So Potassium is a great example of internal radiation, which is in biological equilibrium with your body almost always. That's routinely discussed for laypeople.
In my example of professions, both things I noted are based on external exposures; there are no internal exposures.
How radionuclides get in the body just follow the same path as how any chemicals get in the body; breathing, eating, absorbing, etc.
It's "one" or "two" or "seven" for now, but what if they include "removing road paint" in the next transportation budget, based on a "sound" recommendation!
Midwestern American here, and lots of rural roads here are unpainted (and always have been) and, with the understanding that they are in sparsely populated areas, people do speed very fast there as well.
I guess the difference between our unpainted roads and those in the UK is it is suddenly "unexpected" for a UK driver to find an unpainted road.
If you're relying on reflective paint, what about fallen trees, deer, pot holes, other debris and road users not coated in reflective paint? If someone is using the road and relying on the lines to keep them on the route, then they are using the road unsafely.
I think you missed the point of the OP, evidenced by your comment.
Why are they slowing down? The "theory" in the article posits that the removal of the line is the cause. However, like most things in "real-life", it's probably more complicated than such a simple and easy answer (CAPTCHA: headline)!
Another theory could be given that, hey, people who are plopped in an unfamiliar environment act cautiously. Here, they aren't familiar with a road without a visible divider, and hey, better be more cautious! This results in slowing down, for now.
But then in the future, when people are familiar to roads without lines, they resume their original speed. However now, this time, they can't guide their trajectory on the line and accidents increase.
Boom! All of a sudden, in our internet-crazy, fast-inciting lifestyle of simple theories we are poised on making a decision that seems good but will actually cause more accidents over time!
Damn, maybe things aren't really so simple in the real world after all. Maybe someone who actually puts some effort into the cause and effect of the situation will come along and produce a real set of theories to explain the drivers' behavior...
A. Flying from JFK to LAX. B. Going through that darn TSA scanner to get on the flight!
Answer is... A! (Wild surprise from the audience)
Which is worse?
A. Being an average flight crew employee B. Being an average nuclear power plant worker.
Answer is.... neither is "worse" you insensitive clod. "A" undergoes more radiation exposure but they both unfortunately have to work long and weird hours.
But we need to get around the same stigma that has hamstrung fission reactors - that "radioactive" means "cancerous death" to the electorate.
Wow... people like the original poster are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
One of the rare times where, after many users have provided counterarguments against mdsolar's negative posts in the past, we as a group need to resort to directly attacking the character and motive of all posts by mdsolar.
Fox News doesn't necessarily do what is best for Republicans. It appeals to Republicans, but only their instincts that lead those viewers to consume more Fox News.
Basically Fox News capitalizes on Republican outrage, but doesn't necessarily serve Republican interests.
I still think that the best thing that could happen to Fox News was a 2nd term for Obama. It definitely helps their viewership.
Financially, it is expensive to continue to store the fuel local to the reactors, though safe.
The utility companies were told that they would have a place to store the fuel in exchange for a tax assessed per kWh for decades. When that money didn't materialize in an actual place to store fuel, the utilities sued the federal government. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...
Then again the entire idea of "nuclear waste" boils down to politics and general misunderstanding of nuclear engineering in the population (but you really can't expect the public to understand nuclear engineering topics I guess). If we could lift the moratorium on reprocessing and create regulations favorable for new types of reactors then the "waste" issue would drastically change.
Sure we may have dogs with estimated 300 year lifespan in 45 years, but if we have an apocalyptic war or event that sends us into the dark age we will be only stuck inventing paper or some new crazy religion at 1000 years from now!!!!
If we have to use a fourth dimension, can it be "reason"?
Let's look at the reasonable uses of the nuclear "waste" here: 96% of the "waste" is uranium that when sent through reprocessing for fuel for present LWRs can use up to 30% of this amount. When fast reactors become more mainstream (only large operational plant is in Russia right now; the U.S. pulled all funding in the 1990's out of shortsightedness) that will allow full re-use of the 96% uranium as well as the 1% that is plutonium (and even a couple other transuranic isotopes).
Now, with that remaining 2-4%, you have a very long-lived, very radioactive source term that would be great for.... anything that needs a long-lived, hot source. Think of the Curiosity Mars rover; it gets it's power from an RTG that is based on a specific long-lived and radioactively hot plutonium isotope. Why should we limit ourselves to producing RTG's based on this one long-lived, hot isotope? Why not use the residual "waste" for applications such as that, or others?
So my point is, with the fourth dimension you suggested of reason, it seems like nuclear waste will actually be quite useful in the near term.
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 74,258 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.
So a country that invented nuclear power, currently runs 100 reactors constituting the largest nuclear generation in the world and has been for the last 50 years, only has produced enough "waste" to cover a football field eight yards deep?
That's less space than this plant will take up, for the world's greatest stockpile of nuclear waste...
