Actually, yes... I remember reading a report in the newspaper a number of years ago that indicated an unexpected and fairly rapid increase in the number of accidents that were happening as cell phone use started become quite popular, and that if one were to simply not count the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, the number of remaining accidents were well within any increase that could be perceived of as typical. The actual percentage increase was not mentioned... only that it was unusually high and unexpected. It was then that I remember the notion of a law banning cell phone use while driving was first brought up where I live (and hotly debated).
Hmm, quick check of the US Census data on automobile accident rates shows that they have been slowly declining since 1990.
Traffic death rates, ditto.
In other words, no real sign of a jump based on cell phone usage.
Oh, and it should be noted that if you assume that cell phone usage has been a problem since before 1990, the accident stats all show a big drop between 1980 and 1990....
The post right above yours says 2/3 is defense, and they cite a source.
Let's see. A quick check shows that in 2010, the Federal budget was $3.55 trillion.
If 2/3 of that were Defense, then not more than about $1.2 trillion could be included in EVERYTHING ELSE.
Another quick check shows ~$2 trillion in Mandatory spending. Interestingly enough, "mandatory spending" doesn't include Defense.
Which means that unless 1.55 is 2/3 of 3.55 (it's not), AND the Defense budget is all of the budget other than "mandatory spending" (it's not), then the assertion that Defense is 2/3 of the budget is false, even if the OP cited a source.
Note, for reference, that the Defense budget is less than half of the discretionary part of the budget, and the discretionary part of the budget is less than half the total budget.
How many of those 120000 do you think would be alive now, if they had continued living there? Do you think the evacuation was just paranoia? Reality check: if the soviets had not eventually owned up to the problem and evacuated, those people would all have died pretty quickly, given the levels of radiation they were exposed to.
And, the wikipedia article on chernobyl lists some estimates of the actual chernobyl casualties and held health effects, with a bewildering variety of numbers ranging from thousands to over a million. Getting a realistic estimate is hard, and the fact this is so controversial does not help, but even with the exclusion zone in place chernobyl was far from harmless.
All that is very interesting, but it's not actually proof that "the death toll would be in the thousands, at minimum, and potentially tens to hundreds of thousands, including many outside the area".
If we assume that Chernobyl killed EVERYONE who lived within the exclusion zone, then we'd not have had "hundreds of thousands" of deaths, since there weren't "hundreds of thousands" living in the zone.
Further, it should be noted that some people did NOT move out of the zone when told to do so, and continue to live in that area. Since not all of them have died (or even most, from all I have read), it's not really reasonable to assume that everyone would have died if the area hadn't been evacuated.
And finally, any results for Chernobyl are interesting, but not directly related to results for Fukushima. So, citation?
Oh, and where did you get the notion that single digits of people at Fukushima had died of radiation to date? I still haven't found any evidence that ANY people have died there as a result of radiation exposure.
a 9 scale quake happened NEAR a nuclear installation, and there is a country-worth of mess right now.
The Fukushima evacuation zone is smaller than the COUNTY (not country) I'm living in now.
If Fukushima Dai-Ichi were halfway between my house and my inlaws' house (a half hour drive apart), neither house would be in the evacuation zone. Neither house would be within a two hour's walk of the evacuation zone either.
You're correct, the death toll due to Fukushima is single digits.
Citation?
In both incidents, if people had been allowed to stay, the death toll would be in the thousands, at minimum, and potentially tens to hundreds of thousands, including many outside of the area...
Citation?
Oh, and just out of curiosity, how does evacuating an area prevent deaths outside the area?
I punched in what numbers I could find on this object and if it were to hit the earth, it would be "barely audible" even within one mile
An interesting notion - when I punched the numbers in, the most interesting output was the 68 kT airburst. About four times that of the Nagasaki bomb. At an altitude of 95000 feet.
The obvious 1st choice is to offer $100,000 tax free to anyone who gets sterilized. $50,000 if they have 1 kid. World-wide. The poorer the country, the more $100,000 is worth. It'll boost economies better than wars.
So, you're proposing to pay the local thugs $100K for every woman they force to get sterilized?
Or don't you think that some rebel thug (the kind of guy who moves in, rapes kills and plunders an area, then moves on) is going to pass up the chance to make a few tens of millions?
Or perhaps you thought that the local thugs are going to let the women KEEP the $100K?
I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.
Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.
Plus, shooting to wound or disable is HARD! Trying to put a bullet into someone in a deliberate attempt to hit a non-vital area pretty much means that you are quite likely to miss entirely (hands, feet, arms, legs are much smaller targets than torso).
And even if you hit them in the arm/leg/hand/foot the bullet is probably going to go right on through.
Either option greatly increases chances that an innocent bystander will be hit, and greatly decreases chances that you'll actually stop the bad guy from doing unto you before you do unto him.
Yah, it sucks when a cop kills someone they shouldn't. And they should be prosecuted to the extent the law allows for doing so. But aiming to "wound or disable" just means more bullets will be flying, and more people (including the cops) are going to get hurt.
