If you are a programmer and you call programming that you get paid for work, you are a Nerd.
If you are a programmer and you call programming that you get paid for fun, you are a Geek.
Nerds get paid better, Geeks get more chicks. In nature everything is balanced. I love to code, I think it's great to get paid for it and I'm humbled by such good fortune. I was a billionaire I would still code, hopefully on something useful.
Picking a platform and sticking with it is what got us the stupendously expensive Space Shuttle and ISS.
Ahem. Not sticking with the Saturn V launchers got you the stupendously expensive Space Shuttle and ISS.
Ares V hasn't even started yet, so, when comparing it to Saturn V and the alternatives, Ares V is the paper and Powerpoint rocket.
Ok, so are you saying that Direct is the way to go? It's my preference but it seems there is some political machinations happening to stop it. All I'm saying is pick the platform and get on with it.
Well I'm glad they said it. We can frig around with this platform or that platform based on the merits of xyz and sure direct is probably a better launcher and solid fuel launchers are probably bad but haven't we learned the lessons from scraping the Saturn V launchers yet?
Pick a platform, with all it warts, short of fundamental design flaws, and keep developing it.
I think the 747 was being developed around the same time as the Saturn V launchers, look how far it has come. Imagine if Boeing decided to chuck all that development work away and start again - they'd be bankrupt.
Or you could have a long life case and upgrade the components. I've done this to my zalman several times now.
Still like the idea of cardboard case though. and there is nothing wrong with painting it inside with aluminum paint to shield for RF and paint the outside to made it look nice.
let me say quite publicly that chiropractors are frauds, along with naturopaths, healing touch types
All the chiropractors that I know of had to complete University and have a degree before they could practice as opposed other 'alternative' methods of treatment.
I get chiropractic treatment. I went to the doctor with extremely bad back pain that left me in either a fetal position in pain or to walk I had to stand very tall with my nose in the air to walk comfortably (which also made me look like a pompass git). The doctor prescribed anti inflammation drugs with which I had intermittent relief but the back pain would return. After a while I asked about chiropractic and the doctor told me he was not able to specifically recommend chiropractic but that the one I had chosen did have a good reputation (as did several other doctors I checked with).
Upon being examined I was X-rayed from the top of my skull to my hips, and clearly, my hips were at an angle and there was a sideways and forwards curve. X-rays five years later show that the hips are now aligned and the curves have returned to normal with one persistent problem remaining in my neck where a vertebra has been fused together which is the current focus of my treatment.
I also have a good diary habit and noted all the times over the last twenty years when I have had the flu. There are ten years of diary records before and after chiropractic treatment and notably the frequency of flus decreased from 1 to 2 flus per year before treatment to a flu once every two years after. Amongst other things that happened is my shoulders broadened, I went up a full suit size. Pain I regularly experienced in my right arm which seemed to come on for no reason disappeared and other things I can't easily quantify like 'it felt like I could think more clearly'. Levels of physical activity were roughly similar over the timeframes specified.
I find it difficult to believe that if you have skeletal issues that affect your spine and cause the vertebra to put pressure on the nerves exiting that there *isn't* an symptomatic effect elsewhere in the body. I think even in medicine it is recognised that humans are quite variable animals, still evolving, and so the practice of human care has many facets that are still, largely, not understood.
I think your statements are disingenuous because they do not allow for this variability. I don't know if you have ever needed to have chiropractic treatments, but at least in my experiences, something appears to be happening. Now I can almost do the spilts, touch my head on my toes, stand on my own hands and recently I completed a ju-jitsu competition none of which I would have been able to do with the back pain I had.
I think it is more constructive to examine *what* is happening and attempt to discover why.
I think there are a number of issues in the article that have not been revealed. Even amongst chiropractors there is dissent between those who prefer a more science based approach vs those who make claims that it will cure this or that. That is the new vs the established chiropractors.
Universities that teach Chiropractic have been pushing students to use a science based approach and reputable chiropractors will only claim that it will help you to function better. From what I've discovered that amongst the BCA's objections to Dr Singh's criticisms of the chiropractic association are that he on focused on one side of the debate and lead people to believe that *all* chiropractors were the same and that cases cited as causing harm were not performed by chiropractors but by people not qualified to perform chiropractic procedures.
