True, but with nuclear reactors you have a fairly unique situation compared to chemical problems - Radiation sources degrade and become safer over time. If a chemical is stable, it's not going to degrade(without help).
Over the service life of an operational nuclear plant you can save up a humongous decommissioning fund, even if you only charge a fraction of a cent. You can expect a gigawatt nuclear plant to produce ~8B kwh a year. At.1 cents a kwh, for a gigawatt nuclear plant, thatâ(TM)s around $8M a year towards decommissioning. At 5% a year, that $8M should turn into just over $1T over the course of 40 years.
Even with todayâ(TM)s costs, $1T should more than pay for not only decommissioning the old plant, but building a new one.
As for the radiation, after you pull the fuel out you can save massive amounts of money simply by letting the reactor vessel sit for a decade or so, by which time the radiation will have dropped sufficienty that you don't need as extensive radiation control measures. Bonus points if you arrange things so that the reactor vessel is still on the grounds of an active power plant so you don't need seperate security measures. Then, in 30-40 years when you're looking to replace the now old replacement, you tear down the now relatively cold original reactor and build a new one in it's footprint.
Your claim is that paying trolls will encourage them and so will lose more money in the long run. This opinion is what basically everyone here says. The subsequent comments basically all agree with you on this point.
Awful lot of assumptions here. Remember, I was talking about lawsuit trolls, specifically those without real cases. Patent trolls, on the other hand, have better standing and a better success rate in court.
I'm faily certain this claim is mistaken. Bear in mind that if you don't pay trolls and say "we'll never pay trolls," then you'll be taken to court and will lose some fraction of the time, say 10%. (I know this because I've recently reviewed patent troll lawsuits when settlement is refused, and the troll lawsuits are successful about 10% of the time). Now assume two companies, one which routinely pays trolls 10% of the settlement amount, and another which never pays them and loses 10% of the time, and must pay 10x the settlement amount once every 10 times. In both cases the patent troll makes the same amount of money and couldn't care less what the CEO says.
The point would be that every case would need to be judged on it's own merits. Consider this as well -
Using your numbers - Patent troll sues 10 Companies, they all fold and pay. He now gets 10 units of profit, for minimal cost. Patent troll sues 10 Companies, they all fight. He spends 10 units of money to do the fight, loses all but 1 case, where he makes 10 units of profit.. He's only made even. The 10 companies also spent 10 units of money on their defense. The lawyers get 20 units of profit, the only ones enriched by this experience.
As such, even though it's twice as expensive for the companies with the occasional failure, it also renders being a patent troll unprofitable on average, due to the legal fees of the lost cases.
Now, each patent case needs to be judged on it's merits. Advantage troll - pay. Advantage company - fight and put the patent troll company in the ground, saving hassle in the future.
Doing actual research, no, lawsuits didn't really go up. Matter of fact, suits by individuals are decreasing.
Still, remember my point - the troll doesn't want to go to court, because he knows he'll lose. He's hoping for a 'shut up and go away' payoff that's less than what it would cost the business to have a lawyer handle their defense.
So, generally speaking, only the very initial steps of starting a lawsuit would be followed. If the business folds and settles, no lawsuit for the records. If they promise to fight, the troll is likely to fold in order to find an easier target. Also no lawsuit appearing in the courts. Only if the troll choses to fight it out, risking his own money, would it appear in the statistics.
And how the heck did 'math' get redone as 'make' in my post?
Yeah, the beginnings were pretty much in the '90s. Maybe late '80s. I was pretty young then. I'll fully admit that crazy lawsuits still happen, but I'd say that they're off of their 'peak' because many companies, such as Walmart, have worked very hard to NOT be seen as a target. Yes, Walmart still gets sued a lot, but remember it's size.
This sort of thinking is what led to the lawsuit-crazy period in the '90s. People would find some 'standing' to sue, pretty much irregardless of merit. Then they'd offer to settle for some fraction of the court costs (like $500). The accountants did the make, figuring it'd cost $5k to win the court case, but only $500 to make them go away.
HOWEVER, if you get a reputation for paying off, you attract MORE trolls. This would be known as a 'second order effect'. IE if you don't have a rep for settling, you might get sued once a year. Get a rep for settling, and you might get 100.
1x $5k is cheaper than 100x $500.
So settling with a patent troll may be, on first glance, cheaper. But if it results in more patent trolls threatening to sue you, the overall expense can actually flip.
