Just because it happens all the time doesn't mean it creates good environment for the engineers and makes the company successful. But it's the only possible result if the manger has no idea what programming really is and what takes to be a good programmer.
I checked his sources and his numbers, they do add up. I could posted links to raw data, but then I'd have to re-do those calculations.
As I said, it's a compilation of WHO, IEA and few other institutions with direct links to papers published by them.
First: where am I supposed to get you a peer-reviewed paper on Fukushima if the accident is still ongoing? Besides, the IEA currently estimate the number of radioactive Iodine released to 1/5 of Chernobyl and radioactive caesium to half that of Chernobyl. It would have to release at least 100 times more to cause significant number of deaths in next 10 years. (few orders of magnitude) Even if we take the highest estimates of Chernobyl deaths, average them over the period of 80 years are re-do the calculation on lethality it will still be favourable to nuclear energy.
Second: How is stating that cancer is the largest killer in UK contradictory to, for example air pollution from coal burning? The cited article (nor paper) doesn't say anything about what caused those cancers... Your clutching at straws here.
Third: Sorry, but the number of people dying installing them is significant, he did count the number of people dying mining uranium and building nuclear power plants. If anything, it shows that this is a thorough comparison.
As I said, we're not debating whatever data that shows 2 deaths per TWh by coal is correct and 1 death per TWh of nuclear is incorrect. Between them is 4 orders of magnitude difference, the margin for error is huge. I think that large scale solar can have similar death-ratios (if not better) than nuclear, I'm sceptical if wind is really sustainable (the amount of power needed to construct those turbines is enormous, but it's a entirely different debate) but its death-toll can be similarly lowered (or is over-estimated, whatever). At the same time, I don't think that oil, coal and gas can ever reach this level of safety, mining alone makes those resources much more deadly. With hydro we would have to eliminate dam breaks entirely to make it less lethal than nuclear and this is simply impossible. The nuclear power is the only type of power that can reach low lethality and provide base load capability for electric grid.
I'm sorry to say that, but now you look like a TRUE BELIEVER in alternative power (I still don't know what kind, probably unicorn rainbows because they don't cause deaths), while at the same time I showed you data that nuclear is vastly less lethal than coal, oil and gas. But then you don't seem to grasp the difference between 2 and 1000. This is just pointless. You are completely biased against nuclear and consider report by a widely known "opposer of everything modern organization", highly political Greenpeace in higher standards than recalculation of official data provided by independent, international organizations. Even in Greenpeace report, the graph that shows higher incidence rates, not lethality rates, of cancer is only few percent higher (in line with the lying, employing morons, WHO and IEA: shock, horror!). You want me to provide papers, the same papers you can't properly extract data from.
Even if they are underestimating the number of deaths, it is highly unlikely they missed the mark by 10 or even 100. It still makes the nuclear energy safer than coal, oil and gas. We're not comparing 2 to 4, we're comparing 0.04 to 161. The margin of error for incomplete data is rather big...
As for greenpeace report: if you attribute each and every case of cancer to Chernobyl on this area (as they did with their own 6000000 estimate) you will get to similar numbers. But it's not the way epidemiology studies are done. Besides, if you start counting the number of people which quality of live has been reduced (because they had their thyroid cancer removed or have other health problems) you have to count also the number of people that have asthma attacks, heart problems or other diseases because of air pollution (mercury pollution alone is huge problem) caused by fossil fuel burning. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges (future early deaths to deaths that are already happening).
Large disks, modern disks, they both are non-existent in embedded markets, or if you want to boot from small SSDs. Private virtual machines have usually very small disk quota. Just because the regular desktop has big drive doesn't mean that all environments do.
OK, I have to agree, I jumped to conclusions too fast.
My point was, that the large release of nuclear material from Chernobyl contained every possible by-product of nuclear fission. The only one that caused any harm to population was Iodine -- causing thyroid cancer. Despite the huge release, the increase in thyroid cancer was minor (increase of about 3% of total cancer incidence rate), and very few people actually died because of this.
At Fukushima: 1). the amount of iodine released was one fifth of that released by Chernobyl, 2). there were no additional nuclei released that could fission to iodine, that could vastly increase its "practical" half-life, 3). population received stable iodine quickly, 4). population was quickly evacuated from engendered locations
So the effect of Fukushima on population will be lower. I think, that because stable iodine was issued promptly and the people evacuated, the increase of thyroid cancers won't be statistically provable.
