When a young man was asked by a reporter, if he thought rioting was the correct way to express disconsent, he answered with
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?" The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
10% sounds quite a lot, but according to Adult Literacy in America, Third Edition, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf), "This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information.", which I would define as literacy, but obviously indexmundi uses a different scale, as it states the USA as having a 99% literacy rate.
Parts of the video were awfully familiar, especially in the beginning. If I remember correctly, last time around they produced this with functions for curves etc. and created models with these curves, allowing "unlimited" detail.
Luckily, the real Europeans (not the Brits;)) got rid of those ancient units quite some time ago, so it's l/100km, everywhere, with every kind of liter...
Problem with those numbers is that it is very hard to attribute deaths to a certain kind of energy, be it coal or nuclear. For example the number 4000 for the deaths in Chernobyl might be way off, with sources suggesting anything between a few hundred and a few million deaths. Also, quality of live is never mentioned or looked at, the numbers of tumors caused by coal mining, uranium mining etc. are as hard to attribute, and if you choose your sources well, you can, as always, prove everything.
Sorry, German myself, and most of the articles on the topic that I read are in German, so not of much use to you. Also, I was being a little polemic there, but all in good fun...
Actually, France is net-importing energy. Turns out that using rivers for cooling and then not having enough water in them kind of ruins using nuclear energy for them.
As far as I have read it (although if any facts from that are really believable is still not clear), he would not give up and shot at the forces entering his house. In this case, most people get shot, even more so when soldiers enter the place. So one could even argue that it was by his own choice.
Sorry, I don't know what it is on here all the time, comparing dosage with an hourly dose. While real levels in the vicinity, OUTSIDE the evacuation zone, were measured more like 10-100uSv/h (still not that much), going with the low level of just 2 uSv/h you get a higher radiation dosage than your example flight every day. And since this has been going on for quite some time, people have gotten quite a few additional flights. Why don't we just start giving the dose per minute. It will sound even less... This is just another way of making dosages sound even smaller than they are, so you can compare them with different things like x-rays, CTs, or flights.
The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...
As much as Slashdotters complain about the hysterics in the press, they seem to lean to the other side and drinking a little bit too much of the cool-aid. Of course most of the radiation is not significant, comparison to Chernobyl is not really warranted, but if outside of the evacuation zone, one measures >1MBq, something is definitely not going well, and even if it is just iodine, it will still be bad for people ingesting it.
Still: Look at all the children dying in Africa because of hunger, and people should realize really fast that Japan just does not matter in terms of suffering.
You may certainly be right with this, and I agree with the gist of your post, although I personally favor a fully regenerative version of electricity generation with lots and lots of smaller "plants".
This might have been said in one of the many other replies to this comment, but the German pebble bed reactor was one massive fuck-up. The pebbles did not move as planned, temperatures were way higher than thought (and this was only discovered about 10 years _after_ shutting it down), and there were cracks in the foundations where pebbles got stuck due to this, all of this without being noticed. Also, some radiating leaked due to this. So inherently safe is not necessarily true, one can still screw thinks up royally.
One small correction: While the Richter scale is logarithmic with the base 10, this is just for the amplitude. The energy released is somewhat over 30 times more for each +1 on the Richter scale.
On wikipedia, there are links to studies saying that with an investment of an additional 5% regarding to turbine cost per MW needed, one can upgrade the electrical grid in Europe to provide 70% of the electricity (non-stop) through wind power, without the need to keep shadow power plants. Please don't complain about others not being informed about the possibilities of nuclear power when you clearly have not looked at the potential of alternatives. Also, wind power has achieved grid parity (is competitively priced) in many countries of the world.
I never meant that the security standards should be any lower than they are currently. But it seems like people think that even with current safety standards, it would be cheap and efficient and fast to build new reactors. This has not neccessarily been proven, at least not with the safety standards of the western world.
I can't talk for Japanese reactors, but I know that while German reactors are about the same age, lot's of new security features have been incorporated. While newer designs might have some inherent safety features, just thinking that because a reactor is as old or older than Chernobyl it is also less safe is not very smart.
In Europe, due to the security requirements, it also is often way too expensive to build the new reactors (See Finnland). And the old plants make a million a day, so there is way too much economical incentive to take them offline. It's not as easy to replace the old plants with new ones as you make it out.
Sorry, but it's a 30 bananas per day, for a whole year.:) But thanks, didn't know about BED before, and although personally I am somewhat opposed to nuclear energy, I always end up arguing with nutjobs about this and this will certainly help me with this.
Slashdot Mirror
When a young man was asked by a reporter, if he thought rioting was the correct way to express disconsent, he answered with
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot
10% sounds quite a lot, but according to Adult Literacy in America, Third Edition, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf), "This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information.", which I would define as literacy, but obviously indexmundi uses a different scale, as it states the USA as having a 99% literacy rate.
