be more likely to cause ionization of gases (which would lead to arc break down).
Exactly. For most things it's irrelevant since the physical movement of the electrons is a secondary effect - it's the electric field which does all the work. The drift rate of electrons in a wire tends to be on the order of centimeters per second.
Technically 1 mA can kill a person - it depends on the path through the body. 1 mA going through your heart is enough to trigger fibrillations. AC and DC also makes a difference according to wikipedia.
No, it isn't. Again - magnetic fields are not electric fields.
Magnetism is a separate, but related, force to the Electric force.
Specifically: magnetism is the relativistic correction for the force experienced by charged bodies when observed from a different inertial reference frame. Frames of reference must be ultimately consistent, but Lorentz contraction means two charges would appear closer then they actually are. Thus to an outside observer, magnetism is observed with acts to correct for the perceived "increase" in force due to the electric field, and thus ensuring frame consistency. Hence why you only get magnetism from a flowing electrical current, for example.
The dipole is a dipole of electric force. It is the same effect that lifts paper if you charge something with static electricity - there is no magnetism involved - a strong negative charge induces a local positive charge, and the electric force creates the lifting effect.
It is true that the "orbiting" electrons in a molecule also represent a tiny Bohr magnet, but this magnetism is thousands of times smaller in attraction then the interatomic and intermolecular forces at play in hydrogen bonding or ionic or covalent bonding.
Intermolecular forces are not driven by magnetism - they're driven by electric forces.
People just aren't used to thinking of electric forces as doing "real" work compared to impressive forces like magnets because the dielectric breakdown of free space is fairly low. But this is not true at all at the molecular scale.
Equalizing conditions with China sure is one solution to that problem, but then you're not better then China you are China.
Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't make the present situation ok.
Example: if I get kicked in the nuts 3 times a week, then being kicked in the nuts only one a week is a big improvement. But it sure isn't an ok situation.
I think I remember arguing something like this with people when Australia was debating the much stronger version of the mining profit tax.
My point was basically "profitable mines aren't great jobs producers" - because by definition their costs are low compared to their output. The ideal situation was to tax profits and use it to drop barriers to entry (i.e. royalties which are charged on "dirt turned" and not profit - and are thus regressive) so we'd have dozens and dozens of smaller, minimally profitable mines, employing more people (and well, being employed means you get paid - so it's not coming out of their pocket).
The losers are of course investors, but some money is better then no money - you just have to balance against where else capital might decide to go (and those places are limited).
It's worth nothing though, in this example, the goal isn't so much creating inefficiency - it's incentivizing productivity. The many small mines are still producing a tangible product, and will do so at a faster rate (since there's overall more mines).
Yeah that's not "no hypothesis". The hypothesis there is "compounds of this category have a certain desirable activity, and we'd like to screen them for performance (or to isolate the active structure)".
If the system is about luck - and it very much is on every level - then the problem is not "how to be lucky" - you by definition cannot be. The problem is "what do we do with the unlucky?"
When you have something like 6 people competing for every single job in the US at the moment, the question is what do you do to ensure those other 5 can, amongst other things, keep competing.
Being unemployed isn't just about not having a job. It means you're out of your industry - out of your trade. Your skills start to devalue both from disuse and new developments. Your wealth reduces - your potential retirement savings reduce. You have difficulty getting a low-skilled job because obviously the second you have a better offer you're going to quit (and there aren't even enough of those at the moment).
The money not spent on costs of production can be spent on other endeavors.
The real issue is that the US has compounded together a number of factors which mean this just isn't happening: you have stagnant infrastructure, underfunded education and social services, and a highly corrupt political/financial system which is prioritizing the short term wealth of the already wealthy over the long term good of the country.
Close tax loopholes and then use that money for any of those things, and watch as the jobs "magically" reappear.
Americans are lazy and wont pick vegatables in Alabama despite a 9% unemployment rate and a wage of up to a whole $10/hr! That is a lot of money coming from someone making just $7.50 at McDonalds. I would be happy to pick vegetables to pay off my student loans as I am broke now and I am not too good for these jobs.
So you'd be happy to do that, but you don't?
