I said you have PROVEN nothing. Starting with 911 calls. People call 911 because of criminal activity, medical emergency, and fire. Also because McDonalds is out of Apple pies, Best Buy won't honor my fake coupon for 110% off, do you know what time it is, and sorry my butt dialed it. But you decided they're all criminal activity. Beyond that, I would find it more likely that a crime a cop actually witnesses is more likely to lead to an arrest than one that happened 30 minutes or more before a cop arrived on scene.
Given that, the rest is just speculation based on poorly quantified events.
Of course, if it's ACTUALLY a rental (and not actually a purchase on credit with an end run around usury and banking laws) , isn't whoever rented it to you supposed to be on the hook for repairs?
I remember growing up, our washing machine occasionally wandered around the utility room. It also didn't stop if you opened the lid. Somehow, I never even got a bruise from it, but I did get a good laugh once when my Mom tried and failed to stop it from wandering.
On the other hand, I also remember reports a few years ago about some brand or another violently disassembling itself due to a manufacturing defect and the maker swearing it wasn't at all dangerous.
Possibly, but note well, divide a uniform crime area into sectors. Each sector has the same level and severity of crime. Flip a coin to decide which sectors get the most police presence. The more patrolled sectors will naturally be the ones where more criminals are caught, and so in the crime report will be "higher crime" areas. They will continue to get more patrols because they will continue to have higher crime stats.
That effect CAN be taken into account in the software, but it isn't.
Actually, at the time of the explosion, the operators were doing things FAR from standard, and in fact, the precipitating event was an operation explicitly prohibited under any circumstances in order to do something they weren't supposed to attempt.
More specifically, they were SUPPOSED to bring the reactor down to a low output and stabilize it there, then scram the reactor to see if residual steam and inertia in the system would provide sufficient power to safely shut it down. In order to do the test, several safeties were disabled.
The test was supposed to happen during the day shift, but high power demands meant they had to wait. This left the less experienced night crew to carry out the test. They probably should have postponed, but that would anger the (seriously dysfunctional) upper management.
First stem, they reduced power, but they reduced it too much. So they tried to bring power back up to the starting condition but the reactor wouldn't do it. This shouldn't have been a surprise, when reactor power is reduced by a large amount, the production of neutron absorbing poisons temporarily outstrips their "burn off" from excess neutrons. Rather than wait the prescribed 24-48 hours for the poisons to decay, they decided to attempt to burn off the poisons by withdrawing more control rods (a prohibited procedure)
Still having no success, they eventually withdrew ALL of the control rods (an absolutely forbidden procedure) leaving the reactor in a VERY unstable condition. In fact, it was primed for a runaway positive feedback. As power output started rising rapidly, they attempted to drive the conntrol rods back in, but it wasn't possible to do it fast enough, so the reactor went to many times it's maximum rating and then part of the core exploded (a flash steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion) and much of the core was ejected through the top of the reactor.
So it was an inherently dangerous reactor design, disabled safeties, and undertrained and inexperienced operators doing all the don'ts that resulted in the disaster.
The reactor's design was a big contributor as well. For one, it had a positive void coefficient. Meaning if the coolant formed a void, power output would increase. Reactor designs approved in the rest of the world tend to have a negative void coefficient. The control rods were (for some odd reason) carbon tipped, meaning that the first few feet of the rod INCREASE output by improving moderation. It had no actual containment building, just standard industrial sheet metal.
It WAS leaking radionuclides into the ocean, but I don't think that's still happening. The west coast didn't actually get much radiation from Fukushima.
I'm not claiming it's a great situation, just that it's not as if the stuff is blowing around in the wind somewhere.
It is worth noting that the meltdown can be attributed to TEPCOs unwillingness to pump sea water into the reactor vessel since that would once and for all have ended the chance of a re-start. Of course, we know now that a re-start is out of the question anyway, but basically the management was not at the time willing to admit that they gambled and lost big.