Note that they also mention that if frequency averages "just over 60 cycles a second", then "clocks that rely on the grid will gain 14 seconds per day". Which is closer to 85 minutes per year than 20.
Assuming that 60.00 Hz gives you correct time, then you are gaining 14 seconds per day at 60.01 Hz.
Which means that 0.1 Hz difference from reference frequency translates to two-plus minutes per day, and about 14 HOURS per year error.
So, exactly how much frequency variation are they planning on allowing in this test?
Weeks, when the rods are somewhat depleted and due to be replaced. Months, if they're new.
It takes less time to cool them down when they're new than when they're old.
Big issue for cooldown is the fission products that build up in the fuel rods from normal use. Some of them are short-lived, some long-lived, some in between.
The long-lived stuff doesn't produce much in the way of decay heat.
The short-lived stuff produces a lot of decay heat, but not for long.
The medium-term stuff is what comes into play when considering new vs old rods - the more the rod has been used, the more medium-term stuff is there (up till it reaches steady state - it's being produced as fast as it decays), so the longer it takes to cool the rods down after a shutdown (when production of all that stuff stops).
The unalienable rights of which the AC speaks are guaranteed by the US participation in the UN, and adherence to the charter of rights and freedoms.
Umm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't actually a Treaty.
It's not even a UN resolution.
Which means it's not actually binding on the US.
Or anyone else, for that matter.
And while I notice that leaving your country of origin is a guaranteed Right in that particular document, entering any other country isn't actually a guaranteed Right.
So to be clear... You'd be okay with bringing back prohibition given a chance?
Would you seriously think yourself entitled to send me to jail if I have a beer at home in this ideal world of yours?
It should be noted that Prohibition did NOT make it illegal to drink alcohol. It made it illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol.
Which, of course, is the main difference between legal treatment of alcohol then and marijiuana now....
So what do you do when there are lives on the line? Just say "too bad" and let the extortionists kill them? What if it was your life? Are you prepared to sacrifice your own life to preserve what is really nothing more than a particular means of saving the company money?
You are assuming that payment of the extortion/ransom necessarily implies that the bad guys won't do bad things to you since you paid them off.
Hint: there's no requirement that after ransom is paid to a kidnapper that he releases the victim. Just as there's no requirement that after you pay off the extortion demand that the bad guys won't turn around and hack you anyway.
The regulatory agency should limit renewals to only what the engineers approve of. No concern should be given to loss of electric supply, nor to cost. They are there to regulate not assist.
Reading the article, I notice that, in fact, this has all been done with the engineer's approval.
No, the article doesn't actually come out and say that things are less safe than they were before.
Nor does it say that there is any greater danger of a catastrophe than there was before.
What they spend a lot of time saying is that it is conceivable that these changes could cause bigger problems, maybe, possibly, if the reactor(s) were to have problems down the line.
When they can point at something and say "this, right here, is unsafe, and here's why", I'll start getting concerned. Until then, this looks like more "well, noone has died as a result of Fukushima, so we'd better stir up some more nuclear phobia just in case"....
Note that this article might have been more imformative, and less hysterical, if they'd bothered to include things like "the engineers looked over this particular issue, and decided it this way for the following reasons:", rather than "the engineers weakened a safety feature! AHHHHH!!!!".
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, quick check of the US Census data on automobile accident rates shows that they have been slowly declining since 1990.
Traffic death rates, ditto.
In other words, no real sign of a jump based on cell phone usage.
Oh, and it should be noted that if you assume that cell phone usage has been a problem since before 1990, the accident stats all show a big drop between 1980 and 1990....
Umm, no. Check the US Treasury's website, and you'll see that the National Debt has increased every year since 1956.
Let's see. A quick check shows that in 2010, the Federal budget was $3.55 trillion.
If 2/3 of that were Defense, then not more than about $1.2 trillion could be included in EVERYTHING ELSE.
Another quick check shows ~$2 trillion in Mandatory spending. Interestingly enough, "mandatory spending" doesn't include Defense.
Which means that unless 1.55 is 2/3 of 3.55 (it's not), AND the Defense budget is all of the budget other than "mandatory spending" (it's not), then the assertion that Defense is 2/3 of the budget is false, even if the OP cited a source.
Note, for reference, that the Defense budget is less than half of the discretionary part of the budget, and the discretionary part of the budget is less than half the total budget.
All that is very interesting, but it's not actually proof that "the death toll would be in the thousands, at minimum, and potentially tens to hundreds of thousands, including many outside the area".
If we assume that Chernobyl killed EVERYONE who lived within the exclusion zone, then we'd not have had "hundreds of thousands" of deaths, since there weren't "hundreds of thousands" living in the zone.
Further, it should be noted that some people did NOT move out of the zone when told to do so, and continue to live in that area. Since not all of them have died (or even most, from all I have read), it's not really reasonable to assume that everyone would have died if the area hadn't been evacuated.
And finally, any results for Chernobyl are interesting, but not directly related to results for Fukushima. So, citation?
