I think you are trying to read something into my words. The focus of the OP was public charging stations and how many there would need to be compared to the old gas pump. I was not stuck in any way of thinking, I was pointing out that for those that need a charge to keep going from a public station, they will not want to wait. There must be a station available. Layout is just a function of the number of chargers and space available.
I mentioned that most people will be charging at home and at other places when they are not in their car, hence "activities". That means fewer customers pulling up to a public station for a quick recharge.
Right now, the market is limited mostly to people who charge at home and at work, and have another car for longer travel. That market will evolve, and the need for a quick recharge will likely increase as it does.
A more important metric might be how many public charge stations are necessary compared to gas stations.
One factor is length of charge. Number of gas pumps in a station is selected to service customers and prevent waiting. Customers don't like to wait for more than one person in front of them, and you usually don't have to wait.
Since charge times are longer, customers will want to connect immediately and not wait for 15 minutes just to start charging. So, in that regard, you would want more stations relative to the number of customers in a given timeframe, so there would zero waiting. How many that is, I have no idea, but obviously its an evolving market, and most e-car owners would plan to charge at home, at work, or while doing some other activity.
Although Google has spent considerable resources inventing technologies for the future, it has failed to turn many of its innovations into new moneymakers.
Many of Google's new technology investments are made simply for Google to maintain its foothold as the leader, not necessarily to be big money makers on their own. Keep the competition on their heels.
The greatest mistake is to generalize the sensibility of home ownership. It is a wise decision for many, not so for many others. The greatest mistake many make is to buy a home that is too expensive, and to not pay it down. If you can't save enough money to pay your mortgage for a while in case your income is disturbed, then you probably made a poor decision on price level. Like any investment, it has to be right for the individual.
I have the ability and desire to do a lot of home repair and maintenance myself, so that part of the cost is greatly reduced, and I can add value to my home while doing things I enjoy. This has worked out great for me. I am on my 3rd home, have a lot of equity and a reasonable mortgage payment. I don't take out home equity loans. If I can't afford that car, I don't buy it either.
I understand perfectly that you either simply don't understand the real world risks relative to things we experience in our daily lives, or simply refuse to acknowledge them. Either way, it makes this discussion a waste of time.
I guess its debatable, but it seems that China is the only place that has been able to add any Hydro capacity of any significance in quite some time. Places like New Zealand have maxed out their opportunities. In North America, environmental permitting makes is nearly impossible to do on any decent scale, not to mention the tremendous land acquisition challenges.
Maybe South America has a lot of potential, I dont' know much about their situation wrt land acquisition and addressing environmental impacts.
Nuclear has limitations too, mostly political, or places where there is little water for cooling. I'd be happy to see more Hydro.
And, while they are still debating all this, nuclear has been and continues to be the single energy technology that has already offset huge amounts of carbon generation. Nobody seems to want to give nuclear credit for what its already done.
My apologies, I confused those for the many studies I have seen presented here that simply estimate exposure and predict results based on the LNT model. You have included a couple of interesting items, and one complete bullshit item.
Yes, there are studies as you show that attempt, one way or another, to show statistical association. Understand, mostly these are intended to show the risk is very low, and therefore should not preclude medical diagnosis with CT. Also, for CT scan studies, we are talking about relatively high acute exposures, and not the much lower chronic exposures that are typically the concern with nuclear event outcomes, waste storage, etc. For those cases, there are few useful studies than can show any detectable cancer instances. And those that do leave questions.
As for the CT scan studies your presented, lets take the first and third links. The second link I have no access too, but I can guess it has some of the same characteristics.
First of all, only the first claims a statistical model linkage, the third only claims it can blame CT scans for "some" of the increased incidence. Both studies have useful information. Both studies deal with adolescents. These studies typically have the intent to show that CT scan exposure are generally safe and for that they succeed. The two common flaws, and the problem that makes this kind of analysis extremely difficult, is the fact that they can’t tell if those kids that require CT scans and whatever other treatments they got during their care are in a higher risk group for cancer or other diseases to start with.
The RSNA study attempts to filter this out, and chose what was easy, but they didn’t compare the rates of unexpected cancers or other to a control population. They also did not localize to cancer rates in the same areas that the study group came from. They claim they support a linear model, but what they show is only that they fall below the line. They only have 2 one or two points to consider, since the group of those studies averages about 1.5 exposures each, not enough to validate a linear model, (but enough to possibly show a statistical connection). Most in the group likely had one exposure, some two and some three. In order to support a linear model, they would need to show more cases for those that got higher exposures, but they failed to do that, leaving questions as to why. And the margin of error is not stated. It only takes a few anomalies out of the 180,000 group to significantly shift the results.