I am curious as to why you don't. You say it's a great job! Huge opportunities!
I wouldn't want to depend on a method like this for cryptography for example, since it's not necessary to know the exact result - just bracket the range of results to narrow the number of keys I need to check.
Half the issue with randomness though is how random is "good enough". For computational issues, good enough has very stringent criteria because it's a huge problem if you can simply narrow down the set of possibilities.
It's worth nothing all casinos "de-bias" their data by kicking you out if you start winning above the statistical average.
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Which doesn't change the fact that pseudo-science led someone to postpone treatment which is notable for being very time sensitive. Metastasis doesn't happen right away, and its quite likely that quantity matters (i.e. obviously not every cancer cell necessarily succeeds in setting up a secondary tumor).
Hydrogen bonds are in no fashion magnetic attraction.
Hydrogen bonds are an edge-case of van der Waal's forces, specifically due to the massive charge difference between electronegative species and hydrogen when covalently bonded to pretty much any type of atom.
If hydrogen bonds were magnetic, then regular magnets would have dramatic effects: namely, water would be sheared out of your body by MRIs (and your DNA unzipped, proteins unfolded etc.)
This is literally the only reason I can think to do this. Email leaves paper trails which have been used in court. Whereas IM logs are stored on local computers and easily lost when IT reimages the system.
And all of these are so rare, no one's even sure if it's the vaccine that causes it!
The serious allergic reaction is unequivocally linked to the vaccine.
No it isn't. Your post on the matter states it isn't. The scientific community is definitely unsure of it. You have posted nor cited no evidence that this is the case.
As far as herd immunity goes, that is another discussion, but note what I wrote in my very first post: "Vaccinating is at least as dangerous as not vaccinating due to low disease rates..."
So far we've only talked about non-controversial data. It gets even more interesting once you allow for doubt and start seriously investigating the more controversial claims (which I did when I had kids). It's not always as clear cut as you might think. (Ideally you would seek out the most intelligent discussions rather than satisfying yourself with Jenny McCarthy!) But that's another discussion as well.
J
You mean like peer-reviewed research with solid statistical and data collection methodology? Of the type which has found no evidence that vaccines are linked to your vaguely alluded to "serious complications" and can find no causative agent which could conceivably be linked to such?
You know we don't give polio vaccines anymore, nor smallpox, because both those diseases are effectively eradicated in the western world. Of the diseases we do vaccinate against, most either have natural harbors in the environment, or are highly contagious, or both - and have not been eliminated.
And will not be eliminated while idiots like you continue to push your unscientific, reactionary bullshit. I find it interesting that since there's so much clear evidence, you haven't bothered linking to any of it at all, and yet are apparently completely unfamiliar with the basics of the diseases you think its "just ridiculous" to vaccinate against.
But no, I'm sure we should trust unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of vaccines over the statistically proven effectiveness of them in preventing disease. I'm sure your kids will think you made the right decision if they contract Hepatitis B and get to worry about liver cancer decades later.
First, your points are pure conjecture. There is no information to point to for your analysis other than mere speculation based on scant information. The crafts were lost and there was no way to know for certain what the cause was.
I stopped reading here. I'm sorry but if you're going to ignore the details on Apollo 13 or the Mars Observer, repeatedly, after I've linked you to them, repeatedly, then there's really no more point to this.
In my opinion, vaccinating is at least as risky as not vaccinating, based on mainstream sources. (I'm not going to get into the herd immunity discussion). The fact that vaccines can have serious side effects is not disputed by anyone. I wasn't vague at all; I cited a the Canadian public health website and the CDC website. Take a look for yourself. I'll reprint my post below which uses measles as the example.
"Between 2002 and 2010, a total of 327 confirmed cases of measles were reported in Canada". That's 327 cases in 8 years. "1 of every 1,000 reported cases" have serious complications, 1 in 3000 resulting in death. Canada's population is about 34 million.
Before measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, an average of 400,000 measles cases were reported each year in the United States (8). However, because virtually all children acquired measles, the number of cases probably approached 3.5 million per year (i.e., an entire birth cohort).