That covers what Jawnn implied: the increase of cancer rates after Chernobyl wasn't dramatically higher, the chance for Fukushima to produce similar increase is slim at best, let alone reach "dramatically high".
if the LNT model was true then people in Ramsar, Iran would be falling dead like flies in Raid factory. They are receiving doses over 100mSv/y.
In the real world though, there is no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in this area.
If you want to believe that any radiation dose above background level causes cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14, then please, be my guest. You can't negate the facts, than even the biggest overestimates (published by greanpeace loonies) in deaths caused by nuclear accidents don't come close to deaths caused by coal, oil, natural gas and hydro per TWh of produced power. If you have facts that tell otherwise then please, show me them.
In the mean time, you can multiply the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear by 1000 and it will still be safer than oil, coal and gas.
Chernobyl was a much worse disaster than Fukushima, yet both WHO and UNSCEAR estimate current death-toll at below 200 and say that only about 2000 people will die early because of radiation exposure because of Chernobyl. There have been no increase in leukaemia in affected areas and only 3% increase in overall cancer (so from around 30% chance to develop cancer to about 33%) in affected areas caused by increased thyroid cancer -- which has survivability of 99% in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Radiation is much less dangerous than it is made out to be by sensationalist media. But continuous, steady deaths caused by burning oil, gas and coal are boring, just like dam breaks: after all they don't cause fallout that can circumnavigate the globe.
If you compare power sources by TWh produced, nuclear is safer (as in causes less deaths) than oil, coal, gas, hydro by large margin.
One more thing: no type of power generation is safe (even technicians in wind farms die because of too lenient safety procedures), thing is, nuclear is safest of them all. Safer than oil, coal and natural gas by large margin (think 5-4 orders of magnitude), safer than hydro (by 3 orders of magnitude) and safer than the highly experimental and unproven (less than 1% of global energy production) solar and wind (by one order of magnitude).
Nobody died from Fukushima, there are over 40 yearly deaths in coal mining accidents in USA alone. Add rest of the globe, add lung cancer caused by coal power plants and we quickly approach few hundred thousand yearly.
First: I don't work in nuclear industry, nor anybody I know that works in it, let alone have anyone from my family that works in this business -- I live in Poland so it shouldn't be surprising.
Second: the WHO report (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html) says:
The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.
So, they haven't died yet, and the effect of radiation increased the likelihood of cancer by 3%, while everybody has about a 30% chance of developing cancer anyway. At the same time, a coal power plant increases lung cancer incidence in 20km diameter by 10%.
Third: it weren't confinement but containment that blow up: the stuff that was placed there, so that the workers wouldn't need umbrellas when working on rainy days. Only one confinement vessel was damaged, but neither one was destroyed.
Yes, high radiation doses cause cancer, thing is, any coal power plant releases more radioactive isotopes into the air during 10 years of use than the whole Fukushima "disaster". Also, I'd suggest, not basing your "scale" of disaster, on whatever its in the news, the tsunami was much much worse disaster
Count number of people that died in Fukushima because of radiation (tip: it's 0, and will be zero) and compare it to number of deaths because of coal fired power plant induced lung cancer (in the hundreds of thousands globally per year), mining accidents (in the thousands globally per year) or hydro dams related deaths (in tens of thousands per year).
Fukushima showed that even mismanaged nuclear power plant during the biggest earth-quake on record in Japan is safer than any conventional power plant.
If we want to develop as a species, the energy usage will go up. There's no decentralized green energy that can sustain that. Short term: nuclear, long term: fusion.
Less people die because of corporate greed because of nuclear power plants than die because of hydro, coal, oil and natural gas. The nuclear energy is safer by few orders of magnitude than coal.
Slashdot Mirror
> Client that can't even validate S/MIME == feature rich.
Hahahahah, oh sorry, but I can't, hahahahaha
Just because it happens all the time doesn't mean it creates good environment for the engineers and makes the company successful. But it's the only possible result if the manger has no idea what programming really is and what takes to be a good programmer.
The cracking is unnerving, but you can get used to it. Thawing is completely different matter though...
So he's a prime candidate for C*O position!
I checked his sources and his numbers, they do add up. I could posted links to raw data, but then I'd have to re-do those calculations.
As I said, it's a compilation of WHO, IEA and few other institutions with direct links to papers published by them.
