Sorry but your body (and the things living in it) are used to certain levels of radiation. With ZERO radiation (which is pretty much impossible as the entire biosphere is at least marginally radioactive), you'd get a canary in the coal mine effect with your body's symbionts. Which would initially make you very ill, and you likely wouldn't recover as you wouldn't acquire new ones and your body wouldn't function well without them.
Don't take my word for it through. Talk to a real medical doctor about it.
Yeah. Because the kick started back in April with Connecticut voting to bump its minimum wage to 10.10...gradually...by 2017.
And that was in late March.
Everything else has happened since April (or later).
Sorry but this study is bunk. It hasn't had a long enough time to affect the market in any statistically significant way.
There's no allowances that existing open jobs weren't filled, as they had previously gone unfilled due to the pay being insufficient for people to bother.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you (see "SELLING SOMETHING").
There has to be a minimum acceptable level of risk. But there's STILL a risk.
If you think this makes you "safe" you're nuts.
But you have to weigh it against the other risks.
You want to keep dumping tons of nuclear waste into the open environment? Want to kill off most of the population of this planet by disrupting the environment? Keep burning fossil fuels.
For the record, I don't think the current generation of nuclear reactors and their solid fuel systems are any better.
Honestly, the LFTR design looks like the best and safest bet for clean, essentially unlimited energy for our society without the environmental drawbacks.
Great. That's Tritium (Hydrogen 3). When combined with oxygen it produces so-called "heavy water" T2O. Which means your body treats it like water. And it can pretty much go anywhere good old H2O can in your system. So yeah, with that kind of intimate exposure in your system, it can do lots and lots of potential damage.
You'd DIE in a zero-radiation environment, as your body and its symbionts are accustomed to certain levels of naturally occurring radiation in the background.
Also, contrary to your assertion, there's no such thing as a linear progression of exposure levels to cancer.
Average background radiation is usually between 1-3 mS. But there are places like Guarapari, Brazil, where the background radiation is something in excess of 175 mS.
But you do NOT find 175x the instances of cancer there.
I'm telling you, flat out, that there's no such THING as "safe". PERIOD.
Once you get over that little fantasy, then you can start having a meaningful dialog.
And, nuclear proliferation is only a concern for certain types of reactors.
With something like an LFTR reactor, your nuclear proliferation risk may not be zero, but it's a sum only slightly above zero. Unlike current, decades-old dry fuel reactors.
Fukishima killed 1,000 people, which is really sad.
Uh. Actually, Fukushima killed NOBODY.
The earthquake and the tsunami killed people, sure. But not the reactor meltdown.
NO short-term radiation exposure fatalities were reported. There were 37 physical injuries and 2 people taken to the hospital with radiation burns.
But no deaths.
So sure, if Fukushima happened once a year, we'd wind up with a lot of earthquake and Tsunami victims at first. Then we'd build structures that can withstand those conditions, and even be able to stop the meltdowns. Either through better engineering or by switching to safer nuclear technology (oh yeah, and not trusting those ass-covering cock-mongers at TEPCO).
This isn't about "brighter colors" and "whiter whites".
It's about providing for the world's energy needs WITHOUT massive greenhouse gas pollution, whose effects could kill off significant chunks of life on this planet.
Unless YOU want to be one of the unlucky 99% who is volunteering to go shiver and starve in a cave someplace.
Sorry, but doing completely without ionizing radiation is a patent impossibility on this planet.
The view that "there is no safe level" is idiotic in light of this. Obviously there ARE safe levels. Or we'd have people in certain areas of the world keeling over from "massive" radiation exposure.
Granted, chances of funding to determine safe levels via human testing are completely non-existent (for good reasons), but there are areas all over the world sporting inordinately high levels of background radiation. Yet you don't see people keeling over of radiation-related causes.
And, I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Want to put a pall over discussion of nuclear POWER? Simply mention an atom bomb.
Realistically, there should be TWO values for radiation exposure.
1: Single-instance exposure. How much you can SAFELY be exposed to in a single pass (for things like chest X-Rays, nuclear cleanup work, and the like.) 2: Exposure over-time.
