I read somewhere that the total load was about 40 grams of cobalt-60 -- Assuming I did the math correctly, this would result in a 5 Sv dose at a distance of 1 meter from the sample in about 30 seconds. So, about 30 seconds of exposure would be likely to kill you. Of course, since radioactivity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance poking your eyeballs up close to get a get look gives a fatal dose much more quickly.
I would agree, if those things could be labeled "tax deductions" as they are clearly not. You can call them tax policy I suppose. Tax deductions are only useful to offset profits -- you never make a profit, all the tax deductions in the the world do you no good.
The subsidy situation varies widely from country to country. Some countries do subsidize the oil price of oil to consumers, rather heavily in some cases.
You missed the biggest downside of hydro power. Most of the viable hydro power is already being used. There is a good reason for that -- hydro power is the low-hanging fruit of power generation, so naturally we used it when it was available. Yes, there is some hydro not being used - small basins. The total is quite small compared the the amount we use. Lots of hydro power is not used in base load conditions, it is more valuable for peak production due to it fast ramp-up and the fact that the total water available for power generation is less than needed to run the hydro plant at full load 24x7
You don't want to dam the Mississippi for good reasons, so this "hydro power source" will never been used effectively -- damming is by far the most efficient way to extra power from rivers. So, you can't count these solutions as viable.
Well, considering you need large profits to make large tax deductions possible, this is not likely to be a large number for quite a while yet.
Soon we will all be like Cuba, driving 50 year old cars
Maybe we did, hard to tell with all of the negatives in the stack
Not really, according to our math based on our hypothesis, our observations imply that we have missed something (dark matter and dark energy as well) -- however, good scientists also know that what we have missed might be that our current models may be slightly off, thus some scientists are investigating tweaks to our understanding of gravity -- see MOND which seems to explains some thing betters thats dark matter, but has problems in other areas which is why most cosmologists are betting on dark matter or MOND. Either one is perfectly reasonable from a scientific basis, that's why researchers research.
Yes, I remember it well. I even read the raw data federal transit authority, and it correlated very well with with majority of the reported Toyota acceleration problems being caused by confused older drivers, who mistakenly push down on the gas when they meant to push on the brake (that could be exacerbated by the floor mat design). In the lawsuit, the question is not whether this could account for the majority of the cases, but whether it could account for every case.
Toyota claimed to be able to reproduce the problem (hard to do in real time systems), so it may have seemed a reasonable solution by Toyota at the time. Does not mean that Toyota was correct though.
Hollywood does not represent the science accurately. This is intentional. If read of several "science consultants" over the years talking about pointing the innacuracy and getting the response -- I don't care, that's how were are going to do it.
Star Trek being an old and well known example -- Starships don't swish -- They actually tried it then said, "without the swish it does not seem fast". I would have thought the mother of all sonic booms would convey speed, but hey.
It's entertainment, not a documentary.
I won't be missing High fices and after lunch farts, but the occasional doughnut was ok by me.
Really, the planned to spend $90 million on a site that simply redirected you to 1 of 50 other websites? And you think the states were incompetent?
During the period from 1920 to 1970 U.S. wages on on age average went from about $10K to $40K (inflation adjusted). Since 1970 the rate of increase has dropped considerably. So much so, that it would be very prudent to consider it a structural change.
Some of the likely candidates
1) Increasing automation due to the relative affordability of computer and electronic technology
2) Demographic changes due lowered birth rate
3) Demographic changes due to aging population
4) Demographics changes to die increasing saturation of high-tech jobs relative to the percentage of the population able to succeed in high-tech jobs
5) Absolute and/or relative decline of US Education
6) Relative decline of US economy compared to world-wide population
7) Shifting emphasis in population priorities -- more "me time" less emphasis on working
8) Breaking of the social presumption of job for life relation between employers and employees
9) Increasing cost of energy beginning around 1970 (Arab oil embargo)
10) Increasing net tax burden (not just fed. income tax)
11) Increasing regulatory burden
12) Reduced influence of unions
Of course, I'm sure you could think of more, and a combination of factors is more likely than any single factor.
However, if automation was primary reason that wages went from $4K to $40K, it most certainly is not the driving factor today. Automation has continued unabated since 1970, if rate of increase since 1970 matched the rate from 1920 to 1970, we would be making around $100 today, and McDonald's and WalMart would be paying $15 per hour to their employees.
Job training seems to me one federal policy that gets considerable support from both of the major parties. There are disputes about how best to do it and how much should be spent, but it is pretty popular in Washington. That the money spent is largely wasted cannot be factually disputed. In fact, even many congresscritters admit that the programs are not efficient.
Actually watts/hr does have a very useful meaning. It it used to specify how quickly your can "ramp up" an energy producing device. Hydro electric plants have a very high rating, nuclear plants are quite low. Original poster clearly misused this (unfortunately all too common). Natural gas generation is often chosen in part because they perform well in terms of ramp up speed. You only have so much hydro power storage so in many areas, the available hydro is dedicated to peak load situations.