Why are they giving away the electricity? Is it difficult to meter or something?
Free is the key thing here. Yes, the solution is just charge for time on the charger, and used that money to put in more chargers. But humans are uniquely curious when it comes to free stuff. Give away free stuff and everybody wants some, and they hate it when someone else gets free stuff and they don't. Charge just a little bit for it, and then it changes the whole attitude.
What is interesting is that most EV drivers probably don't need the charge to get home and carry out their daily errands. If they do then they probably made the wrong vehicle choice. They just want to charge up on someone else's dime.
Of course, there will be a few who would somehow feel entitled and would see such a change and respond.... "can you believe they are taking away our free charging!".
Wasn't fracking supposed to bring jobs and prosperity to the area?
I good question if you assume the benefits from a health standpoint are realized in a very short period of time, and they are seen mostly in the limited area of the study. I personally think those would be a stupid assumptions, but I guess you just though it was clever.
You don't understand what a control set is. They need to conduct the same screenings on control populations to determine if there is any statistical difference from the Fukushima population. And to this point, when that has been done, the findings of the Fukushima group are consistent and even lower than other groups. But this person intentionally ignores that data and rather uses a comparison against historical unscreened populations, which of course are going to be much lower because they haven not been screened.
Its is simple scientific methodology, and it is completely ignored here in pursuit of a FUD driven agenda.
Well, if one kid's cancer is discovered early and treated due to the enhanced screening started after the Fukushima event, that kid may be lucky that Fukushima took place, otherwise it may have been too late when discovered.
No, they are not cancer rates at all, they are discovery of potentially cancerous cells, most of which are benign. In any detailed screening using this method, you will discover more cases that would not normally be discovered.
The cancer rate is not higher than anywhere else. They tricked you into reading it that way.
Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.
What was done here is to take one set of data from screening and ignore all others. And yet, people actually print this crap.
We've seen this hoax before, why am I not surprised there are people still pushing it? The only difference with this one is how poorly written it is. Cancer rates are actually lower than expected/normal around Fukushima.
The same old deception. Use data from ultrsensitive tests that detect more pre-cancerous cells than what is found under normal testing, then claim that is an increase. But when these same tests are performed on control groups anywhere, they find similar increases in detection of pre-cancerous cells. A simple read of these claims show they completely lack any reasonable baseline or control group methods. Add it to the list of deceptions that keep being debunked but keep showing up.
And, of course, the article linked in the submission doesn't actually even present a real case of cancer, just hints there may be, and twists quotes from random sources, not showing the context in which they were stated. They reference the data is from a university study, but do not supply the conclusions of that study nor write the article with input from anyone involved in that study.
Well then, you must agree that cost could easily have been included in the article, not completely ignored when making claims about how cheap wind is. You have a funny way of agreeing.
For solar, that 20% capacity factor is a maximum, not an average. It can be achieved in ideal locations. For reference, Germany's ave solar cf is about 10%, and their best commercal solar farms are at about 13%.
Like other numbers thrown around, they are less meaningful without context.
Dont waste your time with DBiii. He'll spout the old "the wind is always blwing somehwere" as some kind of solution, but can't articulate the challenges of achieving that vision or back up his contentions with any sources. He thinks a weather map is some kind of answer to those challenges.
Since solar and wind power commonly still rely on gas and coal for backup power generation, as such in the United States, the total cost to maintain the fossil fuel plants has to be considered when calculating the real benefits of renewables. Sorry, no fuzzy math allowed! You can spin and data mine the numbers for renewables all you want but science and math are absolute. ; )
Speaking of renewables in the U.S. why is hydro never mentioned when discussing renewables?!?
Any cost analysis that overlooks the cost of managing the intermittancy and unreliability of wind is not complete. That cost grows as wind becomes a greater percentage of the generation portfolio.
That conjecture has neither scientific basis nor real world evidence. In fact, species with shorter reproduction cycles show sub generational genetic impacts sooner.
The message is that the real risk of radioactive exposure has been greatly overblown. What is happening (or not happening ) in the Chernobly area is only a surprise to those who believe the anti nuke agenda driven FUD.
What the heck is a test mode for a TV anyhow? It makes no sense. Just test the TV playing certain content as you normally would, and measure the power usage. This accusation seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I've found Oovoo to be simple to use and easy to get my un-tech family members to use. I think they have apps for everything except maybe Linux. You can store and send video messages, chat, or video chat. You can also invite non-oovoo callers to a video call via a web app. Quality is pretty good as well.
She certainly makes a lot of claims but supplies no examples. Somehow she insinuates that higher income parents have some way of knowing the tests are coming that the other parents don't have. She insinuates rich parents may be using expensive aids to prepare their kids but shows no proof that is happening, not even a specific example.
Finding those talented kids among the disadvantaged is important, but the default mode of blaming systemic bias as the cause of all our problems only ensures we'll keep bickering and some bright kids will keep missing opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
You can just charge for time at the charger. Time metering is cheap and easy.
Why are they giving away the electricity? Is it difficult to meter or something?
Free is the key thing here. Yes, the solution is just charge for time on the charger, and used that money to put in more chargers. But humans are uniquely curious when it comes to free stuff. Give away free stuff and everybody wants some, and they hate it when someone else gets free stuff and they don't. Charge just a little bit for it, and then it changes the whole attitude.