Moderate Problems Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses) Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4) Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Wow, it's almost like these risks are utterly minor compared to you know - death due to complications from getting measles.
Severe Problems (Very Rare) Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include: Deafness Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness Permanent brain damage
And all of these are so rare, no one's even sure if it's the vaccine that causes it!
You don't want to get into the herd immunity discussion, yet the only reason you can get away with not vaccinating is because of herd immunity.
You don't know that and neither do I. It is quite possible that might have been what occurred. No one really knows. The actual craft and parts that were damaged were unrecoverable so anything you cite is simply conjecture. Also, a number of probes have been lost due to unknown circumstances (which could be related to collisions with micrometeriorites). For example, on March 28, 1989 Phobos 2 launched by the Russians (going to Mars) was lost and that is just one probe. There are number of other probes (another would be on August 21, 1994 we lost the Mars Observer) that have had similiar malfunctions and been lost so pretending like they don't exist is ridiculous and undermines your position completely.
It's possible in the same fashion that it's possible gravity is actually a result of tiny fairies trying to move everything closer to the center of the Earth. NASA studied Apollo 13 extensively, but I guess you didn't click the link. The rest of your point is meaningless - you're simply pointing to spacecraft losses and yelling "micrometeorites".
No one who actually works in the field of space travel is that concerned about micrometeorites. No one who reviews the spacecraft losses has concluded we've lost them to micrometeorites. And as far as I can tell, you don't even do basic research to check whether micrometeorites are an issue before talking about them.
Your statement that explosive decompression doesn't happen is inaccurate. It would depend on the size and type of impact. We have witnessed explosive decompressions on airplanes, so if you punch a big enough of a whole in a space ship, you can expect exactly the same effect since the pressure differential is even greater between a pressurized capsule and the vacuum of space.
Well a very large hole would take a larger meteorite wouldn't it? And a larger meteorite we'd be able to track and see coming. The point of micrometeorites is that they're tiny and untrackable.
A spacecraft is pressurized, but it's not structurally loaded. It does not have to support it's own mass. Alleged "explosive" decompressions on aircraft are anything but: the cabin decompresses, but the failure is the fact that the entire mass of the aircraft has to be structurally supported by the airplane, and any drag is subject to wind-shear of hundreds of miles per hour from the motion of the aircraft. None of these properties occur in space.
As far as your statement about rarity of micrometeorites, it has been estimated that around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year of these particles enter the earth's atmosphere each year. While it may be true we don't know what the true density of these particles are outside of earth's gravity field (as I said, the earth acts like a large vacuum for these particles), I do not believe you are correct that it is inconsequential just given the mass of material that we have observed entering the earth's atmosphere each year. It certainly isn't true that the solar system is pristine of debris since we have observed thousands of asteroids on earth crossing orbits and still don't have a good grasp on observable asteroids. So it is likely the solar system is littered with fields of these smaller particles with varying densities depending on a number of factors. This represents a very real danger to any spaceship traveling through the solar system and disregarding this risk would be foolhardy in the extreme since a craft passing through such a field would be lethal to the inhabitants.
20,000 tons per year. So, 20,000 tons, over 365 days, over a (land) surface area of 510,072,000 km squared. So 54 tons per day. 107 milli
1) Radiation. What we are mainly concerned with is a solar flare. A space craft going to Mars will be unable to outrun that and a little gold foil IS NOT going to protect the crew from that. A few meters of lead will.
Again, how big do you think a solar flare is, and what it is composed of?
Solar flares happen all the time. Most we don't worry about. Some - those aimed at Earth, we worry about largely because the particle radiation can damage external antennas and electronics of satellites. But these events grow less intense with distance, and more importantly, are only a problem due to the power surges they can cause on external components. The vast majority of the time, satellites survive just fine - there have been very few outages due to solar flares, and they're most problematic because getting in and fixing them is hard (but not hard if people are onboard and can just swap in the backup unit).
In any case, you don't need "a few meters of lead" to beat a solar flare. We've sent space probes directly at the sun to sample solar particles - carbon-carbon is used as a shield material and that's mostly to block the super-intense solar radiation. A much more distance craft could easily protect itself with a much smaller shield.