It's this sort of reasoning behind why Walmart and a number of other companies will fight ANY settlement tooth and nail. It's to have a tough-guy rep to prevent others from suing in the first place.
I never said that they'd be able to use bargain basement thermal panels.
Still, Evergreen Es-A-210-Fa3 210 watt, 13% efficiency, 65"x37.5" = 2,438 square inches of collector(1.57m2). $587 each bought in a pallet of 28.
Cost by area: $374 m2 Power by area: 134 w/m2 Cost per watt: $2.79
A "ThermoPower-VDF30 should be around $1,244. It's aperture is 2.67 m2. 94% absorbtion, 7% emission per the datasheet. 'Stagnation Temperature" > 428F
Cost by area: $466 m2 (okay, it's not cheaper per m2) Power by area: 634 w/m2 (at 1000 w/m2) (almost 5 times the power though) Cost per watt: $0.74
Conclusion: At 27% of the price, you'd have to be looking at a pretty hefty penalty for using an adsorption chiller for it to make sense to use electrical HVAC with solar electric panels. Also, in either case I'd consider utilizing additional reflectors to put more power to the relatively expensive collector.
They don't perform well? Isn't that just a question of sizing? If they don't work well for heavy loads, why is it that there's lots of them available in huge sizes, but hardly any residential sized units?
Besides, consider the context, even if adsorption chillers aren't as efficient as HVAC versions. 1. Solar heat panels are cheaper than solar electric panels. 2. Solar heat panels are more efficient than solar electric (30-90%, vs 13%)
Basically, the cheaper panels helps to offset any increased costs on part of the adsorption system, while the higher efficiency helps offset any losses in efficiency.
One idea I've seen is to switch to the cheaper solar-thermal panels, w/reflectors. Then you don't use a standard AC unit, you use an adsorption chiller. Electricity usage is restricted to a few pumps that are there more for controllability and efficiency.
To be efficient the water needs to be at least 180F/80C, but that's easily doable with evacuated tube collectors.
The Metal/Wood thing is something that the courts could get into, but the general argument in such a case is that they are effectively the same device.
But I'll admit that it is sort of the same argument. In order for a device to not be infringing despite doing the same task it would have to do the task via a different method, and the question comes in whether said method is different enough.
Personally I like the idea of making them come up with an actual device or implementation because I think it'd keep the patent trolls down - things like force feedback joysticks being held back for years because a company that has never produced one holds some patent on it; sure, they'll offer a license, but no technological help. They might of patented the idea of a control mechanism with a feedback loop, but they didn't do anything else to actually develop it.
Another one I remember has something to do with social media sites - and the company that did the patent doesn't run a social media site.
Was it still claimed to be "self-cleaning" after that?
Probably not, but by then the rifle's were the Army's. It was they who decided against the slightly more expensive chromed chamber & barrel, and they were always going to provide the ammo.
Note that 'self cleaning' doesn't equal 'no cleaning needed'. An oven can be 'self cleaning' and still need some additional cleaning on occasion.
Stoner's(the designer) AR-10 prototype had a chrome barrel(helps resist buildup) and used a newer, cleaner burning type of extruded powder. Despite this, it came with a slot for a cleaning kit in the stock.
The army, when it placed it's order, didn't order any cleaning kits, specified a non-chrome barrel to save costs, and used a dirtier powder for pretty much the same reason.
It's worse than that. Colt's M-16 was designed around a newer, cleaner burining rod type powder compared to the older ball type powders; but it also included a chrome barrel and integral cleaning kit in the stock. It was advertised as 'needing a minimal amount of cleaning'
The Army testing team, being hostile to the idea of switching away from a.30 caliber rifle, had sabotoged Colt's acceptance trials. When McNamara found out, he basically ordered the switch to the M16, but they continued to sabotoge the effort, taking Stoner's 'self cleaning' comments to not issue cleaning kits even as they deleted the chromed barrel and substituted dirtier ammo.
Basically, the M-16A1 was mostly just returning to Colt's original specifications.
You might have had me if it wasn't that gasoline engined cars cause around 1.2M deaths a year from accidents. I mean, in Toronto alone, they blame around 400 deaths a year on automobile emissions.
