Re: Gauss Rifles

TomB wrote:

 >[Tomb] Yes, sorry, I meant to say an 80% greater chance of brain
 >cancer. The odds are still fairly low, but an 80% increase is a
 >statistically significant increase.

Certainly.

(Oddly enough I can't find any web sites which give the brain cancer 
incidence rate as a life-time risk - all I can find is the total number
of 
cases per year in the US and Canada, but that doesn't say very much
unless 
you also know the birth-rate, age distribution and total death rate per
age 
group :-( (The *total* death rate is, of course, 100%!) This type of
"total 
numbers only" statistics always makes me suspicious, since it makes it
very 
easy to hide reasons for the increase of the total numbers which you
don't 
want to mention - like population growth... I don't think this is the
case 
here, but as I said I can't find any web site which shows relevant
numbers 
:-( )

 >>If you're worried about EM radiation causing brain cancer, then you
 >>really shouldn't use those fancy helmet-mounted headsets and visor-
 >>mounted HUDs :-)
 >
 >[Tomb] Well, after having worked in wireless for a few years and seen
 >a number of friends come down with various cancers that aren't
 >directly (yeah right) attributable to the environment, I'll pass.

Brain cancers, or other types as well?

 >Plus I'm suspecting the amount of energy to squirt out a transmission
 >to a sensitive receiver is quite low.

Two of the recievers I'm talking about here are the human ears and - 
particularly - eyes. They're not particularly sensitive, and they sure
as 
hell can't interpret a squirt transmission :-/

 >I'm not sure that your Gauss rifle will have
 >the luxury of such a low-power setting.

No, but on the other hand there's a very major difference between a more
or 
less constant, long-term exposure (eg. talking in a cell phone a lot for

several years) and a few high-level pulses (eg. firing short bursts of 
rifle fire occasionally).

In addition the emissions from the Gauss rifle can be screened fairly
effectively. If you screen the emissions from your cell phone, you have
no
connection :-/

 >>  (Of course that'll leave you wide open to enemy laser dazzlers, and
 >>you can't use the tac-data net without taking a break from the
 >>fighting, but that's life <g>)
 >
 >[Tomb] I thought I saw a materials-based solution to the lasing
 >threat that did not involve electromagnetic controlled polarization -
 >something that used a material that was reactive so it was a
 >materials property rather than something driven/controlled by a power
 >source.

A self-polarizing material which reverts to clear when the laser stops? 
That'd be nice :-) Still doesn't solve your tac-net problems though -
the 
human/tac-net interface can't use low-power squirt transmissions...

 >OTOH, I'm not sure it was ever truly viable and I can't
 >remember where I saw the reference (web/magazine/TV/?).

 >I'm sure a lot of the veterans exposed to DU who have
 >manifested mysterious health problems might have a different
 >perspective on that general sentiment.

Trouble is, AFAIK there's still no solid proof that all those veterans 
*were* exposed to DU. Some of them were appearently rear-echelon types
who 
didn't get anywhere close to the combat zones... so there's still a
fairly 
high chance that their troubles were caused by something else. Kuwait
and 
surrounding areas did have a bunch of other environmental problems
(burning 
oil wells, carcinogenic fuels etc) at the time, after all.

As an interesting side note, Sweden have had soldiers falling ill with 
similar symptoms after returning from Kosovo and blaming it on "exposure
to 
DU"... but again they hadn't been in areas were DU munitions had been
used, 
and when our local greenies tried to argue that "but the use of DU 
increased the background radiation" it was pointed out that the
background 
radiation in Kosovo's DU-infested areas is lower than the *natural* 
background radiation in most of Sweden :-/ IIRC the Italian army had 
similar cases too, and again they weren't able to find a significant 
relationship between DU exposure and these illnesses.

But, as Flak Magnet said - if you get cancer, you have to live with the 
consequences (and may die of them 20+ years down the line)... but still
you 
have a chance of living. If you're outclassed in combat because your 
enemies have much more effective equipment than you do, your chances of 
survival are considerably lower (and you'll most likely die now, rather 
than in 20+ years). In the GZGverse, I'd say that your average grunt
does 
indeed run a significant risk of seeing combat... I certainly know which

option I'd prefer.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."