3) Micrometeriorites. Actually, probes get hit by quite a few once they leave the earth's gravity. Most are designed with redundant systems for such an eventuality. The earth acts like a vacuum pulling in a large number of them so they aren't a large risk near earth (even as far as the moon). However, we do know of micrometeorites hitting a space craft and the results were nearly catastrophic. Apollo 13 was most likely struck. We are talking about a considerable amount of time travelling to and from mars. The likelihood of being struck many times would be significant. In addition, while robot craft can sustain such impacts without failure of the whole craft, the human body is not likely to surive if struck and we are talking about a vehicle with a contained atmosphere too that will have to sealed after strikes and more potentially critical strikes in vital systems is highly likely which might cripple or destroy the craft.
Apollo 13 was not damaged by micrometeorites. NASA conducted a rather extensive review of the incident.
The rest of what you write is baseless. Explosive decompression doesn't happen from micrometeorite strikes. Punctures could be repaired with epoxy. The chances of a micrometeorite ALSO hitting a person are even lower. And again, you haven't actually cited any incidents where we've lost Mars probes due to micrometeorite strikes. Apollo 13 didn't happen because of micrometeorites, so what did?
The reality is, there simply aren't that many micrometeorites in the inner solar system. Too many large gravitational bodies pulling them in, and their density *has* to be low anyway - were they common, gravity would collapse them into being an asteroid.
1) Radiation. Once you leave the earth's protective magnetic field (and don't cite the moon, you are still in it when you go there), you'll die of radiation exposure from the Sun. They'll need a signficant radition shield (few meters of lead for instance) to keep them from dying and getting something that heavy up there will be expensive.
This is an overstated problem when it comes to space travel.
The Sun, and space, does not contain an abundance of highly penetrating radiation like gamma rays. If it did, then life on Earth would be just as irradiated as anything in space, since the atmosphere has a very limited screening effect. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field, would have no protective effect since magnetism doesn't deflect EM radiation.
Solar radiation is mostly particulate radiation. It is composed of helium nuclei, protons and electrons. All of these types of radiation are much much easier to screen against because they are massive. A few layers of gold foil will block almost all of it.
2) Gravity (or lack of it in fact). 3 years in space w/o any gravity will kill the crew. They'll need micro gravity with rotating sections. Again, very expensive to build
Without doing the research, we really don't know that. It's worth noting you don't really need sections - you can just put the whole ship into a spin (after all it had to be survive being on Earth to be built) - for most of the trip. We're also not really talking about a 3 year journey - it's a 3 year mission, but we've had plenty of experience with people being in microgravity for long stays above Earth.
3) Micrometeorites. We have no good solution for that. We'll just have to send A LOT of crew and hope some of them survive.. If you really want to go to Mars, a certain percentage will die from these hitting the ship. Self-sealing sections will be required and a way to dispose of those that die.
Again, how many micrometeorites do you think are in space? To the best of my knowledge we've never lost a probe going to Mars from micrometeorite strike. If space were filled with micrometeorites at lethal speeds, then so would Earth orbit - so would the space between the Earth and the Moon - we're giant gravity wells, everything would presumably be heading here.
The moratorium on mining lasts until 2041, and the current analysis of the situation is that a lot of countries are building stations for "scientific" purposes which have been very slow in putting scientists in them - i.e. the real issue is looking ahead countries are trying to stake out territorial claims.
Both the US and Australian governments periodically rattle the tree about an earlier end to the ban as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Defibrillators are intended to you know, defibrillate.
Human resistance varies by quite a bit (largely based on how wet our skin is). Don't need a 300W/s shock to put the heart into fibrillation.
3: It's DC so it's more prone to arcing making all your switches and protective devices more expensive and basically ruling out the use of plug and socket connections for anything other than final connection of individual devices
The combination of these factors make a 48V DC system expensive.
This is the exact opposite from a comment on arcing that I saw earlier on this topic. Thinking about the physics of it I'm not quite sure it makes sense: AC has a much higher local difference in the electric field (due to the oscillation), which would be more likely to cause ionization of gases (which would lead to arc break down).
