In February 2007, the United States increased the number of troops stationed within Iraq, in an attempt to improve security and reduce casualties. As of today, the number of troop casualties has, in general, gone down steadily, to some of the lowest points achieved during the war.

The issue that has been debated is whether the troop surge has lead to a meaningful decline in violence, indicative of effective US policy, or whether the troop surge is merely a statistically normal variation in Iraq casualties.

Although the analysis of the situation on the ground is an important part of determining whether the drop in casualties is meaningful, it is also useful to study this from a purely statistical standpoint. In the following paragraphs, I will use a variety of methods to answer the central question: has the troop surge caused a meaningful reduction in the number of US casualties in Iraq?

The Data:

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/
CA SUALTY/OIF-Total-by-month.pdf

The information from this graph will be used throughout this analysis. The graph at the bottom of this post will give you a rough idea of the data we're dealing with. (Creative Commons, with a few edits by me at the end to include more recent data points).

What is the variation from the mean?

The mean numbers of deaths/month = 53.98
The Standard Deviation = 27.02

Average Deaths after the troop surge began = 59.83
Number of standard deviations above the mean = .2

These results, if take alone, would show that the troop surge has had no statistically significant impact on troop casualties in Iraq. However, we have to consider the proposed model that the troop surge briefly increased casualties, but dramatically reduced them afterwards, due to the surge's success. If we take this model for granted, it seems to show that the later months of the surge have deviated significantly from the mean:

The mean numbers of deaths/month = 53.98
The Standard Deviation = 27.02
Surge Deaths per month as variance from mean, and z-score of variation:

February:

16.02
+.59

March:

17.02
+.63

April:

42
+1.56

May:

66
+2.45

June:

39
+1.45

July:

12
+0.44

August:

1
+0.04

September:

-12
-0.44

October:

-25
-0.93

November:

-26
-0.96

December:

-40
-1.48

January:

-20
-0.74

Under this model, there have been statistically significant variations from the mean during the later months. So, there does remain the possibility that the troop surge has had a statistically significant impact on troop casualties in the months following the beginning of the surge...

Although there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion

Considering Rate of Change

One could argue that troop casualties were at a high at the start of the troop surge, and that the troop surge should be judged on its deviation from that point. Fair enough.

The Average change in casualty: -0.41
Standard Deviation of Rate of Change: 27
The Average change in casualty during the troop surge: -3.0

A z-test for significance finds that there was a significant reduction in casualty levels during the surge.

Conclusions

-We can conclude with 95% confidence that the US troop surge, beginning in 2007, significantly reduced the number of US casualties during that time frame.

-The number of casualties per month during the surge, however, was significantly above the mean casualty level throughout the Iraq war.

-For certain months later in the surge, there was a casualty level significantly lower than the war's overall mean.

-It's impossible to say if this is due to some regular periodic change, since there is no way to objectively determine the period of said change. Although it's obvious that there is some fluctuation from month to month, the graph obviously doesn't fit a single sine curve very well,

-So it really depends on your outlook. If we're looking at the change in casualty levels, than the surge has been a success, but if we look at the real number of casualties, it has pretty much been business as usual since casualty levels were so far above the mean at the start of the surge.

If any statisticians out there think they have a way of finding a periodic function that we can study the surge from, then by all means inform me. The calculator basically told me that there was no good sine curve, and my own work was only able to yield a sine curve with a regression of r = .3, which is pretty weak.

Also, if you're debating someone who uses weak reasoning to claim that the surge is an amazing success or an amazing failiure - without really understanding the fully issue, linking to this post might be an effective tactic.

Comments/Criticisms?

Isn't nuclear power dangerous?

We've all seen the Simpsons - the three eyed fish, "radioactive man", and Homer Simpson fusing tobacco and tomatoes with uranium. But few things are more misleading.

In reality, nuclear power is extremely safe. No person has ever died (or even had an increased risk of cancer) due to nuclear power in the US. France gets 78% of its power from nuclear fission, and they have never had a casualty. Also, its important to remember that other sources of energy lead to casualties, so from a safety standpoint, nuclear fission isn't only acceptable, its the safest energy source we have. (4, 12)

Doesn't nuclear fission produce radioactive waste?

