I think you mean the Saturn rocket. Concorde was seriously high-tech.
hatbob
hatbob
He is right though.
Why are they having a laugh? Why would independent scientists purposely lie? It is a hugely important piece of work. I am aware of the controversy but the most authoritative source is the UN report thus far.
Care to cite any sources? It may have had some effect on those born in the years immediately after but it is difficult to quantify. It likely had some effect but there hasn't been any definitive evidence yet. Did you read the executive summary of the UN report?
The exclusion zone is not deadly but there is much debate over whether or not nature is thriving there. Chernobyl is not having any measurable effect on people born today or in the last few decades. The highest speculative estimates for deaths are in the tens of thousands which is much lower than they hundreds of…
Nowhere is radiation free. I don't understand what you are saying, honestly. There is radiation from Chernobyl but it isn't dangerous.
Not according to the UN report on the accident. Radiation is everywhere, it is only above certain levels which it become dangerous. You should go read up on your linear no threshold model for radiation exposure. Chernobyl was an epic fuck up but exaggerating the impact is wrong.
He is totally right though.
How can something which killed 100 people be worse than something which killed 230,000 people and made 11 million people homeless. Banqiao is much worse than Chernobyl. Whoever chose this list is clearly wrong.
What makes you think social security doesn't work well? It will have serious solvency problems in the future but the administration works fine.
What a ridiculous notion. Social security has almost zero fraud and medicare has a fraction of the administration cost of private healthcare. These bureaucracies already exist and work extremely efficiently.
Explain how that could have anything do to with healthcare provision?
Except for the extreme expense and mediocre effectiveness of the US health system. I'm an economist and by almost any measure the US healthcare system is terrible. Your anecdotes don't matter. Now when I say public healthcare I really mean universal healthcare. Singapore is the gold standard and has plenty of private…
So that doesn't mean it has any effect ? The radiation level is an order of magnitude too low to have any remote effect.
Can you give an example of infrastructure which failed.
Hardly makes it the worst infrastructure disaster? In concrete terms maybe a hundred people died or a few thousand if you want to pick an extremely high estimate. There is no real permanent damage in many ways. You can live in the 30 mile exclusion zone but will have a elevated chance of cancer. Nature is doing…
It really is an argument of semantics. I don't like the word failure because it insinuates that it is someones fault, either engineers or politicians. It is neither as the people of New York chose not to build infrastructure designed for something like this. They weren't lied too.
It didn't fail. It wasn't designed or built for a storm like that and when it hit things broke. No bridges collapsed, no sea walls collapsed not tunnels collapsed. NY doesn't really have sea walls to keep out floods. This wasn't a failure in design or construction. It just flooded, the water came in. That's it. Damage…
Except for all the people living nearby.
You clearly don't understand radiation. What do you think that pretty diagram means ?