This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
This is getting like arguing with a sack of weasels. This is exactly how stats can be lies If we take say, Chernobyl as metric, your stats should prove that there was no damage , or that it was not relevant even if there was a little bit of inconsequential damage that cause no one any problems. Of course, that is a trap, so you don't have to answer.
When in fact, a reactor that is sitting there, quietly generating power is just about as green as you can get. Have a picnic in the grass growing just outside the containment building. But if and when an accident happens, it makes a helluva mess. But the more rabid pro-nuc kooks just ignore the mess, and move to whatever stat they think makes people forget the damage done.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
Land that is removed from use. When this happens, money is lost. Evacuating people. They aren't dead, but it costs a lot of money. Reparations for lost property. Remediation costs. Chernobyl's replacement sarcophagus cost 2.35 Billion Euros. 5 percent of the Ukraine budget and 6 percent of the Belarus budget is going to reparations to 7 million people. 330,000 people were kicked out of their homes and property, and resettled elsewhere. The exclusion zone removed a lot of land from production. I'm not sure that we can figure out the initial cost in the panic that ensued right after it happened.
But here's the rub. Why does the Price Anderson Liability indeminification act exist? Seems like the safest mode of power production shouldn't need my tax dollars to clean up the accidents that some think won't happen.
Funny - in a world where the Government bails you out because otherwise you couldn't get insurance that y'all bawl and whine and complain about the terrible insufferable NIMBY's and how mean they are to you because of regulations. Itr's unfair!
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
Yeah - I only spent a fair amount of my career working with NucE's, and a little bit of time in a reactor environment - for what that is worth. Also funny how we're all pro nuc power, but think that people like you don't realize that you are the exact reason why people don't trust you and your ilk. Someone doesn't agree with you, and you quickly descend into insults. You think that you have some sort of superior intelligence, and that everyone else is dumb. You simply reject anything that isn't in your narrative.
When in fact, you are merely seeing your reflection in a mirror.
You're conflating "risk at time built" and "risk at time well after design lifespan".
I'm not conflating anything. The point is that poster claimed that these reactors are running past their design date and are therefore a danger. They are not safe. He blames that on people who are anti-nuc.
Here ya go - Challenge time! Prove your thesis. There have been 57 nuclear power plant Accidents since the Chernobyl kerfuffle in the 1980's. How many of those have been the direct result of operating reactors that should have been superannuated?
Finally - how much regulation should be eliminated so that the reactors that replace these unsafe by age reactors, so that those who build the reactors can realize profits without Government subsidies and Government insurance waivers? Which regulations go away?
You guys are just too busy trying to turn me into the enemy to understand that I'm pointing out why so many people don't trust you.
Our country (USA) is responsible for almost none of the plastic in the ocean. We do lead by example by generally not littering, by reusing bags, by recycling them, and by disposing of them properly.
.Agreed. I find the narrative in all of this plastic pollution business to be both fascinating and disturbing.
Present day narrative has deteriorated to the point where all problems are by definition caused by the USA. And a significant number of people in the USA have bought into that narrative.
Well, we can all suck our slurpees through bacteria laden bamboo straws, and waste money washing them, but it is only virtue signalling. Despite the present day narrative, the cause of this problem lies not with the USA, but with other countries.
No, he said that running an older reactor long past its design lifespan is risky. This is surprising?
Risky? Is that like............unsafe?
Boogers. An unsafe reactor is unsafe. If you operate an unsafe reactor that you know is unsafe, it is on you.Try blaming your boss for you not maintaining your car and you run over someone because your brakes don't work - "He didn't pay me enough to maintain my car, so it is his fault."
And running a reactor that he claims is unsafe (or risky) because it is being run in an unsafe (or risky) state is exactly and purposefully running an unsafe (or risky) reactor.
Y'all are just playing the no unsafe (or risky) reactor argument, and the True Scotsmen are nodding in pleasure at your fallacy.
By the way my post contained more words than yours so clearly it's the better post too.
Well, that goes without saying. 8^)
I know I piss off a lot of people in here with being a Cassandra about nuc power generation. I'm not really anti-nuc power. But many of the pro nuc people need a kick in the ass to allow reality to set in.
Anti nuc people are not necessarily stupid. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. The common element between each was hubris. It might be sobering to think that without the hubris of the guy in charge of the reactor that fateful evening, the RBMK reactors might still be running today. Without the terrible siting decision and the insane decision to build seawalls that were lower than Tsunami that were 100 percent certain to happen, the Fukushima reactor complex would probably be running just fine today (I say probably because there was some question whether the earthquake cracked the containment structure.