It only goes into effect on those who are "off-contract" and on month-to-month. If you are "on-contract" with unlimited data, it remains $29.99 until the end of your contract.
Their contract lawyers have thought of everything so don't worry.
Your comment is not helpful though and is actually counter-productive. On face value, your comment is propagating the issue, making people feel sure that they are wiping* their device and they are fine.
*With no other further action** as you later revealed.
**Cited further action is not even valid when discussing selling a device.
Headline should read, "Most People Too Stupid To Wipe Electronic Devices Before Selling Them", and it should be from the Really really shocking news dept"
How does shooting "about 20 rounds of 5.56 ammo" relate to your comment about wiping a device? You are referring to physical destruction of media, whereas wiping is typically associated with the function literally using the word "wipe" in a mobile device recovery or OS, such as "wipe data" or "wipe cache". (Wipe-by-shooting-with-ammo is not an option.)
I used my UA card for over $25,000 purchases this year (for the status credit) in the United States, Austria, Germany, and Armenia, and have not had the issues you had. When I do have an issue, such as ordering the new Nexus 5X on Google's site but inputting the wrong zip code, the above mentioned text message response and then properly inputting my ZIP code fixed it.
Additionally I have two Chase Freedom cards, one of which authorized a $750.00 PayPal transaction that was fraudulent, but then emailed me about it afterwards. I confirmed it was fraudulent and it was gone in a couple days.
Your use case of multiple purchases at the same merchant might be indicative of fraud similar to me using the wrong ZIP code, but if you have it set up correct for the SMS response it really isn't an issue; it just seems like user error.
Slashdot Mirror
Not OP here but going to defend him.. he never indicated speeding or reckless behavior.
All he said was, when driving conditions reduced, it is invaluable to having the lines on the road.
So Potassium is a great example of internal radiation, which is in biological equilibrium with your body almost always. That's routinely discussed for laypeople.
In my example of professions, both things I noted are based on external exposures; there are no internal exposures.
How radionuclides get in the body just follow the same path as how any chemicals get in the body; breathing, eating, absorbing, etc.
What is your problem with my statement?
It's "one" or "two" or "seven" for now, but what if they include "removing road paint" in the next transportation budget, based on a "sound" recommendation!
A good point.
Midwestern American here, and lots of rural roads here are unpainted (and always have been) and, with the understanding that they are in sparsely populated areas, people do speed very fast there as well.
I guess the difference between our unpainted roads and those in the UK is it is suddenly "unexpected" for a UK driver to find an unpainted road.
If you're relying on reflective paint, what about fallen trees, deer, pot holes, other debris and road users not coated in reflective paint? If someone is using the road and relying on the lines to keep them on the route, then they are using the road unsafely.
I think you missed the point of the OP, evidenced by your comment.
Why are they slowing down? The "theory" in the article posits that the removal of the line is the cause. However, like most things in "real-life", it's probably more complicated than such a simple and easy answer (CAPTCHA: headline)!
Another theory could be given that, hey, people who are plopped in an unfamiliar environment act cautiously. Here, they aren't familiar with a road without a visible divider, and hey, better be more cautious! This results in slowing down, for now.
But then in the future, when people are familiar to roads without lines, they resume their original speed. However now, this time, they can't guide their trajectory on the line and accidents increase.
Boom! All of a sudden, in our internet-crazy, fast-inciting lifestyle of simple theories we are poised on making a decision that seems good but will actually cause more accidents over time!
Damn, maybe things aren't really so simple in the real world after all. Maybe someone who actually puts some effort into the cause and effect of the situation will come along and produce a real set of theories to explain the drivers' behavior...
Clean is misleading here
But we need to get around the same stigma that has hamstrung fission reactors - that "radioactive" means "cancerous death" to the electorate.
Snowballs thrown... no, YOU'RE misleading!!!
But seriously, people like you are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Which gives you more radiation???
A. Flying from JFK to LAX. B. Going through that darn TSA scanner to get on the flight!
Answer is... A! (Wild surprise from the audience)
Which is worse?
A. Being an average flight crew employee B. Being an average nuclear power plant worker.
Answer is.... neither is "worse" you insensitive clod. "A" undergoes more radiation exposure but they both unfortunately have to work long and weird hours.
But we need to get around the same stigma that has hamstrung fission reactors - that "radioactive" means "cancerous death" to the electorate.
Wow... people like the original poster are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
mdsolar wouldn't like that!
Among many ignored assumptions, did this post take into account the carbon emissions of building such a grid?
Construction equipment doesn't run on lithium batteries.
