any North Korean troops that do come out of this with real-life combat experience and do return to North Korea will be the first Nork soldiers with real combined arms and large-scale combat experience since the Korean War. These troops could be valuable as a training cadre for any future North Korean operations — say, against South Korea.

The Spanish Civil War, we might note, served a very similar role in providing both German and Soviet troops with real-world combat experience.

The statement by DoD notes that there is as yet no confirmation that the North Korean troops have entered into combat operations against Ukrainian forces, but there's literally no other reason to move them into the Kursk region. While their most likely fate will be "cannon fodder," 11,000 fresh troops could make a difference for a while; but it's important to note that the DoD estimates Russia is losing 1,200 troops a day in the conflict, meaning that any numerical advantage provided by this influx will be eliminated in less than ten days.

Delta-V required for transfer orbit between planets

“We’ve heard for four years how Republicans were a threat to democracy, they were going to overturn democracy. But really what is happening is that the election deniers, the people who are trying to thwart the rule of law, trying to thwart what a state constitution allows when it comes to elections, are the Democrats,” the Republican congresswoman said.

Most properties today, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, include at least one building or structure on that property. Often there are multiple buildings on a single property. Some include buildings that are each supplied by its own utility service and others have an electrical service at one point and deliver electrical power to the other buildings or structures by feeder(s) or by branch circuit(s). This article takes a closer look at the grounding and bonding requirements and methods for separate buildings or structures supplied from other than a service. //

The second method for grounding and bonding at a separate building or structure is allowed where the feeder does not provide an equipment grounding conductor, but does include a system grounded (often a neutral) conductor. This second method is a bit more difficult to utilize because there are more specific restrictions that must be considered and adhered to. Three conditions must exist before one may use the grounded conductor for grounding purposes at a separate building or structure.

Figure 4. Grounding and bonding at separate buildings or structures using the grounded conductor by the method specified in Section 250.32(B)(2)

The first condition is that an equipment grounding conductor, of any form specified in 250.118, is not provided or run with the supply to the structure. This means that only the phase conductor(s) and the system grounded conductor either as direct burial, in nonmetallic conduit underground, or as overhead conductors are included. The key is that no equipment grounding conductor is included.

The second condition is that no continuous metallic paths exist or are otherwise present, and that are bonded to the grounding system in both buildings. Examples of continuous metallic paths could be metal water piping, building steel, metallic conduit, cable shields, metal ducts, and so forth.

The last condition that must be met prior to utilizing this method is that no equipment ground-fault protection is installed on the supply service or feeder, as neutral-to-ground connections on the load side of this equipment can nullify or desensitize the equipment protection.

If all of these conditions are met, then the grounded conductor of the feeder or branch circuit is permitted to be used for grounding and bonding the electrical equipment. It must be connected to the structure disconnecting means enclosure to which the required grounding electrode conductor is also connected. The minimum size of the grounded conductor of the feeder or branch– circuit must satisfy two minimum sizing requirements. First, it must be adequate to carry the maximum load on the grounded (often a neutral) conductor as specified in 220.22. Second, it also must not be smaller than the required equipment grounding conductor for the feeder or branch circuit using 250.122, based on the size of fuse or circuit breaker ahead of it.

Brian Mays says:
January 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM

By the way, I wonder in what world funding for global warming research can be called “enormous”.

Welcome to the world of R&D for advanced reactor concepts! If only a tiny fraction of the money that has been wasted on deeply flawed, ideologically driven “climate studies” (keep in mind that I used to be part of this world when I was in graduate school) had been spent on genuine nuclear R&D … well … I’m sure that the DOE would have wasted most of it … but the remainder that went to those of us who just want to make a product that we can sell would have resulted in some very substantial progress.

But the reality is that I’ve just been tasked with tidying up and documenting the calculations that I performed to better understand severe-accident analysis of advanced gas-cooled reactor designs. This is work that resulted in a couple of published papers, but the budget for this cleanup/documentation work is $0, because there is no budget. There wasn’t even enough budget to get the papers done in the first place. That’s what nights and weekends are for. Fortunately, my day job manages to pay the bills.

Gee … I wished I worked in a field so flush with money that they’d fly me to Bali or Peru to discuss my latest “research” (or the made-up crap that I call “research”). I was fortunate enough to go to the last year’s meeting on new nuclear power plants (ICAPP’14), but that’s only because it was in Charlotte, NC, and I could drive there. I have nothing against Charlotte, but it’s no Bali.