Exactly. For most things it's irrelevant since the physical movement of the electrons is a secondary effect - it's the electric field which does all the work. The drift rate of electrons in a wire tends to be on the order of centimeters per second.
Technically 1 mA can kill a person - it depends on the path through the body. 1 mA going through your heart is enough to trigger fibrillations. AC and DC also makes a difference according to wikipedia.
No, it isn't. Again - magnetic fields are not electric fields.
Magnetism is a separate, but related, force to the Electric force.
Specifically: magnetism is the relativistic correction for the force experienced by charged bodies when observed from a different inertial reference frame. Frames of reference must be ultimately consistent, but Lorentz contraction means two charges would appear closer then they actually are. Thus to an outside observer, magnetism is observed with acts to correct for the perceived "increase" in force due to the electric field, and thus ensuring frame consistency. Hence why you only get magnetism from a flowing electrical current, for example.
The dipole is a dipole of electric force. It is the same effect that lifts paper if you charge something with static electricity - there is no magnetism involved - a strong negative charge induces a local positive charge, and the electric force creates the lifting effect.
It is true that the "orbiting" electrons in a molecule also represent a tiny Bohr magnet, but this magnetism is thousands of times smaller in attraction then the interatomic and intermolecular forces at play in hydrogen bonding or ionic or covalent bonding.
Intermolecular forces are not driven by magnetism - they're driven by electric forces.
People just aren't used to thinking of electric forces as doing "real" work compared to impressive forces like magnets because the dielectric breakdown of free space is fairly low. But this is not true at all at the molecular scale.
There are 6 people competing for every job in the US at the moment.
McDonalds got 1,000,000 applications at a job fair - they accepted only 60,000.
And you've just summarized exactly why "fruit picking" isn't the slam dunk solution to gainfully employing 30 million people.
Equalizing conditions with China sure is one solution to that problem, but then you're not better then China you are China.
Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't make the present situation ok.
Example: if I get kicked in the nuts 3 times a week, then being kicked in the nuts only one a week is a big improvement. But it sure isn't an ok situation.
I think I remember arguing something like this with people when Australia was debating the much stronger version of the mining profit tax.
My point was basically "profitable mines aren't great jobs producers" - because by definition their costs are low compared to their output. The ideal situation was to tax profits and use it to drop barriers to entry (i.e. royalties which are charged on "dirt turned" and not profit - and are thus regressive) so we'd have dozens and dozens of smaller, minimally profitable mines, employing more people (and well, being employed means you get paid - so it's not coming out of their pocket).
The losers are of course investors, but some money is better then no money - you just have to balance against where else capital might decide to go (and those places are limited).
It's worth nothing though, in this example, the goal isn't so much creating inefficiency - it's incentivizing productivity. The many small mines are still producing a tangible product, and will do so at a faster rate (since there's overall more mines).
Yeah that's not "no hypothesis". The hypothesis there is "compounds of this category have a certain desirable activity, and we'd like to screen them for performance (or to isolate the active structure)".
You acknowledge luck. That's a start.
If the system is about luck - and it very much is on every level - then the problem is not "how to be lucky" - you by definition cannot be. The problem is "what do we do with the unlucky?"
When you have something like 6 people competing for every single job in the US at the moment, the question is what do you do to ensure those other 5 can, amongst other things, keep competing.
Being unemployed isn't just about not having a job. It means you're out of your industry - out of your trade. Your skills start to devalue both from disuse and new developments. Your wealth reduces - your potential retirement savings reduce. You have difficulty getting a low-skilled job because obviously the second you have a better offer you're going to quit (and there aren't even enough of those at the moment).
This is pretty much the broken window fallacy.
The money not spent on costs of production can be spent on other endeavors.
The real issue is that the US has compounded together a number of factors which mean this just isn't happening: you have stagnant infrastructure, underfunded education and social services, and a highly corrupt political/financial system which is prioritizing the short term wealth of the already wealthy over the long term good of the country.
Close tax loopholes and then use that money for any of those things, and watch as the jobs "magically" reappear.