People are the weak factor, and hubris is the instrument of failure.
We can argue about metrics all day long. But when these things go kablooey (technical term) they make a helluva mess, and take land that people can make use of and support an economy with without of the picture for a long time.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
You are misleading with a bad analogy.
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy. it is how data can be misconstrued. I was asking specifically which data set the poster wanted to use. It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
A Space Shuttle is used to get stuff to an orbit. So the correct metric is number of deaths per kg delivered to the given orbit.
Tell us about Columbia. It got everything to orbit quite nicely Not back to earth. Seriously my friend, your calling my example a bad analogy, while completely dismissing what happens to peopel when their vehicle disintegrates after any thing in the weight delivered to orbit is rather distressing.
Trying to count it per mile travelled is completely stupid because travelling around Earth is not the goal of Space Shuttle.
I'm not the one claiming per mile is the proper metric. Take it up with airline industry apologists.
On the other side, counting number of death per kWh is the correct metric in energy production area. The goal of a power plant is to produce energy. So we must count it per kWh.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people. I only point out that your arrogance and dismissing of any of those people who might not march in lockstep as stupid is just another reason why they trust Pro nuc activities like they would trust Jerry Sandusky to babysit their prepubescent son. Good luck, tell everyone they are stupid and that you know that everything is safe.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
I really think that deaths is a rather silly metric for people to try to defend nuclear power generation safety. You can't get any agreement on total deaths, should deaths in the supply chain be counted?
It's probably better to look at the physical effects that occur when a nuclear power plant decides to spew it's contents.
Which effects suddenly look a lot different than if a wind tower or solar panel fails.
When are we going to find out that all the older reactors similar to Fukushima are shut down safely... Seriously, I have no great problem with the newer designs, but the older ones need phased out, not renewed.
When the NIMBYs stop fighting the deployment of newer designs. As long as pseudo-regulatory barriers erected by the general public make development of new plants based on new designs financially infeasible, companies will stretch the operation of their existing plants far beyond their original design lifespan. It is rather amazing just how much the anti-nuclear movement has made nuclear safety worse.
Cool story bro! You just admitted that the older reactors were unsafe and should not have been built. Even if you had to blame the so called NIMBY's Why would someone want a reactor that you admit is unsafe to be built nearby?
A couple problems with that. First, and probably the biggest problem is that the public was told that these earlier reactors were safe. In some cases, reality proved otherwise. So you have no credibility whatsoever. Why should they continue to believe your dismissive assertions over their lying eyes?
Next up, I'll shock you by saying that a reactor can be built that will be very safe.
It won't though. Humans are in the mix.
So you get shady siting decisions, you get unfathomable decisions to build seawalls that are well known both from history and geological records that will simply be breached. It is not possible for them not to be breached eventually unless plate tectonics suddenly stops. Earthquakes will happen, and Tsunami will occur.
You get people making unauthorized experiments that fail and destroy reactors. And on and on.
You get bean counters making/overriding engineering and safety decisions. You get managers demanding schedules be met.
People are the problem. The reactor itself can be made safe. It is an exercise i knowing how much energy is in the reactor, and devising the physical plant to control it. It isn't super easy, and it is very expensive to do, but it can be done if you control both the internal effects and the externalities like siting.
But as long as present day humans are in the mix, ain't happenin' bro!
This kind of vehicle would make EVs more mainstream. Kind of disappointing it is so expensive; I couldn't afford a $70K vehicle and they have no plans to come to Canada.
Hmmm, perhaps if they have a black smoke generator?
Actually, I agree - my ideal vehicle is a trail rated EV Jeep.
You have a point, but on paper and in practice, the SpaceX design is far more safe than the Shuttle design NASA had previously. They don't have those pretty exciting SRBs for one, and have an engine which can be throttled down or turned off. The Russian's Buran also used liquid-fueled boosters, so SpaceX isn't the first to consider this.
During fueling, a SpaceX rocket blew up rather spectacularly. Perhaps this will never happen again. Me? Nope, nope nope. Fueling is not a good time to be sitting on top of a rocket. Those cold fuel components are creaking and doing all sort's of temperature acclimation inside that candle The only reason you would do it is for expedience.
This is the same sort of hubris that preceded the Challenger rapid disassembly, and a big contributer to the Columbia accident.
SpaceX and their fans are in an endorphin buzz of their illusion of perfection, and there is a lot of evidence what happens when people have a lot of hubris and pride of perfection. Reality can come along and bitch slap everyone into humility. Fans I'm not so concerned about, but my spidey senses aren't too wild about the vibes coming from Spacex.
