The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't
Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states? It appears not. Drawing conclusions without historical context is a common stupidity these days.
All energy sources are subsidized to some extent, as most countries place great economic value on having lower cost electricity. If all subsidies were removed, gas would completely dominate, followed by coal and nuclear. Solar and wind would not stand a chance. Solar, on a dollar per kwh generated basis, receives subsidies many times greater than any of our traditional sources, as does wind.
I'm all for equal subsidies on all forms of power, but I'd rather have diversity and not be totally reliant on shale gas.
Nuclear plants don't emit an even level of radiation in all directions. They emit radioactive particles that then move around on the wind, in the soil and in the water.
Did you just make this shit up? Completely false. Radioactive particles are defined as contamination, and there is no contaminated material released from nuclear plants, except for a few cases of tritium leaks. But, tritium is quite benign and doesn't "travel around on the wind". Your statement displays the common misconceptions nuclear power, radiation, and the associated risks.
It is funny how people's definitions of "safe" change depending on the subject. You can get multiple acute radiation doses, each many times above present day safety limits, and your risk of any physically threatening results are still many times less than riding in a car for just a short trip. You have so many higher risk things you just accept. How about leaching chemicals from semiconductors or even your cookware? How about pesticides? How about the risks listed on every medication we take?
For those that don't buy into the FUD, here is a good overview of where we stand today with assessing risks of very high acute exposure medical tests.
"All these estimates share a serious flaw. Among survivors exposed to 100 mSv of radiation or less—including the doses typical for CT scans—the numbers of cancer cases and deaths are so small that it becomes virtually impossible to be certain that they are significantly higher than the rate of cancer in the general population. To compensate, the National Research Council and others based their estimates primarily on data from survivors who were exposed to levels of radiation in the range of 100 mSv to 2 Sv. The fundamental assumption is that cancer risk and radiation dose have a similar relationship in high and low ranges—but that is not necessarily true."
That study has results within the margin of error. Multiple studies are needed to corroborate results in these cases. Other studies don't show the same results. A real challenge in getting the needed data is the fact that most people who are getting multiple CT scans, and therefore higher dose, are already in a higher risk group.
"There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high dose exposures. However, below 50 - 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent."
For example, from this it was predictated that CT scans cause cancer with a very low probability and this has recently been confirmed.
No, this is false. There are estimates of case probabilities based on the same old data that was used to determine safety limits, but although there are continued efforts to find a statistical increase in the real world, none has been observed despite a the huge number of CT scans that have been performed.
Not to mention, most of the exclusion zone is perfectly safe right now, just precautionary and logistics reasons are keeping much of that area in the zone.
Fukishima killed 1,000 people, which is really sad.
Nobody was killed from the nuclear accident at Fukushima. Some were killed by the Tsunami, of course. Workers have been injured from construction type activities, but it is nowhere near 1,000.
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
Agreed in principal, although I am sure even you pollute. Thankfully we have had nuclear plants that don't pollute the air or emit contaminants that wind up in anyone's blood. Too bad that damn sun is beaming us with radiation all the time, while almost nobody except those that enter reactor buildings gets any comparatively measurable exposure to radiation from the plant itself.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to.025 mS/year, and perhaps.0025 mS.
Quite the opposite actually. A comprehensive review based on your assumptions might, but based on science they would use real world data with real people. Even with the decades of medical data we have today, exposure from numerous CT Scans, regional radon exposures, and other sources, there is still no evidence in the real population that there are any negative effects from low dose radiation, and it is increasingly clear that the existing safety limits are ultra conservative. Those limits are based on decades old war era studies that observed effects of huge radiation doses which dropped off at lower rates to non-observable percentages. In the interest of being conservatively safe in a world where nuclear fear was at an all time high, they simply drew an almost linear correlation from the high does cases down to zero. But it is quite clear that once you get down into ranges even several times higher than safety limits, no actual increase in cancers or similar are found.
The problem is the old issue of proving the negative combined with a societal mus-perception of radiation exposure risk. There is little incentive in society to improve on the outdated basis we are using.
Its not the cost of the raw materials that matters. Its the cost of the entire solution in a form that meets consumer needs; This includes, but is not limited to, car, fuel and fuel storage; manufacturing, maintenance, fuel delivery, etc. If you have a low density fuel, you'll have the expenses elsewhere to account for it.
Exactly. Handouts at the consumer end are the best way to waste a bunch of money. Not only is it inherently unfair, as a large number of taxpayers are not in a position to take advantage of the handout, but it also completely distorts the consumer market, where products that otherwise have no chance are sold only as long as the handouts are in place. Then, when the inevitable cutbacks happen, the market is up-ended because it was never balanced based on actual consumer need.
Much of this can be avoided as you said by reinforcing the development end rather than the purchasing end. But, people love handouts, and there are plenty of politicians willing to hand out, after all, its only taxpayer money....who cares if it is used to buy something completely overvalued to the user?