Dr Singh himself states that chiropractic has benefit for treating musculo-skeletal issues but he hasn't framed his criticisms of chiropractic methodology in the context of 'it has some benefit' but in the context of 'it has dubious benefit and may cause harm'. Whilst misusing libel laws is a contemptible act is that what is actually happening here?
I know from personal experience that not all chiropractic methods work (at least on me) but before chiropractic treatment I had a number of ailments that have been resolved with no other type of treatment occurring and I know many other people who report the same things. I know this is anecdotal evidence but instead of an adversarial approach to this argument why aren't why trying to discover *what* is occurring when chiropractic adjustments are performed? Clearly there is substance to the idea that reducing the amount of drugs ingested by people is good, so why don't we discover what *is* treated effectively and use a science based approach instead of trashing an entire profession that many people benefit from.
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
I think I'd just replace the entire ems with the open source engine management system. This project has been around for some time, I'd sure like to put it into my car restoration.
Nothing is worse than when reality resembles a scene from a Mel Gibson film.
My grandfather was very humble and I don't think the sickly type of heroism that is portrayed in many of these movies is quite right, I think it was more a case of desperation to survive. Like hiding under an old boat with his squad for three days in blazing heat because they came down the wrong ridge right into Italian forces and had to wait for them to pass. He survived all of WW2 so he must of been a decent soldier, but the war cost him three daughters which I think he never really got over decades later.
He was so appalled by the thought of killing after the war that even killing animals for food on the farm was impossible for him. I think he'd seen enough death.
The ANZACs surely earned their reputation in both world wars,
My grandfather fought in 5 WW2 campaigns. Whilst lined up waiting to be evacuated (australians, scots, canadians, I think greek) from *somewhere* via a beach, British redcap's on horseback arrived and announced that all the colonial troops would have to stand aside while the British troops were evacuated first.
The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's, queue jumping is disliked to this day in Australia.
Thanks for the extra info but I've already examined the Polymer extraction process. Sure it's possible but it's still not a measureable industrial activity. The point is for the minute concentrations of uranium in seawater the amount of energy used to extract the uranium would best be just used. How many gigalitres of seawater will you need to use to get a kilo of uranium? You need roughly 160 tons of uranium for the core of a 1 Gw nuclear reactor, so how many teralitres of water are you talking about to fuel ONE reactor?
You cannot talk about this as a supply of uranium without calculating the Net Energy Return. Forget the cost, it is pointless trying to extract uranium from seawater, or any other source, when you are talking about a Net Energy cost in the thousands of Petajoule range. Maybe when material technology supports the engineering/construction of burner reactors and *after* we've consumed the existing Pu-239 and Du-238 in those reactors will it become viable, but that's literally thousands of years in the future. With current reactors at 0.3% fuel efficiency most of the uranium extracted will not even be utilised.
the whole system is based on confidence, and not confidence in production or sales or sustainable growth but confidence in getting a return
Asides from the rules there is increasing consensus that the screen based culture many traders have been brought up with has created a generation of economists with poorly functioning pre-frontal lobes in the brain. Primary behavioral symptoms of this is greed and risk taking of people trapped in the moment, unable to function on a more cognitive level. When combined with the Oxytocin response it's little wonder we are in the situation we are in now.
I want to believe that we will find a way out of this but not only are we up against a 'economic theory' that has no basis in reality but plain old human nature. I'm not saying it's impossible, actually the changes are surprisingly subtle. But the change in mindset is equivalent to breathing underwater. It's no longer a political issue anymore, it's a matter of survival.
I would have modded insightful because siloko's statement illustrates the tip of a very large and flawed model by which our world economic system is run, a model that is, as a whole, completely unsustainable.
Is there anybody out there that actually believes that we can keep going this way indefinitely, or even a few more decades? Is there anything in our economic system that is actually related to reality? Most of the world, that doesn't have our level of privilege, have no choice but to face that reality.
When you consider a countries GDP doesn't measure income but actually economic activity you realise it's a ludicrous measure that doesn't subtract the depreciation of assets like roads and factories or depletion of natural resources. So how is it valid when the resource base it draws from isn't included in the calculation?
