I graduated High School in 1972. Pope John Paul noted in 1996 that the theory of evolution was acceptable:
In the 1920s a catholic priest teaching at a catholic university introduced the world to the theory that 13 billion years ago the universe evolved from single point of immense energy. This theory was mocked by the leading men of science of the day and dubbed the "big bang". These secular men of science said this theory smelled too much of creationism.
The secular side is not free of occasional instances politics and misinformation either. The point is that such things are easier to correct when the authority behind such things is local rather than distant.
The astronomer and physicist who introduced the scientific community to the concept now know as the big bang theory, that the universe is 13 or so billion years old, was a catholic priest working and teaching at a catholic university. Family members have attended catholic high schools and probably received a better scientific education than I did at a public high school.
Your story, if true, is an aberration. On average the educational system did very well before Washington DC gained greater and greater influence.
So you are arguing that the DOE is meddling based on instructions from Congress rather than its own initiative. That is a failed defense. It doesn't matter who is pulling the strings, it matters only that the DOE is the instrument by which the meddling occurs.
While local control is not perfect it does afford parents a much greater opportunity to exert pressure to fix things.
And no, things are not the same as in 1960. We have seen enormous growth in the amount of administration in the educational system. Assuring compliance with federal regulations, eligibility for federal monies, are part of this. We spend more money per pupil than any of those other countries you mention and fewer dollars make it to the classroom.
And stuff like this is why many think the Department of Education should be eliminated or severely scaled back. Perhaps set national standards but not get into the day-to-day operations of a school.
There may be good reasons for keeping control over schools away from local authorities:
Absolutely, a first CS-type class should be one that just introduces a little bit of programming, something with some fun/visual feedback. Just enough to introduce programming to the kid so they can find out if they have any inherent interest or curiosity. **IF** such interest/curiosity exists then let them sign up for an elective class that is more traditional CS in nature.
And yes, the better developers are self-taught and this includes those who went through a formal university program. If one goes to a university and ignores all the opportunities to explore things beyond class assignments they are doing it wrong. They will probably never again be surrounded with such a varied amount of equipment and like-minded individuals. I'd say I learned just as much on my own as from my college-aged peers and from formal degree programs.
I have nothing against CS degrees, I have two of them. That said...
My high school's CS-type class was the electrical shop class. Yes, the shop class where you normally learn electrician type stuff, wiring up a light and switch for example. Our cranky old not far from retirement shop teacher said on day one that he wasn't going to teach us electrician stuff, well he would if someone asked but he decided to teach us digital electronics because he thought that would be more useful. His background... he learned to wire up TTL, burn eproms and do some 8-bit assembly language programming on his own, for his own fun and amusement. His class was not terribly different from the lab portion of the introductory EE-type classes that were part of my undergraduate CS program taught by a professor with a PhD.
I honestly despair for the future of the US. We basically are now getting education by idiots for idiots.
And stuff like this is why many think the Department of Education should be eliminated or severely scaled back. Perhaps set national standards but not get into the day-to-day operations of a school.
Once upon a time, well 1960, there was a Presidential Debate where candidates discussed societal issues (imagine that). One topic that came up was the nature of federal support for local schools. Both candidates, Kennedy (D) and Nixon (R), were concerned that federal support (funding) would lead to federal meddling. One idea that came up in the debate was to have federal funds only be used for one time costs, like building the school, and not operational costs, like teacher salaries. That way there would be less opportunity for ongoing meddling. I think we are now seeing the wisdom of their shared concerns regarding centralizing too much control and authority in Washington DC.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency.
If we decide to use the 18th century definition of "regulated", shouldn't we also use the 18th century definition of "Arms"?
We do, a personal firearm. And before you try to make an ill conceived technological argument consider that ordinary citizens in US colonial days actually had firearms of a superior technology than that issued to soldiers by the government. Soldiers were armed with low tech smooth bore muskets. It was militia members that showed up with Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, firearms that had rifled barrels enabling much greater range and lethality than the government issued weapons. And then in he US Civil War there were regiments that equipped themselves with superior civilian firearms, various incarnations of breach loading or magazine fed repeating rifles, as compared to the muzzle loaders issued by the government. As recently as Vietnam the military had to acquire civilian hunting rifles in order to equip some US snipers. The military failed to develop sniper rifles in that era and the sniper variants of WW1 and WW2 military rifles were obsolete or too few in number or underperformed the hunting rifles of the civilian market.
Try reading the entire amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.
It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.
My denial? For daring to question redefinition of a sporting club into a military...
No. Your denial that (1) all able bodied male US citizens are part of the federal militia as defined in federal law (US. 10 USC S113), see earlier link to Cornell University Law School and (2) that the National Guard is only part of the federal militia, the organized part, and that there is an unorganized part that all others belong to and these folks have no obligation to train or even own a firearm. So your sporting club argument is doubly ignorant when you consider that pesky little detail.
