There is considerable evidence that vaccines prevent far more deaths than they cause. Diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus are almost nonexistent in the U.S. while there are millions of deaths worldwide in countries that do not vaccinate their general population. Anyone who trusts the 'facts' you put in your post should look at this site.
What's wrong with you. These lies you're telling will get people killed.
Most of the toxicology studies I've read say depleted uranium is about as dangerous as lead. I'm not saying lead is harmless, but if the bullets they use aren't DU they are probably lead.
Natural uranium is 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235. U235 has a half life of 700 million years. U238 has a half life of 4 billion years. Isotopes with longer half lives are less radioactive. Therefore U238 is far less radioactive than U235.
Depleted uranium is uranium that has had most of the U235 separated out. Making it less radioactive than natural uranium
The average natural uranium content in topsoil is about 2 parts per million(that's without any contamination of any kind). Iraq has more than a trillion tons of topsoil. In the first meter of soil there is already more than two million tons of natural uranium. Adding a few thousand tons of depleted uranium will have no effect on the people of Iraq.
The effects of uranium are well known and have been studied by many countries other than the United States. You are just making up a conspiracy theory because you have no facts on your side.
Iridology is the belief that a persons health can be determined by the color patterns in their iris. This article is about determining a persons cardiovascular health by examining the blood vessels in the retina.
If they had the tracking information for your car they could see that you only stopped next to his car once in the last two years. The tracking information would make it easier to exonerate innocent people as well as prosecute criminals.
If on 1 in a 10000 pictures would capture some rare kind of rock in mars, with the extended lifetime of the rovers it will be more probable to find that rock, among the data.
The article says 100kg of aluminum would be required to get the equivalent of a full tank of gas. Aluminum costs about $2 per pound. So it would cost $200 to fill it up all the way. My mini-van only costs $60 to fill all the way.
The U.S. started work on the F-1 (the large rocket engine used in the first stage) 10 years before the the first launch. They'd also already used the third stage of the Saturn 5 in the Saturn 1B. And the second stage was just an enlarged version of the third stage. In contrast all the development work for the N-1 started just 5 years before the first test launch, and the N-1 didn't re-use any of the technology from the older russian rockets. I'd say NASA did things the Russian way and Russia did things the NASA way.
Their launch cost = 1/20th of shuttle launch cost.
Of coarse the Soyuz only lifts 5 tones to orbit. The current shuttle launch system could lift 80 tones to orbit if it used expendable engines rather than the space shuttle engines.
cost to launch a Soyuz: $35 million ($7million/ton)
cost to launch a shuttle: $450 million ($ 5.6 million/ton)
It depends on what kind of process is used to make power. Most reactors use U235, and there's only enough of that in the current uranium mines to last 50 years. If a plutonium process were used (turning the U238 into plutonium) the same amount of uranium could power the world for around 1000 years. There's also about three times as much thorium, which can be turned into U233 to produce power.
So that's around 4000 years mining the uranium and thorium that is economical to extract at todays prices. With higher uranium costs more could be extracted.
We need to understand that the capability has been there from the start to drive water and food right up to the convention center, as those roads have been clear -- it's how the National Guard drove into the city.
Maybe the problem was getting 100,000 containers of bottled water with a few days notice, not actually transporting that water to the dome.
In the early half of the 20th century the U.S. was relatively isolated from the rest of the world. While the infrastructures of most of the countries in the world were destroyed by World War 2 none of the destruction reached the US. As a result America became the leader in technology development.
The rest of the world has been a relatively peaceful place for the last 50 years. So now the rest of the world is catching up. It doesn't mean the US is doing worse, the rest of the world is doing better.
No, it's not quite like that. It would be more like: If the window repairman developed newer windows that were harder to break. If the vandal never broke the original windows, they would still be as easy to break as they originally were. But now, thanks to the Vandal, they're improved and rock-resistant.
Unfortunately the new windows probably cost 10 times as much as the old ones. And if your car goes off the road into a river you can't break the windows to escape.
When I had a problem with my iPod I just went to their website and told them that the right earbud was blown out. Replacement earbuds arrived at my apartment 2:00 the next day.
So why don't we keep track of all the CO2 produced as a result of fossil fuel, grow an equivalent amount of Biomass, then bury that biomass in a big hole. That would have the same net effect as switching to Bio Deisel, and it would be a lot cheeper.
Or you could use antimatter catalyzed fission to create a smaller atomic bomb. I seem to remember something about the U.S. government looking for a way to make smaller 'bunker busting' nukes.
Of coarse the government gets to decide what qualifies as unemployed. They're the ones doing the survey. What matters is wether or not they use the same standards for what qualifies as unemployed from year to year.
He supported legislation that will make it easier for companies to build nuclear power plants. Relying on nuclear power is the only economically feasible way to reduce C02 emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
There is considerable evidence that vaccines prevent far more deaths than they cause. Diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus are almost nonexistent in the U.S. while there are millions of deaths worldwide in countries that do not vaccinate their general population. Anyone who trusts the 'facts' you put in your post should look at this site.
What's wrong with you. These lies you're telling will get people killed.
It's called SuddenInfant Death Syndrome.