So what is the true cost of the economy when the real actualities are taken into account, cause they don't seem to be in any economists 'equations'. True cost is what give economist's nightmares so (as I mentioned in a response elsewhere) it's not a science, or engineering it's a branch of psychology. None of the factors that should be included, like production of waste and depletion of natural resources are included in the economist's "equations". It's a fucking joke that the world is run this way, as if someone, who suddenly found themselves skydiving and realising that they didn't have a parachute, was told 'worry about that when you get closer to the ground'.
I want to know where the economist's have been for the past year of this meltdown *they* caused. They're happy to take credit in the good time, but when the shit hits the fans they just disappear. Where is the accountability? Where is the humility? Greenspan once remarked 'we can never have a perfect model of risk', ok, but what about an 'awareness of risk'?. These guys, now rebranding themselves from a science to an engineering profession could not even pick the sub prime collapse and have let people around the world with the mess to clean up while they vanish with their pockets stuffed full of cash.
To highlight the absurdity if we look back the template for neoclassical economics was based on Hermann von Helmholtz conservation of energy principle substituting physical variables for economic ones. Despite being told by physicists and mathematicians that there was no basis for these substitutions economists claimed that this had transformed their field into a rigorous mathematical science. Today the basis of economics in mid 19th century physics has been forgotten and the theory is accepted as scientific. Assumptions include;
Natural resources are inexhaustible
Costs of environmental damage lay outside of the system
Natural resources exist in a separate domain
the market system is a circular flow between production and consumption
There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems
This is how the world economy is run, completely divorced from reality. Economics does not even acknowledge the cost of environmental problems or limits to economic growth and unless they start to take these realities into account all the crashes we have experienced in the past are going to be like the kisses in foreplay before we are well and truly fucked and in a worldwide economic tailspin from which there is no return.
Why is it that these people insist on trying to apply a veneer of respectability to this shit?
Because if they told anyone that finance is more a branch of psychology than a harder science the markets would collapse under the weight of it's own uncertainties.
The cheque is in the mail
I won't cum in your mouth
The insurance company would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates
Now you've got an image of what kind of company EA is. Microsoft's ethics are a freakin' joke, compared to EA's.
So you're saying they're Evil Assholes.
Actually, come to think of it, I emailed them about getting a game working under wine on linux and they emailed back "go to hell nerd". After I stopped crying I got the game working just fine under wine.
So what you are saying is the coal industry released more radioactive isotopes that the Chernobyl accident.
Yes.
Ok, where is your evidence? What type and how much isotope is released?
I'm no fan of the coal industry but you are making a big claim and I want to see the facts to back it up.
Also are you saying that the Coal Industry releases more radioactive isotopes than the Nuclear Industry?
Blame Industry Y for producing Z which is far worse than X
Do nothing about X
In reality toxin X should be dealt with because it's an extremely hazardous externality.
I have seen this argument used to:
Justify not taking responsibility for Nuclear Industry Externalities
Blame the Coal industry for producing more radioactive pollution that the Nuclear Industry
Block the development of alternative energy policy - cause it'll never do baseload
Justify 93% of the US industrial output of CFC114 that causes ozone layer depletion
Defend releasing radioactive isotopes into the environment
Launch ad-hominem attack on anyone who presents a valid argument
So much other technology available, if only the Nuclear Industry didn't consume 60% of the energy research budget we could get past the Nuclearist Justification.
Gathering the isotopes before hand just makes the analysis easier. It is not critical for the actual analysis.
Knowing which type of isotopes were released would help to identify *which* cancers to look for.
Some time ago I looked into this and noticed these interesting co-incidences (that probably warrant further investigation).
The states that surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred, were higher in the list of cancer averages. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, which topped the list, was also in the fall out zone. Interesting, eh? But there was more.
All of the states with higher rates of cancer had the densest placement of nuclear reactors. In other words *every* state with a higher rate of cancer had one or more nuclear reactors in it. I guess you will say it's un-related or some other justification but if a man get's hit by a truck, people don't say 'he died from internal injuries caused by multiple impacts from steel concrete and glass', they say 'he got hit by a truck.'
I did this by looking at data from the NCI and comparing it to the location of TMI and Nuclear rector installations. But since we will never know for sure what doses were released, we will never know for sure.
Lucky the isotope fairies came and picked up all of the fall out before anyone could ingest any of it. Likely any ill effects were caused by [flip,flip,flip] industrial grade monkey farts.
radioactive materials that bio accumulate are those that are nuclear analogs for certain elements found in organic matter.
