Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
It's very very rare apparently, 4 out of 2.4 million US deaths in 1999 had nosebleed as cause of death(search of epistaxis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/vs00199wktbli.pdf). I'd be more worried about the nosebleed being a symptom of something else.
Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
It's very very rare apparently, 4 out of 2.4 million US deaths in 1999 had nosebleed as cause of death(search of epistaxis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/vs00199wktbli.pdf). I'd be more worried about the nosebleed being a symptom of something else.
Like having accidentally snorted heroin instead of cocaine like in Pulp Fiction.
Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
It's very very rare apparently, 4 out of 2.4 million US deaths in 1999 had nosebleed as cause of death(search of epistaxis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/vs00199wktbli.pdf). I'd be more worried about the nosebleed being a symptom of something else.
Like having accidentally snorted heroin instead of cocaine like in Pulp Fiction.
Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
It's very very rare apparently, 4 out of 2.4 million US deaths in 1999 had nosebleed as cause of death(search of epistaxis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/vs00199wktbli.pdf). I'd be more worried about the nosebleed being a symptom of something else.
Like having accidentally snorted heroin instead of cocaine like in Pulp Fiction.
Also, a young human being can compensate for about 40-50% blood loss before it is irreversible without external help. That being said. If you lose about a half a litre you'll probably begin to be dizzy, a litre and you are as someone said running the risk of hypovolemic shock.
was there ever somebody who died due to blood loss from a nose bleed ? It would take an awful lot of time to get to the point where a significant amount of blood is lost
It's very very rare apparently, 4 out of 2.4 million US deaths in 1999 had nosebleed as cause of death(search of epistaxis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/vs00199wktbli.pdf). I'd be more worried about the nosebleed being a symptom of something else.
I have the feeling that this pdf is a goldmine for darwin awards
On June 23 2016 06:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: would it be possible to generate power on another planet and somehow send it to the Earth?
You can transfer power by electromagnetic radiation but it would be very very very ineffective for now
There needs to be a reason to do something. If you want to generate power somewhere else and then transfer it, ask yourself why you want to do that. No method of transfer is perfect. Why are you generating power on, say, mars, and transferring it to earth? What does Mars have that earth does not?
Especially currently, where you would have to ship all your power generating stuff over there, and then ship the energy back, i see no point to doing that. Even further, what advantage does Mars (or any other solar body) have over just putting stuff in orbit around earth?
That being said, i don't think "very very very ineffective" gets even close to describing just how bad the effectiveness would be. You are talking about EM radiation. What that basically means is taking the energy that you produce, somehow turning it into a big laser, pointing that Gigawatt-Laser at earth, and having some sort of solar array here to turn that light back into usable energy.
There are multiple major problems with that.
-We are not very good at turning light into electricity.
-Lasers do not work as people think they do. They don't produce a tight beam that never gets broader, no matter how far it goes. A laser will always get broader after some point, and it is not theoretically possible to get rid of this effect. So your laser will hit a large area on earth (probably at least a continent or so), and you would have to fill that continent with stuff that turns that energy into electricity. The size of the area hit greatly changes depending on how far away the planet is from earth (which varies over time due to different orbits around the sun)
-It is pretty hard to aim that precisely at long distances.
-Everything turns around all the time. Most importantly, both earth and the planet you are shooting from rotate. So you can't just build a building that streams energy on both, and be done with it, because those two buildings will very often not be able to see each other because one of the two planets in is the way. You will need a continuous seem of lasering buildings on the launching planets equator, and a large area around earth's equator needs to be dedicated to receiving the energy. You might be able to circumvent some of that stuff by putting the receiving station on an orbit, but i am not certain whether an orbit that always faces the other planet actually exists. (Probably not, since both planets also orbit the sun at different speeds). So you would probably need a ring around earths equator in orbit, and i think a lot of people would be angry about that, for example the people living below it that really like to have sunlight at midday.
In the end, you are probably better of just building solar panels and not bothering to build a laser on another planet.
On June 21 2016 19:30 Simberto wrote: The second amendment of the US constitution states that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
If i open up a surgery shop that attaches ursine limbs to people, and the police tries to shut it down, can i claim constitutional protection because if my shop is closed down, it once again becomes impossible for a lot of people to acquire bear arms? A similar question arises when i build medieval castles. And what happens if i do both?
I knew a debate team that basically took this tack once. The resolved for the league was: Resolved: that the US Federal Government should substantially increase its support of efforts to preserve marine resources.
So you were supposed to make and defend a plan to protect fishies.
Instead, these idiots/geniuses made a thorough, well-researched plan to preserve the stocks of medicine, ammo, etc. used by the US Marine Corps. The other teams were sitting there with their piles of research on why fish suck, and instead they have to argue that the USMC sucks.
Needless to say, they won a bunch of debates until people caught on, developed a counterargument, and learned to present it. But it meant they won half their debates basically by default, and forced the other half of teams to learn an entirely new stack of research. They did great that season.
On June 23 2016 06:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: would it be possible to generate power on another planet and somehow send it to the Earth?
