Invalidating shoddy research would be a bonus.
Invalidating shoddy research would be a bonus.
Nuclear is in no way or form zero emission power source.
Other problem with nuclear is the enourmous power generating capacity of a reactor: it requires equally enormous backup for the inevidable times the reactor is offline! And since reactors are slow to come online, that backup needs to be something else, like natural gas. Or wind. Or solar.
Think about that, too.
Second, the French have a much greater faith in their scientists and engineers than we do here in the United States. The French scientists and engineers in turn work hard to earn and sustain that trust by doing good work. I cannot recall there ever being a serious nuclear accident in France for example. Finally, it seems that the French legal system doesn't allow for NIMBYs to get in the way of projects that are deemed to be in the national interest whereas anyone with money for the filing fees can cause no end of legal trouble here in the United States.
After the oil crisis French goverment went for the nuclear solution without any democratic or parliamentary process whatsoever. Which soon resulted in violent demonstrations etc. The energy production in France is complety controlled (owned and subsidized) by government.
Currently nuclear seem to thrive only in countries where tax payers pay the bill and have no say in the matter...
The stuff could be preassembled kits of food rations, water purification, wide-spectrum antibiotics, perhaps a heater packaged in a light sheltering material with simple, drawn, cuilturally independent instructions in every item.
Anyway, I was taught early on this is one of the main reasons to attend conferences -- after seeing an interesting presentation (or even poster) about stuff close to yours, you go for a beer or two with the presenter and hear all the failures they suffered and the wrong turns they took on the way. And share your own, too.
The body of science is so much more than just the published papers, you know.
So they don't always have to tell you they're collecting personal info and once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?
Well no -- if it's for example medical or health care research, then you do have to get explicit, specific, informed concent that can be withdrawn at any time...
There has to be some limits in a civilized society, you know!
1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
I believe there was practically no private research, since Myriad was founded after the gene was already located in chromosome 17 and it was only a matter of time for the teams in different universities to pinpoint the location and find out the sequence. Furthermore, the company was founded by some of the university researchers that took part (well, their labs took part, at least) in the search for the gene.
Myriad was funded to patent the gene, to put it plain and simple. And by holding a patent not just to their gene test, but any BRCA1 sequence test, they have prevented anybody else for figuring out *why* mutations in BRCA1 may cause breast cancer.
- with all the mining, processing and delivering of fuel plus the ridiculous amounts of concrete required for safe reactor building the CO2e/W of nuclear is approaching that of coal. - nuclear power is generated by huge units, 100's MW, so when they go offline (and they do, eventually) you need a lot of backup power, and it can't be nuclear since it has to be available at moments notice. - there are limited places to build nuclear plants, since they require lots of cool, clean water to operate, and those are becoming rare with global warming I so hope that the luddites would stop pushing for old solutions and would embrace new technology.
It is the anthropogenic variety that is questioned. I have a VERY hard time believing that anywhere near enough evidence has been collected to determine that humans are responsible for the GW.
Which one you have difficulties with:
- CO2 is a "green house" gas, it traps heat - Humans are pumping it to the atmosphere 40 billion tonnes per year
The logical step from those two to the Antropogenic in AGW is so small and obvious that when Arrhenius figured out the first one and knew the second one 120 years ago, he could make it without any evidence or measurement.
In the realm of physics it's easy to figure things out way before you can get any evidence...
Think about it: if there's no purchasing power, no matter how much the employer is rewarded, there's no cash flow to keep the business viable. On the other hand, if there is purchasing power and thus business, the employer doesn't need subsidies to survive.
The best thing to do to national economy is to tax/destroy wealth at the top and create it at the bottom.
That, and tax/moderate the financial markets regressively, but in relation to time between purchase and sale -- and start from 99.5% or so regressing to 15% in about ten years, forcing investors to care about the long term health of companies and aiming for stable and predictable markets.
Oh, and cut the copyright to 25 years from first publication. But that's negotiable.
In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?
I gather the police will have to have other lines of supporting evidence, too. Which, I assume, are easy to come by if the guy did it. There will be inconsistencies in his story, places he shouldn't have been, places he should have been etc.