You're right that the standard measure used in the study is relative, you're wrong that different measures were used for different countries:
data originally posted here skipped for brevity
Ahh. I looked at Mexico's own standards, and the US's.
Sorry, no matter how you put it, that doesn't look too good for the US.
Relative poverty is a wonderful thing. It allows you to say that a man who own his own home, his own car, a computer, 60" TV, stereo, etc is "poor" if he lives in Eagle Pass TX, but "rich" if he lives three miles farther west in Piedras Negras.
Thanks, but I prefer the old-fashioned notion of absolute poverty.
or that 21.9 percent of all US children are in poverty, a poverty rate second only to that of Mexicoâ(TM)s.
Of course, Mexico's definition of poverty is "can't afford enough food" (approximately 2000-2500 calories per person per day), while the US's definition of poverty is set at 3x the cost of food.
Then, you dump it into the ocean which has what, trillions of gallons of water?
Rough estimate: 350,000 trillion gallons of water.
If we were to grind up the entire Fukushima complex, and dump it into the ocean, we'd talking somewhere on the order of 1 pound of Fukushima per BILLION gallons of water.
some people are saying the cost of cleanup and indemnification in fukushima can be as high as 60 billion.
Interesting number, that.
Oddly enough, it's very close to the amount of money that would have been spent to keep coal power plants with the same capacity as the Fukushima complex running for the last 30 years.
It's not here yet because the powers that be [bodybuilding.com] build the current, shitty reactors [democratic...ground.com].
Hmm, just out of curiousity, how many civilian (as opposed to the ones on the Navy's subs and carriers) nuclear power plants have been started in the last 30 years?
The last 20?
The last 10?
Hint: we actually haven't built a civilian nuclear power plant since the seventies.
If you want any of those shiny pebble-bed reactors, you'll have to actually allow some reactors to be built, rather than just screaming "AHHHH! NUCLEAR!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" whenever the subject comes up.
but it has killed people in the US.(Not saying his overall point is wrong since it pretty much isn't.) Admittedly I only know of one incident, SL-1, but that killed 3 people. (But it might have been suicide. Of course it's kind of hard to forget that one when you hear one of the deceased accidently got nailed to the ceiling.)
Been there. Or at least seen the building from the highway.
Note that all three people were military personnel, so CIVILIAN nuclear power still can't be blamed for any deaths (in the USA).
Note, further, that the incident happened when someone disconnected the reactor control rod motor (yes, that reactor only had ONE control rod. Probably because it wasn't much bigger than a 50 gallon drum), and then pulled the control rod out by hand.
When I read the incident report on same, it mentioned that the particular bit of maintenance they were sent in to do required that they disconnect the control rod motor (to keep the reactor from going critical while they worked), do the maintenance (they apparently did, safely), then reconnect the control rod motor.
Which last apparently required that they lift the control rod ~1/2 inch so that it could be reconnected to the motor. Evidence suggests that they lifted it ~1 FOOT, causing the reactor to go supercritical, and impaling the idiot who lifted the control rod in the ceiling.
Needless to say, it killed the other two petty officers doing the work.
Elite Randian/Libertarian survivors? That would be the ones led by a US Senator from Cailifornia? What have you been smoking?
Or were you perhaps referring to the amateur astronomer/rich-guy who had trouble opening a can of peaches at one point in the story (no can-opener)?
Note, by the way, that there is no suggestion whatsoever in the book that the plant in question was "the last remaining nuclear power plant". It just happened to be the only one in the immediate vicinity of our "elite Randian/Libertarian farm valley".
Seriously, try not to take so many prejudices into a book with you, and just try to read what the author put there, not what you imagine he must have put there because he's one of THEM....
Not really. The poverty line for a single person is less than $750 a month.
It isn't possible to pay rent, basic utilities and buy food on that anywhere in the US, much less afford gas, automotive taxes and mandatory drivers insurance as well.
Well, no. Actually, it's a bit over $900 per month. It should be noted that in spite of "mandatory auto insurance, many people (especially poor ones) don't actually buy it.
You try feeding a family of 5 on food stamps of $100 a month. now do that when you don't have a car to drive to a cheap grocery store and have to use the shops in walking distance (in rural USA, there are none, in the inner city they charge 3 to 10 times more for the same food as a bulk grocery store).