Never mind that, even were all nuclear power stations (and their accumulated waste waste), and the effects of every nuclear test in history to disappear from the planet TODAY, you'd STILL be living in an environment FILLED with radiation.
And how do you explain places like Guarapari Brazil, with its naturally radioactive beaches? Where the average exposure a year is 175 mS? Yet they don't have higher instances of cancer and radiation-related disease?
I'm sorry, your views of radiation, and its place in nature are uneducated, fear-driven and have no real basis in "science".
As always with these cameras. It's NOT about the law, what's legal, or enforcing the law.
It's about making a profit. A revenue stream. I'd say "first and foremost", but that implies there's another reason. And there just isn't. It's about extracting ever more money from the citizens through any means necessary. Even though Chicago's signing away 90% OF THE TICKET REVENUES TO THE CAMERA COMPANY!
And the cameras aren't set up "everywhere" to give uniform coverage.
They're set up in areas and in such a way as to maximize the APPEARANCE of a violation from the camera's perspective.
Basically these sorts of camera deals need to be illegal.
If the city isn't going to buy the systems outright and administer/enforce them itself, they shouldn't be allowed to go through a third party company who has a profit motive involved in what is otherwise a law enforcement issue. It's a total conflict of interests.
Originally I couldn't play 3D games. They made me ill. Most 3D movies STILL make me ill.
However, I was able to train myself to play without needing to puke. But watching someone else play still makes me incredibly queasy.
Recently, I had the opportunity to try out an Occulus Rift. It hit me the same way. I had to stop playing before it got too bad. One of my colleagues was visibly ill after just a few moments.
Now some of it IS simply a matter of resolution and framerate. But, as mentioned, some of it is due to myriad physical systems feeding your brain inconsistent data.
Arguing "Oh it's hotter someplace else so you're not so badly off", which is what you're doing, is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard (and believe me, I've been in the military, and I've heard some doozies).
By "dealing with" the problem of greenhouse gasses, I mean by coming up with real, widespread, FUNDED plans for emissions reductions, better sequestration, and switch-overs to cleaner forms of energy.
So far, everyone's basically screaming about the falling sky. And that's about as far as it goes. I want some rational (yeah, I'm an optimist), well-thought through (again, optimist) plans that actually have a hope in hell of keeping it from hitting me on the head. NOT people running around like decapitated chickens.
It's a 1970 Anti Money Laundering act known as the Bank Secrecy Act.
Any sums $10,000 or greater must be reported by the bank. This includes aggregate withdrawals.
So, if you withdraw $5K from one branch, then head to another branch, and withdraw another $5K, it triggers a report to the IRS.
Additionally, banks must ALSO report on transactions they believe were designed to skirt the withdrawal limit. Such as $9,999 or $9,990.
The only time there's any skirting of this rule is for establishments that regularly deal with large sums of cash. Such as stores that regularly withdraw money for deposits in excess of the limit. In those cases, there's paperwork the banks fill out to establish a reporting exemption with the IRS for these transactions. Said exemption needs to be renewed every year.
See kids. Not every AC understands that discussing dissatisfaction with a single politician's job performance is not the same thing as lacking cogency.
In the rare cases when this understanding is absent, you see silly ad hominems like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead. Stick your head in the sand.
I'm sure that'll save you when the water comes rolling in.
Sorry but your body (and the things living in it) are used to certain levels of radiation. With ZERO radiation (which is pretty much impossible as the entire biosphere is at least marginally radioactive), you'd get a canary in the coal mine effect with your body's symbionts. Which would initially make you very ill, and you likely wouldn't recover as you wouldn't acquire new ones and your body wouldn't function well without them.
Don't take my word for it through. Talk to a real medical doctor about it.
"because the kick started in March".
http://thinkprogress.org/econo...
Started typing the wrong month then brain farted and didn't go back to correct.
Yeah. Because the kick started back in April with Connecticut voting to bump its minimum wage to 10.10...gradually...by 2017.
And that was in late March.
Everything else has happened since April (or later).