Meanwhile people are dying because the pretend "well regulated Militia" does not have it's shit together enough to think of the basic gun safety I learnt at the age of nine.
It seems your ignorance extends to firearms owners too. Most US firearms owners think firearms safety instruction is a good thing. Most gun violence in the US is a result of the narcotics industry, which is a different group of people.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So there's your "well regulated Militia" instead of the stupid sporting club definition of everybody and their dog that does not have the courage to join up.
Or are you going to pretend to be stupid and say that that "unorganized" is equal to "well regulated"?
Sorry kid, your shell game distraction backfire.
You are quite desperate in your denial of facts. The 2nd amendment refers to the militia, not the subset of the organized militia. Furthermore the 2nd amendment refers specifically to the people, which would refer to the unorganized part. The organized part being supplied weapons by the government when on duty wouldn't need a 2nd amendment.
The National Guard is only part of the militia, the "organized" part. The "unorganized" part is all able bodied males not in the military, and they have been called up as recently as Vietnam, Korea before that, World War II before that, World War I before that, the Civil War before that. Its called the draft, conscription. The federal militia is part of the legal foundation for conscription.
See other post with Cornell Law School citation regarding the definition of the federal militia.
Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not. This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.
You are exceptionally ignorant. Did you fail to note I was citing the legal definition of the militia according to federal law?
"10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.
This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"),...
Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.
... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.
Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing...
In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.
In Proof-Of-Work the blockchain is updated by those doing work to solve computationally hard problems, the more work you do the more likely you are to be the one updating the blockchain; and in Proof-Of-Stake the blockchain is updated by those who own coins, the more coins you own the more likely you are to be the one updating the blockchain.
... the linked article is just a press release disguised as a story, quoting only the subject of the article without any independant analysis or rebuttal of any kind
And this is nothing new for modern journalism, its a very common practice.
I am not claiming anything, well other than solar has externalities and environmental issues like anything else, that it is not some problem free magic unicorn. What I am doing is quoting the finding of the IEEE, an extremely well regarded organization among academics, industry and government. An organization focusing on electrical engineering issues, an area that includes photovoltaics.
Cadmium Telluride accounts for only 5% of the market because it is an emerging 3rd generation technology. In other words its new and just starting out.
Whether one is contaminated with crystalline silica, silicon tetrachloride, etc as part of legacy solar manufacturing or cadmium as part of thin-film manufacturing or usage does not change the fact that solar can have extreme health risks in it is manufacturing processes as I had pointed out. Including cancer.
There are plenty of places on the world where solar panels are made: no where is cancer produced.
Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension problem.
Clue 1: I mentioned none of those places, my comment specifically referred to only China.
Clue 2: Even if we look globally, which I specifically had not done, you are still wrong. For example the linked article mentions a manufacturing cancer risk and a cancer risk to users: "So each of these technologies uses compounds containing the heavy metal cadmium, which is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin, meaning that it can cause inheritable mutations... Exposures after solar panels are discarded are also a concern... not every consumer has access to a free take-back program, and indeed many consumers may not even be aware of the need to dispose of panels responsibly."
The links you gave where about accidents or criminal behaviour of some factories... in China, kr other third world countries.
Are you having a reading comprehension problem? My original comment that you responded to was "Solar panels absolutely produce cancer, but its at the factory in China where they are made."
"Compared to the domestic manufacturing scenario, the energy use efficiency is generally 30% lower and the carbon footprint is almost doubled in the overseas manufacturing scenario." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
"the countries that produce the most photovoltaics today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers... The quartz is extracted from mines, putting the miners at risk of one of civilization’s oldest occupational hazards, the lung disease silicosis... turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride... So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes... one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish. And farmers working adjacent lands, who used the contaminated water to clean their animals, accidently killed dozens of pigs" http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...
I'll take the hot, humid summers any day over the crappy winters everywhere north of Virginia.
Mom's basement is air conditioned isn't it?:-)
Seriously, I don't get that. From personal experience hot humid seems the worse. The cold can be dealt with using layered clothing. The wet can be dealt with using an outer layer. Hot and humid can only be endured. You don't even get relief at night like you do in hot and dry regions.
And then there is the complication that different parts of North Carolina have very different climates. Its not simply a north/south thing, there is also altitude. There are parts that get a lot of snow and very cold temperatures.
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.
You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.
That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
"The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
I graduated High School in 1972. Pope John Paul noted in 1996 that the theory of evolution was acceptable:
In the 1920s a catholic priest teaching at a catholic university introduced the world to the theory that 13 billion years ago the universe evolved from single point of immense energy. This theory was mocked by the leading men of science of the day and dubbed the "big bang". These secular men of science said this theory smelled too much of creationism.