Note that poverty for a family of five is $2180 per month. Note further that a family of five gets rather more than $100 per month in food stamps if it lives at just below the poverty line (and more the farther below you live). The number I got from the Fed's calculator showed more like $440.
In the US laws are passed that prohibit the building of "shanties" and multiple cohabitation's, when these are the only way for the poor to be able to afford a place to live.
Not usually relevant, since we frequently have things like Government funded housing for the poor. And if worse comes to worst, there's always housetrailers.
Note, by the by, that my Grandfather collected food stamps. And Welfare. and owned his own home (yes, you can be eligible for either if you have your own home). And owned car(s). Usually, but not always, more than one. And drove them. Not sure if he ever had auto insurance, but then I'm not even sure he ever had a driver's license....
Furthermore, this program more often than not gives free birth control (NOT ABORTION SINCE ITS ILLEGAL FOR FED FUNDS TO GO TO ABORTION) to woman and men that allows them to responsibly plan their families.
The phrase you are no doubt trying very hard to avoid is "money is fungible".
If you get money from the Feds, and you fund abortions, then it's pretty much impossible to PROVE that the Federal money isn't being used for abortions, since all those dollars look pretty much identical in the end.
Note that I don't oppose abortion particularly. It is pretty much functionally identical with the Roman practice of "exposing infants". Which was their polite euphemism for killing unwanted babies.
During the last year, in most western countries below 50 degrees latitude, producing your own electricity using PV has become cheaper than electricity from the net if you count the taxes for the net electricity.
Is that including the subsidies and tax credits you get for buying solar? Last I checked, where I live, they amount to rather more than I paid in income taxes this past year.
Jesus wouldn't say "For millions of years" because he believes his father only made us 4,000 years ago.
Actually, no place in the Bible comes right out and says what the age of the Earth is. The 6000 year figure comes from some people's (weak) interpretation of some verses.
Not even that. The 6000 year figure is from an Anglican Archbishop who had too much time on his hands, and a poor grasp of mathematics (for instance, he assumed that if someone were mentioned as dying at age 112, that that meant he died on his 112th birthday.)
Why ANYONE would take an Anglican Archbishop's opinion as the unaltered word of God is beyond me. Though it's obvious why the militant atheists would (they think it makes the religious look dumb), though those of us who know where the figure comes from think that its use by militant atheists makes the militant atheists look dumb....
rich... yes we are just so rich... with our homeless and our poverty ridden cities.
It should perhaps be pointed out that an American living at the poverty line has a higher standard of living than most of the people currently living on this planet.
Reminds me of a quote from many years ago to the effect that "America is the only place where you see people drive their car downtown to pick up their welfare checks"....
So what can you run on 1.36 kW/m2? Translated into one year's worth of energy, could that enough provide enough heat to keep me from freezing to death in the winter (I live in Canada)?
Well, and I would guess that that depends on how many m^2 you have to work with.
The roof of my house is large enough that if it were covered in solar cells, I'd not be buying much, if any electricity from Entergy.
Alas, the pine trees that provide partial protection from hurricane force winds also block sunlight from hitting much of the roof (incidently lowering my AC costs), so I can't use solar here.
Next house, though, will be designed from the ground up around solar.
Last year's budget, 2010, was signed into law by Obama's predecessor, Bush
That would be an interesting idea, if true.
Especially since it would mean that Bush was President in summer of 2009. I'm pretty sure that Obama had moved into the Whitehouse by January 2009.
Note, for reference, that budgets for a fiscal year are usually done in October of the previous calendar year. So Bush was responsible for the 2009 budget, but Obama was responsible for the 2010 budget.
Note also that, technically, the Congress does the budget. Oddly enough, both in 2009 and 2010, the Congress was solidly Democratic
Shit after all that perfect grammar there's a simple typo, with no excuse whatsover for it's existence, in my otherwise great comment....synonym of "scripture", namely "canon"...
FTFM (Fixed That For Me, before someone else claims the points for doing so!)
Yah, we should never have let John Kennedy fool us that way.
Or didn't you know that he was the first President to push for a taxcut (and get it) for the rich using that argument?
