…The article is talking about the discussion in the CDC, not some tech blog. I recommend the article, it’s full of interesting information you can’t glean from the headline alone.
The statnews article only mentions that the coroner said the death was "with" measles. The Ars Technica article includes the update that the coroner added, that the death was "from" measles. It also goes into detail about why a ruptured spleen implicates measles.
Phillips said "Starlink has pushed LEO to the brink of Kessler syndrome."[0]
This is an ESA collision rate prediction, based on... something. It has no known connection to Starlink. Are the assumptions in the ESA paper representative of Starlink (altitude, disposal, collision avoidance system, etc)? Who knows!
If the report is predicting 100 years in the future, are we really "to the brink" now? Not to mention the decay time of these LEO is in months, hardly a kessler syndrome scenario.
The report says we will be in trouble in 10-20 years, not 100. Look under "collisions causing collisions". Debris from previous collisions increases the risk of future collisions.
It probably doesn't matter. Global warming has proven that we are incapable of doing the necessary things to slow or stop the human-caused decaying of our planet. I'm starting to think we deserve what we're gonna get.
Yes, there is a completely different thing with the same name. Race cars can use fuel cells to prevent sloshing. Those are basically fuel tanks with foam in them.
It contains a different mix of elements and isotopes than spent solid fuel rods from light water reactors.
The reactor creates new fissile material while it runs, then fissions that. The new fissile material is recycled into the reactor. Even actinides can largely be recycled into the fuel stream. The fuel and coolant being a liquid mixture allows a lot of chemical processing and returning parts of the initial waste back into the reactor more fully.
The waste that's actually handled for storage tends to have a lower proportion of fission byproducts that carry their own radioactivity, but some traces of highly active sources. I've read cesium, strontium, iodine, xenon, krypton, barium, and various noble metals are the bulk of the waste. Some of that cesium will be cesium-137. Some of the strontium will be strontium-90.
Solid rods from a light water reactor are not even nearly completely spent before they become too degraded for producing electricity. They contain cesium-137 and strontium-90 too but along with uranium-235, plutonium-239, americium-241, neptunium237, and curium at the time they're ready for storage. Small parts of this can be reprocessed rather than stored, but often for nuclear weapons. Having solid rods also makes it more difficult to separate elements.
MSTR waste is dangerous, but for about three hundred years. The radiation involved tends to be largely gamma, but from a very small portion of the waste rather than the bulk of the mass. Light water reactor waste can be dangerous for tens of thousands of years, producing alpha, beta, and gamma from most of the mass of the waste. The alpha and beta radiation will last tens of millennia.
I guess if you abused terminology to scale by risk then, something decaying faster but by a different mechandism could be “less radioactive”, e.g., for external exposure, an alpha emitter with a shorter half-life might be “less (dangerously) radioactive” than a beta emitter (of course, the reverse would be true for internal exposure.)
Can’t really think of any other way to rationalize that combination.
When email came out in the '80's it was the first time for so many people that typed office correspondence was not produced by a professional typist.
Expectations were not that high from that point, then one day the internet came along and way more non-typists started typing, plus students got their hands on cellphones and started silently texting each other at high speed when they couldn't talk during class.
The whole time, things like Microsoft Word by the early '90's were fully capable of quite good layout and formatting. Pretty much regarded as formalities intended for professional use though, plus Word cost money and nobody could expect plain text to compare so why bother starting to seriously capitalize and punctuate now?
Plus on low-resolution monitors, it was sometimes more difficult to read any of the word-processor renditions until you printed them, so plain text it was, non-professionally typed for everything but the most formal true documents.
Anything other than lower-case has always been forced.
I guess the short answer would be, "Sir, this is an internet."
The math (in the steps 1-6 section) is so bad that it affects the credibility of the rest.
Edit: The way the results vs Times New Roman were blatantly cherry-picked is also disturbing. The description of p-value is probably irrelevant if you're combining the results of 4 different experiments.
reply