Where do we sign up to get our town to look like Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Fukushima got hit by a massive freak tsunami. The number of people who died from exposure, from mandatory evacuations, from drowning, from industrial waste being carried around, all of it absolutely dwarfs the damage done by needing an exclusion zone. And honestly? We do exclusion zones because living there would have a slight-to-moderate effect on your chance of cancer-- its not like you would drop dead at 30.
The hysteria around radiation is absolutely absurd, and my reaction to anti-nuke people is because cities like Shanghai daily deal with incredible airborne contaminant counts because people are addicted to fossil fuels. And then solar is trotted out, as if it doesnt have massive problems like its power factor (~0.20), its incredible cost, and its reliance on rare earth metals. All of the downsides of alternative energies are brushed aside (like the number of people who have died in hydro dam accidents), and all of the potential issues with nuclear are blown up into world-ending scenarios.
Even Chernobyl, when you actually look at the exposure that non-plant-workers recieved, is not nearly as bad as it was made out to be; there is a tiny area you could have been that recieved a moderate dose, and everyone else recieved basically nothing. Total deaths from chernobyl over 50 years are under 10,000-- meanwhile, deaths from coal mining in that time will hit 50,000, and people put up with it because "its not nuclear".
THATS THE PROBLEM. People get so worried over the occasional nuclear accident that they go with literally the worst option, rather than nuclear which we can do today economically and put an end to a reliance on dirty fuels.
* We do plan for nuclear incidents, and it is one of the most strictly regulated industries. Annual radiation dosages are very, very closely monitored, and hitting the maximum indicates a non-measurable increase in health risks-- statistically it cannot be measured.
* Falling off roofs can kill you, and in fact California (first google result) has a website talking about these risks. They list a few examples, including 2 examples of workers falling to their deaths in 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, literally noone has died in the nuclear industry in that time.
* Cancer is really, really nasty... and its also factored into Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc fatality estimates. Noone died from 3MI, and noone is expected to. Noone died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown, and the upper bound for expected deaths is lower than the actual number of people who died in the process of evacuating. That is, the panic over Fukushima literally killed more people (~600) than are expected to actually die from radiation related sickness from Fukushima (estimated at around 100). And so far, noone has actually died from radiation @ Fukushima.
* The potential for disaster from nuclear disaster is moderately severe, but is balanced by the intense regulation and incredibly high reliability of the nuclear industry as a whole. Somehow you dont hear things like the Banqiao Dam disaster when discussing hydropower-- even though it has killed more people than could be projected to die from nuclear power since its birth up to 50 years from now. Somehow you just dont hear about the fact that coal mining alone kills ~1000 people yearly, or about the genesis of the rare earth metals used in solar cells.
Nuclear is an incredibly good source of energy that is incredibly reliable, but people choose to ignore facts and buy into the media-driven hysteria over the insidious nature of radiation-- despite their daily exposure to "radiation" that the body has no problem repairing. Coal right now causes massive breathing problems in cities like Shanghai where it is literally unhealthy to go outside many days due to the intense smog; nuclear would be a godsend, and appealing to incredibly expensive alternative energy in China is absurd.
Their price of electricity is $0.36/kWh, which is absurdly high by US standards. Theyre like one of the top 10 most expensive places for electricity, according to this.
Wrong. Just a sample of median income over time,, race, etc (in 2004 dollars) (source):
1950 -- White men: $18000; White women: $ 7000; Black men: $ 9775; Black women: $ 3150 1980 -- White men: $28939; White women: $10741; Black men: $17390; Black women: $ 9944 2004 -- White men: $31335; White women: $17648; Black men: $22740; Black women: $18379
We have more than enough people telling us how difficult things are and how we shouldn't try - yours is just another voice in that cacophony.
I think hes explaining why its dumb to rely on solar in a fairly northern, cloudy country when there are so many better options.
And Im not seeing the categorical difference between his post and yours, in terms of naysaying-- you're naysaying nuclear as a long term option-- except that he gives good reasons for his opinions. You're simply stating that nuclear is a bad option, with no real reasoning applied
"Expensive" is very different from "too expensive". Some countries (probably most of them other than America) value things other than money. Things like "not risking dying from radiation sickness"
This risk is blown up so much as to be comical.
There are probably more people who die every year from falling off of roofs while installing solar panels, than get sick yearly from radiation.
If you total the number of people, all time, who have died in nuclear power incidents-- including post-exposure deaths-- you probably wouldnt break 10,000. Excluding Chernobyl, I dont think theres been a single death (actual or projected) from nuclear power-- certainly none in the last 20 years.
