This is likely a part of it. Also, if they pressed it multiple times, then they'd 'rather be shocked'. If they pressed it once and not again, then they've decided they'd rather not be shocked anymore.
Just about everyone on the planet would eventually get cancer if they didn't die. But in this case, where the dose was so extreme, many envision a quick, miserable, cancerous death. But to those knowledgeable, there is little surprise that cancer spread was comparatively minimal. In reality, cancer isn't likely to happen even in very high exposure scenarios. Since you are more likely to win the lottery than ever get even a small percentage of this dose, even if you work directly with nuclear fuel, waste, power, or processing, the fears we hear are clearly out of line with the real risks.
The life on our planet was shaped while bathed in radiation. If you are afraid of it, do yourself a favor and learn more.
Of course, the opposite is true with solar panels, where those who install under the generous subsidy schemes benefit the most by getting a large portion of their power paid via tax credits.
Again, its all about purpose. A forum to introduce new ideas and openly discuss them should not require any unwarranted criticism to be useful. The personality dynamics may come in to play, but strong personalities already impact all aspects of company activities. You can actually set rules in a forum setting that minimize those impact.
For those that see social forums as primarily a tool for criticism, the idea of a useful corporate too would clearly be unpalatable.
Good point, but don't equate "work social networks" with casual social type of interaction seen on Facebook. They are really to do work related stuff,explore ideas and share information. Employers can read your emails, so having a 'conversation' on a social tool should not be a problem as long as you don't include stuff you wouldn't include in a meeting or email.
Internal networks are typically set up with some goal in mind, like to "promote new ideas and enhance creative discussion". The main problem is that their existence is driven by the goal, not by demand. Employees are not asking for these tools. Employees can actually meet and talk to each other, there is typically already an infrastructure set up to support that. Therefore, employees are not getting any benefit from them.
I agree its an interesting story. It really has nothing at all to do with nuclear power. But its also fair to point out trends where the evidence is obvious to anyone who looks, and that is some submitters have an agenda. Consistent submittable of headlines that have nuclear and negative connotations is intended to have an overall impact. Many here don't notice it, so I point it out. Many don't distinguish between nuclear power and other nuclear activities. Many don't read beyond the summary. That's what the submitter counts on.
Any doubts, just look up the submittal history yourself.
We'll see. Rarely does DOE work completely die. That can be good or bad, depending on the specific project. One thing can be certain.... a lot of the money gets wasted.
His treatment sort of worked. He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later. You read about old people living near Chernobyl and now Fukushima. Perhaps their age related decline leads to fewer ways for radiation to be lethal. The quick onset of leukemia seems to affect children more, for example. http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late...
That study shows how even after extremely high exposures, leukemia risk is still quite low in general. I guess the real lesson is that we shouldn't drop A-Bombs near kids.
Undue fear of radiation is very prevalent. In this case, the man initially suffered more from the actual explosion than from the massive dose of radiation, and over time he overcame the radiation related issues even though his exposure was on the order of hundreds of times greater than safety limits. Heart disease is what killed him.
Whether you think its Intentional or not, you can always count on mdsolar to submit anything he can find that says nuclear and there is something bad that happened.
Its certainly possible that they would get similar or better results just creating those sections with forms. Same amount of material would be used, with the added benefit of tighter dimensional control.
Also, additive forming makes it difficult to include reinforcement bars, particularly vertical ones.
A private company agreeing, by contract, to allow an external entity or the government to have oversight or scrutiny is not in violation of any law. If the company later refuses to cooperate, they will be in violation of the contract, but not if violation of the law. They can be cut off from being paid, but they can't be prosecuted. If they cooperate and allow oversight as agreed to, no laws are broken.
Its not just party line issue, but its a great example of how voters are ignorant and keep voting guys in office that engage in cronyism. It's probably worse at the local level than at the State level, at least that is what I have observed. At the local level, the differences between parties is smaller when it comes to what they actually do, which is usually trying to get as much money from the State and Federal Gov as possible, while keeping local prominent businessmen happy.
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case. Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for. There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract. Failure to properly contract is the problem.
Trying to ban something like a drink when we don't even ban cigarettes was a pretty stupid approach. They could have possibly succeeded with limiting sales of huge drinks to people over a certain age. They could have required big warning labels about obesity and health dangers be placed on the cups. But they chose to ban and therefore failed.
Although I don't agree with bans like this in general, I'll admit it would have been interesting to see if it would have the desired effect.
