While Mr. Stimpson's account seems compelling, I would like to know what methods these physicians used or will use to demonstrate that he is truly HIV-negative.
From TFA, I'm unsure as to whether Mr. Stimpson has zero viral load or boasts no HIV biomarkers in his bloodstream; are there not separate tests for measuring viral load and for biomarkers, or is measuring viral load based on measuring for biomarkers?
From what I have studied in university (I wish I could provide references now but I can't, so reply if you do have them), a person who has or nearly has zero HIV load in their bloodstream may still have colonies of HIV in their lymph nodes.
My doubts reside on how this story was reported. We should take Mr. Stimpson's case more seriously if or when a peer-reviewed article concerning either Mr. Stimpson or another subject has been published.
Re:Okay, it's another bio-oil source(RESUBMISSION)
on
A Viable Biofuel?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Please disregard my previous message, for I clicked the 'submit' button by mistake. My apologies.
Those who wish to further hydrogen as a major fuel fail to point out its lack of energy density. According to the UNH article on algal biodiesel (linked by Engineer-Poet), gaseous hydrogen (at 250 atm [3626 psi]) has an energy density of 68 kBtu ft^-3, while petroleum diesel and biodiesel have energy densities of 1058 kBtu ft^-3 and 950 kBtu ft^-3, respectively.
Biodiesel, while requiring slightly more fuel than petroleum diesel at a given distance, requires significantly less fuel than pressurized hydrogen (UNH article). Obviously, the ubiquity of vehicles running on petrol engines presents major disadvantages; it would be impossible if not ridiculous to replace current petrol vehicles with diesel engines. Though pure biodiesel can run in diesel engines, wouldn't it still produce carbon dioxide?
Re:Okay, it's another bio-oil source.
on
A Viable Biofuel?
·
· Score: 1
I might go offtopic, so bear with me here.
Not many point out the differences and similarities between conventional fuels (petrol, diesel) and alternative fuels (biodiesel, hydrogen) chemically. Those who wish to further hydrogen as a major fuel fail to point out its volatility to oxygen and its lack of energy density. According to the UNH article on algal biodiesel (linked by Engineer-Poet), highly-pressurized hydrogen must be stored in tanks that are constructed with rust-proof materials. In addition, hydrogen at 250 atm (3626 psi) has an energy density of 68 kBtu*ft^-3, while petroleum diesel has an energy density 1058 kBtu ft^-3
Volume adds more to the NIMBY factor.
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
If anyone read the NYT article and read the caption on the turbines in Kattegatt Strait, Denmark, that's a 10-turbine facility, probably equalling 3-4 square miles (if turbines are placed in 0.5-mile intervals). Cape Wind wants to erect 130 turbines
that bow across what approximately appears to be 30-45 square miles of the Nantucket Sound. IMHO, I wouldn't object to implementing a smaller portion of this proposed area to wind power generation, but I think the amount proposed and the amount of area devoted is what I find objectionable. This proposed project fails to indicate other proposed sites, by land or by sea, in addition to the Nantucket Sound, where wind power could be generated in the region. Has Cape Wind studied placing turbines south of Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard, where not so many NIMBY-ites would create uproar? IMHO, dispersing wind generation facilities in small volumes and several small areas is more effective than devoting a large drove of turbines to one large area. I think communities should embrace placing, say, two or six turbines in one town. Who could object to that?
Check out what was implemented in Somerset, Pa., where a small volume of wind turbines (9 MW total) is capable of powering 3400 homes in the immediate area. If you've passed by it on the PA Turnpike (Exit 10), that's what I'm talking about. It's not much an eyesore as, say, hundreds of them; I think it's rather neat.
I assumed the FCC had the fiduciary responsibilty of protecting the public airwaves. Although organizations of polarizing ideologies (NOW, NRA, etc.) and thousands upon thousands of respondents vehemently opposed the measures narrowly passed today, the 'winning' majority stuck to a blinded ideology without giving any consideration of other's opinions. This 'regulatory' commission, as Commissioner Adelstein pointed out in his speech, is becoming a toothless tiger.
I believe many would agree that the status quo is in a rather sorry state in itself. The deregulations set today will accelerate the homogeneity that exists on the air today. Who trusts which major news network today on US airwaves? I can only trust watching programs such as Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, BBC World News, and other not-widely-known-to-most-Americans programs; I'd rather listen to their non-hyped programs, even if any of the aforementioned sources present an ideology different from mine. We're all human; we have differing opinions; the major networks do not exactly orient themselves towards actual debate and discourse but to fluff and ratings boosters.