Americans are lazy and wont pick vegatables in Alabama despite a 9% unemployment rate and a wage of up to a whole $10/hr! That is a lot of money coming from someone making just $7.50 at McDonalds. I would be happy to pick vegetables to pay off my student loans as I am broke now and I am not too good for these jobs.
So you'd be happy to do that, but you don't?
I am curious as to why you don't. You say it's a great job! Huge opportunities!
But you yourself don't do it. Why?
Depends what you're doing.
I wouldn't want to depend on a method like this for cryptography for example, since it's not necessary to know the exact result - just bracket the range of results to narrow the number of keys I need to check.
Half the issue with randomness though is how random is "good enough". For computational issues, good enough has very stringent criteria because it's a huge problem if you can simply narrow down the set of possibilities.
It's worth nothing all casinos "de-bias" their data by kicking you out if you start winning above the statistical average.
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Which doesn't change the fact that pseudo-science led someone to postpone treatment which is notable for being very time sensitive. Metastasis doesn't happen right away, and its quite likely that quantity matters (i.e. obviously not every cancer cell necessarily succeeds in setting up a secondary tumor).
Hydrogen bonds are in no fashion magnetic attraction.
Hydrogen bonds are an edge-case of van der Waal's forces, specifically due to the massive charge difference between electronegative species and hydrogen when covalently bonded to pretty much any type of atom.
If hydrogen bonds were magnetic, then regular magnets would have dramatic effects: namely, water would be sheared out of your body by MRIs (and your DNA unzipped, proteins unfolded etc.)
There's a certain irony to the fact that Facebook has extensive options to important notifications emailed to you.
This is literally the only reason I can think to do this. Email leaves paper trails which have been used in court. Whereas IM logs are stored on local computers and easily lost when IT reimages the system.
And all of these are so rare, no one's even sure if it's the vaccine that causes it!
The serious allergic reaction is unequivocally linked to the vaccine.
No it isn't. Your post on the matter states it isn't. The scientific community is definitely unsure of it. You have posted nor cited no evidence that this is the case.
As far as herd immunity goes, that is another discussion, but note what I wrote in my very first post: "Vaccinating is at least as dangerous as not vaccinating due to low disease rates..."
So far we've only talked about non-controversial data. It gets even more interesting once you allow for doubt and start seriously investigating the more controversial claims (which I did when I had kids). It's not always as clear cut as you might think. (Ideally you would seek out the most intelligent discussions rather than satisfying yourself with Jenny McCarthy!) But that's another discussion as well.
J
You mean like peer-reviewed research with solid statistical and data collection methodology? Of the type which has found no evidence that vaccines are linked to your vaguely alluded to "serious complications" and can find no causative agent which could conceivably be linked to such?
You know we don't give polio vaccines anymore, nor smallpox, because both those diseases are effectively eradicated in the western world. Of the diseases we do vaccinate against, most either have natural harbors in the environment, or are highly contagious, or both - and have not been eliminated.
And will not be eliminated while idiots like you continue to push your unscientific, reactionary bullshit. I find it interesting that since there's so much clear evidence, you haven't bothered linking to any of it at all, and yet are apparently completely unfamiliar with the basics of the diseases you think its "just ridiculous" to vaccinate against.
But no, I'm sure we should trust unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of vaccines over the statistically proven effectiveness of them in preventing disease. I'm sure your kids will think you made the right decision if they contract Hepatitis B and get to worry about liver cancer decades later.
First, your points are pure conjecture. There is no information to point to for your analysis other than mere speculation based on scant information. The crafts were lost and there was no way to know for certain what the cause was.
I stopped reading here. I'm sorry but if you're going to ignore the details on Apollo 13 or the Mars Observer, repeatedly, after I've linked you to them, repeatedly, then there's really no more point to this.
In my opinion, vaccinating is at least as risky as not vaccinating, based on mainstream sources. (I'm not going to get into the herd immunity discussion). The fact that vaccines can have serious side effects is not disputed by anyone. I wasn't vague at all; I cited a the Canadian public health website and the CDC website. Take a look for yourself. I'll reprint my post below which uses measles as the example.
"Between 2002 and 2010, a total of 327 confirmed cases of measles were reported in Canada".