The third link to the BMJ is another childhood study. I like this one, it seems to have been better performed. (BTW - Note that there is little disagreement that children are more highly susceptible). This study is a little more well presented, and does a better job of being careful in what they state, saying they assume the increase cancer is ‘mostly’ due to exposures. They now have a point of data which can be used to build a statistical model. But they still suffer the very difficult problem of determining whether the group was higher risk to start, that is, are kids that need this level of medical care at a young age already in a higher risk group due to environment, genetic factors, etc? That is the thing that makes these attempts so difficult. But they are a step in the right direction and are useful data inputs (unlike those predictive studies).
What both these studies do show quite well is that risk of cancer from acute CT level exposures are very small. Both use children and young adults and both show results below the LNT model for adults, which you would expect to be higher. Margins of error could put the real number higher or lower.
But as I said before, critics of the LNT model primarily are talking about low dose chronic exposures, not acute higher dose exposures. I conflated the two in my earlier post, my bad. I should not have generalized.
The NATURE link you put in there was a bad link, but a search revealed an abstr
There is enough data/knowledge already to show that the risks often presented by FUD mongers are in reality extremely low, even insignificant. Perspective is key.
Give the risks in comparison with other risks we face, based on the expected exposures from the instances you are spouting about. That is what matters.
"Pearce et al (10) estimated that one head CT scan performed in the 1st decade of life would produce approximately one excess case of leukemia and one excess brain tumor per 10 000 patients who underwent CT, in the 1st decade after exposure"
So, they are saying they can show a possible 1 cancer case if you treat 10000 kids with high dose CT treatment. They don't discuss margin of error here, or control groups. And they say the eliminated those with existing cancer 'as best they could". Yet, even they show lower rates than the models that most use for scare tactics.
Sorry, if you look at those studies, they are predicted cancers based on the never validate LNT model from the war era studies. None of those observe actual statistical associations. You simply are not looking at the details.
OK...sorry for taking the cheap shot. Most marked it as funny, but the some were more tuned into the internet point than any thing to do with Mississippi. I grew up in the Appalachian mountains, I've heard it all as well.
Lighten up there. Just having a little fun with stereotypes, don' t tell me you've never done that, and throwing in a hint about how internet fodder feeds fears like the vaccination thing. Maybe you just didn't catch on.... guess you are from Mississippi! (jk).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are trying to read something into my words. The focus of the OP was public charging stations and how many there would need to be compared to the old gas pump. I was not stuck in any way of thinking, I was pointing out that for those that need a charge to keep going from a public station, they will not want to wait. There must be a station available. Layout is just a function of the number of chargers and space available.
I mentioned that most people will be charging at home and at other places when they are not in their car, hence "activities". That means fewer customers pulling up to a public station for a quick recharge.
Right now, the market is limited mostly to people who charge at home and at work, and have another car for longer travel. That market will evolve, and the need for a quick recharge will likely increase as it does.
A more important metric might be how many public charge stations are necessary compared to gas stations.
One factor is length of charge. Number of gas pumps in a station is selected to service customers and prevent waiting. Customers don't like to wait for more than one person in front of them, and you usually don't have to wait.
Since charge times are longer, customers will want to connect immediately and not wait for 15 minutes just to start charging. So, in that regard, you would want more stations relative to the number of customers in a given timeframe, so there would zero waiting. How many that is, I have no idea, but obviously its an evolving market, and most e-car owners would plan to charge at home, at work, or while doing some other activity.
Although Google has spent considerable resources inventing technologies for the future, it has failed to turn many of its innovations into new moneymakers.
Many of Google's new technology investments are made simply for Google to maintain its foothold as the leader, not necessarily to be big money makers on their own. Keep the competition on their heels.
The greatest mistake is to generalize the sensibility of home ownership. It is a wise decision for many, not so for many others. The greatest mistake many make is to buy a home that is too expensive, and to not pay it down. If you can't save enough money to pay your mortgage for a while in case your income is disturbed, then you probably made a poor decision on price level. Like any investment, it has to be right for the individual.
I have the ability and desire to do a lot of home repair and maintenance myself, so that part of the cost is greatly reduced, and I can add value to my home while doing things I enjoy. This has worked out great for me. I am on my 3rd home, have a lot of equity and a reasonable mortgage payment. I don't take out home equity loans. If I can't afford that car, I don't buy it either.
I understand perfectly that you either simply don't understand the real world risks relative to things we experience in our daily lives, or simply refuse to acknowledge them. Either way, it makes this discussion a waste of time.
Just think of this as another means of wealth redistribution.
The risk of solar panels falling through a roof increases daily as well. Its a stupid point.
So, how much risk to you think there is...surely you have some sense?
I guess its debatable, but it seems that China is the only place that has been able to add any Hydro capacity of any significance in quite some time. Places like New Zealand have maxed out their opportunities. In North America, environmental permitting makes is nearly impossible to do on any decent scale, not to mention the tremendous land acquisition challenges. Maybe South America has a lot of potential, I dont' know much about their situation wrt land acquisition and addressing environmental impacts. Nuclear has limitations too, mostly political, or places where there is little water for cooling. I'd be happy to see more Hydro.