The amount of money that has been, and still is being, wasted on the Climate BS is truly obscene, and those who refuse to see it are the real “deniers.”

How do I Select the Right Inrush Current Limiter for My Application?

Inrush current limiters are designed with different characteristics like resistance versus temperature curve to accommodate numerous applications. Because of this, it is necessary to make some calculations based on your system requirements to select the best inrush current limiter for your needs.

A time delay circuit, consisting of a relay and timer, can be employed to take the inrush current limiter out of the circuit as soon as the inrush current has passed through, allowing the inrush current limiter to begin to cool down much sooner. A great example of how this is done can be found at instructables.com, showing how to create this time delay when the inrush current limiter needs a little rest.

Large transformers have a huge current demand when they are initially turned on. This is because, until the magnetic field and inductive resistance builds, they are essentially short circuits. For example, you may have turned on some large tool or appliance and heard an initial large "HUMMMMMMM". That is the transformer say "Ow". The circuit breaker for that outlet might also go "Whoa, what are you doing!"

The transformer above (Avel Y236907 800VA 45V+45V Toroidal Transformer), for example, will try to draw over 100 Amps on the first cycle of 60 Hz Power.

To keep a large transformer from being damaged at turn-on (and to keep it from saying "ow"), or to keep a breaker from popping, you put in an inrush current limiter circuit. This Instructable will detail how to do that.

A convicted felon said he was paying the legal fees of Matt Gaetz’s accuser and controlling her. //

Among the many powerful figures in Washington, D.C. opposed to the Gaetz nomination are some who are attempting to thwart it by releasing a report from the House Ethics Committee that will attempt to tie Gaetz to salacious allegations involving child sex trafficking.

The report comes years after DOJ dropped its investigation into the same claims on the grounds that the two central witnesses had serious credibility issues. Yet these are the same two central witnesses the House Ethics Committee has relied on for its critical report of Gaetz—the same report it is leaking to compliant reporters as part of a coordinated effort to thwart his nomination as President-elect Donald Trump’s next attorney general. //

Yet even the DOJ was unwilling to exploit Greenberg’s unsubstantiated claims — apart from leaking them to the press to hurt Gaetz’s reputation. They announced their closure of the investigation in 2022. //

The DOJ decided that the people making the accusations against Gaetz had such massive credibility problems that they could in no way charge him with any crimes. All the House Ethics Committee has done is revive those same accusations from the same unreliable witnesses.

people are sick and tired of people in Washington, D.C., doing nothing as these people tried to destroy the country and getting upset at someone who actually might root out the corruption there.

We don't have a Department of Justice.

We have a Department of Injustice, and that's why you get Matt Gaetz as a nominee. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
4 hours ago
The deep state themselves offer the strongest possible endorsement of Gaetz. By all reports they are in a complete panic. We’re not hearing rallying cries of ‘resist’. That means the deep state fears Gaetz.

Gaetz spent years battling the deep state and knows their ways. Trump only asked for recess appointments from a new Senate leader to get Gaetz in. Trump has carefully chosen Gaetz for good reason.

Friday, Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders used a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to announce that he was willing to work with the incoming Trump administration to accomplish mutually beneficial legislation.

I look forward to working with the Trump Administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.

He received a quick reply from Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley. "An anti-usury bill capping outrageous credit card rates," said Hawley, "ought to be a top priority of the next Congress." //

In my view, the number of times the government has intervened in markets directly and produced the intended result can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. The obvious problem with a return to the medieval system of slapping usury laws on lenders is that when interest rates spike, banks lose the ability to adjust their interest rates. This, by definition, creates a drought in the credit market, which is quickly felt by commercial enterprises that rely on credit card transactions. If one is hellbent on regulating credit cards to save people from themselves, then allow a certain rate against the Fed's bank rate. //

Years ago, the Fed sponsored a study of the impact of usury ceilings:

Economic research clearly supports the current legislative moves toward deregulation of usury ceilings. The evidence on the impact of usury ceilings shows that they have not achieved their objectives. According to the empirical studies surveyed, usury ceilings have significantly reduced the availability of credit and created hardships for those who were supposed to be protected. Ceilings have encouraged lenders to use credit rationing devices such as higher down payments, shorter maturities, higher fees for related non-credit services, which increase the effective interest rate. They have curtailed the amount of credit available to lower income and higher risk borrowers, harming primarily those individuals whom the ceilings are intended to benefit. Finally, the lack of uniformity in usury laws across states has distorted credit flows and economic activity, favoring those states and regions which are less regulated.