Sorry but this study is bunk. It hasn't had a long enough time to affect the market in any statistically significant way.
There's no allowances that existing open jobs weren't filled, as they had previously gone unfilled due to the pay being insufficient for people to bother.
I said "facts". Not you simply spouting words.
Something that actually supports what you're saying.
And how you jumped from dumping uranium and thorium into the atmosphere to "Carbon-14", I dunno.
There's always going to be some minimal risk.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you (see "SELLING SOMETHING").
There has to be a minimum acceptable level of risk. But there's STILL a risk.
If you think this makes you "safe" you're nuts.
But you have to weigh it against the other risks.
You want to keep dumping tons of nuclear waste into the open environment? Want to kill off most of the population of this planet by disrupting the environment? Keep burning fossil fuels.
For the record, I don't think the current generation of nuclear reactors and their solid fuel systems are any better.
Honestly, the LFTR design looks like the best and safest bet for clean, essentially unlimited energy for our society without the environmental drawbacks.
Great. That's Tritium (Hydrogen 3). When combined with oxygen it produces so-called "heavy water" T2O. Which means your body treats it like water. And it can pretty much go anywhere good old H2O can in your system. So yeah, with that kind of intimate exposure in your system, it can do lots and lots of potential damage.
There's no such thing as "zero" radiation.
You'd DIE in a zero-radiation environment, as your body and its symbionts are accustomed to certain levels of naturally occurring radiation in the background.
Also, contrary to your assertion, there's no such thing as a linear progression of exposure levels to cancer.
Average background radiation is usually between 1-3 mS. But there are places like Guarapari, Brazil, where the background radiation is something in excess of 175 mS.
But you do NOT find 175x the instances of cancer there.
Try again.
Howsabout a few facts to support that assumption.
Additionally, if added radiation puts a hundredth of a percent of the population at greater risk, but stops or significantly reduces global warming?
GREAT! Even if it means I'm one of that "unlucky" percentage.
Sure, 800K people MAY die sooner. MAYBE.
But having this planet melt down will likely kill us ALL.
Possible 800K vs DEFINITE 8 Billion?
I'm not equating a damn thing.
I'm telling you, flat out, that there's no such THING as "safe". PERIOD.
Once you get over that little fantasy, then you can start having a meaningful dialog.
And, nuclear proliferation is only a concern for certain types of reactors.
With something like an LFTR reactor, your nuclear proliferation risk may not be zero, but it's a sum only slightly above zero. Unlike current, decades-old dry fuel reactors.
Fukishima killed 1,000 people, which is really sad.
Uh. Actually, Fukushima killed NOBODY.
The earthquake and the tsunami killed people, sure. But not the reactor meltdown.
NO short-term radiation exposure fatalities were reported.
There were 37 physical injuries and 2 people taken to the hospital with radiation burns.
But no deaths.
So sure, if Fukushima happened once a year, we'd wind up with a lot of earthquake and Tsunami victims at first.
Then we'd build structures that can withstand those conditions, and even be able to stop the meltdowns. Either through better engineering or by switching to safer nuclear technology (oh yeah, and not trusting those ass-covering cock-mongers at TEPCO).
Or we could move over to inherently safer nuclear technologies like LFTR.
Sorry, but YES.
This isn't about "brighter colors" and "whiter whites".
It's about providing for the world's energy needs WITHOUT massive greenhouse gas pollution, whose effects could kill off significant chunks of life on this planet.
Unless YOU want to be one of the unlucky 99% who is volunteering to go shiver and starve in a cave someplace.
Sorry, but doing completely without ionizing radiation is a patent impossibility on this planet.
The view that "there is no safe level" is idiotic in light of this. Obviously there ARE safe levels. Or we'd have people in certain areas of the world keeling over from "massive" radiation exposure.
Granted, chances of funding to determine safe levels via human testing are completely non-existent (for good reasons), but there are areas all over the world sporting inordinately high levels of background radiation. Yet you don't see people keeling over of radiation-related causes.
And, I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Want to put a pall over discussion of nuclear POWER? Simply mention an atom bomb.
Realistically, there should be TWO values for radiation exposure.