There are many metabolic pathways into the body, but I stand corrected on that point. There are many other analogues;
Plutonium, iron analogue, leukemia
Strontium 90, calcium analogue, brest and bone cancer
Cesium 137, potassium analogue, muscle and many other cancers
Radium 226, calcium analogue, bone cancer, leukemia
Radon 220, water soluble, lung cancer for example
Uranium 238, pyrophoric, water soluble, pick your cancer
Iodine 131, fat soluble, reproductive organs
Tritium (H3O), highly mutagenic, affects many things, brain weight in children
There are many others: Decay product of noble gases cerium 141, 143, 144 and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are a programmer and you call programming that you get paid for work, you are a Nerd.
If you are a programmer and you call programming that you get paid for fun, you are a Geek.
Nerds get paid better, Geeks get more chicks. In nature everything is balanced. I love to code, I think it's great to get paid for it and I'm humbled by such good fortune. I was a billionaire I would still code, hopefully on something useful.
For letting us know with plenty of time to get involved.
Ahem. Not sticking with the Saturn V launchers got you the stupendously expensive Space Shuttle and ISS.
Ok, so are you saying that Direct is the way to go? It's my preference but it seems there is some political machinations happening to stop it. All I'm saying is pick the platform and get on with it.
Well I'm glad they said it. We can frig around with this platform or that platform based on the merits of xyz and sure direct is probably a better launcher and solid fuel launchers are probably bad but haven't we learned the lessons from scraping the Saturn V launchers yet?
Pick a platform, with all it warts, short of fundamental design flaws, and keep developing it.
I think the 747 was being developed around the same time as the Saturn V launchers, look how far it has come. Imagine if Boeing decided to chuck all that development work away and start again - they'd be bankrupt.
Time to get on with it.
Still like the idea of cardboard case though. and there is nothing wrong with painting it inside with aluminum paint to shield for RF and paint the outside to made it look nice.
All the chiropractors that I know of had to complete University and have a degree before they could practice as opposed other 'alternative' methods of treatment.
I get chiropractic treatment. I went to the doctor with extremely bad back pain that left me in either a fetal position in pain or to walk I had to stand very tall with my nose in the air to walk comfortably (which also made me look like a pompass git). The doctor prescribed anti inflammation drugs with which I had intermittent relief but the back pain would return. After a while I asked about chiropractic and the doctor told me he was not able to specifically recommend chiropractic but that the one I had chosen did have a good reputation (as did several other doctors I checked with).
Upon being examined I was X-rayed from the top of my skull to my hips, and clearly, my hips were at an angle and there was a sideways and forwards curve. X-rays five years later show that the hips are now aligned and the curves have returned to normal with one persistent problem remaining in my neck where a vertebra has been fused together which is the current focus of my treatment.
I also have a good diary habit and noted all the times over the last twenty years when I have had the flu. There are ten years of diary records before and after chiropractic treatment and notably the frequency of flus decreased from 1 to 2 flus per year before treatment to a flu once every two years after. Amongst other things that happened is my shoulders broadened, I went up a full suit size. Pain I regularly experienced in my right arm which seemed to come on for no reason disappeared and other things I can't easily quantify like 'it felt like I could think more clearly'. Levels of physical activity were roughly similar over the timeframes specified.
I find it difficult to believe that if you have skeletal issues that affect your spine and cause the vertebra to put pressure on the nerves exiting that there *isn't* an symptomatic effect elsewhere in the body. I think even in medicine it is recognised that humans are quite variable animals, still evolving, and so the practice of human care has many facets that are still, largely, not understood.
I think your statements are disingenuous because they do not allow for this variability. I don't know if you have ever needed to have chiropractic treatments, but at least in my experiences, something appears to be happening. Now I can almost do the spilts, touch my head on my toes, stand on my own hands and recently I completed a ju-jitsu competition none of which I would have been able to do with the back pain I had.
I think it is more constructive to examine *what* is happening and attempt to discover why.
My apologies, I meant 'evidence-based' approach.
I think there are a number of issues in the article that have not been revealed. Even amongst chiropractors there is dissent between those who prefer a more science based approach vs those who make claims that it will cure this or that. That is the new vs the established chiropractors.