People like to talk about how nasty the government is. But it seems like if theres ever a class of government official you really dont want to piss off-- no matter who you are or how much money you have-- its judges. Judges can make your life real difficult in very short order, and it doesnt really matter if you're the head of Microsoft.
Adding a judge to a no-fly list as retribution would be the start of a very entertaining saga.
You're still trusting code that they provided not to provide them with your key. Thats a massive security flaw right there; if they got served with court papers they could be compelled to provide an update that divulges the key.
Because it means they can provide a very simple interface for a fledgeling business to sign up for Google Apps, get a domain, a website, and advertising, without any middle men.
I would bet that they dont care about being a registrar directly, but about simplifying the process to a degree where you can do everything in the Google ecosystem.
Monopoly isnt owning many and varied pieces of a large sector; its being the dominant player in one market. Monopoly abuse is when you leverage that monopoly in one market to boost yourself in another. Not a lawyer, but I believe the degree of barrier to entry also factors in-- its hard to be a monopoly in bike repair because literally anyone can start a bike repair shop.
The only possible sector you could call Google a monopoly is search, and im not clear how they would be using that to boost their business in domain registration or vice versa. Im aware of their business model, but their track record makes me want them as a registrar over the likes of Godaddy or Network Solutions any day.
Google will invariably be better and more privacy and security conscious than 90% of existing registrars, even when you consider their core business model.
I personally would howl about Microsoft because their record with customer data is abyssmal-- for all of their talk about scroogling, they still cooperate with China with Skype and Bing.
You cant know that-- we already know that its syncing requires a connection to the cloud, until someone takes the time to break out wireshark you dont know that its not sending data or metadata to the cloud as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming it is, I guess it is time for self destucting time locked crypto,
Thats not possible to do for a number of reasons, primarily because one of the first things theyll do is image your computer.
Where do we sign up to get our town to look like Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Fukushima got hit by a massive freak tsunami. The number of people who died from exposure, from mandatory evacuations, from drowning, from industrial waste being carried around, all of it absolutely dwarfs the damage done by needing an exclusion zone. And honestly? We do exclusion zones because living there would have a slight-to-moderate effect on your chance of cancer-- its not like you would drop dead at 30.
The hysteria around radiation is absolutely absurd, and my reaction to anti-nuke people is because cities like Shanghai daily deal with incredible airborne contaminant counts because people are addicted to fossil fuels. And then solar is trotted out, as if it doesnt have massive problems like its power factor (~0.20), its incredible cost, and its reliance on rare earth metals. All of the downsides of alternative energies are brushed aside (like the number of people who have died in hydro dam accidents), and all of the potential issues with nuclear are blown up into world-ending scenarios.
Even Chernobyl, when you actually look at the exposure that non-plant-workers recieved, is not nearly as bad as it was made out to be; there is a tiny area you could have been that recieved a moderate dose, and everyone else recieved basically nothing. Total deaths from chernobyl over 50 years are under 10,000-- meanwhile, deaths from coal mining in that time will hit 50,000, and people put up with it because "its not nuclear".
THATS THE PROBLEM. People get so worried over the occasional nuclear accident that they go with literally the worst option, rather than nuclear which we can do today economically and put an end to a reliance on dirty fuels.
To address a few of your points:
* We do plan for nuclear incidents, and it is one of the most strictly regulated industries. Annual radiation dosages are very, very closely monitored, and hitting the maximum indicates a non-measurable increase in health risks-- statistically it cannot be measured.
* Falling off roofs can kill you, and in fact California (first google result) has a website talking about these risks. They list a few examples, including 2 examples of workers falling to their deaths in 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, literally noone has died in the nuclear industry in that time.
* Cancer is really, really nasty... and its also factored into Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc fatality estimates. Noone died from 3MI, and noone is expected to. Noone died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown, and the upper bound for expected deaths is lower than the actual number of people who died in the process of evacuating. That is, the panic over Fukushima literally killed more people (~600) than are expected to actually die from radiation related sickness from Fukushima (estimated at around 100). And so far, noone has actually died from radiation @ Fukushima.
* The potential for disaster from nuclear disaster is moderately severe, but is balanced by the intense regulation and incredibly high reliability of the nuclear industry as a whole. Somehow you dont hear things like the Banqiao Dam disaster when discussing hydropower-- even though it has killed more people than could be projected to die from nuclear power since its birth up to 50 years from now. Somehow you just dont hear about the fact that coal mining alone kills ~1000 people yearly, or about the genesis of the rare earth metals used in solar cells.
Nuclear is an incredibly good source of energy that is incredibly reliable, but people choose to ignore facts and buy into the media-driven hysteria over the insidious nature of radiation-- despite their daily exposure to "radiation" that the body has no problem repairing. Coal right now causes massive breathing problems in cities like Shanghai where it is literally unhealthy to go outside many days due to the intense smog; nuclear would be a godsend, and appealing to incredibly expensive alternative energy in China is absurd.
