Those who don't know yet, angelosphere is the local wind power shill. Last time I interacted with him he came down swinging telling me that most if not all modern wind plants do not have a gearbox, and that generators of gearboxless plants don't use neodymium. When asked for which company he was talking about, he quoted GE and Siemens.
When I pointed him towards GE's current sales brochure that is almost fully plants with gear boxes, and the GE studies that showed that they couldn't make large amounts of gearboxless plants because they're both inefficient and require extreme amounts of neodymium, he suggested that GE was in fact wrong.
He had similar bouts of insanity when forced to face reality with other users as well. I prefer to simply post this boilerplate disclamer nowadays instead of trying to engage in another attempt to hammer reality in, only to have another bout of his utter insanity thrown in my face.
The nasty stuff that killed people early on is I-131. That has half life of eight days.
The stuff that is currently causing most of radiation is Sr-90 and Cs-137. Those are long term irradiators with half lives of around 30 years each. But they are far less potent as a result, and they have been largely diluted by time as they were spread over wider areas. That's why video I linked shows radioactive mushrooms outside alienation zone and why people living near the plant experience no significant increase in health problems even though they consume large amounts of local produce.
Those who don't know yet, angelosphere is the local wind power shill. Last time I interacted with him he came down swinging telling me that most if not all modern wind plants do not have a gearbox, and that generators of gearboxless plants don't use neodymium. When asked for which company he was talking about, he quoted GE and Siemens.
When I pointed him towards GE's current sales brochure that is almost fully plants with gear boxes, and the GE studies that showed that they couldn't make large amounts of gearboxless plants because they're both inefficient and require extreme amounts of neodymium, he suggested that GE was in fact wrong.
He had similar bouts of insanity when forced to face reality with other users as well.
The entire point is that current concept of "dangerous" is derived from debunked LNT. We keep using it regardless because we err massively on the side of caution with radiation.
The video I posted shows a concrete, factual demonstration of people who live of far more radioactive food for decades with no significant health complications. When you consider how many carcinogens we pump into our agriculture to boost output, it's not a large surprise, because we serve as their control group - not some hypothetical "no carcinogens at all" human race that doesn't exist.
Radiation is a carcinogen, just like chemical carcinogens are. The whole idea of elevating it to a special status among carcinogens is mainly rooted in our fear because unlike chemicals, we are unable to feel radiation in any way, shape or form. It's an irrational fear.
The main problem was I-131. It's quite nasty, but it has a half life of only eight days. As a result, you have high levels of lethality for short period with thyroid problems caused by it, which abruptly end after it decays.
And now, well over twenty years after the case, it's essentially all gone. The problems are now with long term irradiators like Sr-90 and Cs-137, but these appear to be very much benign in comparison for long term exposure and there wasn't a lot of them released. These are mostly sitting in the soil, and when consumed through those mushrooms appear to come in very low concentrations that do not seem to have the "scary" impact that many thing they do.
At most, they appear to be on par with most of the common chemical carcinogens we are exposed to daily.
Scientists, outside those few who suggest that LNT is real (and most are not at this point, they're just sticking to it because "err on safe side") do not in fact suggest things you suggest.
Problem with it is that it's not actually scary. People have been living in Exclusion Zone itself and right outside it for a long time. Mainly cleanup crews and their families.
So long as you don't go rolling in the hay of Red Forest, it appears you're going to be pretty much fine living there. Locals are even living off the land and eating local produce like fruit and mushrooms. Which apparently scared the pants off the BBC cuisine reporter who went into the region until they thawed him off with some good old moonshine. Which they told him afterwards, was made from the local produce.
As far as I know, there are several just outside the zone. Not sure if there are any inside.
No problems so far. And considering that locals do things like eat local mushrooms and such, you'd expect LNT to hit them hard over last years if it was true.
Actually it doesn't. Pay attention. If you try to edit to correct for errors, your edit will be instantly reverted, and guys like the one that article talks about will request that you get banned from ever editing wikipedia again.
Wikipedia has been getting noticeably worse as certain kinds of editors and admins became entrenched. You can see some very questionable edits, in some case straight up corruption which even gets Jimbo Wales himself to argue against them go uncontrolled and unpunished, with pundits being allowed to basically poison the well.
