You really have no clue what you're talking about. When one says X Bq were released, the meaning is that radioactive material which releases radiation at that rate has been released.
AMZN in 1997 was $4. It's over $300 now. How is that "effectively a loss?" If you want to pick specific dates to make your point, I can do the same for some other company which makes real profits, and show a loss for investors.
The headline here was way off - this was over 1 TBq being release to the atmosphere recently over a single 4 hour period. It resulted in radioactive contamination of crops 20 km away. The total amount of radioactive material released from the site is obviously much, much greater.
It's amazing how many people actually believe that the Constitution gives us rights. It only lists some of them. Likewise, many people think the gov't can do whatever they want unless specifically prohibited, they don't understand how the gov't derives only limited, enumerated, powers from the people through the Constitution.
Don't get me started about how the federal gov't itself thinks that everything under the sun is somehow "interstate commerce," begging to be regulated.
Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below..
Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.
Seems they're covered. Publicly calling them out as rude, by specific name and location, seems to meet that criteria as intimidating.
Until you realize that the production facilities for that equipment was also damaged, and the facilities which made those machines, etc. There aren't a lot of steam engine driven factories producing electrical products.
Problem is, the world would pretty much need to bootstrap itself out of the mechanical age again.
The article was reporting on a relative increase, and actual harm. Radioactive material is normally being released to the atmosphere from the site at a rate of 10 MBq / hr. The article points out that there was some recent work which released it at a rate of 280 GBq / hr, over a period of 4 hours. That's 28,000X the normal rate (over 3 years' worth), and it resulted in radiation contaminated crops 20 km away.
You're making it sound a lot better than it actually is.
The Curie is not an SI unit. It is, however, locked to the Becquerel by a fixed ratio. They measure exactly the same thing, so in what way do you claim Bq are "bad?" The GP seems to want a measure of disintegrations without regard to time, which makes zero sense. It's like claiming you did work or expended energy when trying to lift a 1 Kg rock with 1 N of force.
Bq seems a fair measure to me. It's a measure of radioactivity. Would you prefer pounds (or kilograms) of X, with no measure of the rate X is releasing radiation?
To follow your analogy, if the concern is how fast something travels,then MPH is a reasonable measure.
Time (rate) seems an important component of the measure to me. What SI unit do you propose they use?
That's one of the problems with families boarding first - if they have separated seat assignments, the solution is best sorted out after others have boarded. If they're simply taking seats to sit together, then they're slowing things down by needing to move when the person assigned arrives. And, getting kids to move so outboard passengers can be seated is slower than having adults move.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, bullshit.
You really have no clue what you're talking about. When one says X Bq were released, the meaning is that radioactive material which releases radiation at that rate has been released.
AMZN in 1997 was $4. It's over $300 now. How is that "effectively a loss?" If you want to pick specific dates to make your point, I can do the same for some other company which makes real profits, and show a loss for investors.
They are making money, just not by selling goods and services - if you bought AMZN back in 1998, you'd have a greater than 6400% profit now.
The headline here was way off - this was over 1 TBq being release to the atmosphere recently over a single 4 hour period. It resulted in radioactive contamination of crops 20 km away. The total amount of radioactive material released from the site is obviously much, much greater.
It's amazing how many people actually believe that the Constitution gives us rights. It only lists some of them. Likewise, many people think the gov't can do whatever they want unless specifically prohibited, they don't understand how the gov't derives only limited, enumerated, powers from the people through the Constitution.
Don't get me started about how the federal gov't itself thinks that everything under the sun is somehow "interstate commerce," begging to be regulated.
Seems they're covered. Publicly calling them out as rude, by specific name and location, seems to meet that criteria as intimidating.
Let us know how your attempt at starting that very large diesel generator by hand goes.
Until you realize that the production facilities for that equipment was also damaged, and the facilities which made those machines, etc. There aren't a lot of steam engine driven factories producing electrical products.
Problem is, the world would pretty much need to bootstrap itself out of the mechanical age again.
That should be "over 3 years worth per hour..."
1.12 TBq would normally take 112000 hours (over 12.7 years) to be released.
The article was reporting on a relative increase, and actual harm. Radioactive material is normally being released to the atmosphere from the site at a rate of 10 MBq / hr. The article points out that there was some recent work which released it at a rate of 280 GBq / hr, over a period of 4 hours. That's 28,000X the normal rate (over 3 years' worth), and it resulted in radiation contaminated crops 20 km away.
You're making it sound a lot better than it actually is.
OK, 3000 tons of radiation contaminated dirt, and 4 million liters of radiation contaminated water. Come back when you figure it out.
"It's kinda like you asking me how far you have to walk to get to the nearest bus stop and me telling you the distance in angstroms."
No, it isn't. Angstroms are not an SI unit. It's more like asking how far the next town is, and getting an answer in meters instead of km.
"The scale is just completely devoid of any common reference frame for the number to be intuitively useful"
So, the public has an intuitive understanding of Curies? OK.
" For $10 you get priority seating, and can choose your seat."
So, which is it? Do they have assigned seats or not?
Unfortunately, we're paying for many more than one.
Have you ever tried to climb up an inflatable slide?
The Curie is not an SI unit. It is, however, locked to the Becquerel by a fixed ratio. They measure exactly the same thing, so in what way do you claim Bq are "bad?" The GP seems to want a measure of disintegrations without regard to time, which makes zero sense. It's like claiming you did work or expended energy when trying to lift a 1 Kg rock with 1 N of force.
In Fukushima, radiation rips hair out for you!
Don't eat rice harvested last year in Minami Soma.
Bq seems a fair measure to me. It's a measure of radioactivity. Would you prefer pounds (or kilograms) of X, with no measure of the rate X is releasing radiation?
To follow your analogy, if the concern is how fast something travels,then MPH is a reasonable measure.
Time (rate) seems an important component of the measure to me. What SI unit do you propose they use?
Good to know. I'll be sure to avoid them.
If you board rear to front, you have assholes in the rear who are too lazy to lug their carryons up/down the aisle putting them in the front bins.
Then, you have front passengers going to up/down the aisle and needing to pass each other to put their carryons in the rear.
Repeat the whole process when deplaning.
What airline do you fly, without assigned seats?
That's one of the problems with families boarding first - if they have separated seat assignments, the solution is best sorted out after others have boarded. If they're simply taking seats to sit together, then they're slowing things down by needing to move when the person assigned arrives. And, getting kids to move so outboard passengers can be seated is slower than having adults move.
" everyone's worried about boarding early enough so that they don't have to have their bag stuffed 10 seats behind them"
I blame the assholes who have seats in the rear, but stuff their carryons in the front because they're too lazy to carry them up and down the aisle.
That's all good reason for boarding them last - so they don't slow down those who can board quickly.
"the cost."
Freudian slip?