First: where am I supposed to get you a peer-reviewed paper on Fukushima if the accident is still ongoing? Besides, the IEA currently estimate the number of radioactive Iodine released to 1/5 of Chernobyl and radioactive caesium to half that of Chernobyl. It would have to release at least 100 times more to cause significant number of deaths in next 10 years. (few orders of magnitude) Even if we take the highest estimates of Chernobyl deaths, average them over the period of 80 years are re-do the calculation on lethality it will still be favourable to nuclear energy.
Second: How is stating that cancer is the largest killer in UK contradictory to, for example air pollution from coal burning? The cited article (nor paper) doesn't say anything about what caused those cancers... Your clutching at straws here.
Third: Sorry, but the number of people dying installing them is significant, he did count the number of people dying mining uranium and building nuclear power plants. If anything, it shows that this is a thorough comparison.
As I said, we're not debating whatever data that shows 2 deaths per TWh by coal is correct and 1 death per TWh of nuclear is incorrect. Between them is 4 orders of magnitude difference, the margin for error is huge.
I think that large scale solar can have similar death-ratios (if not better) than nuclear, I'm sceptical if wind is really sustainable (the amount of power needed to construct those turbines is enormous, but it's a entirely different debate) but its death-toll can be similarly lowered (or is over-estimated, whatever). At the same time, I don't think that oil, coal and gas can ever reach this level of safety, mining alone makes those resources much more deadly. With hydro we would have to eliminate dam breaks entirely to make it less lethal than nuclear and this is simply impossible. The nuclear power is the only type of power that can reach low lethality and provide base load capability for electric grid.
I'm sorry to say that, but now you look like a TRUE BELIEVER in alternative power (I still don't know what kind, probably unicorn rainbows because they don't cause deaths), while at the same time I showed you data that nuclear is vastly less lethal than coal, oil and gas. But then you don't seem to grasp the difference between 2 and 1000. This is just pointless. You are completely biased against nuclear and consider report by a widely known "opposer of everything modern organization", highly political Greenpeace in higher standards than recalculation of official data provided by independent, international organizations. Even in Greenpeace report, the graph that shows higher incidence rates, not lethality rates, of cancer is only few percent higher (in line with the lying, employing morons, WHO and IEA: shock, horror!). You want me to provide papers, the same papers you can't properly extract data from.
But not remembering the name of the function will make you a bad coder in this test.
Sacking one of the people responsible for good Linux performance on servers is not just stupid... it's cutting the branch which you're sitting on.
Here's a compilation of WHO, IEA and few other EU or UN organizations studies with direct links to them:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Even if they are underestimating the number of deaths, it is highly unlikely they missed the mark by 10 or even 100. It still makes the nuclear energy safer than coal, oil and gas. We're not comparing 2 to 4, we're comparing 0.04 to 161. The margin of error for incomplete data is rather big...
As for greenpeace report: if you attribute each and every case of cancer to Chernobyl on this area (as they did with their own 6000000 estimate) you will get to similar numbers. But it's not the way epidemiology studies are done. Besides, if you start counting the number of people which quality of live has been reduced (because they had their thyroid cancer removed or have other health problems) you have to count also the number of people that have asthma attacks, heart problems or other diseases because of air pollution (mercury pollution alone is huge problem) caused by fossil fuel burning. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges (future early deaths to deaths that are already happening).
Yeah, just run everything as root
Large disks, modern disks, they both are non-existent in embedded markets, or if you want to boot from small SSDs. Private virtual machines have usually very small disk quota. Just because the regular desktop has big drive doesn't mean that all environments do.
If that's true: Have they completely lost their minds?! I don't need another OS that can barely squeeze into 16GB flash drive.
I said that my main sources are WHO and UNSCEAR, they are published on the web:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
OK, I have to agree, I jumped to conclusions too fast.
My point was, that the large release of nuclear material from Chernobyl contained every possible by-product of nuclear fission. The only one that caused any harm to population was Iodine -- causing thyroid cancer. Despite the huge release, the increase in thyroid cancer was minor (increase of about 3% of total cancer incidence rate), and very few people actually died because of this.
At Fukushima: 1). the amount of iodine released was one fifth of that released by Chernobyl, 2). there were no additional nuclei released that could fission to iodine, that could vastly increase its "practical" half-life, 3). population received stable iodine quickly, 4). population was quickly evacuated from engendered locations
So the effect of Fukushima on population will be lower. I think, that because stable iodine was issued promptly and the people evacuated, the increase of thyroid cancers won't be statistically provable.