Wikipedia's main advantage is quantity. It has an article on almost everything at this point. It's quality on the other hand is anything but good for any even marginally controversial subject.
Eneloops are fine for high discharge tasks. They still retain their main advantage, ability to retain most of the charge over many recharge cycles and years of usage.
High capacity Eneloop-Pros are much worse. The main advantage of Eneloops is the isolation layer inside the battery. This improves both their ability to retain charge over time as well as their expected lifetime to almost a quarter of normal AAs. In the high capacity version, this layer is thinned to make room for more active elements, reducing life expectancy of the battery .
I currently use 3rd gen eneloops (HR-3UTGB). Best AA NI-MH batteries I ever used by far and wide, and I used Ni-Cd and Ni-MH rechargeables since the days of portable cassette-radio players back in 1990s.
In other words, you can't see forest for the trees in the finance ABC, yet you claim that you have superior understanding of controlling your money flow.
The money they "give back to you", it the money that seller charges from you when you make the initial purchase. Your purchase costs you more than it should have cost you because of the administrative costs of the mechanic you describe, putting you the payer in to net negative.
And here's the last point that most people who drive casually and never or rarely visit a racing track to drive on it don't actually know at all.
At high speeds on a street vehicle with no rear downforce and proper suspension, you do not brake while avoiding the obstacle that you suddenly spot ahead of you. If you do, you're dead, because the extra load on tires from brakes will likely cause rear wheels to lose grip even with ABS brakes pushing you into an uncontrollable slide which at those speeds is essentially a near-certain fatality for people in your vehicle as well as those you hit on your way off the road. This is one of the most common driver errors at high speeds that result in a fatal loss of control of the vehicle. Problem is that most drivers typically only drive at street speeds, where breaking while turning is an appropriate way of controlling the vehicle. Such drivers are inexperienced at changes in basic driving mechanics at high speeds, and apply same technique at high speeds, causing loss of traction with typically fatal consequences.
What you should do is maximize grip by pressing down the clutch as you begin maneuvering. Braking can only be reasonably done on a street vehicle without racing adjustments at high speeds when going straight ahead, and even then cautiously due to much lower grip. Though ABS breaks do reduce the risk of loss of control while braking on the straight to a significant degree, they do not eliminate it at high speeds. Never brake at high speeds when trying to significant maneuvers.
This is also something that most people do not know, or know but are unable to apply in actual emergency due to overwhelming natural human response of "bigger emergency, hit the brake down harder" and why there are a lot of idiots who claim that driving at high speeds on a high quality street vehicle is safe. And then we read about them in obituaries, often alongside those they killed with their stupidity. Street vehicles are designed for speeds up to around 120-140km/h at best. This is not because of vehicle quality, but because those are the speeds where you start needing racing quality suspension and downforce to keep wheels glued to the road, which is why racing vehicles feature completely different kinds of suspension and tires as well as diffusers in the rear while street vehicles feature much cheaper suspension designed to work best at low speeds, appropriate tires and only a small frontal splitter at best with no diffuser to keep the rear wheels gripping the road at high speeds. That is why when you drive a street vehicle even on autobahn at >150km/h, you get the "floaty" feeling - it's the suspension no longer holding on to the road properly for anything other than driving in a straight line.
The main thing that disqualifies older cars is the condition of the suspension typically. Not brakes.
And at high speeds, it's the suspension that matters most. If you car cannot hold on to the road at high speeds with all the vibration going on, you're the moment you need to avoid something.
Slashdot Mirror
Every village needs its idiot I guess.
Those who don't know yet, angelosphere is the local wind power shill. Last time I interacted with him he came down swinging telling me that most if not all modern wind plants do not have a gearbox, and that generators of gearboxless plants don't use neodymium. When asked for which company he was talking about, he quoted GE and Siemens.
When I pointed him towards GE's current sales brochure that is almost fully plants with gear boxes, and the GE studies that showed that they couldn't make large amounts of gearboxless plants because they're both inefficient and require extreme amounts of neodymium, he suggested that GE was in fact wrong.
