When I said "probably", I just wanted to emphasize the difference with ARS deaths, which are certainly caused by radiation. The reason they think the thyroid cancers where caused by the disaster is mostly statistical. You can be reasonably sure most of them were indeed caused by radiation, but you don't which ones, you don't even know precisely how many. It's less than certain in that respect. I shouldn't have used "probably" though, I agree it's way too weak. Note that I counted the dead from thyroid cancer as part of the 50 deaths directly caused by radiation, and that I don't mix the two 4,000 numbers (I actually thought you did.)
First of all, I don't think that the remaining 3,985 victims are enjoying the cancer in their thyroid (supposing that they still have a thyroid).
We were talking about the death toll. Of course, many more people have had their lives and/or health strongly affected by the disaster and thus, are victims.
That said, you're quoting only a part of the report; you're skipping others such as:
...the international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986-1987, evacuees, and residents of the most 'contaminated' areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers...
I didn't skip this part, this is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote "There is mention of a possible increase of cancer mortality in a larger group of 600,000 people which might account for up to 4000 deaths."
Saying "Chernobyl only made 50 victims" instead of "Chernobyl made up to 4,000 victims" is still a misrepresentation.
Yes, I agree with you, it's almost certainly a lot more than 50 so saying "only 50" is strongly misleading. But I do think that saying "about 4000" is just as bad, it could very well be a lot less. We actually have very little data on the effect of low radiation exposure on mortality because it's below statistical noise. Most estimates are done by looking at the mortality effect of a rather high dose, and expect it to scale linearly to lighter doses. But maybe it doesn't, maybe radiation has no effect at all below some threshold (link). The truth is we really don't know, and we probably never will know how many people died because of the Chernobyl disaster. All we know is it's at least about 50, and there is little doubt it's less than 4,000.
What it says (among many other things not related to the number of death, it's a rather thorough report), is that 28 people died from acute radiation syndrome in 1986, possibly a few more in the following years.
Additionally, the report says that 4000 thyroid cancers cases (most of them children) were probably caused by low radiation exposure. Out of these 4000, 15 died.
There is mention of a possible increase of cancer mortality in
a larger group of 600,000 people which might account for up to 4000 deaths.
You own link says 28 + 15 + a few, or roughly 50. The 4000 number is an upper bound not an estimate. And if you don't trust the IAEA, you can ask the WHO. They say that "up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure." and "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster".
There's no need for a reason besides the cool factor.
We, as a species, do useless stuff like that all the time:
art, science, exploration.
This is what makes us different from the rest of the scum that crawls the earth.
It's pretty expensive. Millions of dollars. And unless you're okay with several hours of downtime every day, you want a GEO host which is even more expensive.
Have you considered simply keeping the hard drive on earth?
Being essentially solid-state devices, these dampers probably have a much longer service life compared to traditional dampers. Maybe long enough that would not have to change them, ever.
That would be much more interesting than 60% better ride quality (as if it's not already near perfect in modern cars), or active suspensions (which already exists).
All the roads you ever want to drive your fancy roadster on are less than 100 miles away?
I live near Paris, and while most of my trips are indeed pretty short, I do want to drive my sports car to Cannes (about 600 miles)
when I go visit my family because I want to enjoy it on the nice roads they have in the south of France. A roadster that can only go 200 miles away in a day will only be driven on a very small set of roads, and that's a big drawback.
When there are "electricity stations" that can charge an electric car quickly, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll stick with gas.
I think you mean your hypothetical car needs 10kW in average to move about, which means that (assuming 100% efficiency) 60kW is enough if you're okay charging your car for 10 minutes every hour you drive it.
Taking a real life example, the Tesla Roadster has a 53kWh battery pack, so a full charge in 10 minutes is roughly 300kW. Probably a piece of cake in a distant enough future, but right now, I think the plugs you'd need would be too heavy to be practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Use French politicians.
That's a bold statement.
He wrote on the lkml: "the real reason is just that I can no longer comfortably count as high as 40."
I'm pretty sure the Muslim extremists think they are the civilized ones.
I would welcome our robotic overlords, if I spoke their language.
Impact Shock 3400G, 6.5 milliseconds
I did the math out of curiosity, and that means it's supposed to be able to stop from 780km/h in 70cm. Holy Shit!
Impact shock has been successfully demonstrated at 4800 G's
If it's still 6.5ms, that's 1100km/h to 0 in one meter. Holy fucking shit!
When I said "probably", I just wanted to emphasize the difference with ARS deaths, which are certainly caused by radiation. The reason they think the thyroid cancers where caused by the disaster is mostly statistical. You can be reasonably sure most of them were indeed caused by radiation, but you don't which ones, you don't even know precisely how many. It's less than certain in that respect. I shouldn't have used "probably" though, I agree it's way too weak. Note that I counted the dead from thyroid cancer as part of the 50 deaths directly caused by radiation, and that I don't mix the two 4,000 numbers (I actually thought you did.)