1: Single-instance exposure. How much you can SAFELY be exposed to in a single pass (for things like chest X-Rays, nuclear cleanup work, and the like.)
2: Exposure over-time.
Never mind that, even were all nuclear power stations (and their accumulated waste waste), and the effects of every nuclear test in history to disappear from the planet TODAY, you'd STILL be living in an environment FILLED with radiation.
And how do you explain places like Guarapari Brazil, with its naturally radioactive beaches? Where the average exposure a year is 175 mS? Yet they don't have higher instances of cancer and radiation-related disease?
I'm sorry, your views of radiation, and its place in nature are uneducated, fear-driven and have no real basis in "science".
Considering how quickly, completely, irreparably and FALSELY someone's reputation can be savaged nowadays, this is just rife for abuse.
As always with these cameras. It's NOT about the law, what's legal, or enforcing the law.
It's about making a profit. A revenue stream. I'd say "first and foremost", but that implies there's another reason. And there just isn't. It's about extracting ever more money from the citizens through any means necessary. Even though Chicago's signing away 90% OF THE TICKET REVENUES TO THE CAMERA COMPANY!
And the cameras aren't set up "everywhere" to give uniform coverage.
They're set up in areas and in such a way as to maximize the APPEARANCE of a violation from the camera's perspective.
Basically these sorts of camera deals need to be illegal.
If the city isn't going to buy the systems outright and administer/enforce them itself, they shouldn't be allowed to go through a third party company who has a profit motive involved in what is otherwise a law enforcement issue. It's a total conflict of interests.
Originally I couldn't play 3D games. They made me ill.
Most 3D movies STILL make me ill.
However, I was able to train myself to play without needing to puke.
But watching someone else play still makes me incredibly queasy.
Recently, I had the opportunity to try out an Occulus Rift.
It hit me the same way. I had to stop playing before it got too bad. One of my colleagues was visibly ill after just a few moments.
Now some of it IS simply a matter of resolution and framerate.
But, as mentioned, some of it is due to myriad physical systems feeding your brain inconsistent data.
Like many futuristic technologies, AI seems like one of those things that's always "just 30 years away".
Do you think we'll make realistic, meaningful breakthroughs to achieve AI in that timeframe?
Which isn't a solution jackass.
Arguing "Oh it's hotter someplace else so you're not so badly off", which is what you're doing, is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard (and believe me, I've been in the military, and I've heard some doozies).
By "dealing with" the problem of greenhouse gasses, I mean by coming up with real, widespread, FUNDED plans for emissions reductions, better sequestration, and switch-overs to cleaner forms of energy.
So far, everyone's basically screaming about the falling sky. And that's about as far as it goes.
I want some rational (yeah, I'm an optimist), well-thought through (again, optimist) plans that actually have a hope in hell of keeping it from hitting me on the head.
NOT people running around like decapitated chickens.
Not over some ISP account. Over that sort of rude, obsequious just ASININE treatment.
You act like that to someone's face, you're getting an ass-whupping.
You do it over the phone, you better hope like HELL they can't identify/track you in any way, shape or form.
No. Those really ARE government regulations.
It's a 1970 Anti Money Laundering act known as the Bank Secrecy Act.
Any sums $10,000 or greater must be reported by the bank.
This includes aggregate withdrawals.
So, if you withdraw $5K from one branch, then head to another branch, and withdraw another $5K, it triggers a report to the IRS.
Additionally, banks must ALSO report on transactions they believe were designed to skirt the withdrawal limit. Such as $9,999 or $9,990.
The only time there's any skirting of this rule is for establishments that regularly deal with large sums of cash. Such as stores that regularly withdraw money for deposits in excess of the limit.
In those cases, there's paperwork the banks fill out to establish a reporting exemption with the IRS for these transactions. Said exemption needs to be renewed every year.
See kids. Not every AC understands that discussing dissatisfaction with a single politician's job performance is not the same thing as lacking cogency.
In the rare cases when this understanding is absent, you see silly ad hominems like this.
No, but he'll use a presidential mandate to shimmy around Congress for one of his own special interests, right?