The overall (dotted) line shows a rise from ~27,000 to ~31,000, which is consistent with the data I linked.
My apologies; 2 died there, 1 recieved a severe dose, and everyone else got doses under half of the annual maximum limit.
Might have something to do with not wanting our electricity prices to skyrocket 400% to Germany's levels.
Care to explain why electricity in the us is ~$0.08/kWh compared to Germany's $0.36/kWh?
Their price of electricity is $0.36/kWh, which is absurdly high by US standards. Theyre like one of the top 10 most expensive places for electricity, according to this.
American incomes have been stagnant, or declining in real purchasing power for thirty years
Sorry, thats not correct. Adjusted income has massively grown over the last 50 years.
To self-quote an earlier post:
Wrong.
Just a sample of median income over time,, race, etc (in 2004 dollars) (source):
1950 -- White men: $18000; White women: $ 7000; Black men: $ 9775; Black women: $ 3150
1980 -- White men: $28939; White women: $10741; Black men: $17390; Black women: $ 9944
2004 -- White men: $31335; White women: $17648; Black men: $22740; Black women: $18379
Good lord the strawmen are actually gaining sentience.
In Germany the panels will easily pay for themselves in a few years, and from then on it's all gain
Solar panels have a limited lifespan, and require maintenance. This is often ignored.
We have more than enough people telling us how difficult things are and how we shouldn't try - yours is just another voice in that cacophony.
I think hes explaining why its dumb to rely on solar in a fairly northern, cloudy country when there are so many better options.
And Im not seeing the categorical difference between his post and yours, in terms of naysaying-- you're naysaying nuclear as a long term option-- except that he gives good reasons for his opinions. You're simply stating that nuclear is a bad option, with no real reasoning applied
"Expensive" is very different from "too expensive". Some countries (probably most of them other than America) value things other than money. Things like "not risking dying from radiation sickness"
This risk is blown up so much as to be comical.
There are probably more people who die every year from falling off of roofs while installing solar panels, than get sick yearly from radiation.
If you total the number of people, all time, who have died in nuclear power incidents-- including post-exposure deaths-- you probably wouldnt break 10,000. Excluding Chernobyl, I dont think theres been a single death (actual or projected) from nuclear power-- certainly none in the last 20 years.
Im from the US, and you're out of your mind if you think the average Chinese is richer than the average American.
They have an airlock for a reason, dude. They can "just toss the body out the window".
All of the other problems you mention are in no way unique to astronauts; you would get the same problem in an IT field.
People like to talk about how nasty the government is. But it seems like if theres ever a class of government official you really dont want to piss off-- no matter who you are or how much money you have-- its judges. Judges can make your life real difficult in very short order, and it doesnt really matter if you're the head of Microsoft.
Adding a judge to a no-fly list as retribution would be the start of a very entertaining saga.
Being richer than 95% of the world sure is a tough job, but someone has to do it. Plus, we get to complain about it the entire time, so theres that.
The book of mormon is not the bible.
If you cant answer the recovery questions, there are two options: Allow a bypass, opening you up to social engineering attacks, or deny access.
After all, dowsing rods have been working since biblical times,
Not unless you consider the 15th century to be "biblical times", they havent.
You're still trusting code that they provided not to provide them with your key. Thats a massive security flaw right there; if they got served with court papers they could be compelled to provide an update that divulges the key.
Because it means they can provide a very simple interface for a fledgeling business to sign up for Google Apps, get a domain, a website, and advertising, without any middle men.
I would bet that they dont care about being a registrar directly, but about simplifying the process to a degree where you can do everything in the Google ecosystem.
Monopoly isnt owning many and varied pieces of a large sector; its being the dominant player in one market. Monopoly abuse is when you leverage that monopoly in one market to boost yourself in another. Not a lawyer, but I believe the degree of barrier to entry also factors in-- its hard to be a monopoly in bike repair because literally anyone can start a bike repair shop.
The only possible sector you could call Google a monopoly is search, and im not clear how they would be using that to boost their business in domain registration or vice versa. Im aware of their business model, but their track record makes me want them as a registrar over the likes of Godaddy or Network Solutions any day.
Google will invariably be better and more privacy and security conscious than 90% of existing registrars, even when you consider their core business model.
I personally would howl about Microsoft because their record with customer data is abyssmal-- for all of their talk about scroogling, they still cooperate with China with Skype and Bing.
You cant know that-- we already know that its syncing requires a connection to the cloud, until someone takes the time to break out wireshark you dont know that its not sending data or metadata to the cloud as well.