Universities that teach Chiropractic have been pushing students to use a science based approach and reputable chiropractors will only claim that it will help you to function better. From what I've discovered that amongst the BCA's objections to Dr Singh's criticisms of the chiropractic association are that he on focused on one side of the debate and lead people to believe that *all* chiropractors were the same and that cases cited as causing harm were not performed by chiropractors but by people not qualified to perform chiropractic procedures.
Dr Singh himself states that chiropractic has benefit for treating musculo-skeletal issues but he hasn't framed his criticisms of chiropractic methodology in the context of 'it has some benefit' but in the context of 'it has dubious benefit and may cause harm'. Whilst misusing libel laws is a contemptible act is that what is actually happening here?
I know from personal experience that not all chiropractic methods work (at least on me) but before chiropractic treatment I had a number of ailments that have been resolved with no other type of treatment occurring and I know many other people who report the same things. I know this is anecdotal evidence but instead of an adversarial approach to this argument why aren't why trying to discover *what* is occurring when chiropractic adjustments are performed? Clearly there is substance to the idea that reducing the amount of drugs ingested by people is good, so why don't we discover what *is* treated effectively and use a science based approach instead of trashing an entire profession that many people benefit from.
I did put the link in elsewhere, but this might be what you are looking for.
I think I'd just replace the entire ems with the open source engine management system. This project has been around for some time, I'd sure like to put it into my car restoration.
I hope the auto manufacturers don't clue onto the idea of welding the bonnet shut.
and found myself in an infinite loop...
help
My grandfather was very humble and I don't think the sickly type of heroism that is portrayed in many of these movies is quite right, I think it was more a case of desperation to survive. Like hiding under an old boat with his squad for three days in blazing heat because they came down the wrong ridge right into Italian forces and had to wait for them to pass. He survived all of WW2 so he must of been a decent soldier, but the war cost him three daughters which I think he never really got over decades later.
He was so appalled by the thought of killing after the war that even killing animals for food on the farm was impossible for him. I think he'd seen enough death.
My grandfather fought in 5 WW2 campaigns. Whilst lined up waiting to be evacuated (australians, scots, canadians, I think greek) from *somewhere* via a beach, British redcap's on horseback arrived and announced that all the colonial troops would have to stand aside while the British troops were evacuated first.
The battle hardened Australian troops responded by killing all 12 MP's, queue jumping is disliked to this day in Australia.
Thanks for the extra info but I've already examined the Polymer extraction process. Sure it's possible but it's still not a measureable industrial activity. The point is for the minute concentrations of uranium in seawater the amount of energy used to extract the uranium would best be just used. How many gigalitres of seawater will you need to use to get a kilo of uranium? You need roughly 160 tons of uranium for the core of a 1 Gw nuclear reactor, so how many teralitres of water are you talking about to fuel ONE reactor?
You cannot talk about this as a supply of uranium without calculating the Net Energy Return. Forget the cost, it is pointless trying to extract uranium from seawater, or any other source, when you are talking about a Net Energy cost in the thousands of Petajoule range. Maybe when material technology supports the engineering/construction of burner reactors and *after* we've consumed the existing Pu-239 and Du-238 in those reactors will it become viable, but that's literally thousands of years in the future. With current reactors at 0.3% fuel efficiency most of the uranium extracted will not even be utilised.
Asides from the rules there is increasing consensus that the screen based culture many traders have been brought up with has created a generation of economists with poorly functioning pre-frontal lobes in the brain. Primary behavioral symptoms of this is greed and risk taking of people trapped in the moment, unable to function on a more cognitive level. When combined with the Oxytocin response it's little wonder we are in the situation we are in now.
I want to believe that we will find a way out of this but not only are we up against a 'economic theory' that has no basis in reality but plain old human nature. I'm not saying it's impossible, actually the changes are surprisingly subtle. But the change in mindset is equivalent to breathing underwater. It's no longer a political issue anymore, it's a matter of survival.
I would have modded insightful because siloko's statement illustrates the tip of a very large and flawed model by which our world economic system is run, a model that is, as a whole, completely unsustainable.
Is there anybody out there that actually believes that we can keep going this way indefinitely, or even a few more decades? Is there anything in our economic system that is actually related to reality? Most of the world, that doesn't have our level of privilege, have no choice but to face that reality.
When you consider a countries GDP doesn't measure income but actually economic activity you realise it's a ludicrous measure that doesn't subtract the depreciation of assets like roads and factories or depletion of natural resources. So how is it valid when the resource base it draws from isn't included in the calculation?