I just hope those from the House and the Senate who opposed today's ruling will act upon blocking these measures, if they have the capacity to do so. If not, I hope someone protests the ruling in the U.S. District Court in Washington.
I'm unsure if you're being facetious or not, but firstly the Hoover Dam principally serves power to a majority of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and powers a rather small stake in Nevada and in Arizona (article). Secondly, the ecological costs incurred when erecting some dams exceed the benefits of providing the power.
You know, I drive around on a golf cart every day, and it goes a good 20mph and requires minimal charging. I wouldn't mind in the least bit switching over to an electric car providing it would be cheap to recharge
Battery-powered automobiles are incredibly inefficient (avg. range: 90 miles) and the energy sources that would power such automobiles output as much CO2 as an appropriate number of internal-combustion automobiles (sorry I don't have enough time to corroborate the findings I've read from/. and other sources).
You'd be paying as much or more to recharge that battery-powered car compared to what you're paying to refuel your internal-combustion-powered car. (Again, google for the info or go to the library to inform yourself about these things.) Golf carts, mind you, probably weigh one-eighth the weight of an average automobile, so indeed they travel a long range because they are light in weight! Driving battery-powered hatchbacks for short-range trips in a bustling metropolis may be more beneficial than driving the comparable gas-powered hatchback, but I'll leave that to another discussion.
Take Oklahoma for example... TONS of rivers and lots of space where you could easily and very cheaply recreate another hoover dam. WHY DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN???
If I'm not mistaken, Oklahoma is not incredibly rugged (mountainous). If you wanted to produce as much energy that is produced from the Hoover Dam turbines, then you'd need enough an immense volume of water to flow at an appreciable velocity to achieve such energy, thus an immense amount of land would be consumed in Oklahoma to achieve such power and would damage the ecosystems of the Red River and the Arkansas River, if they aren't doing so now. Take the Missouri River, for instance, where the dams that have been erected along the river have decimated the total fish populations that were once ubiquitous in the Missouri.
Read up on the benefits and costs of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The vehicles may be environmentally sound, but the means to power the vehicles end up failing to reduce greenhouse gases, at this moment (if only fusion power were implementable). Same thing goes with battery-powered vehicles (cars, not golf carts.)
As for the Three Gorges Dam, it is an environmental, anthropological, and economical disaster unfolding before our eyes. I trust the majority of posts that have been or will be posted reflect what I would like to mention in this post, and indeed this post is grossly offtopic, but someone needs to inform those who may not wholly understand the totality of internal-combustion, battery-powered, and fuel-cell vehicles and the totality of all energy sources.
</two_cents>
Slashdot Mirror
While Mr. Stimpson's account seems compelling, I would like to know what methods these physicians used or will use to demonstrate that he is truly HIV-negative.
From TFA, I'm unsure as to whether Mr. Stimpson has zero viral load or boasts no HIV biomarkers in his bloodstream; are there not separate tests for measuring viral load and for biomarkers, or is measuring viral load based on measuring for biomarkers?
From what I have studied in university (I wish I could provide references now but I can't, so reply if you do have them), a person who has or nearly has zero HIV load in their bloodstream may still have colonies of HIV in their lymph nodes.
My doubts reside on how this story was reported. We should take Mr. Stimpson's case more seriously if or when a peer-reviewed article concerning either Mr. Stimpson or another subject has been published.
Please disregard my previous message, for I clicked the 'submit' button by mistake. My apologies.
Those who wish to further hydrogen as a major fuel fail to point out its lack of energy density. According to the UNH article on algal biodiesel (linked by Engineer-Poet), gaseous hydrogen (at 250 atm [3626 psi]) has an energy density of 68 kBtu ft^-3, while petroleum diesel and biodiesel have energy densities of 1058 kBtu ft^-3 and 950 kBtu ft^-3, respectively.
Biodiesel, while requiring slightly more fuel than petroleum diesel at a given distance, requires significantly less fuel than pressurized hydrogen (UNH article). Obviously, the ubiquity of vehicles running on petrol engines presents major disadvantages; it would be impossible if not ridiculous to replace current petrol vehicles with diesel engines. Though pure biodiesel can run in diesel engines, wouldn't it still produce carbon dioxide?