There's a lot more than that going on with health care costs. The prices are all different depending on which insurance you have (or none). Everything is a charge code that makes no sense. Numbers appear and disappear without rhyme or reason. Did you actually need your white cells counted for an ingrown toenail? Who the hell knows? You thought just one thing was done, why are you getting 3 bills for it? Who knows. The bills don't even have names you recognize on them.
What is this bill for? Oh, it's for something that happened last year? But I already paid for that. What do you mean this is for the Heisenberg compensator the hospital rented? Why did they need that to remove my appendix?
That's not problems caused by insurance, it's problems caused by healthcare providers being allowed to bill the patient for whatever the insurance didn't pay and because healthcare is generally non-optional.
I'm sure they wrote it all off BACK THEN. How many times do you want to let them write that off though? The infrastructure is built and they are making billions in profits now.
I bought a pack of gum, how many million in write-offs am I now entitled to?
Sure, and I was saying that we can't necessarily confine our concerns to just people that actually apply it, it's risks may extend to people who don't even know it has been applied.
Well, lawncare companies often apply it on commercial and residential lawns (not to the grass itself, of course). If you just work at the company, probably no worries. If you are a kid that plays in the yard, you might get more exposure than the people who apply the stuff.
Keep in mind that even with multiple competing vendors, an insurance company still enjoys a considerable advantage in the ability to negotiate discounts for volume. Perhaps Allstate feels they can win there, especially if they buy in to repair organizations.
Where there is only one choice, their ability to avoid being bled dry is limited.
Slashdot Mirror
I said you have PROVEN nothing. Starting with 911 calls. People call 911 because of criminal activity, medical emergency, and fire. Also because McDonalds is out of Apple pies, Best Buy won't honor my fake coupon for 110% off, do you know what time it is, and sorry my butt dialed it. But you decided they're all criminal activity. Beyond that, I would find it more likely that a crime a cop actually witnesses is more likely to lead to an arrest than one that happened 30 minutes or more before a cop arrived on scene.
Given that, the rest is just speculation based on poorly quantified events.
Of course, if it's ACTUALLY a rental (and not actually a purchase on credit with an end run around usury and banking laws) , isn't whoever rented it to you supposed to be on the hook for repairs?
I remember growing up, our washing machine occasionally wandered around the utility room. It also didn't stop if you opened the lid. Somehow, I never even got a bruise from it, but I did get a good laugh once when my Mom tried and failed to stop it from wandering.
On the other hand, I also remember reports a few years ago about some brand or another violently disassembling itself due to a manufacturing defect and the maker swearing it wasn't at all dangerous.
Did they pay the appropriate royalties to Stephen King and AC/DC for their wild claims?
Crimes certainly are reported by police, in the form of arrests.
Cop sees a drug deal go down. Cop arrests drug dealer. It shows up in the crime stats.
I would guess that very few drug deals get reported by concerned citizens.
You have managed to prove nothing. You haven't even established a probability of anything based on logic.
Possibly, but note well, divide a uniform crime area into sectors. Each sector has the same level and severity of crime. Flip a coin to decide which sectors get the most police presence. The more patrolled sectors will naturally be the ones where more criminals are caught, and so in the crime report will be "higher crime" areas. They will continue to get more patrols because they will continue to have higher crime stats.
That effect CAN be taken into account in the software, but it isn't.
Actually, at the time of the explosion, the operators were doing things FAR from standard, and in fact, the precipitating event was an operation explicitly prohibited under any circumstances in order to do something they weren't supposed to attempt.
More specifically, they were SUPPOSED to bring the reactor down to a low output and stabilize it there, then scram the reactor to see if residual steam and inertia in the system would provide sufficient power to safely shut it down. In order to do the test, several safeties were disabled.
The test was supposed to happen during the day shift, but high power demands meant they had to wait. This left the less experienced night crew to carry out the test. They probably should have postponed, but that would anger the (seriously dysfunctional) upper management.