Oh, and where did you get the notion that single digits of people at Fukushima had died of radiation to date? I still haven't found any evidence that ANY people have died there as a result of radiation exposure.
The Fukushima evacuation zone is smaller than the COUNTY (not country) I'm living in now.
If Fukushima Dai-Ichi were halfway between my house and my inlaws' house (a half hour drive apart), neither house would be in the evacuation zone. Neither house would be within a two hour's walk of the evacuation zone either.
The reactors were scrammed manually.
Citation?
Citation?
Oh, and just out of curiosity, how does evacuating an area prevent deaths outside the area?
An interesting notion - when I punched the numbers in, the most interesting output was the 68 kT airburst. About four times that of the Nagasaki bomb. At an altitude of 95000 feet.
You were mistaken. Or whoever wrote what you are referring to was mistaken. Noone has dies due to radiation exposure at Fukushima.
I agree. Stop spreading misinformation.
So, you're proposing to pay the local thugs $100K for every woman they force to get sterilized?
Or don't you think that some rebel thug (the kind of guy who moves in, rapes kills and plunders an area, then moves on) is going to pass up the chance to make a few tens of millions?
Or perhaps you thought that the local thugs are going to let the women KEEP the $100K?
Plus, shooting to wound or disable is HARD! Trying to put a bullet into someone in a deliberate attempt to hit a non-vital area pretty much means that you are quite likely to miss entirely (hands, feet, arms, legs are much smaller targets than torso).
And even if you hit them in the arm/leg/hand/foot the bullet is probably going to go right on through.
Either option greatly increases chances that an innocent bystander will be hit, and greatly decreases chances that you'll actually stop the bad guy from doing unto you before you do unto him.
Yah, it sucks when a cop kills someone they shouldn't. And they should be prosecuted to the extent the law allows for doing so. But aiming to "wound or disable" just means more bullets will be flying, and more people (including the cops) are going to get hurt.
Well, that's one possibility.
Note that they also mention that if frequency averages "just over 60 cycles a second", then "clocks that rely on the grid will gain 14 seconds per day". Which is closer to 85 minutes per year than 20.
Assuming that 60.00 Hz gives you correct time, then you are gaining 14 seconds per day at 60.01 Hz.
Which means that 0.1 Hz difference from reference frequency translates to two-plus minutes per day, and about 14 HOURS per year error.
So, exactly how much frequency variation are they planning on allowing in this test?
So, do you know anyone who actually knows how high above sea-level their house is? Other than people who live along the beach, I mean....
It takes less time to cool them down when they're new than when they're old.
Big issue for cooldown is the fission products that build up in the fuel rods from normal use. Some of them are short-lived, some long-lived, some in between.
The long-lived stuff doesn't produce much in the way of decay heat.
The short-lived stuff produces a lot of decay heat, but not for long.
The medium-term stuff is what comes into play when considering new vs old rods - the more the rod has been used, the more medium-term stuff is there (up till it reaches steady state - it's being produced as fast as it decays), so the longer it takes to cool the rods down after a shutdown (when production of all that stuff stops).
Umm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't actually a Treaty.
It's not even a UN resolution.
Which means it's not actually binding on the US.
Or anyone else, for that matter.
And while I notice that leaving your country of origin is a guaranteed Right in that particular document, entering any other country isn't actually a guaranteed Right.
Might want to reread the 14th Amendment and all the related court rulings since its passage.
It should be noted that Prohibition did NOT make it illegal to drink alcohol. It made it illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol.
Which, of course, is the main difference between legal treatment of alcohol then and marijiuana now....
Unlikely.
On the other hand, I personally think that the stuff should be legal, and regulated just like tobacco.
"âoeBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." -- Nancy Pelosi.
Much better reference for your point....
You are assuming that payment of the extortion/ransom necessarily implies that the bad guys won't do bad things to you since you paid them off.
Hint: there's no requirement that after ransom is paid to a kidnapper that he releases the victim. Just as there's no requirement that after you pay off the extortion demand that the bad guys won't turn around and hack you anyway.
Or just ask for more money...
Good answer! Was planning to post this myself, but you beat me to it....
And here I thought that's what cellphones were for.
The States are suing plants in nearby States.
Reading the article, I notice that, in fact, this has all been done with the engineer's approval.
No, the article doesn't actually come out and say that things are less safe than they were before.
Nor does it say that there is any greater danger of a catastrophe than there was before.
What they spend a lot of time saying is that it is conceivable that these changes could cause bigger problems, maybe, possibly, if the reactor(s) were to have problems down the line.
When they can point at something and say "this, right here, is unsafe, and here's why", I'll start getting concerned. Until then, this looks like more "well, noone has died as a result of Fukushima, so we'd better stir up some more nuclear phobia just in case"....
Note that this article might have been more imformative, and less hysterical, if they'd bothered to include things like "the engineers looked over this particular issue, and decided it this way for the following reasons:", rather than "the engineers weakened a safety feature! AHHHHH!!!!".
You are perhaps unaware that as far back as Sumer, people were decrying the moral/mental/educational decay of the generation following their own....