RE: "No, the dose in CT is so high that it approaches the level we have direct statistical evidence from atomic bomb survivors."
It is quotes like this that confuse the issue. There are a range of exposures among A-Bomb survivors, from much higher than you'll ever get in a CT scan down to zero. But you won't find statistical evidence in enough resolution to make the conclusions for the lower dose range, as withing the CT scan range, with any certainty, so they just simply got conservative and decided to assume the damage probabilities will occur at a relatively linear rate with dose reduction. Remember, they really only guessed at people's actual exposure based on location, and while the methods were sound, there was margin of error from the start. In these types of studies, error margins are typically handled on the conservative side.
Fast forward to today, where there has been little impetus to challenge the assumptions. With all the CT scans performed, there is a huge statistical pool to pull real data from. But, since that data doesn't show any distinguishable increase in cancers (albeit a number of challenges to form control groups), the safe thing to do is what was done in the study your referenced, and that is to simply estimate based on dose received using the same old probability lines extrapolated decades ago but never actually corroborated with real data. Its not been seen as a problem because its much simpler to assume the worst and minimize exposure as much as is practical.
But those numbers come from statistical models based on high - end ultra conservative extrapolations from much higher dose exposures, not on actual cases of cancer induced by radiation exposure at these relatively lower levels. In reality, there has been no physical evidence that these impacts occur at anything close to this rate, even for the exposures you mentioned. There is nothing wrong with this "play it safe regardless" mentality in the medical community as long as it doesn't force unneeded costs. I agree keep doses as low as possible.
less exposure to dangerous radiation during x-rays
If that were an actual problem, this would be worthy of stating. Even the lesser used high exposure CT scans have miniscule exposure, well below any amount that has ever been actually observed to cause physical harm in a human.
Well, Tesla isn't the only electric car company. In fact, existing car companies are in a better position to "commoditize" EVs when the time comes. Blaming the wrong folks is a distraction from a solution or change.
Good points, but its still about the sales model, and not about Tesla or the technology. If a new gas vehicle company tried the same approach, it would get the same reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't
Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states? It appears not. Drawing conclusions without historical context is a common stupidity these days.
States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.
Inconceivable.
All energy sources are subsidized to some extent, as most countries place great economic value on having lower cost electricity. If all subsidies were removed, gas would completely dominate, followed by coal and nuclear. Solar and wind would not stand a chance. Solar, on a dollar per kwh generated basis, receives subsidies many times greater than any of our traditional sources, as does wind.
I'm all for equal subsidies on all forms of power, but I'd rather have diversity and not be totally reliant on shale gas.
Nuclear plants don't emit an even level of radiation in all directions. They emit radioactive particles that then move around on the wind, in the soil and in the water.
Did you just make this shit up? Completely false. Radioactive particles are defined as contamination, and there is no contaminated material released from nuclear plants, except for a few cases of tritium leaks. But, tritium is quite benign and doesn't "travel around on the wind". Your statement displays the common misconceptions nuclear power, radiation, and the associated risks.
It is funny how people's definitions of "safe" change depending on the subject. You can get multiple acute radiation doses, each many times above present day safety limits, and your risk of any physically threatening results are still many times less than riding in a car for just a short trip. You have so many higher risk things you just accept. How about leaching chemicals from semiconductors or even your cookware? How about pesticides? How about the risks listed on every medication we take?
For those that don't buy into the FUD, here is a good overview of where we stand today with assessing risks of very high acute exposure medical tests.
http://www.scientificamerican....
A key excerpt;
"All these estimates share a serious flaw. Among survivors exposed to 100 mSv of radiation or less—including the doses typical for CT scans—the numbers of cancer cases and deaths are so small that it becomes virtually impossible to be certain that they are significantly higher than the rate of cancer in the general population. To compensate, the National Research Council and others based their estimates primarily on data from survivors who were exposed to levels of radiation in the range of 100 mSv to 2 Sv. The fundamental assumption is that cancer risk and radiation dose have a similar relationship in high and low ranges—but that is not necessarily true."
That study has results within the margin of error. Multiple studies are needed to corroborate results in these cases. Other studies don't show the same results. A real challenge in getting the needed data is the fact that most people who are getting multiple CT scans, and therefore higher dose, are already in a higher risk group.
http://hps.org/documents/risk_...
"There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high dose exposures. However, below 50 - 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent."
For example, from this it was predictated that CT scans cause cancer with a very low probability and this has recently been confirmed.
No, this is false. There are estimates of case probabilities based on the same old data that was used to determine safety limits, but although there are continued efforts to find a statistical increase in the real world, none has been observed despite a the huge number of CT scans that have been performed.
Not to mention, most of the exclusion zone is perfectly safe right now, just precautionary and logistics reasons are keeping much of that area in the zone.
Fukishima killed 1,000 people, which is really sad.