Oddly enough, however, for all that the argument is discounted, it's pretty hard to deny that tax revenues went up every time the supply side argument was tried successfully.
Alas, increased tax revenues never did much to control spending....
Do you have any idea how much our funding shortfall grew during the Bush + Republican Congress years?
$3.2 trillion.
$1.5 trillion or so during the Clinton years. (Dem congress for two years, Rep for the rest)
Note, for reference, that since the Democrats took over the Congress again, we've added another $4.5 trillion. Plus whatever debt we've run up since the last fiscal year ended, of course.
So as long as the level is 15 microSieverts / hour, then nobody will be allowed to live there.
Yep, isn't it lucky that most of the radiation is from something with a half-life of eight days, then? Which, by the way, means that that 15 uS/hr dose should have dropped by a factor of two within a week of that video being made.
The radiation level should drop by a factor of 1000 or so within three months....
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh. I looked at Mexico's own standards, and the US's.
Relative poverty is a wonderful thing. It allows you to say that a man who own his own home, his own car, a computer, 60" TV, stereo, etc is "poor" if he lives in Eagle Pass TX, but "rich" if he lives three miles farther west in Piedras Negras.
Thanks, but I prefer the old-fashioned notion of absolute poverty.
This is true. Sometimes. For some values of "billionaire" and "wage slave".
Note, however, that going from this premise to "you will have more freedom if there are fewer billionaires" is questionable, at best.
Of course, Mexico's definition of poverty is "can't afford enough food" (approximately 2000-2500 calories per person per day), while the US's definition of poverty is set at 3x the cost of food.
Rough estimate: 350,000 trillion gallons of water.
If we were to grind up the entire Fukushima complex, and dump it into the ocean, we'd talking somewhere on the order of 1 pound of Fukushima per BILLION gallons of water.
Interesting number, that.
Oddly enough, it's very close to the amount of money that would have been spent to keep coal power plants with the same capacity as the Fukushima complex running for the last 30 years.
Hmm, just out of curiousity, how many civilian (as opposed to the ones on the Navy's subs and carriers) nuclear power plants have been started in the last 30 years?
The last 20?
The last 10?
Hint: we actually haven't built a civilian nuclear power plant since the seventies.
If you want any of those shiny pebble-bed reactors, you'll have to actually allow some reactors to be built, rather than just screaming "AHHHH! NUCLEAR!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" whenever the subject comes up.
No, we can't be looking at 800-1000 tons of Pu.
The plant wasn't designed to make Pu, and you're assuming that it incidentally created enough Pu to replace the entire US nuclear arsenal?!?
Sorry, don't buy it. I might believe 800-1000 Kg, maybe.
Been there. Or at least seen the building from the highway.
Note that all three people were military personnel, so CIVILIAN nuclear power still can't be blamed for any deaths (in the USA).
Note, further, that the incident happened when someone disconnected the reactor control rod motor (yes, that reactor only had ONE control rod. Probably because it wasn't much bigger than a 50 gallon drum), and then pulled the control rod out by hand.
When I read the incident report on same, it mentioned that the particular bit of maintenance they were sent in to do required that they disconnect the control rod motor (to keep the reactor from going critical while they worked), do the maintenance (they apparently did, safely), then reconnect the control rod motor.
Which last apparently required that they lift the control rod ~1/2 inch so that it could be reconnected to the motor. Evidence suggests that they lifted it ~1 FOOT, causing the reactor to go supercritical, and impaling the idiot who lifted the control rod in the ceiling.
Needless to say, it killed the other two petty officers doing the work.
Note, as a matter of perspective, that "hundreds of square miles" is about the size of a small county in the USA.
Elite Randian/Libertarian survivors? That would be the ones led by a US Senator from Cailifornia? What have you been smoking?
Or were you perhaps referring to the amateur astronomer/rich-guy who had trouble opening a can of peaches at one point in the story (no can-opener)?
Note, by the way, that there is no suggestion whatsoever in the book that the plant in question was "the last remaining nuclear power plant". It just happened to be the only one in the immediate vicinity of our "elite Randian/Libertarian farm valley".