The capsule is put on top of the vehicle, not on the side of a large hydrogen tank which means you can put an escape system (tested and verified) and the crew actually has a chance to escape when something goes boom.
Come on - do a little research before you post this stuff. The Space shuttle indeed has an emergency exit system. A zip-line sort of apparatus that quickly ends up in a bunker. Now if the whole thing blows up, really quickly there isn't much hope of escape. But if a similar magnitude thing happens to a Falcon 9 or heavy, it's going to be very iffy for survival as well.
You sound like cheering for something isn't fun.
Just being a Cassanrdra for folks that put the what? in "What could ever go wrong?" Sorry, but I'm the sort who wants things to work, and find that thinking of what might go wrong and working to eliminate that is infinitely better than the "This is great! It has to work! No problems here, Boss!" crowd. Yes men. Not being one has served me well during my career. Once people figure out that I point out likely problems, but will run through a wall to fix them, they usually listen.
You would be really fun at parties.
I do okay. The Yes men avoid me - although I find them a tad banal anyway, so it's all good.
True, that is technically standardizing but I think the real point is there should be one standard.
Okay, let's have that chat. What should the standard be? Let's say that we need to make Linux look and act like Windows. Which one?
Of course that is just bait, because the whole concept of Linux not being adopted by the masses because it doesn't have one ring to rull them all and in the darkness bind them, is that the closest thing to a standard is....... MacOS, which will cause a riot in here, and I might have to go into the witness protection system now. But You could take a person from the early 1990's on an early SystemXX OS, transport him to today, and set him in front of Mojave, and in a few minutes he could figure it out.
Now take a person who is using the old standard Windows from W95, and set him down at a Vista or W8 or W10 machine, and it's going to take a bit.
Point is, if one UI to rule them all was the mark and cause of the largest Installed User Base, it would not be Windows at all. So we need to bury that idea.
Linux's desktop adoption is a small fraction of that of Windows and it is further fragmented by multiple desktop standards. This is further complicated by the fact that apps will follow one of the standards so even if you use Gnome the chances are you will still run some apps that were designed for KDE or vice versa.
I kinda seriously disagree. Linux has a smaller user base because of Ford versus Chevy Syndrome, people thinking that you have to configure systems like it is 1999, meticulously searching the internet for every driver. A lot of people who simply use whatever OS comes on the computer they bought, And the fact that people think that even if there is software for what thedy want, they might need that MS-Dos program from days of yore, seriously - I use a radio that the manufacturers insist that they can only write for Windows because of the installed user base. Yeah, because a person who is into Software defined Radio buys one because they just so happen to have a windows machine. And another fellow is making a lot of money by offering a Mac Version, because the windows version is bollixed after updates - a lot.
. Having a singular standard would fix a lot of this.
Which one? The different versions of Windows are so radically different from each other that the idea that Linux is a failure because each version is not 100 percent identical is kinda amusing. The different distros are a lot more alike than Windows.
Do people who ever use linux even come up with this stuff?
Groups like MADD are actually modern day prohibitionists. We now haveillegal levels at a point where a person actually isn't under the influence. But don't worry folks, if a Drunk driver kills you you re much more dead that if Chad kills you whie LoL'ing his friends.
Assuming the fueling ship wasn't automated. I'd expect it, and the launch barge, to be built like a bunker in order to survive such a blast anyway though
Quite the surviveability requirement. Obviously something will have to be built pretty tough.There is a bunker for astronauts to zipline to if they have time to get to the zipline. Certainly can't do that in a water launch. Then there is the issue of the blast. A rocket the size of the Sea Dragon is going to have nuclear detonation level of explosion if the unthinkable happens. So you have to figure out a whole new world of pain to avoid.
And if they start offering commercial terrestrial flights? How does the crew complement compare to the number of passengers? It sounds like they're working hard to make the risk profile of a flight resemble that of an airliner, rather than a traditional rocket.
I doubt there are plans to make a Sea Dragon a passenger vehicle. A BFDR like that wouldn't be a very gentle ride. Oddly enough, if a gentle trip is desired, a Saturn 5 is the ride. Count how long it takes one of those to clear the tower compared to say a Shuttle. Some called it the "Old Man's Rocket". Saturn 5 was a good monster.
But make no mistake, these are more or less channeled explosions. Anyone thinking they can be made as safe as regular airplane travel isn't familiar with the physics.
Hilarious because there are no commies/capitalists/whatever, there are only assholes trying to exploit you. And oh boy, are you all being taken for a ride...
I knew Dale Gribble was going to show up eventually.