Nobody was killed from the nuclear accident at Fukushima. Some were killed by the Tsunami, of course. Workers have been injured from construction type activities, but it is nowhere near 1,000.
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
Agreed in principal, although I am sure even you pollute. Thankfully we have had nuclear plants that don't pollute the air or emit contaminants that wind up in anyone's blood. Too bad that damn sun is beaming us with radiation all the time, while almost nobody except those that enter reactor buildings gets any comparatively measurable exposure to radiation from the plant itself.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to .025 mS/year, and perhaps .0025 mS.
Quite the opposite actually. A comprehensive review based on your assumptions might, but based on science they would use real world data with real people. Even with the decades of medical data we have today, exposure from numerous CT Scans, regional radon exposures, and other sources, there is still no evidence in the real population that there are any negative effects from low dose radiation, and it is increasingly clear that the existing safety limits are ultra conservative. Those limits are based on decades old war era studies that observed effects of huge radiation doses which dropped off at lower rates to non-observable percentages. In the interest of being conservatively safe in a world where nuclear fear was at an all time high, they simply drew an almost linear correlation from the high does cases down to zero. But it is quite clear that once you get down into ranges even several times higher than safety limits, no actual increase in cancers or similar are found.
The problem is the old issue of proving the negative combined with a societal mus-perception of radiation exposure risk. There is little incentive in society to improve on the outdated basis we are using.
Its not the cost of the raw materials that matters. Its the cost of the entire solution in a form that meets consumer needs; This includes, but is not limited to, car, fuel and fuel storage; manufacturing, maintenance, fuel delivery, etc. If you have a low density fuel, you'll have the expenses elsewhere to account for it.
This is how you do it except the car does not have to be 60 grand in cost,
Then you proceeded to list of bunch of undeveloped and presently high cost approaches.
Exactly. Handouts at the consumer end are the best way to waste a bunch of money. Not only is it inherently unfair, as a large number of taxpayers are not in a position to take advantage of the handout, but it also completely distorts the consumer market, where products that otherwise have no chance are sold only as long as the handouts are in place. Then, when the inevitable cutbacks happen, the market is up-ended because it was never balanced based on actual consumer need.
Much of this can be avoided as you said by reinforcing the development end rather than the purchasing end. But, people love handouts, and there are plenty of politicians willing to hand out, after all, its only taxpayer money....who cares if it is used to buy something completely overvalued to the user?
RE: "No, the dose in CT is so high that it approaches the level we have direct statistical evidence from atomic bomb survivors." It is quotes like this that confuse the issue. There are a range of exposures among A-Bomb survivors, from much higher than you'll ever get in a CT scan down to zero. But you won't find statistical evidence in enough resolution to make the conclusions for the lower dose range, as withing the CT scan range, with any certainty, so they just simply got conservative and decided to assume the damage probabilities will occur at a relatively linear rate with dose reduction. Remember, they really only guessed at people's actual exposure based on location, and while the methods were sound, there was margin of error from the start. In these types of studies, error margins are typically handled on the conservative side.
Fast forward to today, where there has been little impetus to challenge the assumptions. With all the CT scans performed, there is a huge statistical pool to pull real data from. But, since that data doesn't show any distinguishable increase in cancers (albeit a number of challenges to form control groups), the safe thing to do is what was done in the study your referenced, and that is to simply estimate based on dose received using the same old probability lines extrapolated decades ago but never actually corroborated with real data. Its not been seen as a problem because its much simpler to assume the worst and minimize exposure as much as is practical.
Technology is progressing to where, one day, maybe you actually CAN pick your friend's nose.
Thanks for the advice on "The Ukraine" vs "Ukraine". I never picked up on that, helpful to know.
But those numbers come from statistical models based on high - end ultra conservative extrapolations from much higher dose exposures, not on actual cases of cancer induced by radiation exposure at these relatively lower levels. In reality, there has been no physical evidence that these impacts occur at anything close to this rate, even for the exposures you mentioned. There is nothing wrong with this "play it safe regardless" mentality in the medical community as long as it doesn't force unneeded costs. I agree keep doses as low as possible.
less exposure to dangerous radiation during x-rays
If that were an actual problem, this would be worthy of stating. Even the lesser used high exposure CT scans have miniscule exposure, well below any amount that has ever been actually observed to cause physical harm in a human.
Facts matter little to the FUD mongers.
Well, Tesla isn't the only electric car company. In fact, existing car companies are in a better position to "commoditize" EVs when the time comes. Blaming the wrong folks is a distraction from a solution or change.
I'm not sure where exactly on Earth is sufficiently "remote", dark, moist, and unreachable that this makes sense.
Thor's vagina.
I wonder if Thor will be a whor, or just a bhor.
Their apology was sincere. They even offered to continue his service at a 'special rate'.
Good points, but its still about the sales model, and not about Tesla or the technology. If a new gas vehicle company tried the same approach, it would get the same reaction.
There's a shitload of data on my rear end.