|
by Joel Aufrecht
07:41 PM, 02 Apr 2003
Up to now, SARS has had a fatality rate of about 3.5 percent. If that sounds mild compared, say, to the virus that causes AIDS, consider this: The pandemic flu of 1918 killed "only" about 2.5 percent of those whom it infected. That amounted to 50 million people worldwide. ... Up to now, U.S. authorities have been effective and probably fortunate in controlling the spread of SARS. Except for a handful of close relatives and health workers, the 69 known suspected SARS patients here were all sickened in Asia. By keeping them off the streets, U.S. officials have prevented community outbreaks so far. The same is largely true of Vietnam and Singapore. But that is not the case in Hong Kong ... In Canada, with over 100 suspected cases, the fear is palpable. ...
Categories:
Comments (1)
by Joel Aufrecht
07:09 PM, 02 Apr 2003
Natural uranium is a blend of several isotopes. After you take out the one percent that's U-235 - the extra-radioactive part, very good if you like chain reactions - and traces of other isotopes, the leftover 99% is barely radioactive and almost twice as dense as lead. (Remember, when people say that it stays radioactive for 4.5 billion years - well, first, they don't understand half-lives; it stays radioactive for much longer than that - but mainly, that means that if you stare at an atom for, say, a billion years, it only has a 25% chance of radio-acting.) It gets used commercially where they need really dense stuff, and it's safe it that context - few people climb into elevator shafts to lick the counterweights. On the battlefield, though, it's used in bullets and armor. In this context, it tends to get vaporized. Those alpha particles that can't penetrate a few sheets of paper get a chance to work you from the inside. But mostly the problem is that it's a heavy metal, like lead and cadmium, and heavy metals are poisonous.
How poisonous? The Army insists so strenuously that it's safe that you're left with the impression that we ought to feed it to babies for their health. "[kidney-damaging doses] are far above levels soldiers would have encountered in the Gulf or the Balkans." -- DU Library - Department of Defense. Well good for our boys, I guess, but not so good for the people whose backyards we fought in while we liberated them. The DoD also quotes a WHO study: "No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU." But that study also says things like "Long-term studies of workers exposed to uranium have reported some impairment of kidney function depending on the level of exposure. However, there is also some evidence that this impairment may be transient and that kidney function returns to normal once the source of excessive uranium exposure has been removed." And it has a whole chapter on "Biokinetics of uranium species from the standpoint of nephrotoxicty" but I have to confess I didn't read it. Bottom line, as far as I can tell with a cursory literature inspection, is that US military use of DU may make a few (hundred) people sick but probably won't kill anybody, and if it did it would be hard to prove. Meanwhile, here's an explanation of why it's used: The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72s appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1s frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. This T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment and blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1s frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion. -- excerpted from Dunnigan, James F. and Austin Bay, From Shield to Storm: High-Tech Weapons, Military Strategy, and Coalition Warfare in the Persian Gulf, William Morrow & Company, 1992, p. 294-295.
Categories:
Comments (0)
by Joel Aufrecht
03:10 PM, 02 Apr 2003
Putting these together, the average amount of information per ejaculation is 1.560*10^ 9* 2 bits * 2.00*10^ 8, which comes out to be 6.24*10 ^17 bits. That's about 78,000 terabytes of data! ... If you figure that a male orgasm lasts five seconds, you get a transmission rate of 15,600 tb/s. In comparison, an OC-96 line (like the ones that make up much of the backbone of the internet) can move .005 tb/s. ... If you consider signal to noise, though, the figures come out much differently.
Categories:
Comments (0)
|
Joel's Blog CategoriesChina (2 items)Denmark (22) Danish (11) Commentary (57) Quotation (130) War (24) Singapore (223) Public Finance (21) Institutional Analysis (15) Brain (5) Managing the Public Sector (15) Global Issues and Institutions (20) Non-State Actors in Governance (17) Leadership and Dynamics of Communication (12) Good News (97) Reviews (51) Baseball (30) Policy Analysis and Programme Evaluation (10) Urban Transport Policy (1) Archive
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 April 2001 NotificationsYou may request notification for Joel's Blog. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||