This is so fucking true.
Another common manifestation of this is socialized losses, privatized profits.
And really, it makes sense.
Subverted socialism seems like the end-goal of any capitalist system, where the corporations have government influence, unless it is strictly regulated to prevent it.
Exactly. The think that is so inverted is that while Libertarians freak out about any regulation of restraint because that would be Government controlling the corporations - corporations are now the real government.
So, socialism.
Yet people eat that shit up. It is like the concept of universal health care. The question the sycophants always ask is "How are we going to pay for this?"
The answer of course, is we are already paying more than that to corporatized medicine.
Socialism, dirty filthy socialism for the insurance industry.
And Stalin was part of the humanity. This fails your argument at the first sentence as something A being part of something B doesn't make B equal to A - basic logic.
Your idea of "basic logic" is most amusing.
Now Old Smokin Joe was pretty much the Alpha and Omega of the old Soviet Union. But he didn't speak for the US, or Great Britain. But you can bet his word was law within his own country. Care to deny that?
France is a part of the European Union. And if they send out data/history destruction notices under the auspices of the EU, anyone getting a notice like that is going to assume that if it was sent, it was meant. Care to deny that?
Likewise, if they got the same destroy or else notice from the Man of Steel, they'd probably think it was a joke or scam.
You see, the point isn't even who is who is what. The point is that the EU is considering a modern day version of book burning. The whole issue in this case is that apparently the modern book/data burning law hasn't even passed yet. So some folks have likely taken it upon themselves to give the world a little illustration of how the book/data burning law is going to operate.
Declare something terroristic, or whatever the bugaboo of the day is, and inform the recipient of the penalties under EU law if they don't abide by the demand. All the perp has to do is claim the authority, and most people will obey. We've seen it all before.
Thanks. I was certainly not trolling. I have travelled to small communities in the US and heard about their problems and feelings towards Walmart. (And a bit of laughter when some other tourists wasn’t exactly getting the most friendly advice when asking directions to the nearest Walmart:D)
Slashdot has some real crypto libertarians, who for some bizarre reason celebrate pathological pecuniary accumulation.
Not a damn thing wrong with being wealthy. But I'm waiting for people here to start calling mob hits "just a part of the free market".
Hmm, wonder it the person who modded you troll still has mod points?
I was actually specifically referring to the BFR, which seems to have replaced the 7-booster Falcon 9 "supercluster" that Musk mentioned a few times early on as a possible heavy launch vehicle.
The Sea Dragon though - I'm not certain I've ever encountered it before - it's been many years if I have. What a beast! And launched not just from on the water (as planned for the BFR), but *in* the water, floating vertically.
I hate to think of what that sonic blast might do to whales anywhere nearby though.
I always wondered how far away the ships would have to get. before launch. 3 miles away was considered survivable if the Saturn 5 went off on the pad or shortly after launch. And being in the ocean, there would have to be a lot of humans really close for the fueling. Maybe a unattended barge similar to what Spacex uses. All in all, an interesting exercise in "How darn big can we make a rocket?" But it also seems like an engineering "hold my beer" event.
\
And yes, it would definitely be a big issue for sea life.
I am. When the inevitble accident involving a rocket and people happens, the Spacex people and their fans will be thrown into a horrible shock.
Having gone through the Challenger and Columbia accidents I remember how especially with Challenger, everybody was just thinking the whole deal had been reduced to practice, that sending astronauts into space was so reduced to practice that we could send a teacher into space for shits and giggles.
If you don't like your job you go find a better one.
If you can't find a better job because (education, training, travel, etc.)? Fix your problem.
Right now about 20% of Americans can't do it, living on a wage that is close to minimal wage. This is basically a disaster in waiting.
Isn't it funny how free marketeer capitalists looooove to bray about how if you aren't making enough money, just make more money.
And the orgasmic part is that companies like WalMart are sucking hard at the teats od socialism because they pay their employees so little that they are eligible for assistance.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
This is getting like arguing with a sack of weasels. This is exactly how stats can be lies If we take say, Chernobyl as metric, your stats should prove that there was no damage , or that it was not relevant even if there was a little bit of inconsequential damage that cause no one any problems. Of course, that is a trap, so you don't have to answer.
