Robert Pattinson (see also Twilight)
Emma Watson
Daniel Radcliffe

That's just off the top of my head. It's possible there are more.

Never seen the other two series, thankfully :)

God, was I stupid - here's the citation you require. Table 2 and the other statements that I quoted are in this document.

1 banana equivalent dose is approximately 15 Bq. Table 2 of this document shows the radioactivity of the coal - let's use the lowest US figures. The note above table 2 says to multiply the U-238 value by 14 and the Th-232 by 10, and add those to the K-40. The results in 124 Bq/kg for US coal, and 1628 Bq/kg for Brazilian coal. That indicates that 1 kg of unburnt US coal is 8.22 BEDs. When burnt, between 1% and 10% of the ash escapes the scrubbers and is emitted into the environment directly (new vs old plants). Assuming that all of the radioactive elements are end up in the ash/slag and NOT directly put up the flue (as would be the case with gaseous radioactive elements such as Ra-226 and Ra-228), 12.1kg of coal when burnt and passed thru 'new plant' scrubbers results in 1 BED out the smokestack. With 850 million tonnes (850x10^9 kq) burned in the US in 2009, that resulted in 70.25 billion BEDs.

If you use the worst-case US figures and an old plant, you end up with 12320 Bq/kg, which is conveniently close to 100x the best-case numbers - 0.121 kg unburnt coal = 1 BED, and 7.025 trillion BEDs up the flue. Interestingly, 121g is close to the mass of the average banana at 150g, so unburnt US 'bad' coal is as radioactive as your average banana, mass-for-mass.

Interesting quotes:

If we apply the 1% up the stack rule, that means 11 tonnes of U and 2.7 tonnes of Th went out the stack - that's a lot of radioactivity up the flue and a lot of fissionable material wasted.

Please check my math.

Those look to have ~80 CRI. Having used LEDs with 80 CRI and ~93/94 CRI, I can absolutely tell a difference. I would prefer 90+ CRI, but those don't really seem to exist yet.

I just made another post about this, but I have about about 15-16 cree bulbs in my house. I take a picture of the receipt and the packaging at the time of every purchase.

I've had trouble with two--both 40W TW series bulbs. These bulbs flickered--they would turn off and if I adjusted--or even tapped on the bulb--the bulb would come back on for a time. The problem got worse until they barely worked anymore. I thought it was the fixture until I tried one of the bad bulbs in a desk lamp and had the same issue.

Anyway, I emailed Cree tech support with the photo of the receipt and packaging and had 3 new bulbs fedexed to me two days later.

I'm annoyed by the quality lapse (less than a year), but I don't have any problems with their response.

That's what I'm really hopeful for--a dimmable, high-CRI, 100W equivalent LED.

Hmmm, interesting. I've upgraded almost my entire house to Cree bulbs over the last two years. I had one fixture that had three 40W TW (high CRI) bulbs--the only 40W crees I've used--that were all bought at the same time. Two of the bulbs died within a week of each other--they flicker off and if you tap them will turn back on. I'm assuming some solder or some other connection has weakened. I'm going to try to fix them, but that's neither here nor there.

I emailed Cree support with a picture of my receipt and a picture of the original packaging (taken at the time I purchased them). Cree immediately offered to Fedex me three new bulbs (including a replacement for the third bulb) and did not even ask for me to send the old bulbs back. I had new bulbs two days later.

I'm disappointed that the bulbs didn't last that long, but I couldn't ask for any better response out of Cree's support.

Try the Cree TW series bulbs (a few more bucks per bulb, and a few more watts). They're still not perfect, but they're much better.

... I want a stain-proof superhydrophobic shirt!

Since we're talking about hacking your diet, this is something that has worked incredibly well for me. I fast on Mondays (most Mondays, not all)--I don't consume anything with calories. I drink water, and that's it. I usually end up eating dinner Sunday night and then the next meal I eat will be lunch or dinner on Tuesday.

The strangest thing to me is that I end up feeling really good on Tuesdays! It's somewhat difficult to describe, but when I wake up, I just feel good (and not particularly hungry). The best description I can think of is an extreme opposite of that feeling of "I ate too much!" Mondays are sometimes hard in the evenings when I do get hungry, though I don't get headaches (sometimes people report getting headaches when fasting). I do think that fasting is somewhat addictive, and I can see why pretty much every culture and religion around the world incorporates some form of fasting.

If you have never tried fasting for an extended period, I would give it a try. It's an interesting experience, and for me, not at all unpleasant.

I started fasting because I wanted to try it as an exercise of personal discipline, but I have ended up loosing around 30 lbs over the course of the first year (and keeping it off for 2 more years). I don't calorie count on other days, but I do--and did before fasting--eat reasonably healthily.

I cannot determine which of the narrowly defined punishable exemptions from the first amendment the Okies would fall under? They weren't inciting, they weren't fighting, there was no public danger, etc. It was just plain, dumb, hateful speech. And hateful speech is protected.

What do you think?

Not exactly. A noise ordinance that specifically targeted, e.g., loud rap music (but not loud classical music or loud NPR playing--if such a thing exists!), would be considered an unconstitutional law. The law doesn't have to be vague or confusing to be unconstitutional, though vague or confusing laws certainly can be unconstitutional tool!

Seems to me you've just picked a couple more unpopular groups to insult!

Whoever claimed that "malice" was involved in the standard is quite wrong, but it's worth noting that local noise ordinances are struck down as unconstitutional all the time.

Right in terms of predictions? In a couple of months or years? :-) Right in terms of "good outcome or bad outcome"? That's another question. I don't believe the government should be able to punish unpopular speech. That's also pretty much the accepted case law--universities cannot punish students based solely on unpopular speech.

I should have been more clear. Absolutely there are a very few specific exceptions. Threats of immediate violence are not protected speech--for instance, if the frat members had said "we're going to kill some n*rs" that is a clear threat of violence. That is not protected. Another (famous) example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater creating a potentially deadly situation. None of these situations apply here.

Contrary to what you say, you can be aggravating and you can even try to deliberately aggravate people without breaking the law! Think of those "god hates fags" morons. That's pretty much as hateful, stupid, and aggravating as you can get, but it's still protected speech.