Are you saying there is not a lot of cloud cover in winter in Germany? I've been traveling there regularly for the last 11 years, albeit not to every corner of the country, and its not a hard thing to notice. But if you don't think that is a factor, or have other information to help answer the question I was responding to, then why not include it in your post, which certainly added much less to the discussion than my "anecdotes"?
I can guess why your post did not contain any useful information, I'd post it here, but it would be based on anecdotal observations. I wouldn't want to offend you so greatly again.
In the US, residential totals for solar are slightly less than for commercial sources, I think it was about 75% of commercial solar last time I looked. I agree there is some benefit to distributed solar from an overall energy security standpoint. That could be done in various ways, residential being one. I personally don't think we should subsidize individuals for power, and therefore don't agree with the tax credits and subsidies at the levels they are at. Part of that is simply that everyone does not have the same opportunity to play in the game, and wealthier folks who are most likely to participate and benefit don't really need taxpayers covering their power bill. Folks that live in apartments and condos can't participate, yet they are generally living in a more energy efficient manner than homeowners. I'm not sure why their taxes should pay for other's power. I am 100% supportive of anyone who wants to install their own solar PV and is willing to pay for it all.
But that's a different point. I'm most interested in what would be the most effective way to use our existing money and resources to have the greatest CO2 reduction, with the economic considerations that can't be ignored.
Also, in regions like most of Germany, there is significant cloud cover for a good part of the winter. I've spent a decent amount of time in France and Germany, and I describe winter travels there as; "you see the sun before you descend for landing, then you see it again when you take off and get above cloud level".
There are charts that show the difference in total solar insulation for any given region as an average over the year, and some that show the variances over the year. The shorter day and the lower angle make a big difference. Most installations don't track the sun, they remain in one position, so for a good part of the day they are not getting the 'close to perpendicular' situation which is optimal, that situation is exacerbated in winter.
Slashdot Mirror
This is likely a part of it. Also, if they pressed it multiple times, then they'd 'rather be shocked'. If they pressed it once and not again, then they've decided they'd rather not be shocked anymore.
Just about everyone on the planet would eventually get cancer if they didn't die. But in this case, where the dose was so extreme, many envision a quick, miserable, cancerous death. But to those knowledgeable, there is little surprise that cancer spread was comparatively minimal. In reality, cancer isn't likely to happen even in very high exposure scenarios. Since you are more likely to win the lottery than ever get even a small percentage of this dose, even if you work directly with nuclear fuel, waste, power, or processing, the fears we hear are clearly out of line with the real risks.
The life on our planet was shaped while bathed in radiation. If you are afraid of it, do yourself a favor and learn more.
Of course, the opposite is true with solar panels, where those who install under the generous subsidy schemes benefit the most by getting a large portion of their power paid via tax credits.
Do they charge property tax for regular water heaters in California?
Again, its all about purpose. A forum to introduce new ideas and openly discuss them should not require any unwarranted criticism to be useful. The personality dynamics may come in to play, but strong personalities already impact all aspects of company activities. You can actually set rules in a forum setting that minimize those impact.
For those that see social forums as primarily a tool for criticism, the idea of a useful corporate too would clearly be unpalatable.
Good point, but don't equate "work social networks" with casual social type of interaction seen on Facebook. They are really to do work related stuff,explore ideas and share information. Employers can read your emails, so having a 'conversation' on a social tool should not be a problem as long as you don't include stuff you wouldn't include in a meeting or email.
Only for the FUD influenced. All evidence shows no risk to workers of any age for the low exposures they get.
Internal networks are typically set up with some goal in mind, like to "promote new ideas and enhance creative discussion". The main problem is that their existence is driven by the goal, not by demand. Employees are not asking for these tools. Employees can actually meet and talk to each other, there is typically already an infrastructure set up to support that. Therefore, employees are not getting any benefit from them.
I agree its an interesting story. It really has nothing at all to do with nuclear power. But its also fair to point out trends where the evidence is obvious to anyone who looks, and that is some submitters have an agenda. Consistent submittable of headlines that have nuclear and negative connotations is intended to have an overall impact. Many here don't notice it, so I point it out. Many don't distinguish between nuclear power and other nuclear activities. Many don't read beyond the summary. That's what the submitter counts on.
Any doubts, just look up the submittal history yourself.
We'll see. Rarely does DOE work completely die. That can be good or bad, depending on the specific project. One thing can be certain.... a lot of the money gets wasted.