When in fact, a reactor that is sitting there, quietly generating power is just about as green as you can get. Have a picnic in the grass growing just outside the containment building. But if and when an accident happens, it makes a helluva mess. But the more rabid pro-nuc kooks just ignore the mess, and move to whatever stat they think makes people forget the damage done.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
Land that is removed from use. When this happens, money is lost. Evacuating people. They aren't dead, but it costs a lot of money. Reparations for lost property. Remediation costs. Chernobyl's replacement sarcophagus cost 2.35 Billion Euros. 5 percent of the Ukraine budget and 6 percent of the Belarus budget is going to reparations to 7 million people. 330,000 people were kicked out of their homes and property, and resettled elsewhere. The exclusion zone removed a lot of land from production. I'm not sure that we can figure out the initial cost in the panic that ensued right after it happened.
But here's the rub. Why does the Price Anderson Liability indeminification act exist? Seems like the safest mode of power production shouldn't need my tax dollars to clean up the accidents that some think won't happen.
Funny - in a world where the Government bails you out because otherwise you couldn't get insurance that y'all bawl and whine and complain about the terrible insufferable NIMBY's and how mean they are to you because of regulations. Itr's unfair!
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
Yeah - I only spent a fair amount of my career working with NucE's, and a little bit of time in a reactor environment - for what that is worth. Also funny how we're all pro nuc power, but think that people like you don't realize that you are the exact reason why people don't trust you and your ilk. Someone doesn't agree with you, and you quickly descend into insults. You think that you have some sort of superior intelligence, and that everyone else is dumb. You simply reject anything that isn't in your narrative.
When in fact, you are merely seeing your reflection in a mirror.
This is all sim
You're conflating "risk at time built" and "risk at time well after design lifespan".
I'm not conflating anything. The point is that poster claimed that these reactors are running past their design date and are therefore a danger. They are not safe. He blames that on people who are anti-nuc.
Here ya go - Challenge time! Prove your thesis. There have been 57 nuclear power plant Accidents since the Chernobyl kerfuffle in the 1980's. How many of those have been the direct result of operating reactors that should have been superannuated?
Finally - how much regulation should be eliminated so that the reactors that replace these unsafe by age reactors, so that those who build the reactors can realize profits without Government subsidies and Government insurance waivers? Which regulations go away?
You guys are just too busy trying to turn me into the enemy to understand that I'm pointing out why so many people don't trust you.
Our country (USA) is responsible for almost none of the plastic in the ocean. We do lead by example by generally not littering, by reusing bags, by recycling them, and by disposing of them properly.
.Agreed. I find the narrative in all of this plastic pollution business to be both fascinating and disturbing.
Present day narrative has deteriorated to the point where all problems are by definition caused by the USA. And a significant number of people in the USA have bought into that narrative.
Well, we can all suck our slurpees through bacteria laden bamboo straws, and waste money washing them, but it is only virtue signalling. Despite the present day narrative, the cause of this problem lies not with the USA, but with other countries.
No, he said that running an older reactor long past its design lifespan is risky. This is surprising?
Risky? Is that like............unsafe?
Boogers. An unsafe reactor is unsafe. If you operate an unsafe reactor that you know is unsafe, it is on you.Try blaming your boss for you not maintaining your car and you run over someone because your brakes don't work - "He didn't pay me enough to maintain my car, so it is his fault."
And running a reactor that he claims is unsafe (or risky) because it is being run in an unsafe (or risky) state is exactly and purposefully running an unsafe (or risky) reactor.
Y'all are just playing the no unsafe (or risky) reactor argument, and the True Scotsmen are nodding in pleasure at your fallacy.
By the way my post contained more words than yours so clearly it's the better post too.
Well, that goes without saying. 8^)
I know I piss off a lot of people in here with being a Cassandra about nuc power generation. I'm not really anti-nuc power. But many of the pro nuc people need a kick in the ass to allow reality to set in.
Anti nuc people are not necessarily stupid. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. The common element between each was hubris. It might be sobering to think that without the hubris of the guy in charge of the reactor that fateful evening, the RBMK reactors might still be running today. Without the terrible siting decision and the insane decision to build seawalls that were lower than Tsunami that were 100 percent certain to happen, the Fukushima reactor complex would probably be running just fine today (I say probably because there was some question whether the earthquake cracked the containment structure.
People are the weak factor, and hubris is the instrument of failure.
We can argue about metrics all day long. But when these things go kablooey (technical term) they make a helluva mess, and take land that people can make use of and support an economy with without of the picture for a long time.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
You are misleading with a bad analogy.
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy. it is how data can be misconstrued. I was asking specifically which data set the poster wanted to use. It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
A Space Shuttle is used to get stuff to an orbit. So the correct metric is number of deaths per kg delivered to the given orbit.
Tell us about Columbia. It got everything to orbit quite nicely Not back to earth. Seriously my friend, your calling my example a bad analogy, while completely dismissing what happens to peopel when their vehicle disintegrates after any thing in the weight delivered to orbit is rather distressing.