I mean, take your 740k cases of 'premature aging' - balance that against China's 750k premature deaths due to air pollution. While it's noted that most aren't due to air pollution from cars, it seems that a Chernobyl level event is along the order of 'once every 25 years' - leading to an annualized cost of ~30k/year. Assuming that the article from a anti-nuclear organization is true and not an over-exaggerated scenario(which, given that the numbers exceed that of most other oganizations, is probably the case). I don't really count most of the abortions because they were done in panic, more from the fear of mutation than the actual risk.
Gasoline engines, on the whole, are nasty, and sadly enough, it's fairly easy for me to come up with numbers comparable to the biggest disaster in nuclear history, on an annual basis.
Personally, I'd have phrased it more as 'the anti-nuclear crowd blocks further research, much less implimenting the new developments'.
I guess we don't need wars as long as there are apologists like you around.
Apologist? It's pretty much a fact. Imagine if anti-gasoline nuts had blocked the implimentation of fuel injection, unleaded gas, and catalytic converters because their goal was the complete elimination of gasoline as a fuel.
As far as I know, none of the compounds present are digestable, so it'll go through your digestive tract like, well, shit through a goose.
Pretty much; as far as the radiation itself goes, you're more at risk from the fact that Uranium is a heavy metal, and exposure has many of the same negatives as metals like lead.
Other 2 responses were AC, so I'll pitch in - As stated, Chernobyl sure as heck DID melt down, the core now existing as a sort of glass slurry in something like the 3rd sub-basement.
Not lugging the bags back is a small mercy, I guess, but hardly making the best use of a delivery infrastructure. As someone else pointed out, one of the biggest advantages by far of grocery delivery is the website learning what you usually order, so the whole process is done in ten minutes.
While I agree that online ordering is probably for the best, still being able to shop is probably good as well. If the customers are willing to wait a day or two you can save fuel and such by optimizing the delivery routes. Software is actually getting pretty good at it nowadays. The more people the better, of course. Sort of like how it's a heck of a lot cheaper for a lawn care service to hit EVERY house on a block rather than a house here and there - they'll cut deals of half price or more in exchange, at least in some areas.
Hmm... Situations I can think of:
1. Time saving: Order online, store pickup where an associate gathers up your order. 2. Vehicle saving: Pick out in store, have delivered. 3. Time&vehicle: Order online, have delivered.
But then the "econutters" would be right and there's a whole contingent of people out there who are going to go burn tires just to show them who's boss.
Still, I figure 'most' people out there are halfway sane. My installing a hot tub, or a solar electric system might not make fiscal sense for me, but if I come across a house with it I'll be willing to pay more because it's either a nice feature or it'll save me money in the future.
'Green' Features reduce or replace energy usage. I'm considering a solar hot water heater for my house, I've recommended them to my family(I'm in Alaska, they're in Florida).
What sort of increase would I be willing to pay? Depends a lot. Would that amount be more or less than what they paid? At this time - probably less. Still, estimates for a professionally installed solar electric system are around $4-6/watt, all in, so it looks like they are indeed getting most of their money back if they sell.
Which covers your butt if you put them in and end up having to sell. Heck, at those prices, if I was a developer, I'd consider installing them in the next subdivision I build.
Offhand, I'm betting they didn't pick the softest alloy of steel they could find though.
Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if the measurements are for 'mild steel', which is about the most common one. Compared to other alloys, it's actually pretty lousy in every way except 'cheap'.
Speaking of children's books, while they do generally give an age range, there are a number that cover topics that often get certain types of parents or 'interested adults' up in a snit.
Anything dealing with sex, child birth, or sexual orientation for example.
And that can be a big part of the problem with categorizing media this way. Should 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Saving Private Ryan' really be in the same category as the various Saw/Hostel/other Slasher fics?
For that matter, different people 'rate' different topics differently. I know of people who rate 'bad language' more than raw violence or sexuality. I know people who rate violence as worse than explicit sex, and vice versa.
Mom would give me a waiver to rent R rated movies from the store(as a voluntary system, this is legal for them), while I had a friend who's parents didn't 'allow'* him to watch anything above PG, not even PG-13, and this was when he was 16.
Slashdot Mirror
That takes time and effort to safely dismantle.
True, but with nuclear reactors you have a fairly unique situation compared to chemical problems - Radiation sources degrade and become safer over time. If a chemical is stable, it's not going to degrade(without help).
Over the service life of an operational nuclear plant you can save up a humongous decommissioning fund, even if you only charge a fraction of a cent. You can expect a gigawatt nuclear plant to produce ~8B kwh a year. At .1 cents a kwh, for a gigawatt nuclear plant, thatâ(TM)s around $8M a year towards decommissioning. At 5% a year, that $8M should turn into just over $1T over the course of 40 years.