Parts of the video were awfully familiar, especially in the beginning. If I remember correctly, last time around they produced this with functions for curves etc. and created models with these curves, allowing "unlimited" detail.
Luckily, the real Europeans (not the Brits ;)) got rid of those ancient units quite some time ago, so it's l/100km, everywhere, with every kind of liter...
You might want to read your last link again. There, the people saying that the CRU e-mails contained those hints are pretty much witch hunters...
Except that it is only 6500 people a year, you are right.
Problem with those numbers is that it is very hard to attribute deaths to a certain kind of energy, be it coal or nuclear. For example the number 4000 for the deaths in Chernobyl might be way off, with sources suggesting anything between a few hundred and a few million deaths.
Also, quality of live is never mentioned or looked at, the numbers of tumors caused by coal mining, uranium mining etc. are as hard to attribute, and if you choose your sources well, you can, as always, prove everything.
Sorry, German myself, and most of the articles on the topic that I read are in German, so not of much use to you. Also, I was being a little polemic there, but all in good fun...
As it says in the article:
France has increasingly imported power in recent years amid cold snaps and heat waves
Seems like the French nuclear power plants are the same as the German trains: Only four enemies: spring, summer, fall and winter...
Actually, France is net-importing energy. Turns out that using rivers for cooling and then not having enough water in them kind of ruins using nuclear energy for them.
It's not (yet) illegal to write any kind of software you like, no matter what its purpose. What's illegal is how it's used and/or distributed.
Sorry to disappoint you, but in Germany it is, although I do not know of any prosecution cases using this law.
As far as I have read it (although if any facts from that are really believable is still not clear), he would not give up and shot at the forces entering his house. In this case, most people get shot, even more so when soldiers enter the place. So one could even argue that it was by his own choice.
Sorry, I don't know what it is on here all the time, comparing dosage with an hourly dose. While real levels in the vicinity, OUTSIDE the evacuation zone, were measured more like 10-100uSv/h (still not that much), going with the low level of just 2 uSv/h you get a higher radiation dosage than your example flight every day. And since this has been going on for quite some time, people have gotten quite a few additional flights. Why don't we just start giving the dose per minute. It will sound even less... This is just another way of making dosages sound even smaller than they are, so you can compare them with different things like x-rays, CTs, or flights.
The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...
As much as Slashdotters complain about the hysterics in the press, they seem to lean to the other side and drinking a little bit too much of the cool-aid.
Of course most of the radiation is not significant, comparison to Chernobyl is not really warranted, but if outside of the evacuation zone, one measures >1MBq, something is definitely not going well, and even if it is just iodine, it will still be bad for people ingesting it.
Still: Look at all the children dying in Africa because of hunger, and people should realize really fast that Japan just does not matter in terms of suffering.
Yes, but don't confuse him with those facts...
You may certainly be right with this, and I agree with the gist of your post, although I personally favor a fully regenerative version of electricity generation with lots and lots of smaller "plants".
This might have been said in one of the many other replies to this comment, but the German pebble bed reactor was one massive fuck-up. The pebbles did not move as planned, temperatures were way higher than thought (and this was only discovered about 10 years _after_ shutting it down), and there were cracks in the foundations where pebbles got stuck due to this, all of this without being noticed. Also, some radiating leaked due to this. So inherently safe is not necessarily true, one can still screw thinks up royally.
One small correction: While the Richter scale is logarithmic with the base 10, this is just for the amplitude. The energy released is somewhat over 30 times more for each +1 on the Richter scale.
On wikipedia, there are links to studies saying that with an investment of an additional 5% regarding to turbine cost per MW needed, one can upgrade the electrical grid in Europe to provide 70% of the electricity (non-stop) through wind power, without the need to keep shadow power plants. Please don't complain about others not being informed about the possibilities of nuclear power when you clearly have not looked at the potential of alternatives.
Also, wind power has achieved grid parity (is competitively priced) in many countries of the world.
Supposedly, the reactor one was to be taken offline _this_ month due to it coming to the end of its officially allowed run time or something like it.
I never meant that the security standards should be any lower than they are currently. But it seems like people think that even with current safety standards, it would be cheap and efficient and fast to build new reactors. This has not neccessarily been proven, at least not with the safety standards of the western world.
I can't talk for Japanese reactors, but I know that while German reactors are about the same age, lot's of new security features have been incorporated. While newer designs might have some inherent safety features, just thinking that because a reactor is as old or older than Chernobyl it is also less safe is not very smart.
In Europe, due to the security requirements, it also is often way too expensive to build the new reactors (See Finnland). And the old plants make a million a day, so there is way too much economical incentive to take them offline. It's not as easy to replace the old plants with new ones as you make it out.
Sorry, but it's a 30 bananas per day, for a whole year. :) But thanks, didn't know about BED before, and although personally I am somewhat opposed to nuclear energy, I always end up arguing with nutjobs about this and this will certainly help me with this.