Talk:2568: Spinthariscope - Revision history

108.162.245.5 at 09:01, 28 June 2024

2024-06-28T09:01:22Z

108.162.245.4: safety and danger: same thing

2024-06-28T08:59:55Z

safety and danger: same thing

172.70.91.126: Recommending a correction.

2022-02-03T12:59:44Z

Recommending a correction.

New editor at 19:05, 25 January 2022

2022-01-25T19:05:03Z

172.70.162.155 at 00:23, 21 January 2022

2022-01-21T00:23:00Z

172.69.33.149: /* US logic */ Removed as it has no actual relevance to the topic at hand.

2022-01-20T21:33:54Z

‎US logic: Removed as it has no actual relevance to the topic at hand.

172.70.86.22 at 16:48, 17 January 2022

2022-01-17T16:48:44Z

NoriMori at 08:03, 17 January 2022

2022-01-17T08:03:32Z

108.162.241.77 at 08:02, 17 January 2022

2022-01-17T08:02:58Z

172.70.90.121 at 22:47, 16 January 2022

2022-01-16T22:47:29Z

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :::You’re right. The comic is misworded, but not by saying “ratio” instead of “product” - it’s misworded by saying “actual safety” when it means “actual danger” thus giving the ratio a backward meaning.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.77|108.162.245.77]] 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
-::::I believe the problem is commenters are confusing a description of level of risk with the name of the scale. Apparent (level of risk) : actual (level of risk). Low level of risk = safe. High level = dangerous. So “apparent (high risk)” is naturally and obviously written as “apparent danger” while “actual (low risk)” is just as obviously “actual safety.” It is (or ought to be) as simple as somebody describing a mirage in the Sahara as having a very high “apparent wetness to actual dryness” ratio.
+::::I believe the problem is commenters are confusing a description of level of risk with the name of the scale. Apparent (level of risk) : actual (level of risk). Low level of risk = safe. High level = dangerous. So “apparent (high risk)” is naturally and obviously written as “apparent danger” while “actual (low risk)” is just as obviously “actual safety.” It is (or ought to be) as simple as somebody describing a mirage in the Sahara as having a very high “apparent wetness to actual dryness” ratio.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.5|108.162.245.5]] 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 ::::Just so!

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 28 June 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:::You’re right. The comic is misworded, but not by saying “ratio” instead of “product” - it’s misworded by saying “actual safety” when it means “actual danger” thus giving the ratio a backward meaning.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.77\|108.162.245.77]] 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)		:::You’re right. The comic is misworded, but not by saying “ratio” instead of “product” - it’s misworded by saying “actual safety” when it means “actual danger” thus giving the ratio a backward meaning.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.77\|108.162.245.77]] 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::I believe the problem is commenters are confusing a description of level of risk with the name of the scale. Apparent (level of risk) : actual (level of risk). Low level of risk = safe. High level = dangerous. So “apparent (high risk)” is naturally and obviously written as “apparent danger” while “actual (low risk)” is just as obviously “actual safety.” It is (or ought to be) as simple as somebody describing a mirage in the Sahara as having a very high “apparent wetness to actual dryness” ratio.

	::::Just so!		::::Just so!

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 3 February 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:

	I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)		I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
		+	:There's an error in this section - it states that alpha decay always leads to an unstable decay product, but in the case of Polonium 210 (which was used in some spinthariscopes), it decays by alpha emission directly into stable Lead 206.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126\|172.70.91.126]] 12:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

	Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)		Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 25 January 2022
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Re: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2568:_Spinthariscope&curid=24751&diff=225143&oldid=224628 the removed "US Logic" section], I disagree about it being off-topic, but mostly I think there was no reason to remove. If it were disconnected spam/advertising/vandalism, maybe. It was longer than necessary, but an honest commentary even if drifting a bit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155\|172.70.162.155]] 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)		Re: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2568:_Spinthariscope&curid=24751&diff=225143&oldid=224628 the removed "US Logic" section], I disagree about it being off-topic, but mostly I think there was no reason to remove. If it were disconnected spam/advertising/vandalism, maybe. It was longer than necessary, but an honest commentary even if drifting a bit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155\|172.70.162.155]] 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Anybody know how much you can buy a spinthariscope for?[[User:New editor\|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor\|talk]]) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 21 January 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)		Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Re: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2568:_Spinthariscope&curid=24751&diff=225143&oldid=224628 the removed "US Logic" section], I disagree about it being off-topic, but mostly I think there was no reason to remove. If it were disconnected spam/advertising/vandalism, maybe. It was longer than necessary, but an honest commentary even if drifting a bit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155\|172.70.162.155]] 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 20 January 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)		Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori\|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori\|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
−
−	~~== US logic ==~~
−	Since 1963, 186,239 children and teens have been killed with guns on American soil—four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined (https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/resources/soac-2020-gun-violence/). Children killed by lawn darts in the same period: 3. Guns: still legal, even marketed for children (https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/11/13/first-rifle-crickett/). Lawn darts: prohibited. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85\|162.158.159.85]] 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
−	:Just to note, I restored this comment because someone just edited it out and because both of the author and remover are anon-IPs (as am I, but different to both) I couldn't be sure it wasn't an attempt to censor a point. If it was the OP-IP who retracted it, sorry.
−	:If anyone wants an actual argument why it isn't equivalent (though I think it's something to ponder, y'all are seriously ''way'' too gun-happy over there) maybe you could look at the number of guns sold (20 million, last year?) compared to the number of lawn-darts that were bought and work out the proportional danger per item in existence. (And, hey, people buy/make actual ammo for their gun, but a single lawn dart is ''reusably'' fatal... right?)
−	:But still, the response to dart-deaths seems overblown compared to... well, most other things. Guns, vehicles, drugs, peanuts... So, yes. I think it's a valid comment to mention the 'logic'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
−	~~::Nonetheless, the word 'favorably' is doing some... 'interesting' work in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22\|172.70.86.22]] 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 17 January 2022
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:If anyone wants an actual argument why it isn't equivalent (though I think it's something to ponder, y'all are seriously ''way'' too gun-happy over there) maybe you could look at the number of guns sold (20 million, last year?) compared to the number of lawn-darts that were bought and work out the proportional danger per item in existence. (And, hey, people buy/make actual ammo for their gun, but a single lawn dart is ''reusably'' fatal... right?)		:If anyone wants an actual argument why it isn't equivalent (though I think it's something to ponder, y'all are seriously ''way'' too gun-happy over there) maybe you could look at the number of guns sold (20 million, last year?) compared to the number of lawn-darts that were bought and work out the proportional danger per item in existence. (And, hey, people buy/make actual ammo for their gun, but a single lawn dart is ''reusably'' fatal... right?)
	:But still, the response to dart-deaths seems overblown compared to... well, most other things. Guns, vehicles, drugs, peanuts... So, yes. I think it's a valid comment to mention the 'logic'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)		:But still, the response to dart-deaths seems overblown compared to... well, most other things. Guns, vehicles, drugs, peanuts... So, yes. I think it's a valid comment to mention the 'logic'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
		+	::Nonetheless, the word 'favorably' is doing some... 'interesting' work in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22\|172.70.86.22]] 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
-Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.77|108.162.241.77]] 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
+Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 == US logic ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 17 January 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:

	I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)		I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.77\|108.162.241.77]] 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

	== US logic ==		== US logic ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 16 January 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:
	== US logic ==		== US logic ==
	Since 1963, 186,239 children and teens have been killed with guns on American soil—four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined (https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/resources/soac-2020-gun-violence/). Children killed by lawn darts in the same period: 3. Guns: still legal, even marketed for children (https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/11/13/first-rifle-crickett/). Lawn darts: prohibited. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85\|162.158.159.85]] 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)		Since 1963, 186,239 children and teens have been killed with guns on American soil—four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined (https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/resources/soac-2020-gun-violence/). Children killed by lawn darts in the same period: 3. Guns: still legal, even marketed for children (https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/11/13/first-rifle-crickett/). Lawn darts: prohibited. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85\|162.158.159.85]] 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
		+	:Just to note, I restored this comment because someone just edited it out and because both of the author and remover are anon-IPs (as am I, but different to both) I couldn't be sure it wasn't an attempt to censor a point. If it was the OP-IP who retracted it, sorry.
		+	:If anyone wants an actual argument why it isn't equivalent (though I think it's something to ponder, y'all are seriously ''way'' too gun-happy over there) maybe you could look at the number of guns sold (20 million, last year?) compared to the number of lawn-darts that were bought and work out the proportional danger per item in existence. (And, hey, people buy/make actual ammo for their gun, but a single lawn dart is ''reusably'' fatal... right?)
		+	:But still, the response to dart-deaths seems overblown compared to... well, most other things. Guns, vehicles, drugs, peanuts... So, yes. I think it's a valid comment to mention the 'logic'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)