Good point, but options for more hydro are very limited, so it is not always in the conversation.
And, while they are still debating all this, nuclear has been and continues to be the single energy technology that has already offset huge amounts of carbon generation. Nobody seems to want to give nuclear credit for what its already done.
Maybe if you shot puppies across the DMZ using an air cannon would be a better idea.
Yeah, they'd love a free meal or two.
The North Korean hackers have a new target!
My apologies, I confused those for the many studies I have seen presented here that simply estimate exposure and predict results based on the LNT model. You have included a couple of interesting items, and one complete bullshit item.
Yes, there are studies as you show that attempt, one way or another, to show statistical association. Understand, mostly these are intended to show the risk is very low, and therefore should not preclude medical diagnosis with CT. Also, for CT scan studies, we are talking about relatively high acute exposures, and not the much lower chronic exposures that are typically the concern with nuclear event outcomes, waste storage, etc. For those cases, there are few useful studies than can show any detectable cancer instances. And those that do leave questions.
As for the CT scan studies your presented, lets take the first and third links. The second link I have no access too, but I can guess it has some of the same characteristics.
First of all, only the first claims a statistical model linkage, the third only claims it can blame CT scans for "some" of the increased incidence. Both studies have useful information. Both studies deal with adolescents. These studies typically have the intent to show that CT scan exposure are generally safe and for that they succeed. The two common flaws, and the problem that makes this kind of analysis extremely difficult, is the fact that they can’t tell if those kids that require CT scans and whatever other treatments they got during their care are in a higher risk group for cancer or other diseases to start with.
The RSNA study attempts to filter this out, and chose what was easy, but they didn’t compare the rates of unexpected cancers or other to a control population. They also did not localize to cancer rates in the same areas that the study group came from. They claim they support a linear model, but what they show is only that they fall below the line. They only have 2 one or two points to consider, since the group of those studies averages about 1.5 exposures each, not enough to validate a linear model, (but enough to possibly show a statistical connection). Most in the group likely had one exposure, some two and some three. In order to support a linear model, they would need to show more cases for those that got higher exposures, but they failed to do that, leaving questions as to why. And the margin of error is not stated. It only takes a few anomalies out of the 180,000 group to significantly shift the results.
The third link to the BMJ is another childhood study. I like this one, it seems to have been better performed. (BTW - Note that there is little disagreement that children are more highly susceptible). This study is a little more well presented, and does a better job of being careful in what they state, saying they assume the increase cancer is ‘mostly’ due to exposures. They now have a point of data which can be used to build a statistical model. But they still suffer the very difficult problem of determining whether the group was higher risk to start, that is, are kids that need this level of medical care at a young age already in a higher risk group due to environment, genetic factors, etc? That is the thing that makes these attempts so difficult. But they are a step in the right direction and are useful data inputs (unlike those predictive studies).
What both these studies do show quite well is that risk of cancer from acute CT level exposures are very small. Both use children and young adults and both show results below the LNT model for adults, which you would expect to be higher. Margins of error could put the real number higher or lower.
But as I said before, critics of the LNT model primarily are talking about low dose chronic exposures, not acute higher dose exposures. I conflated the two in my earlier post, my bad. I should not have generalized.
The NATURE link you put in there was a bad link, but a search revealed an abstr
But, we were talking about what YOU presented....so....go ahead.
That's just an avoidance tactic on your part.
There is enough data/knowledge already to show that the risks often presented by FUD mongers are in reality extremely low, even insignificant. Perspective is key.
Give the risks in comparison with other risks we face, based on the expected exposures from the instances you are spouting about. That is what matters.
For instance, look at the first.
"Pearce et al (10) estimated that one head CT scan performed in the 1st decade of life would produce approximately one excess case of leukemia and one excess brain tumor per 10 000 patients who underwent CT, in the 1st decade after exposure"
So, they are saying they can show a possible 1 cancer case if you treat 10000 kids with high dose CT treatment. They don't discuss margin of error here, or control groups. And they say the eliminated those with existing cancer 'as best they could". Yet, even they show lower rates than the models that most use for scare tactics.
Sorry, if you look at those studies, they are predicted cancers based on the never validate LNT model from the war era studies. None of those observe actual statistical associations. You simply are not looking at the details.
Your emotion speaks volumes. You just can't put any of your information in a real world, risk and extent based perspective.
OK...sorry for taking the cheap shot. Most marked it as funny, but the some were more tuned into the internet point than any thing to do with Mississippi. I grew up in the Appalachian mountains, I've heard it all as well.
Lighten up there. Just having a little fun with stereotypes, don' t tell me you've never done that, and throwing in a hint about how internet fodder feeds fears like the vaccination thing. Maybe you just didn't catch on.... guess you are from Mississippi! (jk).
Maybe its just that some folks can't see the humor, nor the point.
Its sad that a bill is even required to make sure this happens.