Youre first point is moot because avagadros number is so large. 1 mole of a radionuclide with T1/2 = 10,000 years still decays at 1.3 Trillion decays per second. For most transuranics, that is just a few cubic centimeters--a golf ball. even 30 year old fuel rods could deliver a letha dose in seconds--and they will be around for a very long time.
The point isn't to argue that nuclear is inhereantly safe, Chernobyl proved that wrong, and the national labs have also done done the industry a favor with their environmental problems. The point is to say that it can be managed.
Problem is that nuclear has had a bad marketing strategy. Started with two massive explosions that killed hundreds of thousands, we had a domestic melt-down that could well have had china syndrome, and then russia had its little mistake.
"There are also plenty that hemorrhage money like a gaping chest wound."
In my experience (working in the public sector). This comes down to either (a) giving money to friends of elected officials or appointees or (b) the military. thus Often = Seldome in a privatizable fashon.
uh... social security is run with an amazingly low 3% administration cost. Medicare runs with about 1/10th of the administration cost of most HMOs. These two program make up more than 1/2 of the U.S.'s budget. I'm missing the part where the government is inefficient.
Yeah, but I still get to laugh at the person who uses it this way and I put it in the back of my mind that they are not a very good technical speaker or writer. (by which I mean communicator of technical information). Excelent speakers and writers will almost always know all these little rules and don't just talk off the cuff. They don't say something is "very unique." An completely meaningless phrase.
Making over $50k might not make you happier but I guarantee it will make you sleep better at night especially if you have two kids, a house payment, and a single source of income.
That was actually the point of the research... 4 person familys don't sleep better at night after $50k. While you may have overextended your self with a house and otherwise, you could adjust in times of need. The point is that circa $50k is enough to stay out of trouble in general.
What are you complaining about? How many people who receive government assistance do you know?
Did you know that many people who are elidgible for food stamps and medicaid do not file for it because they want to be self sufficient? Its a fact of life that there are many low paying jobs in cities that just don't pay the cost of living and the workers live below the poverty line. Why does this make you callous?
Problem: research shows that happiness does not increase after gross income of 50,000/year. This implies that charging higher taxes doesn't hurt as much.
Sorry, that would be 24% for SS and 3% for Medicare=27% tax on the so called untaxed. The idea of SS is that you are tucking money away for when you retire, but no financial planer in their right mind would have someone who earns $10,500/ year tuck away %24 of their income! Food is their primary concern
I worked in a photomat where the customer was always right... I'm talking about a woman who came in and refused to pay for all her pictures where her kids eyes were closed!
Anyway, we charged 1.5 times the photomat 100 feet away and did ten times the business.
Yeah, I don't think that they actually made any plutonium.
What the profs. who certified it didn't know is that there was already plutonium on the ground at University of Chicago campus from weapons tests.
STAR once found plutonium comming out of Brookhaven National Lab in a river. Nobody knew it until they did some looking in to it (including none of the nuclear physicists or weapons people at Brookhaven), but plutonium is just spread all over the world now and is everywhere. The levels that they describe detecting are totally consistent with that.
I've talked to many nuclear physicists about this (one of whom was on a nobel prize winning team) incidnet and they all agree that they almost certainly made zero plutonium.
Problem is that reprocessing makes lots of waste that nobody knows what to do with either. There is about 10 times the waste produced by reprocessing per watt. Reason is that the processing uses solvents/containers/makes contaminated solids that are contaminated.
France still doesn't know what to do with all its waste. While this may be primarily a PR issue, it is an issue none the less. Politics are all to real.
One of the most often 'brushed under the rug' issues is that there has never been a sucessful breeder reactor. They all cost massive amounts of money and then make less fuel than they use...
That said, I'd like to see an evenhanded (ha ha!) comparison of coal and nuclear. Both have some cons. But both have huge lobys so it is hard to cut through the BS and know what is real.
The single biggest such imposition in the 20th century was Brown vs. the board of education.
If you disagree with that ruling, we are just going to disagree.
If you agree, then you see where the judicial's role in interpreting the constitution can, at times, look a lot like law making in that it can change the rules drastically. But that is there role.
IANAL but I have applied (at work) for a pattent. The lawyer kept telling me that there is a "one year bar." That is, if you share it, you have one year to patent it. That said, you should make darn sure that you have great evidence that you came up with it before you shared it (proving that would probably require a lawyer--who would know what would stand up in court).
Good point, one example of a group of people who expected the economy to recover is the Bush administration. John Snow (Treas. Secretary) predicted that we would have 2.5 million more jobs by now.
It's illusory to complain about one problem vs. the other. There are problems and they can be fixed by one person one vote (national popular vote wins).
One person one vote is the only system that makes any sense. Any other system is biased due to arbitrary rules such as, early states tended to be smaller (thus more senators per area), some states have very few people and get way more votes for that--beyond reason. I can understand the two senators, but three times the votes for president! That is not democratic.
Consider this. The people in the quad cities (which are on either side of the mississippi) probably share more in common with each other than the people in Chicago share with those in anyone in the quad cities. Yet some get about two times the votes for president... why?
The senate is a legislative body, it defines how money is spent, how taxes are raised, et cetera. I can understand why unequal representation by states makes some sense given the U.S.'s history. However, for the executive... I don't see the argument.
Let's say there are two way to design something. One way, you pick it up and you know how to use it. It just works...
The other way, unless you read the instructions first you will break it if you try something simple and obvious.