His treatment sort of worked. He ended up with a lot of bad health effects, but kept alive until he was 75, eleven years later. You read about old people living near Chernobyl and now Fukushima. Perhaps their age related decline leads to fewer ways for radiation to be lethal. The quick onset of leukemia seems to affect children more, for example. http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/late...
That study shows how even after extremely high exposures, leukemia risk is still quite low in general. I guess the real lesson is that we shouldn't drop A-Bombs near kids.
Undue fear of radiation is very prevalent. In this case, the man initially suffered more from the actual explosion than from the massive dose of radiation, and over time he overcame the radiation related issues even though his exposure was on the order of hundreds of times greater than safety limits. Heart disease is what killed him.
Whether you think its Intentional or not, you can always count on mdsolar to submit anything he can find that says nuclear and there is something bad that happened.
Its certainly possible that they would get similar or better results just creating those sections with forms. Same amount of material would be used, with the added benefit of tighter dimensional control.
Also, additive forming makes it difficult to include reinforcement bars, particularly vertical ones.
Keep in mind that a corporation is a government-created entity in the first place.
So is a citizen.
A private company agreeing, by contract, to allow an external entity or the government to have oversight or scrutiny is not in violation of any law. If the company later refuses to cooperate, they will be in violation of the contract, but not if violation of the law. They can be cut off from being paid, but they can't be prosecuted. If they cooperate and allow oversight as agreed to, no laws are broken.
Its not just party line issue, but its a great example of how voters are ignorant and keep voting guys in office that engage in cronyism. It's probably worse at the local level than at the State level, at least that is what I have observed. At the local level, the differences between parties is smaller when it comes to what they actually do, which is usually trying to get as much money from the State and Federal Gov as possible, while keeping local prominent businessmen happy.
No, they are not arguing that they are not subject to the rule of law. They are arguing that certain laws don't apply as written, and they have a case. Contract requirements can compel the vendor to pretty much to anything they are willing to sign up for. There is no law that limits what they can agree to with regards to disclosure.
This is simply a contracting issue. The state can put disclosure and transparency requirements in the contract, the private company can agree or not get the contract. Failure to properly contract is the problem.
Trying to ban something like a drink when we don't even ban cigarettes was a pretty stupid approach. They could have possibly succeeded with limiting sales of huge drinks to people over a certain age. They could have required big warning labels about obesity and health dangers be placed on the cups. But they chose to ban and therefore failed.
Although I don't agree with bans like this in general, I'll admit it would have been interesting to see if it would have the desired effect.
Why carry that generator around with you all the time. Just slap in on a little trailer and bring it along when you need it. Or, rent one.
Are you saying there is not a lot of cloud cover in winter in Germany? I've been traveling there regularly for the last 11 years, albeit not to every corner of the country, and its not a hard thing to notice. But if you don't think that is a factor, or have other information to help answer the question I was responding to, then why not include it in your post, which certainly added much less to the discussion than my "anecdotes"?
I can guess why your post did not contain any useful information, I'd post it here, but it would be based on anecdotal observations. I wouldn't want to offend you so greatly again.
Think of it as a great new way to test the law of unintended consequences.
In the US, residential totals for solar are slightly less than for commercial sources, I think it was about 75% of commercial solar last time I looked. I agree there is some benefit to distributed solar from an overall energy security standpoint. That could be done in various ways, residential being one. I personally don't think we should subsidize individuals for power, and therefore don't agree with the tax credits and subsidies at the levels they are at. Part of that is simply that everyone does not have the same opportunity to play in the game, and wealthier folks who are most likely to participate and benefit don't really need taxpayers covering their power bill. Folks that live in apartments and condos can't participate, yet they are generally living in a more energy efficient manner than homeowners. I'm not sure why their taxes should pay for other's power. I am 100% supportive of anyone who wants to install their own solar PV and is willing to pay for it all.
But that's a different point. I'm most interested in what would be the most effective way to use our existing money and resources to have the greatest CO2 reduction, with the economic considerations that can't be ignored.
Also, in regions like most of Germany, there is significant cloud cover for a good part of the winter. I've spent a decent amount of time in France and Germany, and I describe winter travels there as; "you see the sun before you descend for landing, then you see it again when you take off and get above cloud level".
There are charts that show the difference in total solar insulation for any given region as an average over the year, and some that show the variances over the year. The shorter day and the lower angle make a big difference. Most installations don't track the sun, they remain in one position, so for a good part of the day they are not getting the 'close to perpendicular' situation which is optimal, that situation is exacerbated in winter.