One of the rare times where, after many users have provided counterarguments against mdsolar's negative posts in the past, we as a group need to resort to directly attacking the character and motive of all posts by mdsolar.
http://slashdot.org/submission/5458403/20-nations-nuclear-facilities-said-to-be-vulnerable-to-cyberattack
http://slashdot.org/submission/5439281/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power
http://slashdot.org/submission/5415059/portions-of-land-at-san-onofre-nuclear-plant-may-be-contaminated-navy
http://slashdot.org/submission/5373577/the-attack-of-the-nuclear-hucksters
Why are we still accepting such biased submissions from mdsolar?
Fox News doesn't necessarily do what is best for Republicans. It appeals to Republicans, but only their instincts that lead those viewers to consume more Fox News.
Basically Fox News capitalizes on Republican outrage, but doesn't necessarily serve Republican interests.
I still think that the best thing that could happen to Fox News was a 2nd term for Obama. It definitely helps their viewership.
Financially, it is expensive to continue to store the fuel local to the reactors, though safe.
The utility companies were told that they would have a place to store the fuel in exchange for a tax assessed per kWh for decades. When that money didn't materialize in an actual place to store fuel, the utilities sued the federal government. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...
Then again the entire idea of "nuclear waste" boils down to politics and general misunderstanding of nuclear engineering in the population (but you really can't expect the public to understand nuclear engineering topics I guess). If we could lift the moratorium on reprocessing and create regulations favorable for new types of reactors then the "waste" issue would drastically change.
Sure we may have dogs with estimated 300 year lifespan in 45 years, but if we have an apocalyptic war or event that sends us into the dark age we will be only stuck inventing paper or some new crazy religion at 1000 years from now!!!!
Why not five? Six? Two?
If we have to use a fourth dimension, can it be "reason"?
Let's look at the reasonable uses of the nuclear "waste" here: 96% of the "waste" is uranium that when sent through reprocessing for fuel for present LWRs can use up to 30% of this amount. When fast reactors become more mainstream (only large operational plant is in Russia right now; the U.S. pulled all funding in the 1990's out of shortsightedness) that will allow full re-use of the 96% uranium as well as the 1% that is plutonium (and even a couple other transuranic isotopes).
Now, with that remaining 2-4%, you have a very long-lived, very radioactive source term that would be great for.... anything that needs a long-lived, hot source. Think of the Curiosity Mars rover; it gets it's power from an RTG that is based on a specific long-lived and radioactively hot plutonium isotope. Why should we limit ourselves to producing RTG's based on this one long-lived, hot isotope? Why not use the residual "waste" for applications such as that, or others?
So my point is, with the fourth dimension you suggested of reason, it seems like nuclear waste will actually be quite useful in the near term.
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 74,258 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-C...
So a country that invented nuclear power, currently runs 100 reactors constituting the largest nuclear generation in the world and has been for the last 50 years, only has produced enough "waste" to cover a football field eight yards deep?
That's less space than this plant will take up, for the world's greatest stockpile of nuclear waste...
https://www.facebook.com/stree...
It only goes into effect on those who are "off-contract" and on month-to-month. If you are "on-contract" with unlimited data, it remains $29.99 until the end of your contract.
Their contract lawyers have thought of everything so don't worry.
You OK?
Sure, fine, we can agree to that.
Your comment is not helpful though and is actually counter-productive. On face value, your comment is propagating the issue, making people feel sure that they are wiping* their device and they are fine.
*With no other further action** as you later revealed.
**Cited further action is not even valid when discussing selling a device.
Headline should read, "Most People Too Stupid To Wipe Electronic Devices Before Selling Them", and it should be from the Really really shocking news dept"
How does shooting "about 20 rounds of 5.56 ammo" relate to your comment about wiping a device? You are referring to physical destruction of media, whereas wiping is typically associated with the function literally using the word "wipe" in a mobile device recovery or OS, such as "wipe data" or "wipe cache". (Wipe-by-shooting-with-ammo is not an option.)
Technically you fall in this "stupid" category, as just wiping alone is not sufficient to prevent recovery.
No, your example it is as follows:
Step 1: Block the transaction
Step 2: Ask if it was you?
Step 3Y: If the same transaction is re-ran, approve.
Step 3N: Block the card
There's no ambiguity to whether the transaction will go through or not. If you say Yes, it will not charge you unless you redo the transaction.
I used my UA card for over $25,000 purchases this year (for the status credit) in the United States, Austria, Germany, and Armenia, and have not had the issues you had. When I do have an issue, such as ordering the new Nexus 5X on Google's site but inputting the wrong zip code, the above mentioned text message response and then properly inputting my ZIP code fixed it.
Additionally I have two Chase Freedom cards, one of which authorized a $750.00 PayPal transaction that was fraudulent, but then emailed me about it afterwards. I confirmed it was fraudulent and it was gone in a couple days.
Your use case of multiple purchases at the same merchant might be indicative of fraud similar to me using the wrong ZIP code, but if you have it set up correct for the SMS response it really isn't an issue; it just seems like user error.