What is worse, a guy holding a credit card that carries a 30% interest rate or his car breaking down and losing his job because he can't get to work all due to some well-meaning Karen in DC deciding it is more virtuous for him to be destitute than enrich some bank?

Trump needs to back off faux-populist issues like this. I understand the sugar rush of applause as well as the next guy, but cutting off credit card access from banks doesn't mean that poor people won't pay exorbitant interest rates.

How much does a payday loan cost? //

We have two parties here, and only two — one is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship. —M. Stanton Evans //

DaleS an hour ago edited

The graphes don't go back that far, but I'm old enough to remember when the federal funds rate (the rate when banks borrow from each other) was well over 10%. What do you suppose happens to the credit card market when credit card holders can borrow from the bank at a lower rate than they can borrow from each other?

Even if you thought an anti-usury law was a good idea, it would be madness to peg it to a fixed rate. I believe every card I've ever had (ignoring promotional rates) has been set at an offset on prime. Pegging the maximum interest to Prime+5 would still allow the banks to offer credit cards as a product no matter where interest rates go -- but it would be to a far smaller group of consumers. Markets work better than government. Lowering interest rates for everybody means that good credit risks lose their rewards, and bad credit risks lose their credit. This would not be a good thing. //

Musicman an hour ago

The Founding Fathers created a government that required consensus to get anything done. But don't confuse consensus with "bipartisanship." Bipartisanship means each Party gets something it wants. And often that means the two most extreme elements of our body politic--the far right and the far left--get something they want. It's also called log rolling. It's too often a compromise that benefits Washington insiders rather than the country. It's why we have a 35 trillion dollar debt.

A consensus is where you can get more than a pure majority, say 60 or 70 % of the people behind something. Or in the case of a Constitutional Amendment, 75% (of the states). Trump can reach a consensus without giving the Dems--or at least their left wing base--a damn thing. He just needs to get most Republicans and independents, and then a slice of the Democrat Party behind whatever he does. That is how to build a lasting movement.

Wayne SW says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:09 PM

Well, you identified a major part of the problem. Those wind farms don’t harvest wind so much as they harvest subsidies. And governments are the ones who put those subsidies in place. In my state (Ohio), the state government is mulling removing the state portion of those subsidies, and the unreliable energy lobbyists are raising holy hell. They say they won’t proceed with any new projects without those subsidies. That right there tells me how they are making their money. And of course they also lobby for high-priced PPAs, while you have travelling anti-nuclear activists decrying PPAs for any company with nuclear plants (they say it shows the nukes need “subsidies”).

Brian Mays says:
January 12, 2015 at 8:05 PM

“The question arises: Were the decisions concerning this enormous funding for global warming research taken out of genuine concern that the climate is allegedly changing as a result of CO2 industrial emissions, or do some other undisclosed ideas stand behind this money, IPCC activity, Kyoto, and all the gruesome catastrophic propaganda the world is now exposed to? If this concern is genuine, then why do we not see a storm of enthusiastic environmentalists and United Nations officials demanding to replace all fossil-fuel plants with nuclear plants, which have zero emission of greenhouse gases, are environmentally friendly, more economical, and much safer for plant workers and much safer for the general population than other sources of energy?”

– Zbigniew Jaworowski

What I don’t believe is that society needs to seek to reduce either “man-made” CO2 or “man-made” radiation doses to near zero. There are reasons to limit both CO2 and radiation doses, but there is no logical or moral reason to impose too tight a limit on either one.

In fact, I’ve often found that people working very hard to impose such limits don’t even like other people and seek to restrict their access to economic prosperity and physical power.

If the AC wave is going through its zero value, the current drawn will be very high and exceed the saturation current (Figure 1). In this situation, transformer inrush current protection becomes necessary to keep the transformer functioning properly.

Transformer inrush current wave

Figure 1: A transformer draws inrush current that can exceed saturation current affecting the magnetic property of the core.

Solution to Transformer Inrush Current

What is a practical solution to this problem? One convenient way to limit inrush current in a transformer is by using an NTC thermistor.

