If you went to build anything these days with 1970s era thinking, 1970s era technology and 1970s era safety standards you would be denied commercial insurance.
The problem is not that the numbers look bad, its that the numbers are horrendously skewed compared with knowledge of nuclear power generation. It's like saying cars are incredible death traps and thus refusing to build new cars with crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags.
The process / power industry has evolved, the designs have evolved, but nothing has been built. So any statistics you use about x number of meltdowns out of x reactors basically need to be adjusted for 1970s era thinking. And we did a lot of mistakes back then across all industries.
I reject the notion that if you built a nuclear reactor now that is has a 1.33% of catastrophic meltdown over 40 years.
Maybe after the success of "Breaking Bad" they'll get the idea that a well written story and a setting that is connected together in some way makes far more interesting television than an event of the week that has no impact on the setting no matter how dramatic it is.
I suspect that this will be one of the most expensive treatments ever.
There is no particular reason to believe this will be expensive. It is just some RNA, which can be inexpensively replicated. Even if it is patented, it is likely that someone else can some up with a similar technique, making it a competitive market, and driving down prices.
If you really want to be a pessimist, you should instead focus on how this is going to bankrupt Social Security. People are going to retire at 65, and then collect benefits for the next 55 years.
You have to pay about $450 for the camera. AXIS work great for this.
tell your customer to stop being a cheap bastard and spend the money on the real deal.
Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that.
Because when the Global Governance folk roll into town you have to lock up your daughters, stop issuing parking tickets (they won't pay 'em anyway) and create an entirely new layer of quasi-government to 'interface' and 'negotiate' with them. Ultimately this leads to some time-wasting end that will benefit them more than it does you, *if* you are convinced what you're doing is sound.
The way we have operated nuclear plants in the US is sound. The safety record shows it, and the gigawatt-years of reliable power underscore that success. I believe that as a layman who has researched the topic I am more objective saying this than even the most experienced plant operator... because I am looking from a grand perspective of history, while their own safety culture imposes a certain vulnerability on them, it discourages them from making self-serving statements, even if true. A humility that keeps them from standing up to say "Enough is enough!"
Nuclear energy, as we have done it, has proven to be the most promising and most sustainable --- to use the proper definition of the word --- way to ensure the continuance of modern life.
But there will always be those who try to convince you that another layer of governance is good for you. So when Switzerland proposes that "making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety.
As in... what the fuck, do these people believe off-site contamination is like a drunk running a stop sign? That keeping Earth safe from contamination is for lack of some simple rule?
As in... what the fuck does 'legally binding' mean in this context? Again, a governance organization arrogantly asserts that there is some evil malfeasance let loose in a lawless world, for lack of something that would be 'legally binding'. Here they come to save the day. What form would a legally binding punishment be, if a signatory is unfortunate to suffer a disaster that spreads a discernible count of radiation across the border? A preemptive strike? Sanctions? Regime change? I'm sure all of this will be discussed at the next meeting.
Don't get me wrong. The IAEA has done some excellent work. Not all international conventions are trite and insulting. To render assistance in a disaster, responsibly notify one's neighbors, agree on safe handling practices, and even address liability in our litigious world, are worth things to agree on.
They want to give this nebulous diplomatic instrument teeth with the stroke of the pen. It has not earned them. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teeth. It has earned them. It is also a very specific and useful framework tailored to our task at hand.
Now if the Swiss had said, "Be sure you have some form of containment at all" (Chernobyl) or "don't put all your generators in the basement" (Fukushima), you could sink your teeth into that. Such may be the way "things are done". But I would propose that for the most part in real life, things are done by rules of common sense anyway. Has anyone ever asked a plant operator if safety interferes with their bottom line?
Sorry to vent so, thanks for your comment. Also thanks to mdsolar for bringing to our attention evidence that nuclear energy is in a total shambles and the US is once again disappointing the world by acting in its own self-interest.
I wonder how the Mystery Goo is going to behave in that orbit.
One could always try to work for a plumber to learn the trade. Many tasks done by a plumber are unpleasant, but don't require years of training. Maybe they'd accept someone to help them doing the easy or dirty tasks (that they can still bill the customer for) so they can only work on the clean or hard parts, like welding pipes, making threads and waterproofing fittings.
Anyone who can watch YouTube for a few hours a week can learn to change valves, connect a faucet or sink. Declogging sinks and toilets is even easier, and there's still customers who will pay someone else to do it.
YouTube is today's community college. Declogging toilets, installing SAT tv, repairing fans in a computer or changing oil on the car. Everyone has at least some aptitude in something and with some time can learn at least enough to be a slight help for an established small business or craftsman. But yeah, you can keep using it to watch cat videos all day and claim The Man is keeping you down.
The last refuge of the incompetent is violence and in your case violent tendencies are expressed in personal ad-hominem attacks.
Oh and the data input had pulldowns as a suggestion. So you could type Hal and it would suggest Halifax. But if you wanted you could just type Helifax and use that. This allowed for the easy addition of new towns and cities because in this small region they seemed to think we would be getting new towns and cities all the time when in fact it probably would have been safe to store that list in the BIOS.
Your family will be billed for the bullet (as is the norm in statist utopias).
How about if they don't execute you, then $30/Night will be due for your Prison stay, and $60/Night for Jail; $30 Extra for solitary confinement.
All fees due required to be paid before perm. release, even after sentence expires.
Possible release under probation/house arrest with additional fees, providing you are working to make sufficient $$$ to cover your outstanding debt.
No other country has this odd view, instead, money earned abroad is taxed abroad.
The problem is that quite often the money earned abroad isn't actually being taxed at all (or at an extremely low rate). Things like the Double Irish actually prevent anyone from taxing them (or taxing a small portion of the total income), using various legal loopholes, even if the income would normally be taxable. So you can have goods produced in one country, sold in another, and never be taxed anywhere (and in fact the company may well take a deduction on business expenses from production, or other such nonsense). That's the problem here: companies are using loopholes to earn money in countries and not pay taxes on it at all. It's legalized tax evasion.
Dual US/British citizen and earning money in Britain? Great, you'll be paying both UK and US income tax on that!
If and only if the British taxes are less than the taxes you'd be paying in the US, and then only up to the difference. Or you can take a $97,000 dollar exclusion on foreign income (so if you make less than that, you pay nothing). Really, the whole system is only intended to make sure that rich people and corporations that have the money and resources to take advantage of loopholes still pay what they owe (doesn't always work, of course, but thats the intent). Slashdot ought to be all over that.
Everything private is cheaper in a free market economy. In a non-free market economy (which is what is set up almost everywhere across the world), private companies can manipulate governments to their advantage by buying influence and thus preventing actual competition.
FDA is there to prevent competition, so is every other law and tax, preventing actual competition creates a skewed market, in which it is impossible to get a true reading on what costs are actually.
Same with any government operation, money is fungible, so government operations are subsidised in more ways than one. Since there are very few actual free markets and that health care is not allowed to operate as a free market almost anywhere at all, comparing private health care in a non-free market and declaring that government beats free-market private health care is in itself a gigantic lie that you prefer to promote, that's your business, but you are not going to fog this issue that way for me.
It is a set of corporations, parent corporation and a number of daughter businesses set up to minimise taxes and other types of liabilities. It is what I have to work with in the current environment. I prefer bearer certificates personally, they are a bit difficult to set up today. I prefer it if governments didn't exit at all and there was no such thing as a government controlled corporate charter of-course, given that the world is what it is, I come up with the best way of doing business I can in our reality.