That's 327 cases in 8 years. "1 of every 1,000 reported cases" have serious complications, 1 in 3000 resulting in death. Canada's population is about 34 million.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/measles-eng.php
And the risks of vaccines, according to the CDC website:
Yes, it's almost like widespread vaccination programs mean the disease is not epidemic.
From the CDC:
Before measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, an average of 400,000 measles cases were reported each year in the United States (8). However, because virtually all children acquired measles, the number of cases probably approached 3.5 million per year (i.e., an entire birth cohort).
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Wow, it's almost like these risks are utterly minor compared to you know - death due to complications from getting measles.
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
And all of these are so rare, no one's even sure if it's the vaccine that causes it!
You don't want to get into the herd immunity discussion, yet the only reason you can get away with not vaccinating is because of herd immunity.
Apollo 13 was not damaged by micrometeorites.
You don't know that and neither do I. It is quite possible that might have been what occurred. No one really knows. The actual craft and parts that were damaged were unrecoverable so anything you cite is simply conjecture. Also, a number of probes have been lost due to unknown circumstances (which could be related to collisions with micrometeriorites). For example, on March 28, 1989 Phobos 2 launched by the Russians (going to Mars) was lost and that is just one probe. There are number of other probes (another would be on August 21, 1994 we lost the Mars Observer) that have had similiar malfunctions and been lost so pretending like they don't exist is ridiculous and undermines your position completely.
It's possible in the same fashion that it's possible gravity is actually a result of tiny fairies trying to move everything closer to the center of the Earth. NASA studied Apollo 13 extensively, but I guess you didn't click the link. The rest of your point is meaningless - you're simply pointing to spacecraft losses and yelling "micrometeorites".
You talk about the Mars Observer: the independent review panel concluded the most probable cause was rupture in the fuel pressurization tank of the spacecraft.
No one who actually works in the field of space travel is that concerned about micrometeorites. No one who reviews the spacecraft losses has concluded we've lost them to micrometeorites. And as far as I can tell, you don't even do basic research to check whether micrometeorites are an issue before talking about them.
Your statement that explosive decompression doesn't happen is inaccurate. It would depend on the size and type of impact. We have witnessed explosive decompressions on airplanes, so if you punch a big enough of a whole in a space ship, you can expect exactly the same effect since the pressure differential is even greater between a pressurized capsule and the vacuum of space.
Well a very large hole would take a larger meteorite wouldn't it? And a larger meteorite we'd be able to track and see coming. The point of micrometeorites is that they're tiny and untrackable.
A spacecraft is pressurized, but it's not structurally loaded. It does not have to support it's own mass. Alleged "explosive" decompressions on aircraft are anything but: the cabin decompresses, but the failure is the fact that the entire mass of the aircraft has to be structurally supported by the airplane, and any drag is subject to wind-shear of hundreds of miles per hour from the motion of the aircraft. None of these properties occur in space.
As far as your statement about rarity of micrometeorites, it has been estimated that around 10,000 to 20,000 tons per year of these particles enter the earth's atmosphere each year. While it may be true we don't know what the true density of these particles are outside of earth's gravity field (as I said, the earth acts like a large vacuum for these particles), I do not believe you are correct that it is inconsequential just given the mass of material that we have observed entering the earth's atmosphere each year. It certainly isn't true that the solar system is pristine of debris since we have observed thousands of asteroids on earth crossing orbits and still don't have a good grasp on observable asteroids. So it is likely the solar system is littered with fields of these smaller particles with varying densities depending on a number of factors. This represents a very real danger to any spaceship traveling through the solar system and disregarding this risk would be foolhardy in the extreme since a craft passing through such a field would be lethal to the inhabitants.
20,000 tons per year. So, 20,000 tons, over 365 days, over a (land) surface area of 510,072,000 km squared. So 54 tons per day. 107 milli
1) Radiation. What we are mainly concerned with is a solar flare. A space craft going to Mars will be unable to outrun that and a little gold foil IS NOT going to protect the crew from that. A few meters of lead will.
Again, how big do you think a solar flare is, and what it is composed of?