In theory if you had a planet with a shallow enough gravitational well (or just do it from space), you could send the energy back to earth in the from of very large rocks dropping into the atmosphere. A kinetic bombardment might not be what you want though.
On June 21 2016 19:30 Simberto wrote: The second amendment of the US constitution states that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
If i open up a surgery shop that attaches ursine limbs to people, and the police tries to shut it down, can i claim constitutional protection because if my shop is closed down, it once again becomes impossible for a lot of people to acquire bear arms? A similar question arises when i build medieval castles. And what happens if i do both?
I knew a debate team that basically took this tack once. The resolved for the league was: Resolved: that the US Federal Government should substantially increase its support of efforts to preserve marine resources.
So you were supposed to make and defend a plan to protect fishies.
Instead, these idiots/geniuses made a thorough, well-researched plan to preserve the stocks of medicine, ammo, etc. used by the US Marine Corps. The other teams were sitting there with their piles of research on why fish suck, and instead they have to argue that the USMC sucks.
Needless to say, they won a bunch of debates until people caught on, developed a counterargument, and learned to present it. But it meant they won half their debates basically by default, and forced the other half of teams to learn an entirely new stack of research. They did great that season.
I've heard a bunch of stories about people in debates screwing over the opposition by doing things like defining NATO as National Association of Theatre Owners when debating over involvement in NATO, or though other dubious interpretations of the topics. It's kinda dumb.
I'll tell you what, the kids who tried to pull that at the debate tournaments I competed in got their asses handed to them, but I did public forum and I think you're talking about policy debate, so what do I know
I found it funny when i noticed in an article in a paper that apparently
"Nahverkehrsservice Sachsen-Anhalt" (The public transportation agency in one of the german states) is abbreviated as NASA. So there are a bunch of train conductors in eastern germany that can claim they work for NASA at dates.
You can eat your nails so I imagine so can ants. I've heard it as a survival tip you can eat your nails (obviously not the whole thing but the growth ) but not hair.
On June 23 2016 06:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: would it be possible to generate power on another planet and somehow send it to the Earth?
You can transfer power by electromagnetic radiation but it would be very very very ineffective for now
There needs to be a reason to do something. If you want to generate power somewhere else and then transfer it, ask yourself why you want to do that. No method of transfer is perfect. Why are you generating power on, say, mars, and transferring it to earth? What does Mars have that earth does not?
Especially currently, where you would have to ship all your power generating stuff over there, and then ship the energy back, i see no point to doing that. Even further, what advantage does Mars (or any other solar body) have over just putting stuff in orbit around earth?
That being said, i don't think "very very very ineffective" gets even close to describing just how bad the effectiveness would be. You are talking about EM radiation. What that basically means is taking the energy that you produce, somehow turning it into a big laser, pointing that Gigawatt-Laser at earth, and having some sort of solar array here to turn that light back into usable energy.
There are multiple major problems with that.
-We are not very good at turning light into electricity.
-Lasers do not work as people think they do. They don't produce a tight beam that never gets broader, no matter how far it goes. A laser will always get broader after some point, and it is not theoretically possible to get rid of this effect. So your laser will hit a large area on earth (probably at least a continent or so), and you would have to fill that continent with stuff that turns that energy into electricity. The size of the area hit greatly changes depending on how far away the planet is from earth (which varies over time due to different orbits around the sun)
-It is pretty hard to aim that precisely at long distances.
-Everything turns around all the time. Most importantly, both earth and the planet you are shooting from rotate. So you can't just build a building that streams energy on both, and be done with it, because those two buildings will very often not be able to see each other because one of the two planets in is the way. You will need a continuous seem of lasering buildings on the launching planets equator, and a large area around earth's equator needs to be dedicated to receiving the energy. You might be able to circumvent some of that stuff by putting the receiving station on an orbit, but i am not certain whether an orbit that always faces the other planet actually exists. (Probably not, since both planets also orbit the sun at different speeds). So you would probably need a ring around earths equator in orbit, and i think a lot of people would be angry about that, for example the people living below it that really like to have sunlight at midday.
In the end, you are probably better of just building solar panels and not bothering to build a laser on another planet.
I agree with some some points but not all of them.
Firstly, laser beam is not the only type of electromagnetic radiation you can transfer power. Albeit probably the most efficient one if done properly.
You can transfer power with EM waves into all directions(which probably you can hardly detect, let alone producing something useful) or you can use directional antennas(a tad bit "better" but still far from useful). Those types theoretically much easier to target and shoot per se.
I am not sold into the idea of we are not very good at turning light into electricity argument. We are having problems using solar energy and producing enough electricity to satisfy our demand. Focused light beam should be much more efficient. Maybe the same I am not sure
I'd rather use nuclear energy and throw waste into space(where radiation is a part of everyday life) instead of creating energy somewhere else. Even creating nuclear energy at the orbit might be more useful
On June 23 2016 06:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: would it be possible to generate power on another planet and somehow send it to the Earth?
Not efficiently.
How about microwaves? I believe there was some wild ancient aliens theory that the pyramids were used as huge reactors to send microwaves (through those shafts pointing up) to "refuel" orbiting ships
EPT