I might go offtopic, so bear with me here. Not many point out the differences and similarities between conventional fuels (petrol, diesel) and alternative fuels (biodiesel, hydrogen) chemically. Those who wish to further hydrogen as a major fuel fail to point out its volatility to oxygen and its lack of energy density. According to the UNH article on algal biodiesel (linked by Engineer-Poet), highly-pressurized hydrogen must be stored in tanks that are constructed with rust-proof materials. In addition, hydrogen at 250 atm (3626 psi) has an energy density of 68 kBtu*ft^-3, while petroleum diesel has an energy density 1058 kBtu ft^-3
If anyone read the NYT article and read the caption on the turbines in Kattegatt Strait, Denmark, that's a 10-turbine facility, probably equalling 3-4 square miles (if turbines are placed in 0.5-mile intervals). Cape Wind wants to erect 130 turbines that bow across what approximately appears to be 30-45 square miles of the Nantucket Sound. IMHO, I wouldn't object to implementing a smaller portion of this proposed area to wind power generation, but I think the amount proposed and the amount of area devoted is what I find objectionable. This proposed project fails to indicate other proposed sites, by land or by sea, in addition to the Nantucket Sound, where wind power could be generated in the region. Has Cape Wind studied placing turbines south of Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard, where not so many NIMBY-ites would create uproar? IMHO, dispersing wind generation facilities in small volumes and several small areas is more effective than devoting a large drove of turbines to one large area. I think communities should embrace placing, say, two or six turbines in one town. Who could object to that?
Check out what was implemented in Somerset, Pa., where a small volume of wind turbines (9 MW total) is capable of powering 3400 homes in the immediate area. If you've passed by it on the PA Turnpike (Exit 10), that's what I'm talking about. It's not much an eyesore as, say, hundreds of them; I think it's rather neat.
I believe many would agree that the status quo is in a rather sorry state in itself. The deregulations set today will accelerate the homogeneity that exists on the air today. Who trusts which major news network today on US airwaves? I can only trust watching programs such as Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, BBC World News, and other not-widely-known-to-most-Americans programs; I'd rather listen to their non-hyped programs, even if any of the aforementioned sources present an ideology different from mine. We're all human; we have differing opinions; the major networks do not exactly orient themselves towards actual debate and discourse but to fluff and ratings boosters.
I just hope those from the House and the Senate who opposed today's ruling will act upon blocking these measures, if they have the capacity to do so. If not, I hope someone protests the ruling in the U.S. District Court in Washington.
Google News
BBC News
You know, I drive around on a golf cart every day, and it goes a good 20mph and requires minimal charging. I wouldn't mind in the least bit switching over to an electric car providing it would be cheap to recharge
Battery-powered automobiles are incredibly inefficient (avg. range: 90 miles) and the energy sources that would power such automobiles output as much CO2 as an appropriate number of internal-combustion automobiles (sorry I don't have enough time to corroborate the findings I've read from /. and other sources).
You'd be paying as much or more to recharge that battery-powered car compared to what you're paying to refuel your internal-combustion-powered car. (Again, google for the info or go to the library to inform yourself about these things.) Golf carts, mind you, probably weigh one-eighth the weight of an average automobile, so indeed they travel a long range because they are light in weight! Driving battery-powered hatchbacks for short-range trips in a bustling metropolis may be more beneficial than driving the comparable gas-powered hatchback, but I'll leave that to another discussion.
Take Oklahoma for example... TONS of rivers and lots of space where you could easily and very cheaply recreate another hoover dam. WHY DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN???
If I'm not mistaken, Oklahoma is not incredibly rugged (mountainous). If you wanted to produce as much energy that is produced from the Hoover Dam turbines, then you'd need enough an immense volume of water to flow at an appreciable velocity to achieve such energy, thus an immense amount of land would be consumed in Oklahoma to achieve such power and would damage the ecosystems of the Red River and the Arkansas River, if they aren't doing so now. Take the Missouri River, for instance, where the dams that have been erected along the river have decimated the total fish populations that were once ubiquitous in the Missouri.
Read up on the benefits and costs of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The vehicles may be environmentally sound, but the means to power the vehicles end up failing to reduce greenhouse gases, at this moment (if only fusion power were implementable). Same thing goes with battery-powered vehicles (cars, not golf carts.)
As for the Three Gorges Dam, it is an environmental, anthropological, and economical disaster unfolding before our eyes. I trust the majority of posts that have been or will be posted reflect what I would like to mention in this post, and indeed this post is grossly offtopic, but someone needs to inform those who may not wholly understand the totality of internal-combustion, battery-powered, and fuel-cell vehicles and the totality of all energy sources.
</two_cents>