What is interesting is that most EV drivers probably don't need the charge to get home and carry out their daily errands. If they do then they probably made the wrong vehicle choice. They just want to charge up on someone else's dime.
Of course, there will be a few who would somehow feel entitled and would see such a change and respond.... "can you believe they are taking away our free charging!".
Wasn't fracking supposed to bring jobs and prosperity to the area?
I good question if you assume the benefits from a health standpoint are realized in a very short period of time, and they are seen mostly in the limited area of the study. I personally think those would be a stupid assumptions, but I guess you just though it was clever.
Or could it be the general socioeconomic factors prevalent in these same areas?
You don't understand what a control set is. They need to conduct the same screenings on control populations to determine if there is any statistical difference from the Fukushima population. And to this point, when that has been done, the findings of the Fukushima group are consistent and even lower than other groups. But this person intentionally ignores that data and rather uses a comparison against historical unscreened populations, which of course are going to be much lower because they haven not been screened.
Its is simple scientific methodology, and it is completely ignored here in pursuit of a FUD driven agenda.
Well, if one kid's cancer is discovered early and treated due to the enhanced screening started after the Fukushima event, that kid may be lucky that Fukushima took place, otherwise it may have been too late when discovered.
No, they are not cancer rates at all, they are discovery of potentially cancerous cells, most of which are benign. In any detailed screening using this method, you will discover more cases that would not normally be discovered.
The cancer rate is not higher than anywhere else. They tricked you into reading it that way.
And there is no indication of departure from the norm.
Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.
What was done here is to take one set of data from screening and ignore all others. And yet, people actually print this crap.
We've seen this hoax before, why am I not surprised there are people still pushing it? The only difference with this one is how poorly written it is. Cancer rates are actually lower than expected/normal around Fukushima.
The same old deception. Use data from ultrsensitive tests that detect more pre-cancerous cells than what is found under normal testing, then claim that is an increase. But when these same tests are performed on control groups anywhere, they find similar increases in detection of pre-cancerous cells. A simple read of these claims show they completely lack any reasonable baseline or control group methods. Add it to the list of deceptions that keep being debunked but keep showing up.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn...
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...
And, of course, the article linked in the submission doesn't actually even present a real case of cancer, just hints there may be, and twists quotes from random sources, not showing the context in which they were stated. They reference the data is from a university study, but do not supply the conclusions of that study nor write the article with input from anyone involved in that study.
Well then, you must agree that cost could easily have been included in the article, not completely ignored when making claims about how cheap wind is. You have a funny way of agreeing.
For solar, that 20% capacity factor is a maximum, not an average. It can be achieved in ideal locations. For reference, Germany's ave solar cf is about 10%, and their best commercal solar farms are at about 13%.
Like other numbers thrown around, they are less meaningful without context.
Dont waste your time with DBiii. He'll spout the old "the wind is always blwing somehwere" as some kind of solution, but can't articulate the challenges of achieving that vision or back up his contentions with any sources. He thinks a weather map is some kind of answer to those challenges.
When caught he just resorts to insults.
The excuse making a unbacked assumptions from the same old people is quite predictable.
Since solar and wind power commonly still rely on gas and coal for backup power generation, as such in the United States, the total cost to maintain the fossil fuel plants has to be considered when calculating the real benefits of renewables. Sorry, no fuzzy math allowed! You can spin and data mine the numbers for renewables all you want but science and math are absolute. ; )
Speaking of renewables in the U.S. why is hydro never mentioned when discussing renewables?!?
Any cost analysis that overlooks the cost of managing the intermittancy and unreliability of wind is not complete. That cost grows as wind becomes a greater percentage of the generation portfolio.
The science also shows health risks are greater for the young than the old, as they are undergoing growth/cell replication at a high rate.
Finding Fukushima victims with radiation sickness is easy. Most of the workers after the incident suffered at least mild radiation sickness.
Absolutely false.
That conjecture has neither scientific basis nor real world evidence. In fact, species with shorter reproduction cycles show sub generational genetic impacts sooner.
The message is that the real risk of radioactive exposure has been greatly overblown. What is happening (or not happening ) in the Chernobly area is only a surprise to those who believe the anti nuke agenda driven FUD.
What the heck is a test mode for a TV anyhow? It makes no sense. Just test the TV playing certain content as you normally would, and measure the power usage. This accusation seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I've found Oovoo to be simple to use and easy to get my un-tech family members to use. I think they have apps for everything except maybe Linux. You can store and send video messages, chat, or video chat. You can also invite non-oovoo callers to a video call via a web app. Quality is pretty good as well.
She certainly makes a lot of claims but supplies no examples. Somehow she insinuates that higher income parents have some way of knowing the tests are coming that the other parents don't have. She insinuates rich parents may be using expensive aids to prepare their kids but shows no proof that is happening, not even a specific example.
Finding those talented kids among the disadvantaged is important, but the default mode of blaming systemic bias as the cause of all our problems only ensures we'll keep bickering and some bright kids will keep missing opportunities.
Capacitors discharge rapidly when shorted, that can make them more hazardous than batteries in certain situations.
Why would something that clings to the body be safer than something that passes through it? Assumptions one way or the other are just that.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in what any particular car part is. Classifying medical conditions is far from being so black and white.