Even with todayâ(TM)s costs, $1T should more than pay for not only decommissioning the old plant, but building a new one.
As for the radiation, after you pull the fuel out you can save massive amounts of money simply by letting the reactor vessel sit for a decade or so, by which time the radiation will have dropped sufficienty that you don't need as extensive radiation control measures. Bonus points if you arrange things so that the reactor vessel is still on the grounds of an active power plant so you don't need seperate security measures. Then, in 30-40 years when you're looking to replace the now old replacement, you tear down the now relatively cold original reactor and build a new one in it's footprint.
Your claim is that paying trolls will encourage them and so will lose more money in the long run. This opinion is what basically everyone here says. The subsequent comments basically all agree with you on this point.
Awful lot of assumptions here. Remember, I was talking about lawsuit trolls, specifically those without real cases. Patent trolls, on the other hand, have better standing and a better success rate in court.
I'm faily certain this claim is mistaken. Bear in mind that if you don't pay trolls and say "we'll never pay trolls," then you'll be taken to court and will lose some fraction of the time, say 10%. (I know this because I've recently reviewed patent troll lawsuits when settlement is refused, and the troll lawsuits are successful about 10% of the time). Now assume two companies, one which routinely pays trolls 10% of the settlement amount, and another which never pays them and loses 10% of the time, and must pay 10x the settlement amount once every 10 times. In both cases the patent troll makes the same amount of money and couldn't care less what the CEO says.
The point would be that every case would need to be judged on it's own merits. Consider this as well -
Using your numbers - Patent troll sues 10 Companies, they all fold and pay. He now gets 10 units of profit, for minimal cost.
Patent troll sues 10 Companies, they all fight. He spends 10 units of money to do the fight, loses all but 1 case, where he makes 10 units of profit.. He's only made even. The 10 companies also spent 10 units of money on their defense. The lawyers get 20 units of profit, the only ones enriched by this experience.
As such, even though it's twice as expensive for the companies with the occasional failure, it also renders being a patent troll unprofitable on average, due to the legal fees of the lost cases.
Now, each patent case needs to be judged on it's merits. Advantage troll - pay. Advantage company - fight and put the patent troll company in the ground, saving hassle in the future.
Doing actual research, no, lawsuits didn't really go up. Matter of fact, suits by individuals are decreasing.
Still, remember my point - the troll doesn't want to go to court, because he knows he'll lose. He's hoping for a 'shut up and go away' payoff that's less than what it would cost the business to have a lawyer handle their defense.
So, generally speaking, only the very initial steps of starting a lawsuit would be followed. If the business folds and settles, no lawsuit for the records. If they promise to fight, the troll is likely to fold in order to find an easier target. Also no lawsuit appearing in the courts. Only if the troll choses to fight it out, risking his own money, would it appear in the statistics.
And how the heck did 'math' get redone as 'make' in my post?
Yeah, the beginnings were pretty much in the '90s. Maybe late '80s. I was pretty young then. I'll fully admit that crazy lawsuits still happen, but I'd say that they're off of their 'peak' because many companies, such as Walmart, have worked very hard to NOT be seen as a target. Yes, Walmart still gets sued a lot, but remember it's size.
This sort of thinking is what led to the lawsuit-crazy period in the '90s. People would find some 'standing' to sue, pretty much irregardless of merit. Then they'd offer to settle for some fraction of the court costs (like $500). The accountants did the make, figuring it'd cost $5k to win the court case, but only $500 to make them go away.
HOWEVER, if you get a reputation for paying off, you attract MORE trolls. This would be known as a 'second order effect'. IE if you don't have a rep for settling, you might get sued once a year. Get a rep for settling, and you might get 100.
1x $5k is cheaper than 100x $500.
So settling with a patent troll may be, on first glance, cheaper. But if it results in more patent trolls threatening to sue you, the overall expense can actually flip.
It's this sort of reasoning behind why Walmart and a number of other companies will fight ANY settlement tooth and nail. It's to have a tough-guy rep to prevent others from suing in the first place.
cheaper != cheap.
I never said that they'd be able to use bargain basement thermal panels.
Still, Evergreen Es-A-210-Fa3
210 watt, 13% efficiency, 65"x37.5" = 2,438 square inches of collector(1.57m2). $587 each bought in a pallet of 28.