Collins frets about the politicization of science, but largely conflates science with his own political agenda. //

But don’t expect many mea culpas from Collins about his time at NIH. He offers no apology for funding the harvesting of body parts from late-term aborted babies for medical research. Or for financing research that used gender-destructive puberty blockers on young people. Likewise, he fails to acknowledge his past promotion of the failed Darwinian idea that our genome is swamped with “junk DNA.”

Nor does Collins take real ownership of his most significant missteps during Covid. During the rollout of the Covid vaccines, Collins falsely assured the public that mRNA from the vaccines wouldn’t stay in the body “beyond probably a few hours.” A subsequent study showed that the mRNA could persist in a person’s lymph system some two months after vaccination. Collins’ promotion of misinformation has been memory-holed. So has his emphatic promise in April 2021 that “There’s not going to be any mandating of vaccines from the U.S. government, I can assure you.” A few months later, Collins was praising the imposition of mandates as a “forceful, muscular approach” and demonizing those who didn’t want to take the vaccines as killers on the wrong side of history.

Collins does acknowledge problems with government messaging during Covid and the “collateral damage” inflicted on ordinary Americans by various policies. But he calls the collateral damage “inevitable.”

For many people, his admissions will be too little, too late. //

The most serious flaw is Collins’ core message. He frets about the politicization of science and the growing distrust of claims made in the name of science. He wants to restore public trust in “science” and the experts.

The problem is he largely conflates science with his own political agenda. By the end of the book, it becomes clear that for him “science” has become a convenient club to bludgeon people who disagree with him. //

His “pre-bunking” is entirely one-sided. His goal is to shut down critical inquiry, not cultivate it. //

Collins also suggests listening to people with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, he has spent much of his career doing the opposite.

In October 2020, three distinguished epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized the government’s lockdown policies. How did Collins respond? Did he convene a meeting with them to hear them out? No, he derided them in private as “fringe” figures and told subordinates: “There needs to be a quick and devastating take down” of their ideas. Collins expresses regret for his “intemperate” language, but says he has “no regrets for the point I made.”

In other words, he really hasn’t learned anything.

It’s precisely because Collins has insulated himself from fellow experts who disagree with him that he finds it so easy to caricature the viewpoints he opposes.

That is not the road to wisdom. It’s a road to folly.

a new study described by The Daily Sceptic's Environment Editor Chris Morrison shows that the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been increasing since satellite monitoring began in 1979. https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/16/antarctica-sea-ice-has-slowly-increased-since-1979-science-paper-finds/

Sea ice around Antarctica has “slowly increased” since the start of continuous satellite recordings in 1979 with any changes caused by natural climate variation. In a paper published earlier this year, four environmental scientists further state that any sign that humans are responsible for any change is “inconclusive”. Not of course for mainstream media that have been crying wolf about the sea ice in Antarctica for decades to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Last year there was a reduced level of winter sea ice and this caused the Financial Times Science Editor Clive Cookson to exclaim that the entire area “faces a catastrophic cascade of extreme environmental events… that will affect climate around the world”. //

Thoughts and prayers are also the order of the day for those who set great store in all the coral disappearing. Three years of record growth on the huge Great Barrier Reef put an end to that headliner. Polar bears are just as bad and keep breeding to top up new Arctic highs. Satellites keep discovering vast colonies of penguins in Antarctica, and mainstream media seem shocked into complete silence to report that the eyes in the sky have detected a vast recent plant greening of the Earth. There is a growing trend to debunk any ‘extreme’ weather claim – the great citizen journalist Paul Homewood even writes a book about the BBC’s more egregious climate howlers, every year no less, such is the volume to process. //

Musicman
5 hours ago
Here is a trick question. When did the last ice age end? Most people guess 10,000 years ago. Correct answer: it hasn't. By definition, an ice age is any time there are glaciers on the poles. 10,000 years ago the current ice peaked. It's now waning but no one knows for how long. And the reason it has a special name--"ice age"--is because it's not the norm. Over the last 541 million years or so, Earth has been in ice ages about a quarter of the time, and hotter the other times.

Would we need to adjust in a major way if the ice age ends? You bet. And will need to adjust if the ice age worsens and the glaciers cover Minnesota again. You bet. That's life on planet earth. Our species can survive because we can adapt. We can't control the temperature of the planet.

Kyrsten Sinema @kyrstensinema
·
What’s the one tool that requires the Senate to work in a bipartisan way?

Oh look, the filibuster.