Trying to count it per mile travelled is completely stupid because travelling around Earth is not the goal of Space Shuttle.
I'm not the one claiming per mile is the proper metric. Take it up with airline industry apologists.
On the other side, counting number of death per kWh is the correct metric in energy production area. The goal of a power plant is to produce energy. So we must count it per kWh.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people. I only point out that your arrogance and dismissing of any of those people who might not march in lockstep as stupid is just another reason why they trust Pro nuc activities like they would trust Jerry Sandusky to babysit their prepubescent son. Good luck, tell everyone they are stupid and that you know that everything is safe.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
I really think that deaths is a rather silly metric for people to try to defend nuclear power generation safety. You can't get any agreement on total deaths, should deaths in the supply chain be counted?
It's probably better to look at the physical effects that occur when a nuclear power plant decides to spew it's contents.
Which effects suddenly look a lot different than if a wind tower or solar panel fails.
When are we going to find out that all the older reactors similar to Fukushima are shut down safely... Seriously, I have no great problem with the newer designs, but the older ones need phased out, not renewed.
When the NIMBYs stop fighting the deployment of newer designs. As long as pseudo-regulatory barriers erected by the general public make development of new plants based on new designs financially infeasible, companies will stretch the operation of their existing plants far beyond their original design lifespan. It is rather amazing just how much the anti-nuclear movement has made nuclear safety worse.
Cool story bro! You just admitted that the older reactors were unsafe and should not have been built. Even if you had to blame the so called NIMBY's Why would someone want a reactor that you admit is unsafe to be built nearby?
A couple problems with that. First, and probably the biggest problem is that the public was told that these earlier reactors were safe. In some cases, reality proved otherwise. So you have no credibility whatsoever. Why should they continue to believe your dismissive assertions over their lying eyes?
Next up, I'll shock you by saying that a reactor can be built that will be very safe.
It won't though. Humans are in the mix.
So you get shady siting decisions, you get unfathomable decisions to build seawalls that are well known both from history and geological records that will simply be breached. It is not possible for them not to be breached eventually unless plate tectonics suddenly stops. Earthquakes will happen, and Tsunami will occur.
You get people making unauthorized experiments that fail and destroy reactors. And on and on.
You get bean counters making/overriding engineering and safety decisions. You get managers demanding schedules be met.
People are the problem. The reactor itself can be made safe. It is an exercise i knowing how much energy is in the reactor, and devising the physical plant to control it. It isn't super easy, and it is very expensive to do, but it can be done if you control both the internal effects and the externalities like siting.
But as long as present day humans are in the mix, ain't happenin' bro!
my ideal vehicle is a trail rated EV Jeep
That sounds almost as useful as a rockcrawler with no reverse...
Now that's interesting - Should I just take your pronouncement on faith, or do you have some good analysis to back that up?
This kind of vehicle would make EVs more mainstream. Kind of disappointing it is so expensive; I couldn't afford a $70K vehicle and they have no plans to come to Canada.
Hmmm, perhaps if they have a black smoke generator?
Actually, I agree - my ideal vehicle is a trail rated EV Jeep.
You have a point, but on paper and in practice, the SpaceX design is far more safe than the Shuttle design NASA had previously. They don't have those pretty exciting SRBs for one, and have an engine which can be throttled down or turned off. The Russian's Buran also used liquid-fueled boosters, so SpaceX isn't the first to consider this.
For your approval: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
During fueling, a SpaceX rocket blew up rather spectacularly. Perhaps this will never happen again. Me? Nope, nope nope. Fueling is not a good time to be sitting on top of a rocket. Those cold fuel components are creaking and doing all sort's of temperature acclimation inside that candle The only reason you would do it is for expedience.
This is the same sort of hubris that preceded the Challenger rapid disassembly, and a big contributer to the Columbia accident.
SpaceX and their fans are in an endorphin buzz of their illusion of perfection, and there is a lot of evidence what happens when people have a lot of hubris and pride of perfection. Reality can come along and bitch slap everyone into humility. Fans I'm not so concerned about, but my spidey senses aren't too wild about the vibes coming from Spacex.
The capsule is put on top of the vehicle, not on the side of a large hydrogen tank which means you can put an escape system (tested and verified) and the crew actually has a chance to escape when something goes boom.
Come on - do a little research before you post this stuff. The Space shuttle indeed has an emergency exit system. A zip-line sort of apparatus that quickly ends up in a bunker. Now if the whole thing blows up, really quickly there isn't much hope of escape. But if a similar magnitude thing happens to a Falcon 9 or heavy, it's going to be very iffy for survival as well.