Seriously, try not to take so many prejudices into a book with you, and just try to read what the author put there, not what you imagine he must have put there because he's one of THEM....
Well, no. Actually, it's a bit over $900 per month. It should be noted that in spite of "mandatory auto insurance, many people (especially poor ones) don't actually buy it.
Note that poverty for a family of five is $2180 per month. Note further that a family of five gets rather more than $100 per month in food stamps if it lives at just below the poverty line (and more the farther below you live). The number I got from the Fed's calculator showed more like $440.
Not usually relevant, since we frequently have things like Government funded housing for the poor. And if worse comes to worst, there's always housetrailers.
Note, by the by, that my Grandfather collected food stamps. And Welfare. and owned his own home (yes, you can be eligible for either if you have your own home). And owned car(s). Usually, but not always, more than one. And drove them. Not sure if he ever had auto insurance, but then I'm not even sure he ever had a driver's license....
The phrase you are no doubt trying very hard to avoid is "money is fungible".
If you get money from the Feds, and you fund abortions, then it's pretty much impossible to PROVE that the Federal money isn't being used for abortions, since all those dollars look pretty much identical in the end.
Note that I don't oppose abortion particularly. It is pretty much functionally identical with the Roman practice of "exposing infants". Which was their polite euphemism for killing unwanted babies.
Is that including the subsidies and tax credits you get for buying solar? Last I checked, where I live, they amount to rather more than I paid in income taxes this past year.
Not even that. The 6000 year figure is from an Anglican Archbishop who had too much time on his hands, and a poor grasp of mathematics (for instance, he assumed that if someone were mentioned as dying at age 112, that that meant he died on his 112th birthday.)
Why ANYONE would take an Anglican Archbishop's opinion as the unaltered word of God is beyond me. Though it's obvious why the militant atheists would (they think it makes the religious look dumb), though those of us who know where the figure comes from think that its use by militant atheists makes the militant atheists look dumb....
It should perhaps be pointed out that an American living at the poverty line has a higher standard of living than most of the people currently living on this planet.
Reminds me of a quote from many years ago to the effect that "America is the only place where you see people drive their car downtown to pick up their welfare checks"....
Well, and I would guess that that depends on how many m^2 you have to work with.
The roof of my house is large enough that if it were covered in solar cells, I'd not be buying much, if any electricity from Entergy.
Alas, the pine trees that provide partial protection from hurricane force winds also block sunlight from hitting much of the roof (incidently lowering my AC costs), so I can't use solar here.
Next house, though, will be designed from the ground up around solar.
That would be an interesting idea, if true.
Especially since it would mean that Bush was President in summer of 2009. I'm pretty sure that Obama had moved into the Whitehouse by January 2009.
Note, for reference, that budgets for a fiscal year are usually done in October of the previous calendar year. So Bush was responsible for the 2009 budget, but Obama was responsible for the 2010 budget.
Note also that, technically, the Congress does the budget. Oddly enough, both in 2009 and 2010, the Congress was solidly Democratic
"It's" and "its" are never interchangeable. The former is a contraction of "it is", the latter is the possessive of "it".
"It's" should be "its".
"If you think money can't buy you love, then you don't know where to shop"
My zipcode has three different tax jurisdictions in it.
Four if you count the levee district, but that one doesn't do sales taxes....
Yah, we should never have let John Kennedy fool us that way.
Or didn't you know that he was the first President to push for a taxcut (and get it) for the rich using that argument?
Oddly enough, however, for all that the argument is discounted, it's pretty hard to deny that tax revenues went up every time the supply side argument was tried successfully.
Alas, increased tax revenues never did much to control spending....
$3.2 trillion.
$1.5 trillion or so during the Clinton years. (Dem congress for two years, Rep for the rest)
Note, for reference, that since the Democrats took over the Congress again, we've added another $4.5 trillion. Plus whatever debt we've run up since the last fiscal year ended, of course.
Neither side is without blame here.
See Amendment 16 regarding the legality of Income Taxes.
Yep, isn't it lucky that most of the radiation is from something with a half-life of eight days, then? Which, by the way, means that that 15 uS/hr dose should have dropped by a factor of two within a week of that video being made.
The radiation level should drop by a factor of 1000 or so within three months....