Burgess Everett @burgessev
Schumer to Republicans: "Take care not to misread the will of the American people"

"Do not abandon bipartisanship. It's the best and most effective way to get things done"
2:22 PM · Nov 18, 2024 //

The less Washington gets done, the better for everyone involved. We don't need a Congress that can make sweeping, dramatic changes to the nation based on winning an election by a few percentage points. That's how you end up with internal unrest under the tyranny of the majority.

It may not be a popular position on the right given we just won a sweeping victory, but strengthening, not removing the filibuster is the right move. There's nothing the government can do for me that is that important. I'd rather the behemoth stay out of my way more often than not, and the moment the filibuster ends, it's never coming back. That'd be very bad news the next time Democrats take power. Republicans should use their current leverage to ensure that can't happen.

KSP Visual Calculator, online tool that determines delta-v required for multiple checkpoint missions

DNC Staff Union
@dncstaffunion
·
Follow
One day’s notice, no severance—the DNC fights for workers, just not their own.

Full statement below:
5:11 AM · Nov 18, 2024

This was apparently not your typical post-election culling of temporary staff; this seems to have hit people considered permanent staff, some of whom have worked at the DNC for a decade.

david says:
January 20, 2015 at 1:50 PM

There’s a big difference in what we’re told about climate change versus the effects of radiation.

Decades ago people subjected test animals to “large” amounts of radiation, and extrapolated their results to “small” amounts of radiation. The assumption was that as the amount of radiation decreased, then so did the effects of the radiation linearly. This implies that even at low doses of radiation there would be some damage. (ie. 1/10th the radiation = 1/10th the damage, 1/100th the radiation = 1/100th the damage..)

However, that’s not how science works. They had an hypothesis, but where were the experiments to prove it true?

Eventually it was found that the LNT model didn’t hold to be true. The expected cancers from Chernobyl didn’t match what was expected. Different parts of the world have different background levels of radiation, yet those changes don’t seem to correspond with the LNT hypothesis. There were accident where people were subjected to radiation, yet once again no correlation with cancer rates as suggested by the LNT hypothesis; in fact, in such cases it sometimes appeared that low doses of radiation could decrease cancer rates.

The LNT hypothesis is dead, or at least it should be. But there are people who benefit from keeping it alive, and rather than going back to the labs to try to figure out the proper relationship between radiation at low levels, and genetic damage, they try to muddy the waters.

Climate change might have its fear-mongers, much like the supporters of the LNT hypothesis do, but it has yet to be proven wrong. We know that greenhouse gases do affect the Earth’s climate, though to what degree our meddling will affect it is open to some debate, as is how harshly those changes will affect us humans. But, since the Earth isn’t a frozen wasteland, we “know” that greenhouse gases do affect the climate.

In short:
———-

Low doses of radiation:
-> has fear mongers
-> those fear mongers have been proven wrong.
-> end of story, (or it should be.)

Climate Change:
-> has fear mongers, and also
-> has those who benefit from denying it.
-> greenhouse gases affect climate, else the Earth would be a lot colder.
-> end of story, including how bad it will be, is yet to be written.

Given we don’t know the full story, we should research, and act, because the worse case scenario is disaster for us human. Replacing coal with nuclear is a no brainer. If there is room for some small release of greenhouse gases by us humans, it won’t include the use of coal to generate electricity. That’s one of the lower-hanging branches that we should be eliminating now.

Allan Savory delivered a highly publicized talk at a “Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED)” conference in February of this year (2013) entitled “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change.” Here we address one of the most dramatic claims made – that a specialized grazing method alone can reverse the current trajectory of increasing atmospheric CO2 and climate change. //

Approximately 8 Petagrams (Pg; trillion kilograms) of carbon are added to the atmosphere every year from fossil fuel burning and cement production alone. This will increase in the future at a rate that depends largely on global use of fossil fuels. To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year. To a very rough approximation then, the net carbon uptake by all of the planet’s vegetation would need to triple (assuming similar transfers to stable C pools like soil organic matter) just to offset current carbon emissions every year. However, the claim was not that holistic management would maintain current atmospheric CO2 levels, but that it would return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. Based on IPCC estimates, there are now approximately 240 more Petagrams (Pg) of carbon in the atmosphere than in pre-industrial times. To put this value in perspective, the amount of carbon in vegetation is currently estimated at around 450 Pg, most of that in the wood of trees. The amount of carbon that would need to be removed from the atmosphere and stabilized in soils, in addition to the amount required to compensate for ongoing emissions, to attain pre-industrial levels is equivalent to approximately one-half of the total carbon in all of Earth’s vegetation. Recall that annual uptake of carbon is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the total carbon amount stored in vegetation.