He had similar bouts of insanity when forced to face reality with other users as well. I prefer to simply post this boilerplate disclamer nowadays instead of trying to engage in another attempt to hammer reality in, only to have another bout of his utter insanity thrown in my face.
The nasty stuff that killed people early on is I-131. That has half life of eight days.
The stuff that is currently causing most of radiation is Sr-90 and Cs-137. Those are long term irradiators with half lives of around 30 years each. But they are far less potent as a result, and they have been largely diluted by time as they were spread over wider areas. That's why video I linked shows radioactive mushrooms outside alienation zone and why people living near the plant experience no significant increase in health problems even though they consume large amounts of local produce.
Those who don't know yet, angelosphere is the local wind power shill. Last time I interacted with him he came down swinging telling me that most if not all modern wind plants do not have a gearbox, and that generators of gearboxless plants don't use neodymium. When asked for which company he was talking about, he quoted GE and Siemens.
When I pointed him towards GE's current sales brochure that is almost fully plants with gear boxes, and the GE studies that showed that they couldn't make large amounts of gearboxless plants because they're both inefficient and require extreme amounts of neodymium, he suggested that GE was in fact wrong.
He had similar bouts of insanity when forced to face reality with other users as well.
The entire point is that current concept of "dangerous" is derived from debunked LNT. We keep using it regardless because we err massively on the side of caution with radiation.
The video I posted shows a concrete, factual demonstration of people who live of far more radioactive food for decades with no significant health complications. When you consider how many carcinogens we pump into our agriculture to boost output, it's not a large surprise, because we serve as their control group - not some hypothetical "no carcinogens at all" human race that doesn't exist.
Radiation is a carcinogen, just like chemical carcinogens are. The whole idea of elevating it to a special status among carcinogens is mainly rooted in our fear because unlike chemicals, we are unable to feel radiation in any way, shape or form. It's an irrational fear.
The main problem was I-131. It's quite nasty, but it has a half life of only eight days. As a result, you have high levels of lethality for short period with thyroid problems caused by it, which abruptly end after it decays.
And now, well over twenty years after the case, it's essentially all gone. The problems are now with long term irradiators like Sr-90 and Cs-137, but these appear to be very much benign in comparison for long term exposure and there wasn't a lot of them released. These are mostly sitting in the soil, and when consumed through those mushrooms appear to come in very low concentrations that do not seem to have the "scary" impact that many thing they do.
At most, they appear to be on par with most of the common chemical carcinogens we are exposed to daily.
Watch the linked video to see people who have been living off the land for well over 20 years now.
It's really hilarious when people demand something that has been given to them in the very post they reply to.
Except that if you were right, we should be urgently researching all the carcinogens contained in goods our children use and eat. And yet we don't.
Reason is same as here. The actual risk is so low, its negligible.
Aye. This is mostly because LNT is basically mandated for safety reasons and studies that would prove otherwise are shut down by decisions from above.
It's pretty ironic considering the sheer amount of chemical toxins and carcinogens we expose ourselves to every day.
And then, guy with best blowjobs to admis wins.
Welcome to wikipedia.
Scientists, outside those few who suggest that LNT is real (and most are not at this point, they're just sticking to it because "err on safe side") do not in fact suggest things you suggest.
As for the rest, have you seen this?
http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...
Some people on the other hand did just that and came out with flying colours:
http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...
Problem with it is that it's not actually scary. People have been living in Exclusion Zone itself and right outside it for a long time. Mainly cleanup crews and their families.
So long as you don't go rolling in the hay of Red Forest, it appears you're going to be pretty much fine living there. Locals are even living off the land and eating local produce like fruit and mushrooms. Which apparently scared the pants off the BBC cuisine reporter who went into the region until they thawed him off with some good old moonshine. Which they told him afterwards, was made from the local produce.
http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...
As far as I know, there are several just outside the zone. Not sure if there are any inside.
No problems so far. And considering that locals do things like eat local mushrooms and such, you'd expect LNT to hit them hard over last years if it was true.