Most of the toxicology studies I've read say depleted uranium is about as dangerous as lead. I'm not saying lead is harmless, but if the bullets they use aren't DU they are probably lead.
Natural uranium is 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235. U235 has a half life of 700 million years. U238 has a half life of 4 billion years. Isotopes with longer half lives are less radioactive. Therefore U238 is far less radioactive than U235.
Depleted uranium is uranium that has had most of the U235 separated out. Making it less radioactive than natural uranium
The average natural uranium content in topsoil is about 2 parts per million(that's without any contamination of any kind). Iraq has more than a trillion tons of topsoil. In the first meter of soil there is already more than two million tons of natural uranium. Adding a few thousand tons of depleted uranium will have no effect on the people of Iraq.
The effects of uranium are well known and have been studied by many countries other than the United States. You are just making up a conspiracy theory because you have no facts on your side.
He was using the real GDP (which is dependant on the exchange rate). Your numbers are based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
Iridology is the belief that a persons health can be determined by the color patterns in their iris. This article is about determining a persons cardiovascular health by examining the blood vessels in the retina.
Gays are allowed to join the army. They just aren't allowed to talk about it.
The problem is that don't ask don't tell stigmatizes being gay.
I noticed in the that the MacBook Pro has a lithium-polymer battery instead of a lithium-ion battery like the PowerBook G4. The battery in the new laptop is 60 watt-hour vs. 50 watt-hour for the old laptop. Can anyone tell me why apple would choose a lithium-polymer batteries over lithium-ion.
If they had the tracking information for your car they could see that you only stopped next to his car once in the last two years. The tracking information would make it easier to exonerate innocent people as well as prosecute criminals.
If on 1 in a 10000 pictures would capture some rare kind of rock in mars, with the extended lifetime of the rovers it will be more probable to find that rock, among the data.
You must mean this rock.
Aluminum costs about $2 per kilogram.
The article says 100kg of aluminum would be required to get the equivalent of a full tank of gas. Aluminum costs about $2 per pound. So it would cost $200 to fill it up all the way. My mini-van only costs $60 to fill all the way.
The U.S. started work on the F-1 (the large rocket engine used in the first stage) 10 years before the the first launch. They'd also already used the third stage of the Saturn 5 in the Saturn 1B. And the second stage was just an enlarged version of the third stage. In contrast all the development work for the N-1 started just 5 years before the first test launch, and the N-1 didn't re-use any of the technology from the older russian rockets. I'd say NASA did things the Russian way and Russia did things the NASA way.
Their launch cost = 1/20th of shuttle launch cost.
Of coarse the Soyuz only lifts 5 tones to orbit. The current shuttle launch system could lift 80 tones to orbit if it used expendable engines rather than the space shuttle engines.
cost to launch a Soyuz: $35 million ($7million/ton)
cost to launch a shuttle: $450 million ($ 5.6 million/ton)
It depends on what kind of process is used to make power. Most reactors use U235, and there's only enough of that in the current uranium mines to last 50 years. If a plutonium process were used (turning the U238 into plutonium) the same amount of uranium could power the world for around 1000 years. There's also about three times as much thorium, which can be turned into U233 to produce power.
So that's around 4000 years mining the uranium and thorium that is economical to extract at todays prices. With higher uranium costs more could be extracted.
We need to understand that the capability has been there from the start to drive water and food right up to the convention center, as those roads have been clear -- it's how the National Guard drove into the city.
Maybe the problem was getting 100,000 containers of bottled water with a few days notice, not actually transporting that water to the dome.
In the early half of the 20th century the U.S. was relatively isolated from the rest of the world. While the infrastructures of most of the countries in the world were destroyed by World War 2 none of the destruction reached the US. As a result America became the leader in technology development.
The rest of the world has been a relatively peaceful place for the last 50 years. So now the rest of the world is catching up. It doesn't mean the US is doing worse, the rest of the world is doing better.
The first nuclear power plant was built near Idaho Falls. Experimental Breeder Reactor 1.
No, it's not quite like that. It would be more like: If the window repairman developed newer windows that were harder to break. If the vandal never broke the original windows, they would still be as easy to break as they originally were. But now, thanks to the Vandal, they're improved and rock-resistant.
Unfortunately the new windows probably cost 10 times as much as the old ones. And if your car goes off the road into a river you can't break the windows to escape.
When I had a problem with my iPod I just went to their website and told them that the right earbud was blown out. Replacement earbuds arrived at my apartment 2:00 the next day.
In the 'sponsored links' there's a mac site at #2 and tiger direct is at #4, which seems odd to me. Maybe that's what they're talking about.
So why don't we keep track of all the CO2 produced as a result of fossil fuel, grow an equivalent amount of Biomass, then bury that biomass in a big hole. That would have the same net effect as switching to Bio Deisel, and it would be a lot cheeper.
Or you could use antimatter catalyzed fission to create a smaller atomic bomb. I seem to remember something about the U.S. government looking for a way to make smaller 'bunker busting' nukes.
Of coarse the government gets to decide what qualifies as unemployed. They're the ones doing the survey. What matters is wether or not they use the same standards for what qualifies as unemployed from year to year.
He supported legislation that will make it easier for companies to build nuclear power plants. Relying on nuclear power is the only economically feasible way to reduce C02 emissions.