The secular side is not free of occasional instances politics and misinformation either. The point is that such things are easier to correct when the authority behind such things is local rather than distant.
The astronomer and physicist who introduced the scientific community to the concept now know as the big bang theory, that the universe is 13 or so billion years old, was a catholic priest working and teaching at a catholic university. Family members have attended catholic high schools and probably received a better scientific education than I did at a public high school.
Your story, if true, is an aberration. On average the educational system did very well before Washington DC gained greater and greater influence.
So you are arguing that the DOE is meddling based on instructions from Congress rather than its own initiative. That is a failed defense. It doesn't matter who is pulling the strings, it matters only that the DOE is the instrument by which the meddling occurs.
While local control is not perfect it does afford parents a much greater opportunity to exert pressure to fix things.
And no, things are not the same as in 1960. We have seen enormous growth in the amount of administration in the educational system. Assuring compliance with federal regulations, eligibility for federal monies, are part of this. We spend more money per pupil than any of those other countries you mention and fewer dollars make it to the classroom.
There may be good reasons for keeping control over schools away from local authorities:
https://boingboing.net/2015/12...
Its easier for parents to remove the idiots at the more local level than at the federal level.
Absolutely, a first CS-type class should be one that just introduces a little bit of programming, something with some fun/visual feedback. Just enough to introduce programming to the kid so they can find out if they have any inherent interest or curiosity. **IF** such interest/curiosity exists then let them sign up for an elective class that is more traditional CS in nature.
And yes, the better developers are self-taught and this includes those who went through a formal university program. If one goes to a university and ignores all the opportunities to explore things beyond class assignments they are doing it wrong. They will probably never again be surrounded with such a varied amount of equipment and like-minded individuals. I'd say I learned just as much on my own as from my college-aged peers and from formal degree programs.
I have nothing against CS degrees, I have two of them. That said ...
... he learned to wire up TTL, burn eproms and do some 8-bit assembly language programming on his own, for his own fun and amusement. His class was not terribly different from the lab portion of the introductory EE-type classes that were part of my undergraduate CS program taught by a professor with a PhD.
My high school's CS-type class was the electrical shop class. Yes, the shop class where you normally learn electrician type stuff, wiring up a light and switch for example. Our cranky old not far from retirement shop teacher said on day one that he wasn't going to teach us electrician stuff, well he would if someone asked but he decided to teach us digital electronics because he thought that would be more useful. His background
I honestly despair for the future of the US. We basically are now getting education by idiots for idiots.
And stuff like this is why many think the Department of Education should be eliminated or severely scaled back. Perhaps set national standards but not get into the day-to-day operations of a school.
Once upon a time, well 1960, there was a Presidential Debate where candidates discussed societal issues (imagine that). One topic that came up was the nature of federal support for local schools. Both candidates, Kennedy (D) and Nixon (R), were concerned that federal support (funding) would lead to federal meddling. One idea that came up in the debate was to have federal funds only be used for one time costs, like building the school, and not operational costs, like teacher salaries. That way there would be less opportunity for ongoing meddling. I think we are now seeing the wisdom of their shared concerns regarding centralizing too much control and authority in Washington DC.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency.
If we decide to use the 18th century definition of "regulated", shouldn't we also use the 18th century definition of "Arms"?
We do, a personal firearm. And before you try to make an ill conceived technological argument consider that ordinary citizens in US colonial days actually had firearms of a superior technology than that issued to soldiers by the government. Soldiers were armed with low tech smooth bore muskets. It was militia members that showed up with Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, firearms that had rifled barrels enabling much greater range and lethality than the government issued weapons. And then in he US Civil War there were regiments that equipped themselves with superior civilian firearms, various incarnations of breach loading or magazine fed repeating rifles, as compared to the muzzle loaders issued by the government. As recently as Vietnam the military had to acquire civilian hunting rifles in order to equip some US snipers. The military failed to develop sniper rifles in that era and the sniper variants of WW1 and WW2 military rifles were obsolete or too few in number or underperformed the hunting rifles of the civilian market.
So the "unorganized" part is "well regulated"?
Try reading the entire amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.
It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.
My denial? For daring to question redefinition of a sporting club into a military ...
No. Your denial that (1) all able bodied male US citizens are part of the federal militia as defined in federal law (US. 10 USC S113), see earlier link to Cornell University Law School and (2) that the National Guard is only part of the federal militia, the organized part, and that there is an unorganized part that all others belong to and these folks have no obligation to train or even own a firearm. So your sporting club argument is doubly ignorant when you consider that pesky little detail.
Meanwhile people are dying because the pretend "well regulated Militia" does not have it's shit together enough to think of the basic gun safety I learnt at the age of nine.