So what is the true cost of the economy when the real actualities are taken into account, cause they don't seem to be in any economists 'equations'. True cost is what give economist's nightmares so (as I mentioned in a response elsewhere) it's not a science, or engineering it's a branch of psychology. None of the factors that should be included, like production of waste and depletion of natural resources are included in the economist's "equations". It's a fucking joke that the world is run this way, as if someone, who suddenly found themselves skydiving and realising that they didn't have a parachute, was told 'worry about that when you get closer to the ground'.
I want to know where the economist's have been for the past year of this meltdown *they* caused. They're happy to take credit in the good time, but when the shit hits the fans they just disappear. Where is the accountability? Where is the humility? Greenspan once remarked 'we can never have a perfect model of risk', ok, but what about an 'awareness of risk'?. These guys, now rebranding themselves from a science to an engineering profession could not even pick the sub prime collapse and have let people around the world with the mess to clean up while they vanish with their pockets stuffed full of cash.
To highlight the absurdity if we look back the template for neoclassical economics was based on Hermann von Helmholtz conservation of energy principle substituting physical variables for economic ones. Despite being told by physicists and mathematicians that there was no basis for these substitutions economists claimed that this had transformed their field into a rigorous mathematical science. Today the basis of economics in mid 19th century physics has been forgotten and the theory is accepted as scientific. Assumptions include;
This is how the world economy is run, completely divorced from reality. Economics does not even acknowledge the cost of environmental problems or limits to economic growth and unless they start to take these realities into account all the crashes we have experienced in the past are going to be like the kisses in foreplay before we are well and truly fucked and in a worldwide economic tailspin from which there is no return.
Because if they told anyone that finance is more a branch of psychology than a harder science the markets would collapse under the weight of it's own uncertainties.
The cheque is in the mail I won't cum in your mouth The insurance company would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates
I'm basically waiting for your 'last word' comment now. Typically just before the time out for posting a comment.
So you're saying they're Evil Assholes.
Actually, come to think of it, I emailed them about getting a game working under wine on linux and they emailed back "go to hell nerd". After I stopped crying I got the game working just fine under wine.
You're right!!!!! They are Evil Assholes!
Ok, where is your evidence? What type and how much isotope is released? I'm no fan of the coal industry but you are making a big claim and I want to see the facts to back it up.
Also are you saying that the Coal Industry releases more radioactive isotopes than the Nuclear Industry?
It goes something like this:
In reality toxin X should be dealt with because it's an extremely hazardous externality.
I have seen this argument used to:
So much other technology available, if only the Nuclear Industry didn't consume 60% of the energy research budget we could get past the Nuclearist Justification.
Knowing which type of isotopes were released would help to identify *which* cancers to look for.
Some time ago I looked into this and noticed these interesting co-incidences (that probably warrant further investigation). The states that surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred, were higher in the list of cancer averages. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, which topped the list, was also in the fall out zone. Interesting, eh? But there was more.
All of the states with higher rates of cancer had the densest placement of nuclear reactors. In other words *every* state with a higher rate of cancer had one or more nuclear reactors in it. I guess you will say it's un-related or some other justification but if a man get's hit by a truck, people don't say 'he died from internal injuries caused by multiple impacts from steel concrete and glass', they say 'he got hit by a truck.'
I did this by looking at data from the NCI and comparing it to the location of TMI and Nuclear rector installations. But since we will never know for sure what doses were released, we will never know for sure.
Lucky the isotope fairies came and picked up all of the fall out before anyone could ingest any of it. Likely any ill effects were caused by [flip,flip,flip] industrial grade monkey farts.
There are many metabolic pathways into the body, but I stand corrected on that point. There are many other analogues;
Plutonium, iron analogue, leukemia Strontium 90, calcium analogue, brest and bone cancer Cesium 137, potassium analogue, muscle and many other cancers Radium 226, calcium analogue, bone cancer, leukemia Radon 220, water soluble, lung cancer for example Uranium 238, pyrophoric, water soluble, pick your cancer Iodine 131, fat soluble, reproductive organs Tritium (H3O), highly mutagenic, affects many things, brain weight in childrenThere are many others: Decay product of noble gases cerium 141, 143, 144 and so on.