About a cubic meter per year for a large plant. Nonetheless, the Yucca mountain facility currently in production has enough capacity to hold all of America's radioactive waste for over 300 years, with no radiation risk to the public (1).

What about Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is the only example of human death or suffering resulting from nuclear power. But, nonetheless, it occurred in the Soviet Union, where safety procedures were being phased out, and the plants were grossly underfunded. (2, 12)

What about Three Mile Island?

No one died or even got sick from Three Mile Island (3) . Moreover, it was 40 years ago, and we've seen nations like France get over 78% of their energy from nuclear power - with no disasters (4).

Where does the fuel come from? Won't it run out?

Uranium, which is mined in Canada (world's largest supplier). Uranium is a very efficient source of energy, and best of all - it comes from one of the safest and most peaceful nations in the world. (5)

By current estimates, we have enough uranium to supply all of Earth's energy needs for 5 billion years or longer:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/pro gress/cohen.html

For comparison, the Earth is only a couple billion years old, and civilization is about 7000 years old. On a human scale, uranium is inexhaustible. In fact, our uranium supply might even last longer than the sun, making it the ultimate sustainable resource - even more sustainable then solar. (6)

Isn't it dangerous to have nuclear fission, since terrorists can get the uranium and make bombs?

No, the enrichment level is far too low for use in nuclear weapons. Enrichment of uranium is the major step in building a nuclear bomb, and stealing uranium from a power plant is a waste of time for terrorists.

But aren't there other, better alternatives?

The only alternative we'll ever have in the future is nuclear fusion.

No other power sources can promise the cleanness, safety, and sustainability of nuclear power.

Solar Power:

-Not reliable, low-yield (8)
-Depends too heavily on weather patterns
-Takes a vast amount of land to produce a small amount of energy
-Solar Power has great opportunity as a supplement, but the amount of land required may confine its practical usage to residential and commercial areas attempting to reduce outside electrical consumption.

Wind Power:

-Too low-yield
-Cannot be effectively scaled
-Requires massive amounts of land for small returns (10)
-Wind power has great promise as a supplement, but it does not have the capability to eliminate the need for other power generation techniques.

Oil:

-Limited supply
-Major supplies are in dangerous and hostile nations (11)

Coal:

-Dangerous to mine (many people die every year in mine accidents) (12).
-Dirty, limited supply

Why does Greenpeace oppose nuclear power than?

They're morons.

What should I do?

Ignore the hype and look at the facts. Instead of just assuming that nuclear power really is dangerous just because of the jokes, look at the real information that is out there.

The US government does a great public service by publishing massive, 1000 page essays called Environmental Impact Statements. These are chock full of statistics and data on the effects of various projects. They're a good place to start when researching nuclear power.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.ns f/viEIS01?OpenView

Citations:

1:

http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_2/su mmary/summain.htm#S.5.1.8

"Short-term radiological health impacts to the public for Yucca Mountain construction, operation and monitoring, and closure would be small. (Impacts from transportation are discussed in Section S.4.2.) More than 99.9 percent of the potential health impact would be from naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products released in exhaust ventilation air. The highest annual dose would range from 0.73 to 1.3 millirem, less than 1 percent of the annual 200-millirem dose that members of the public in Amargosa Valley would receive from ambient levels of naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products.

The maximally exposed individual would have an increase in the probability of incurring a latent cancer fatality ranging from about 0.000016 to 0.000031 (from 16 to 31 chances in 1,000,000) from exposure to radionuclides released from repository facilities over a 70-year lifetime. The total estimated number of latent cancer fatalities in the potentially exposed population would range from 0.46 for the higher-temperature operating mode to 0.97 to 2.0 for the lower-temperature repository operating mode.

For the sake of comparison, statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control indicate that, during 1998, 24 percent of all deaths in the State of Nevada were attributable to cancer of some type and cause. Assuming this mortality rate would remain unchanged for the estimated population in 2035 of about 76,000 within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the Yucca Mountain site, about 18,000 members of this population would be likely to die from cancer-related causes unrelated to the Proposed Action. During the time the project was active (100 to 324 years), the number of cancer deaths unrelated to the project would range from 30,000 to 89,000 in the general population. Estimated project-related impacts (0.46 to 2.0) would be a very small increase (0.007 percent or less) over this baseline"

In other words, many natural rock formations pose a greater cancer risk than nuclear power's radioactive waste. The increased risk of cancer would be less than .007%

2:

"The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted."