Human Health and Welfare Effects from Increased Greenhouse Gases and Warming
-- John Dunn and David Legates

Claims that global warming will have net negative effects on human health are not supported by scientific evidence. Moderate warming and increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon-dioxide levels could provide net benefits for human welfare, agriculture, and the biosphere by reducing cold-related deaths, increasing the amount of arable land, extending the length of growing seasons, and invigorating plant life. The harmful effects of restricting access to fossil fuel energy and subsequently causing energy costs to increase would likely outweigh any potential benefits from slightly delaying any rise in temperatures. Climate change is likely to have less impact on health and welfare than polices that would deprive the poor living in emerging economies of the benefits of abundant and inexpensive energy. //

As this chart shows, by a wide margin, the Gasparrini et al. study illustrates that cold extremes kill far more people that heatwaves—and by a wide margin. They concluded:

Our findings show that temperature is responsible for advancing a substantial fraction of deaths…7.71% of the mortality…. Most of the mortality burden was caused by days colder than the optimum temperature (7.29%) compared with days warmer than the optimum temperature (0.42%). So cold produced 17 times the number of heat deaths.7 //

Underlying the concept of Net Zero is the LNT [Linear No Threshold - nuclear radiation] philosophy laid down more than three decades earlier: no net emissions of greenhouse gases are acceptable. There is no threshold that allows some net production of greenhouse gases such that at any level, the net emission of greenhouse gases at any non-zero level is detrimental to the environment and must, therefore, be stopped. The belief is that since urgent action must be taken to avoid any additional warming of the planet, greenhouse gases must be removed from the atmosphere.71 When “emissions released by human action are taking a catastrophic toll on our planet and propelling us further into an irreversible climate crisis,” no threshold is acceptable.72 //

Linear No-Threshold theory began in 1927 when H. J. Muller examined phenotypical damages in fruit flies resulting from x-ray exposure, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946.78

Ibid.
It was introduced in radiological risk studies in 1959 and subsequently into general cancer risk. Consequently, the U.S. National Academy of Science recommended use of the LNT model to the induction of radiation-related mutations in somatic cells and, subsequently, to the study of cancer initiation.79

Edward J. Calabrese, “Cancer Risk Assessment, Its Wretched History and What It Means for Public Health,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Vol. 21 (2024). 
In low-energy radiation, The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation based its radiological protection system on the assumption that the radiation-induced risk was directly proportional (i.e., linear) to the dosage, with no dose threshold below which no risk exists.80

Dominique Laurier et al., “The Scientific Basis for the Use of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model at Low Doses and Dose Rates in Radiological Protection,” Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 43 (2023), 024003.

About a decade after receiving the Nobel Prize, Muller admitted that he did not discover small mutations in fruit flies with the x-ray exposure for which he was heralded; rather, the high-energy radiation nearly obliterated large portions of their chromosomes. However, his Nobel Lecture argued that no safe radiation dose existed and that the LNT model must replace a threshold-dose-response model.81

Ibid., and Edward J. Calabrese, “Flaws in the LN Single-Hit Model for Cancer Risk: An Historical Assessment,” Environmental Research, Vol. 158 (2017), pp. 773–788; Edward J. Calabrese, “From Muller to Mechanism: How LNT Became the Default Model for Cancer Risk Assessment,” Environmental Pollution, Vol. 241 (2018), pp. 289–302; and Edward J. Calabrese, “Ethical Failures: The Problematic History of Cancer Risk Assessment,” Environmental Research, Vol. 193 (2020), 110582.

A Better Rule. An obviously better rule than LNT (and to net zero and other greenhouse gas–reduction strategies) is that of Paracelsus, a Swiss physician and alchemist of the 16th century: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison” (Sola dosis facit venenum).82 //

Eighty percent of modern energy is produced by burning petroleum, natural gas, or coal to turn the turbines inside electricity generators. (See Chart 2.) Running 24 hours a day and seven days a week, a traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plant requires about 12.5 acres per megawatt of electricity. By contrast, solar (43.5 acres per megawatt) and wind (70.6 acres per megawatt) arrays occupy vastly more land area and have a much larger negative impact on the local habitat and its environment.93