Solar flares happen all the time. Most we don't worry about. Some - those aimed at Earth, we worry about largely because the particle radiation can damage external antennas and electronics of satellites. But these events grow less intense with distance, and more importantly, are only a problem due to the power surges they can cause on external components. The vast majority of the time, satellites survive just fine - there have been very few outages due to solar flares, and they're most problematic because getting in and fixing them is hard (but not hard if people are onboard and can just swap in the backup unit).
In any case, you don't need "a few meters of lead" to beat a solar flare. We've sent space probes directly at the sun to sample solar particles - carbon-carbon is used as a shield material and that's mostly to block the super-intense solar radiation. A much more distance craft could easily protect itself with a much smaller shield.
3) Micrometeriorites. Actually, probes get hit by quite a few once they leave the earth's gravity. Most are designed with redundant systems for such an eventuality. The earth acts like a vacuum pulling in a large number of them so they aren't a large risk near earth (even as far as the moon). However, we do know of micrometeorites hitting a space craft and the results were nearly catastrophic. Apollo 13 was most likely struck. We are talking about a considerable amount of time travelling to and from mars. The likelihood of being struck many times would be significant. In addition, while robot craft can sustain such impacts without failure of the whole craft, the human body is not likely to surive if struck and we are talking about a vehicle with a contained atmosphere too that will have to sealed after strikes and more potentially critical strikes in vital systems is highly likely which might cripple or destroy the craft.
Apollo 13 was not damaged by micrometeorites. NASA conducted a rather extensive review of the incident.
The rest of what you write is baseless. Explosive decompression doesn't happen from micrometeorite strikes. Punctures could be repaired with epoxy. The chances of a micrometeorite ALSO hitting a person are even lower. And again, you haven't actually cited any incidents where we've lost Mars probes due to micrometeorite strikes. Apollo 13 didn't happen because of micrometeorites, so what did?
The reality is, there simply aren't that many micrometeorites in the inner solar system. Too many large gravitational bodies pulling them in, and their density *has* to be low anyway - were they common, gravity would collapse them into being an asteroid.
1) Radiation. Once you leave the earth's protective magnetic field (and don't cite the moon, you are still in it when you go there), you'll die of radiation exposure from the Sun. They'll need a signficant radition shield (few meters of lead for instance) to keep them from dying and getting something that heavy up there will be expensive.
This is an overstated problem when it comes to space travel.
The Sun, and space, does not contain an abundance of highly penetrating radiation like gamma rays. If it did, then life on Earth would be just as irradiated as anything in space, since the atmosphere has a very limited screening effect. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field, would have no protective effect since magnetism doesn't deflect EM radiation.
Solar radiation is mostly particulate radiation. It is composed of helium nuclei, protons and electrons. All of these types of radiation are much much easier to screen against because they are massive. A few layers of gold foil will block almost all of it.
2) Gravity (or lack of it in fact). 3 years in space w/o any gravity will kill the crew. They'll need micro gravity with rotating sections. Again, very expensive to build
Without doing the research, we really don't know that. It's worth noting you don't really need sections - you can just put the whole ship into a spin (after all it had to be survive being on Earth to be built) - for most of the trip. We're also not really talking about a 3 year journey - it's a 3 year mission, but we've had plenty of experience with people being in microgravity for long stays above Earth.
3) Micrometeorites. We have no good solution for that. We'll just have to send A LOT of crew and hope some of them survive.. If you really want to go to Mars, a certain percentage will die from these hitting the ship. Self-sealing sections will be required and a way to dispose of those that die.
Again, how many micrometeorites do you think are in space? To the best of my knowledge we've never lost a probe going to Mars from micrometeorite strike. If space were filled with micrometeorites at lethal speeds, then so would Earth orbit - so would the space between the Earth and the Moon - we're giant gravity wells, everything would presumably be heading here.
The moratorium on mining lasts until 2041, and the current analysis of the situation is that a lot of countries are building stations for "scientific" purposes which have been very slow in putting scientists in them - i.e. the real issue is looking ahead countries are trying to stake out territorial claims.
Both the US and Australian governments periodically rattle the tree about an earlier end to the ban as well.