Actually it doesn't. Pay attention. If you try to edit to correct for errors, your edit will be instantly reverted, and guys like the one that article talks about will request that you get banned from ever editing wikipedia again.
Because, best blowjobs.
This is normal for wikipedia. When you have a contested issue, you'll have pundits duke it out and one who gives best blowjobs to admins wins.
Here's a good example of even more hilarious controversy:
http://techraptor.net/content/...
Wikipedia has been getting noticeably worse as certain kinds of editors and admins became entrenched. You can see some very questionable edits, in some case straight up corruption which even gets Jimbo Wales himself to argue against them go uncontrolled and unpunished, with pundits being allowed to basically poison the well.
Wikipedia's main advantage is quantity. It has an article on almost everything at this point. It's quality on the other hand is anything but good for any even marginally controversial subject.
Eneloops are fine for high discharge tasks. They still retain their main advantage, ability to retain most of the charge over many recharge cycles and years of usage.
High capacity Eneloop-Pros are much worse. The main advantage of Eneloops is the isolation layer inside the battery. This improves both their ability to retain charge over time as well as their expected lifetime to almost a quarter of normal AAs. In the high capacity version, this layer is thinned to make room for more active elements, reducing life expectancy of the battery .
I currently use 3rd gen eneloops (HR-3UTGB). Best AA NI-MH batteries I ever used by far and wide, and I used Ni-Cd and Ni-MH rechargeables since the days of portable cassette-radio players back in 1990s.
That's 3.6.28
In other words, you can't see forest for the trees in the finance ABC, yet you claim that you have superior understanding of controlling your money flow.
The money they "give back to you", it the money that seller charges from you when you make the initial purchase. Your purchase costs you more than it should have cost you because of the administrative costs of the mechanic you describe, putting you the payer in to net negative.
And here's the last point that most people who drive casually and never or rarely visit a racing track to drive on it don't actually know at all.
At high speeds on a street vehicle with no rear downforce and proper suspension, you do not brake while avoiding the obstacle that you suddenly spot ahead of you. If you do, you're dead, because the extra load on tires from brakes will likely cause rear wheels to lose grip even with ABS brakes pushing you into an uncontrollable slide which at those speeds is essentially a near-certain fatality for people in your vehicle as well as those you hit on your way off the road.
This is one of the most common driver errors at high speeds that result in a fatal loss of control of the vehicle. Problem is that most drivers typically only drive at street speeds, where breaking while turning is an appropriate way of controlling the vehicle. Such drivers are inexperienced at changes in basic driving mechanics at high speeds, and apply same technique at high speeds, causing loss of traction with typically fatal consequences.
What you should do is maximize grip by pressing down the clutch as you begin maneuvering. Braking can only be reasonably done on a street vehicle without racing adjustments at high speeds when going straight ahead, and even then cautiously due to much lower grip. Though ABS breaks do reduce the risk of loss of control while braking on the straight to a significant degree, they do not eliminate it at high speeds. Never brake at high speeds when trying to significant maneuvers.
This is also something that most people do not know, or know but are unable to apply in actual emergency due to overwhelming natural human response of "bigger emergency, hit the brake down harder" and why there are a lot of idiots who claim that driving at high speeds on a high quality street vehicle is safe. And then we read about them in obituaries, often alongside those they killed with their stupidity. Street vehicles are designed for speeds up to around 120-140km/h at best. This is not because of vehicle quality, but because those are the speeds where you start needing racing quality suspension and downforce to keep wheels glued to the road, which is why racing vehicles feature completely different kinds of suspension and tires as well as diffusers in the rear while street vehicles feature much cheaper suspension designed to work best at low speeds, appropriate tires and only a small frontal splitter at best with no diffuser to keep the rear wheels gripping the road at high speeds. That is why when you drive a street vehicle even on autobahn at >150km/h, you get the "floaty" feeling - it's the suspension no longer holding on to the road properly for anything other than driving in a straight line.
*you're done. Typo.
The main thing that disqualifies older cars is the condition of the suspension typically. Not brakes.
And at high speeds, it's the suspension that matters most. If you car cannot hold on to the road at high speeds with all the vibration going on, you're the moment you need to avoid something.
Whoosh.