Cost by area: $374 m2
Power by area: 134 w/m2
Cost per watt: $2.79
A "ThermoPower-VDF30 should be around $1,244.
It's aperture is 2.67 m2. 94% absorbtion, 7% emission per the datasheet. 'Stagnation Temperature" > 428F
Cost by area: $466 m2 (okay, it's not cheaper per m2)
Power by area: 634 w/m2 (at 1000 w/m2) (almost 5 times the power though)
Cost per watt: $0.74
Conclusion: At 27% of the price, you'd have to be looking at a pretty hefty penalty for using an adsorption chiller for it to make sense to use electrical HVAC with solar electric panels. Also, in either case I'd consider utilizing additional reflectors to put more power to the relatively expensive collector.
They don't perform well? Isn't that just a question of sizing? If they don't work well for heavy loads, why is it that there's lots of them available in huge sizes, but hardly any residential sized units?
Besides, consider the context, even if adsorption chillers aren't as efficient as HVAC versions.
1. Solar heat panels are cheaper than solar electric panels.
2. Solar heat panels are more efficient than solar electric (30-90%, vs 13%)
Basically, the cheaper panels helps to offset any increased costs on part of the adsorption system, while the higher efficiency helps offset any losses in efficiency.
it could help with a big thing: cooling.
One idea I've seen is to switch to the cheaper solar-thermal panels, w/reflectors. Then you don't use a standard AC unit, you use an adsorption chiller. Electricity usage is restricted to a few pumps that are there more for controllability and efficiency.
To be efficient the water needs to be at least 180F/80C, but that's easily doable with evacuated tube collectors.
I have to agree. I think we need to go back to at least requiring an implementation of a patent in order to grant it.
Fear of patents shouldn't be a reason to NOT do something.
The Metal/Wood thing is something that the courts could get into, but the general argument in such a case is that they are effectively the same device.
But I'll admit that it is sort of the same argument. In order for a device to not be infringing despite doing the same task it would have to do the task via a different method, and the question comes in whether said method is different enough.
Personally I like the idea of making them come up with an actual device or implementation because I think it'd keep the patent trolls down - things like force feedback joysticks being held back for years because a company that has never produced one holds some patent on it; sure, they'll offer a license, but no technological help. They might of patented the idea of a control mechanism with a feedback loop, but they didn't do anything else to actually develop it.
Another one I remember has something to do with social media sites - and the company that did the patent doesn't run a social media site.
Was it still claimed to be "self-cleaning" after that?
Probably not, but by then the rifle's were the Army's. It was they who decided against the slightly more expensive chromed chamber & barrel, and they were always going to provide the ammo.
Note that 'self cleaning' doesn't equal 'no cleaning needed'. An oven can be 'self cleaning' and still need some additional cleaning on occasion.
Stoner's(the designer) AR-10 prototype had a chrome barrel(helps resist buildup) and used a newer, cleaner burning type of extruded powder. Despite this, it came with a slot for a cleaning kit in the stock.
The army, when it placed it's order, didn't order any cleaning kits, specified a non-chrome barrel to save costs, and used a dirtier powder for pretty much the same reason.
It's worse than that.
Colt's M-16 was designed around a newer, cleaner burining rod type powder compared to the older ball type powders; but it also included a chrome barrel and integral cleaning kit in the stock. It was advertised as 'needing a minimal amount of cleaning'
The Army testing team, being hostile to the idea of switching away from a .30 caliber rifle, had sabotoged Colt's acceptance trials. When McNamara found out, he basically ordered the switch to the M16, but they continued to sabotoge the effort, taking Stoner's 'self cleaning' comments to not issue cleaning kits even as they deleted the chromed barrel and substituted dirtier ammo.
Basically, the M-16A1 was mostly just returning to Colt's original specifications.
You might have had me if it wasn't that gasoline engined cars cause around 1.2M deaths a year from accidents. I mean, in Toronto alone, they blame around 400 deaths a year on automobile emissions.
I mean, take your 740k cases of 'premature aging' - balance that against China's 750k premature deaths due to air pollution. While it's noted that most aren't due to air pollution from cars, it seems that a Chernobyl level event is along the order of 'once every 25 years' - leading to an annualized cost of ~30k/year. Assuming that the article from a anti-nuclear organization is true and not an over-exaggerated scenario(which, given that the numbers exceed that of most other oganizations, is probably the case). I don't really count most of the abortions because they were done in panic, more from the fear of mutation than the actual risk.