You sound like cheering for something isn't fun.
Just being a Cassanrdra for folks that put the what? in "What could ever go wrong?" Sorry, but I'm the sort who wants things to work, and find that thinking of what might go wrong and working to eliminate that is infinitely better than the "This is great! It has to work! No problems here, Boss!" crowd. Yes men. Not being one has served me well during my career. Once people figure out that I point out likely problems, but will run through a wall to fix them, they usually listen.
You would be really fun at parties.
I do okay. The Yes men avoid me - although I find them a tad banal anyway, so it's all good.
And we have that, in spades. Gnome, MATE, KDE.
True, that is technically standardizing but I think the real point is there should be one standard.
Okay, let's have that chat. What should the standard be? Let's say that we need to make Linux look and act like Windows. Which one?
Of course that is just bait, because the whole concept of Linux not being adopted by the masses because it doesn't have one ring to rull them all and in the darkness bind them, is that the closest thing to a standard is....... MacOS, which will cause a riot in here, and I might have to go into the witness protection system now. But You could take a person from the early 1990's on an early SystemXX OS, transport him to today, and set him in front of Mojave, and in a few minutes he could figure it out.
Now take a person who is using the old standard Windows from W95, and set him down at a Vista or W8 or W10 machine, and it's going to take a bit.
Point is, if one UI to rule them all was the mark and cause of the largest Installed User Base, it would not be Windows at all. So we need to bury that idea.
Linux's desktop adoption is a small fraction of that of Windows and it is further fragmented by multiple desktop standards. This is further complicated by the fact that apps will follow one of the standards so even if you use Gnome the chances are you will still run some apps that were designed for KDE or vice versa.
I kinda seriously disagree. Linux has a smaller user base because of Ford versus Chevy Syndrome, people thinking that you have to configure systems like it is 1999, meticulously searching the internet for every driver. A lot of people who simply use whatever OS comes on the computer they bought, And the fact that people think that even if there is software for what thedy want, they might need that MS-Dos program from days of yore, seriously - I use a radio that the manufacturers insist that they can only write for Windows because of the installed user base. Yeah, because a person who is into Software defined Radio buys one because they just so happen to have a windows machine. And another fellow is making a lot of money by offering a Mac Version, because the windows version is bollixed after updates - a lot.
. Having a singular standard would fix a lot of this.
Which one? The different versions of Windows are so radically different from each other that the idea that Linux is a failure because each version is not 100 percent identical is kinda amusing. The different distros are a lot more alike than Windows.
Do people who ever use linux even come up with this stuff?
Personally, I prefer MATE
I can't have it any other way.
Nice thing about Mate is that I can use it on all of my computers, including a Raspberry Pi.
And we have that, in spades. Gnome, MATE, KDE. Sure, they have variations, but Windows had variations between releases.
That's an understatement, given the switch between the 95/XP mode, then the Vista mode, then W7, then Metro, then W10.
Hard to imagine that was even the same operating system.
Walmart is more evil, even here, and reading the comments, their tweet actually worked!
The saddest part is that one group of billionaires can lay smack on another billionaire, and the po folktake up sides on it.
Walmart is playing on the tax code ignorance of the masses, and judging by what I'm reading on Slashdot, it's working.
Well, I suspect that they don't want WalMart yo go away. A lot of Slashdotters pictures are probably on the "People of WalMart" website.
Groups like MADD are actually modern day prohibitionists. We now haveillegal levels at a point where a person actually isn't under the influence. But don't worry folks, if a Drunk driver kills you you re much more dead that if Chad kills you whie LoL'ing his friends.
... Cold War feelings, all over again!
You win the non sequitur award for this week.
Assuming the fueling ship wasn't automated. I'd expect it, and the launch barge, to be built like a bunker in order to survive such a blast anyway though
Quite the surviveability requirement. Obviously something will have to be built pretty tough.There is a bunker for astronauts to zipline to if they have time to get to the zipline. Certainly can't do that in a water launch. Then there is the issue of the blast. A rocket the size of the Sea Dragon is going to have nuclear detonation level of explosion if the unthinkable happens. So you have to figure out a whole new world of pain to avoid.
And if they start offering commercial terrestrial flights? How does the crew complement compare to the number of passengers? It sounds like they're working hard to make the risk profile of a flight resemble that of an airliner, rather than a traditional rocket.