It seems your ignorance extends to firearms owners too. Most US firearms owners think firearms safety instruction is a good thing. Most gun violence in the US is a result of the narcotics industry, which is a different group of people.
So there's your "well regulated Militia" instead of the stupid sporting club definition of everybody and their dog that does not have the courage to join up. Or are you going to pretend to be stupid and say that that "unorganized" is equal to "well regulated"? Sorry kid, your shell game distraction backfire.
You are quite desperate in your denial of facts. The 2nd amendment refers to the militia, not the subset of the organized militia. Furthermore the 2nd amendment refers specifically to the people, which would refer to the unorganized part. The organized part being supplied weapons by the government when on duty wouldn't need a 2nd amendment.
They were, the National Guard did their bit.
The National Guard is only part of the militia, the "organized" part. The "unorganized" part is all able bodied males not in the military, and they have been called up as recently as Vietnam, Korea before that, World War II before that, World War I before that, the Civil War before that. Its called the draft, conscription. The federal militia is part of the legal foundation for conscription.
See other post with Cornell Law School citation regarding the definition of the federal militia.
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not. This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.
You are exceptionally ignorant. Did you fail to note I was citing the legal definition of the militia according to federal law?
"10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.
This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), ...
Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.
... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems ... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.
Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing ...
In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.
The following is oversimplified ...
In Proof-Of-Work the blockchain is updated by those doing work to solve computationally hard problems, the more work you do the more likely you are to be the one updating the blockchain; and in Proof-Of-Stake the blockchain is updated by those who own coins, the more coins you own the more likely you are to be the one updating the blockchain.
... the linked article is just a press release disguised as a story, quoting only the subject of the article without any independant analysis or rebuttal of any kind
And this is nothing new for modern journalism, its a very common practice.
I am not claiming anything, well other than solar has externalities and environmental issues like anything else, that it is not some problem free magic unicorn. What I am doing is quoting the finding of the IEEE, an extremely well regarded organization among academics, industry and government. An organization focusing on electrical engineering issues, an area that includes photovoltaics.
Cadmium Telluride accounts for only 5% of the market because it is an emerging 3rd generation technology. In other words its new and just starting out.
Whether one is contaminated with crystalline silica, silicon tetrachloride, etc as part of legacy solar manufacturing or cadmium as part of thin-film manufacturing or usage does not change the fact that solar can have extreme health risks in it is manufacturing processes as I had pointed out. Including cancer.
There are plenty of places on the world where solar panels are made: no where is cancer produced.
Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension problem.
... Exposures after solar panels are discarded are also a concern ... not every consumer has access to a free take-back program, and indeed many consumers may not even be aware of the need to dispose of panels responsibly."
Clue 1: I mentioned none of those places, my comment specifically referred to only China.
Clue 2: Even if we look globally, which I specifically had not done, you are still wrong. For example the linked article mentions a manufacturing cancer risk and a cancer risk to users: "So each of these technologies uses compounds containing the heavy metal cadmium, which is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin, meaning that it can cause inheritable mutations
The links you gave where about accidents or criminal behaviour of some factories ... in China, kr other third world countries.
Are you having a reading comprehension problem? My original comment that you responded to was "Solar panels absolutely produce cancer, but its at the factory in China where they are made."
Actually those are answers. The links provided answer all four of your questions.
"Compared to the domestic manufacturing scenario, the energy use efficiency is generally 30% lower and the carbon footprint is almost doubled in the overseas manufacturing scenario."
... The quartz is extracted from mines, putting the miners at risk of one of civilization’s oldest occupational hazards, the lung disease silicosis ... turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride ... So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes ... one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish. And farmers working adjacent lands, who used the contaminated water to clean their animals, accidently killed dozens of pigs"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
"the countries that produce the most photovoltaics today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...
I'm not sure where the cancer risk concept is coming from ...
Solar panels absolutely produce cancer, but its at the factory in China where they are made.
I'll take the hot, humid summers any day over the crappy winters everywhere north of Virginia.
Mom's basement is air conditioned isn't it? :-)
Seriously, I don't get that. From personal experience hot humid seems the worse. The cold can be dealt with using layered clothing. The wet can be dealt with using an outer layer. Hot and humid can only be endured. You don't even get relief at night like you do in hot and dry regions.
And then there is the complication that different parts of North Carolina have very different climates. Its not simply a north/south thing, there is also altitude. There are parts that get a lot of snow and very cold temperatures.
On that basis, any clock is a hoax bomb, it could have been taken apart and rewired.
Not really, and the fact remains that in this case there was the ad hoc wiring of parts.
This is just a moral panic. All Moslems are, of course, trying to blow up right-thinking Americans, and any behavior is interpreted as that.
Nope. We've already shown it happens to white christian kids as well, even in liberal California. There is ample precedent to disprove your assertion.
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.
You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.
That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
"The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...