Gasoline engines, on the whole, are nasty, and sadly enough, it's fairly easy for me to come up with numbers comparable to the biggest disaster in nuclear history, on an annual basis.
Personally, I'd have phrased it more as 'the anti-nuclear crowd blocks further research, much less implimenting the new developments'.
I guess we don't need wars as long as there are apologists like you around.
Apologist? It's pretty much a fact. Imagine if anti-gasoline nuts had blocked the implimentation of fuel injection, unleaded gas, and catalytic converters because their goal was the complete elimination of gasoline as a fuel.
As far as I know, none of the compounds present are digestable, so it'll go through your digestive tract like, well, shit through a goose.
Pretty much; as far as the radiation itself goes, you're more at risk from the fact that Uranium is a heavy metal, and exposure has many of the same negatives as metals like lead.
Other 2 responses were AC, so I'll pitch in -
As stated, Chernobyl sure as heck DID melt down, the core now existing as a sort of glass slurry in something like the 3rd sub-basement.
Not lugging the bags back is a small mercy, I guess, but hardly making the best use of a delivery infrastructure. As someone else pointed out, one of the biggest advantages by far of grocery delivery is the website learning what you usually order, so the whole process is done in ten minutes.
While I agree that online ordering is probably for the best, still being able to shop is probably good as well. If the customers are willing to wait a day or two you can save fuel and such by optimizing the delivery routes. Software is actually getting pretty good at it nowadays. The more people the better, of course. Sort of like how it's a heck of a lot cheaper for a lawn care service to hit EVERY house on a block rather than a house here and there - they'll cut deals of half price or more in exchange, at least in some areas.
Hmm... Situations I can think of:
1. Time saving: Order online, store pickup where an associate gathers up your order.
2. Vehicle saving: Pick out in store, have delivered.
3. Time&vehicle: Order online, have delivered.
By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city.
Thus the whole point of this article - that you can generally recover the costs of the installation if you end up moving.
But then the "econutters" would be right and there's a whole contingent of people out there who are going to go burn tires just to show them who's boss.
Still, I figure 'most' people out there are halfway sane. My installing a hot tub, or a solar electric system might not make fiscal sense for me, but if I come across a house with it I'll be willing to pay more because it's either a nice feature or it'll save me money in the future.
'Green' Features reduce or replace energy usage. I'm considering a solar hot water heater for my house, I've recommended them to my family(I'm in Alaska, they're in Florida).
What sort of increase would I be willing to pay? Depends a lot. Would that amount be more or less than what they paid? At this time - probably less. Still, estimates for a professionally installed solar electric system are around $4-6/watt, all in, so it looks like they are indeed getting most of their money back if they sell.
Which covers your butt if you put them in and end up having to sell. Heck, at those prices, if I was a developer, I'd consider installing them in the next subdivision I build.
Going by when I hear about it, it's generally when they discover one of them in the library, school or public.
I agree with the skimming part, they're often 'afraid' of what would happen if kids whose parent's aren't paying attention find them.
Personally, I find that kids tend to ignore such things until they're ready for them, but are ready for them earlier than people think.
Yet most of the worlds electricity is generated by doing the exact opposite, (burning carbon in steel crucibles).
True, but we also run steel melting furnaces with electricity and graphite electrodes
So it's complicated.
It's possible, you just need LOX or something.
It seems to be one of those things where you need a LOT of heat and 'encouragement', but once it starts it burns very well.
Offhand, I'm betting they didn't pick the softest alloy of steel they could find though.
Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if the measurements are for 'mild steel', which is about the most common one. Compared to other alloys, it's actually pretty lousy in every way except 'cheap'.
Speaking of children's books, while they do generally give an age range, there are a number that cover topics that often get certain types of parents or 'interested adults' up in a snit.
Anything dealing with sex, child birth, or sexual orientation for example.
And that can be a big part of the problem with categorizing media this way. Should 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Saving Private Ryan' really be in the same category as the various Saw/Hostel/other Slasher fics?
For that matter, different people 'rate' different topics differently. I know of people who rate 'bad language' more than raw violence or sexuality. I know people who rate violence as worse than explicit sex, and vice versa.
Mom would give me a waiver to rent R rated movies from the store(as a voluntary system, this is legal for them), while I had a friend who's parents didn't 'allow'* him to watch anything above PG, not even PG-13, and this was when he was 16.
*Like it really worked around me...