That covers what Jawnn implied: the increase of cancer rates after Chernobyl wasn't dramatically higher, the chance for Fukushima to produce similar increase is slim at best, let alone reach "dramatically high".
if the LNT model was true then people in Ramsar, Iran would be falling dead like flies in Raid factory. They are receiving doses over 100mSv/y.
In the real world though, there is no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in this area.
If you want to believe that any radiation dose above background level causes cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14, then please, be my guest. You can't negate the facts, than even the biggest overestimates (published by greanpeace loonies) in deaths caused by nuclear accidents don't come close to deaths caused by coal, oil, natural gas and hydro per TWh of produced power. If you have facts that tell otherwise then please, show me them.
In the mean time, you can multiply the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear by 1000 and it will still be safer than oil, coal and gas.
Chernobyl was a much worse disaster than Fukushima, yet both WHO and UNSCEAR estimate current death-toll at below 200 and say that only about 2000 people will die early because of radiation exposure because of Chernobyl. There have been no increase in leukaemia in affected areas and only 3% increase in overall cancer (so from around 30% chance to develop cancer to about 33%) in affected areas caused by increased thyroid cancer -- which has survivability of 99% in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Radiation is much less dangerous than it is made out to be by sensationalist media. But continuous, steady deaths caused by burning oil, gas and coal are boring, just like dam breaks: after all they don't cause fallout that can circumnavigate the globe.
If you compare power sources by TWh produced, nuclear is safer (as in causes less deaths) than oil, coal, gas, hydro by large margin.
One more thing: no type of power generation is safe (even technicians in wind farms die because of too lenient safety procedures), thing is, nuclear is safest of them all. Safer than oil, coal and natural gas by large margin (think 5-4 orders of magnitude), safer than hydro (by 3 orders of magnitude) and safer than the highly experimental and unproven (less than 1% of global energy production) solar and wind (by one order of magnitude).
Nobody died from Fukushima, there are over 40 yearly deaths in coal mining accidents in USA alone. Add rest of the globe, add lung cancer caused by coal power plants and we quickly approach few hundred thousand yearly.
Thing is, that the "safe" levels for nuclear power plants are set on the "as low as reasonably practicable" level, not the "highest known safe level".
Ramsar in Iran has radiation levels around 130mSv/y, while the limits for US set by Nuclear Regulatory Comission are in 50mSv/y
So, no, the "high" background radiation levels, are really high
First: I don't work in nuclear industry, nor anybody I know that works in it, let alone have anyone from my family that works in this business -- I live in Poland so it shouldn't be surprising.
Second: the WHO report (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html) says:
The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.
So, they haven't died yet, and the effect of radiation increased the likelihood of cancer by 3%, while everybody has about a 30% chance of developing cancer anyway. At the same time, a coal power plant increases lung cancer incidence in 20km diameter by 10%.
Third: it weren't confinement but containment that blow up: the stuff that was placed there, so that the workers wouldn't need umbrellas when working on rainy days. Only one confinement vessel was damaged, but neither one was destroyed.
Yes, high radiation doses cause cancer, thing is, any coal power plant releases more radioactive isotopes into the air during 10 years of use than the whole Fukushima "disaster". Also, I'd suggest, not basing your "scale" of disaster, on whatever its in the news, the tsunami was much much worse disaster
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to new fuel. Nuclear waste after processing is less radioactive than ashes from any coal fired power plant.
Count number of people that died in Fukushima because of radiation (tip: it's 0, and will be zero) and compare it to number of deaths because of coal fired power plant induced lung cancer (in the hundreds of thousands globally per year), mining accidents (in the thousands globally per year) or hydro dams related deaths (in tens of thousands per year).
Fukushima showed that even mismanaged nuclear power plant during the biggest earth-quake on record in Japan is safer than any conventional power plant.
If we want to develop as a species, the energy usage will go up. There's no decentralized green energy that can sustain that. Short term: nuclear, long term: fusion.
Most of French "used" fuel ends up in breeder reactors so they have few magnitude less "nuclear waste" than US.
Less people die because of corporate greed because of nuclear power plants than die because of hydro, coal, oil and natural gas. The nuclear energy is safer by few orders of magnitude than coal.
Iceland gets 50% of its energy from geothermal. It doesn't make the energy viable for everybody.