True, the people who broke the second one didn't read all the instructions first (these are the things that require your warning stickers). But why not do it the first way?
There are some things that can not be made simple. But for those things that can be... KISS
Even though most who write in will talk about how awful this thing is (and 99.9% will probably mean it), this ad/article is not form them.
This is obviously a reverse astroturf (is there a real word for that?). This guy gets his product put on slashdot (better advertising that having it be a popunder on new york times as far as I can see) for free!
Slashdot Mirror
The point isn't to argue that nuclear is inhereantly safe, Chernobyl proved that wrong, and the national labs have also done done the industry a favor with their environmental problems. The point is to say that it can be managed.
Problem is that nuclear has had a bad marketing strategy. Started with two massive explosions that killed hundreds of thousands, we had a domestic melt-down that could well have had china syndrome, and then russia had its little mistake.
In my experience (working in the public sector). This comes down to either (a) giving money to friends of elected officials or appointees or (b) the military. thus Often = Seldome in a privatizable fashon.
Right, but if you earn 50k, you pay 25% of your money to SS, so you are not relying on it as much as being the run of the mill user of it.
Yeah, but I still get to laugh at the person who uses it this way and I put it in the back of my mind that they are not a very good technical speaker or writer. (by which I mean communicator of technical information). Excelent speakers and writers will almost always know all these little rules and don't just talk off the cuff. They don't say something is "very unique." An completely meaningless phrase.
That was actually the point of the research... 4 person familys don't sleep better at night after $50k. While you may have overextended your self with a house and otherwise, you could adjust in times of need. The point is that circa $50k is enough to stay out of trouble in general.
Did you know that many people who are elidgible for food stamps and medicaid do not file for it because they want to be self sufficient? Its a fact of life that there are many low paying jobs in cities that just don't pay the cost of living and the workers live below the poverty line. Why does this make you callous?
Problem: research shows that happiness does not increase after gross income of 50,000/year. This implies that charging higher taxes doesn't hurt as much.
but who is counting.
Sorry, that would be 24% for SS and 3% for Medicare=27% tax on the so called untaxed. The idea of SS is that you are tucking money away for when you retire, but no financial planer in their right mind would have someone who earns $10,500/ year tuck away %24 of their income! Food is their primary concern
Anyway, we charged 1.5 times the photomat 100 feet away and did ten times the business.
What the profs. who certified it didn't know is that there was already plutonium on the ground at University of Chicago campus from weapons tests.
STAR once found plutonium comming out of Brookhaven National Lab in a river. Nobody knew it until they did some looking in to it (including none of the nuclear physicists or weapons people at Brookhaven), but plutonium is just spread all over the world now and is everywhere. The levels that they describe detecting are totally consistent with that.
I've talked to many nuclear physicists about this (one of whom was on a nobel prize winning team) incidnet and they all agree that they almost certainly made zero plutonium.
France still doesn't know what to do with all its waste. While this may be primarily a PR issue, it is an issue none the less. Politics are all to real.
One of the most often 'brushed under the rug' issues is that there has never been a sucessful breeder reactor. They all cost massive amounts of money and then make less fuel than they use...
That said, I'd like to see an evenhanded (ha ha!) comparison of coal and nuclear. Both have some cons. But both have huge lobys so it is hard to cut through the BS and know what is real.
If you disagree with that ruling, we are just going to disagree.
If you agree, then you see where the judicial's role in interpreting the constitution can, at times, look a lot like law making in that it can change the rules drastically. But that is there role.
IANAL but I have applied (at work) for a pattent. The lawyer kept telling me that there is a "one year bar." That is, if you share it, you have one year to patent it. That said, you should make darn sure that you have great evidence that you came up with it before you shared it (proving that would probably require a lawyer--who would know what would stand up in court).
My favorite feature of MySQL is how easy it is to learn and how fast it is.
yiesh, kids these days.
Good point, one example of a group of people who expected the economy to recover is the Bush administration. John Snow (Treas. Secretary) predicted that we would have 2.5 million more jobs by now.
you may want to reread his post... you are agreeing with him.
It's illusory to complain about one problem vs. the other. There are problems and they can be fixed by one person one vote (national popular vote wins).
Iowa has a good system that reduces Gerrymandering... here is one explanation of it scroll down...
One person one vote is the only system that makes any sense. Any other system is biased due to arbitrary rules such as, early states tended to be smaller (thus more senators per area), some states have very few people and get way more votes for that--beyond reason. I can understand the two senators, but three times the votes for president! That is not democratic.
Consider this. The people in the quad cities (which are on either side of the mississippi) probably share more in common with each other than the people in Chicago share with those in anyone in the quad cities. Yet some get about two times the votes for president... why?
The senate is a legislative body, it defines how money is spent, how taxes are raised, et cetera. I can understand why unequal representation by states makes some sense given the U.S.'s history. However, for the executive... I don't see the argument.
Thik of the people who want to vote for Badnarik and end up getting counted as Peroutka voters!
I mean, to have your irrelevant vote changed on you like that... that's just not a democracy.
The other way, unless you read the instructions first you will break it if you try something simple and obvious.
True, the people who broke the second one didn't read all the instructions first (these are the things that require your warning stickers). But why not do it the first way?
There are some things that can not be made simple. But for those things that can be... KISS
This is obviously a reverse astroturf (is there a real word for that?). This guy gets his product put on slashdot (better advertising that having it be a popunder on new york times as far as I can see) for free!
Way to go slashdot editors!