First of all, I don't think that the remaining 3,985 victims are enjoying the cancer in their thyroid (supposing that they still have a thyroid).
We were talking about the death toll. Of course, many more people have had their lives and/or health strongly affected by the disaster and thus, are victims.
That said, you're quoting only a part of the report; you're skipping others such as:
...the international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986-1987, evacuees, and residents of the most 'contaminated' areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers...
I didn't skip this part, this is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote "There is mention of a possible increase of cancer mortality in a larger group of 600,000 people which might account for up to 4000 deaths."
Saying "Chernobyl only made 50 victims" instead of "Chernobyl made up to 4,000 victims" is still a misrepresentation.
Yes, I agree with you, it's almost certainly a lot more than 50 so saying "only 50" is strongly misleading. But I do think that saying "about 4000" is just as bad, it could very well be a lot less. We actually have very little data on the effect of low radiation exposure on mortality because it's below statistical noise. Most estimates are done by looking at the mortality effect of a rather high dose, and expect it to scale linearly to lighter doses. But maybe it doesn't, maybe radiation has no effect at all below some threshold (link). The truth is we really don't know, and we probably never will know how many people died because of the Chernobyl disaster. All we know is it's at least about 50, and there is little doubt it's less than 4,000.
Have you read your link?
What it says (among many other things not related to the number of death, it's a rather thorough report), is that 28 people died from acute radiation syndrome in 1986, possibly a few more in the following years.
Additionally, the report says that 4000 thyroid cancers cases (most of them children) were probably caused by low radiation exposure. Out of these 4000, 15 died.
There is mention of a possible increase of cancer mortality in a larger group of 600,000 people which might account for up to 4000 deaths.
You own link says 28 + 15 + a few, or roughly 50. The 4000 number is an upper bound not an estimate. And if you don't trust the IAEA, you can ask the WHO. They say that "up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure." and "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster".
There's no need for a reason besides the cool factor.
We, as a species, do useless stuff like that all the time: art, science, exploration. This is what makes us different from the rest of the scum that crawls the earth.
Interestingly, African and Asian elephants have the same unladen air-speed velocity.
We'll just have to find a way to speed up earth orbit.
There's a well known How To for this. Apparently, it's very difficult.
This is like saying "Ford are now making black cars, whereas previously the focus was on cars with round wheels."
Additionally, Ford puts the round wheels on cars named Focus.
It's pretty expensive. Millions of dollars. And unless you're okay with several hours of downtime every day, you want a GEO host which is even more expensive.
Have you considered simply keeping the hard drive on earth?
I looked it up, and it means you just sunk my cruiser!
My move. "6A".
If you look for something "fast, light, without acceleration requirements", I suggest awesome.
This is what I use, and it's awesome.
Being essentially solid-state devices, these dampers probably have a much longer service life compared to traditional dampers. Maybe long enough that would not have to change them, ever.
That would be much more interesting than 60% better ride quality (as if it's not already near perfect in modern cars), or active suspensions (which already exists).
All the roads you ever want to drive your fancy roadster on are less than 100 miles away?
I live near Paris, and while most of my trips are indeed pretty short, I do want to drive my sports car to Cannes (about 600 miles) when I go visit my family because I want to enjoy it on the nice roads they have in the south of France. A roadster that can only go 200 miles away in a day will only be driven on a very small set of roads, and that's a big drawback.
When there are "electricity stations" that can charge an electric car quickly, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll stick with gas.
which in a multi-core system would heat the processor up good and toasty without any real performance hit as long as the other 3 cores are idle.
One, two, three, multi, five, six, ...
Hold on a minute, you're not supposed to use mouse acceleration in things like FPS games.
Ten out of twelve Quake Live players at ESWC 2010 used accel (link.) So maybe it's useful for some people in some FPS games.
I think you mean your hypothetical car needs 10kW in average to move about, which means that (assuming 100% efficiency) 60kW is enough if you're okay charging your car for 10 minutes every hour you drive it.
Taking a real life example, the Tesla Roadster has a 53kWh battery pack, so a full charge in 10 minutes is roughly 300kW. Probably a piece of cake in a distant enough future, but right now, I think the plugs you'd need would be too heavy to be practical.
Yeah, I got that in my Porsche.
It's not very fuel efficient :-(
The CEO of the company that makes this miracle battery pack is named Mirko Hannemann. Coincidence? I think not!
The CEO of the company that makes this miracle battery pack is named Mirko Hannemann. Coincidence? I think not!
The CEO of the company that makes this miracle battery pack is named Mirko Hannemann. Coincidence? I think not!
The latter have many many many many many good solution paths in computers.
Woah, yes there is a lot of good approximation algorithms out there but, really, five many is two many too many.