I doubt there are plans to make a Sea Dragon a passenger vehicle. A BFDR like that wouldn't be a very gentle ride. Oddly enough, if a gentle trip is desired, a Saturn 5 is the ride. Count how long it takes one of those to clear the tower compared to say a Shuttle. Some called it the "Old Man's Rocket". Saturn 5 was a good monster.
But make no mistake, these are more or less channeled explosions. Anyone thinking they can be made as safe as regular airplane travel isn't familiar with the physics.
Hilarious because there are no commies/capitalists/whatever, there are only assholes trying to exploit you. And oh boy, are you all being taken for a ride...
I knew Dale Gribble was going to show up eventually.
Fucking commies pretending to be capitalists.
This is so fucking true. Another common manifestation of this is socialized losses, privatized profits. And really, it makes sense. Subverted socialism seems like the end-goal of any capitalist system, where the corporations have government influence, unless it is strictly regulated to prevent it.
Exactly. The think that is so inverted is that while Libertarians freak out about any regulation of restraint because that would be Government controlling the corporations - corporations are now the real government.
So, socialism. Yet people eat that shit up. It is like the concept of universal health care. The question the sycophants always ask is "How are we going to pay for this?"
The answer of course, is we are already paying more than that to corporatized medicine.
Socialism, dirty filthy socialism for the insurance industry.
And Stalin was part of the humanity. This fails your argument at the first sentence as something A being part of something B doesn't make B equal to A - basic logic.
Your idea of "basic logic" is most amusing.
Now Old Smokin Joe was pretty much the Alpha and Omega of the old Soviet Union. But he didn't speak for the US, or Great Britain. But you can bet his word was law within his own country. Care to deny that?
France is a part of the European Union. And if they send out data/history destruction notices under the auspices of the EU, anyone getting a notice like that is going to assume that if it was sent, it was meant. Care to deny that?
Likewise, if they got the same destroy or else notice from the Man of Steel, they'd probably think it was a joke or scam.
You see, the point isn't even who is who is what. The point is that the EU is considering a modern day version of book burning. The whole issue in this case is that apparently the modern book/data burning law hasn't even passed yet. So some folks have likely taken it upon themselves to give the world a little illustration of how the book/data burning law is going to operate.
Declare something terroristic, or whatever the bugaboo of the day is, and inform the recipient of the penalties under EU law if they don't abide by the demand. All the perp has to do is claim the authority, and most people will obey. We've seen it all before.
Thanks. I was certainly not trolling. I have travelled to small communities in the US and heard about their problems and feelings towards Walmart. (And a bit of laughter when some other tourists wasn’t exactly getting the most friendly advice when asking directions to the nearest Walmart :D)
Slashdot has some real crypto libertarians, who for some bizarre reason celebrate pathological pecuniary accumulation.
Not a damn thing wrong with being wealthy. But I'm waiting for people here to start calling mob hits "just a part of the free market".
Hmm, wonder it the person who modded you troll still has mod points?
I was actually specifically referring to the BFR, which seems to have replaced the 7-booster Falcon 9 "supercluster" that Musk mentioned a few times early on as a possible heavy launch vehicle.
The Sea Dragon though - I'm not certain I've ever encountered it before - it's been many years if I have. What a beast! And launched not just from on the water (as planned for the BFR), but *in* the water, floating vertically.
I hate to think of what that sonic blast might do to whales anywhere nearby though.
I always wondered how far away the ships would have to get. before launch. 3 miles away was considered survivable if the Saturn 5 went off on the pad or shortly after launch. And being in the ocean, there would have to be a lot of humans really close for the fueling. Maybe a unattended barge similar to what Spacex uses. All in all, an interesting exercise in "How darn big can we make a rocket?" But it also seems like an engineering "hold my beer" event.
\ And yes, it would definitely be a big issue for sea life.
You sound concerned
I am. When the inevitble accident involving a rocket and people happens, the Spacex people and their fans will be thrown into a horrible shock.
Having gone through the Challenger and Columbia accidents I remember how especially with Challenger, everybody was just thinking the whole deal had been reduced to practice, that sending astronauts into space was so reduced to practice that we could send a teacher into space for shits and giggles.
If you don't like your job you go find a better one. If you can't find a better job because (education, training, travel, etc.)? Fix your problem.
Right now about 20% of Americans can't do it, living on a wage that is close to minimal wage. This is basically a disaster in waiting.
Isn't it funny how free marketeer capitalists looooove to bray about how if you aren't making enough money, just make more money.
And the orgasmic part is that companies like WalMart are sucking hard at the teats od socialism because they pay their employees so little that they are eligible for assistance.
Fucking commies pretending to be capitalists.