First stem, they reduced power, but they reduced it too much. So they tried to bring power back up to the starting condition but the reactor wouldn't do it. This shouldn't have been a surprise, when reactor power is reduced by a large amount, the production of neutron absorbing poisons temporarily outstrips their "burn off" from excess neutrons. Rather than wait the prescribed 24-48 hours for the poisons to decay, they decided to attempt to burn off the poisons by withdrawing more control rods (a prohibited procedure)
Still having no success, they eventually withdrew ALL of the control rods (an absolutely forbidden procedure) leaving the reactor in a VERY unstable condition. In fact, it was primed for a runaway positive feedback. As power output started rising rapidly, they attempted to drive the conntrol rods back in, but it wasn't possible to do it fast enough, so the reactor went to many times it's maximum rating and then part of the core exploded (a flash steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion) and much of the core was ejected through the top of the reactor.
So it was an inherently dangerous reactor design, disabled safeties, and undertrained and inexperienced operators doing all the don'ts that resulted in the disaster.
The reactor's design was a big contributor as well. For one, it had a positive void coefficient. Meaning if the coolant formed a void, power output would increase. Reactor designs approved in the rest of the world tend to have a negative void coefficient. The control rods were (for some odd reason) carbon tipped, meaning that the first few feet of the rod INCREASE output by improving moderation. It had no actual containment building, just standard industrial sheet metal.
What made you think it's twice a year? I've seen it applied weekly.
It WAS leaking radionuclides into the ocean, but I don't think that's still happening. The west coast didn't actually get much radiation from Fukushima.
At that point, the reactor vessels weren't leaking.
Yep, it's all just blowing around in a field somewhere while small children make necklaces out of it.
The water would have to get to it first.
Into a tanker truck. The processing would cost, but it would have been cheaper than the current post meltdown cleanup.
I'm not claiming it's a great situation, just that it's not as if the stuff is blowing around in the wind somewhere.
It is worth noting that the meltdown can be attributed to TEPCOs unwillingness to pump sea water into the reactor vessel since that would once and for all have ended the chance of a re-start. Of course, we know now that a re-start is out of the question anyway, but basically the management was not at the time willing to admit that they gambled and lost big.
It's not going anywhere unless someone moves it or they get another tsunami.
But that's not what happened, so your argument is a specious lame excuse to call someone a mental reject.
And if the people who pay that fee are the ones who use AMEX and only the people who use AMEX, fair enough.
There's a lot more than that going on with health care costs. The prices are all different depending on which insurance you have (or none). Everything is a charge code that makes no sense. Numbers appear and disappear without rhyme or reason. Did you actually need your white cells counted for an ingrown toenail? Who the hell knows? You thought just one thing was done, why are you getting 3 bills for it? Who knows. The bills don't even have names you recognize on them.
What is this bill for? Oh, it's for something that happened last year? But I already paid for that. What do you mean this is for the Heisenberg compensator the hospital rented? Why did they need that to remove my appendix?
That's not problems caused by insurance, it's problems caused by healthcare providers being allowed to bill the patient for whatever the insurance didn't pay and because healthcare is generally non-optional.
I'm sure they wrote it all off BACK THEN. How many times do you want to let them write that off though? The infrastructure is built and they are making billions in profits now.
I bought a pack of gum, how many million in write-offs am I now entitled to?
And when it's washed off, it just magically disappears? Well that's a relief!
And then be sure to wring your hands about how kids today don't run around outside enough. Be sure to blame it on cell phones and video games.
Sure, and I was saying that we can't necessarily confine our concerns to just people that actually apply it, it's risks may extend to people who don't even know it has been applied.
Well, lawncare companies often apply it on commercial and residential lawns (not to the grass itself, of course). If you just work at the company, probably no worries. If you are a kid that plays in the yard, you might get more exposure than the people who apply the stuff.
Keep in mind that even with multiple competing vendors, an insurance company still enjoys a considerable advantage in the ability to negotiate discounts for volume. Perhaps Allstate feels they can win there, especially if they buy in to repair organizations.
Where there is only one choice, their ability to avoid being bled dry is limited.