-Bernard L. Cohen
Professor at the University of Pittsburgh

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-r isk.htm

3:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2385 551.stm

4:

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/s tatisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf

In French, but still pretty understandable. For an easier format:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
en/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_Fran ce_in_2006.PNG

So far it has been safe and effective:

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-r isk.htm

"Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

Of course deaths from coal burning air pollution are not noticeable, but the same is true for the cancer deaths from reactor accidents. In the worst accident considered, expected once in 100,000 melt-downs (once in 2 billion years of reactor operation), the cancer deaths would be among 10 million people, increasing their cancer risk typically from 20% (the current U.S. average) to 20.5%. This is much less than the geographical variation--- 22% in New England to 17% in the Rocky Mountain states. "

In other words, the risks of nuclear power to civilians are dramatically dwarfed by the risks of coal, and even simple geographically variation.

5:

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/f ig_uranium_6_3.gif

Australia is a close #2, again - a safe and peaceful ally.

6:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/pro gress/cohen.html

Shows that uranium supplies will last for 5 billion years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/e/ea/Sun_Life.png

In contrast, our sun will die out in little over 5 billion years.

8:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industri es/energy/2007-07-25-solar-project_N.h tm

A modern solar plant produces 553 MW per 9 square miles, this is

61.4 MW/miles^2

A modern nuclear plant produces 15625 MW per square mile.

http://www.progress-energy.com/abouten ergy/powerplants/nuclearplants/index.a sp

(Size calculated from Google Earth. Just search "Harris nuclear plant". Estimate includes all parts of the nuclear power facility: parking lots, office spaces, reactor, etc.)

That's a 254 times advantage in favor of nuclear power. And even with that, this methodology actually favors solar power - since the plant we're talking about is the newest and most efficient plant built - using the best real estate possible for solar power.

10:

The Maple Ridge wind farm, one of the largest in the US, produces a max energy output of 320 MW, and occupies a space of 18.75 square miles.

http://www.mapleridgewind.com/whytughi ll.htm

This leads to an energy density of 17 MW per square mile.

Using the nuclear power density from citation 9, we find that nuclear power is 916 times more efficient per unit of land than wind power.

11:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/misc/
oil/proved.BP.reserves.gif

12:

http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalb ystate.asp

About 30 people die every year working in coal mines. Compare that to the 0 per year that die working in nuclear power plants.

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/ra/pic s/ra_fn_OECD.jpg

According to this data from the Paul Scherrer Institute (which conducts general scientific research), the probability of dangerous nuclear power accidents is significantly below that of coal, oil, or any other power source.

Dangerous dictators, oppressive regimes, weak, poor run economies based on mis-focused militarism

Sound familiar?

Whether it's North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or Palestine, the consensus seems to be punishment and alienation. Bush talked frequently about his "Axis of Evil" and bringing these enemies to justice. Moreover, embargoes and aggression are often seen as effective solutions in these regions.

An Alternative Solution

The aggressive policy that seeks regime change in poor nations is fundamentally flawed. Rather than improving the economies in these nations, it forces their governments to crack down and become even stricter.

A viable alternative is to provide economic and technological support to these nations so that they are able to develop strong, healthy economies.

A Historical Comparison

Nazi Germany:

The Policy: Although widely touted as an example of appeasement gone wrong, allied policy could only be very loosely described as appeasement. Germany was held to the infamous "war guilt" clause, that forced them to pay for the costs of the war.

The Effects: Not only did this damage the German economy (paving the way for Hitler), it put off the rebuilding efforts the nation desperately needed. Germany, with a weak and failing economy, a distraught currency, and a flailing infrastructure - looked for help in the form of Adolf Hitler.

1980s China:

The Policy: The US normalized relations with China, pouring billions of dollars in investment into their economy. Today, its difficult to find an American company that isn't heavily invested in China.

The Effects: China's economy succeeded without historical parallel. GDP growth has been over 5% for nearly three decades, and the per capita GDP has increased dramatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o f_the_People's_Republic_of_China

1950s China:

The Policy: Threaten and isolate China, deny even acknowledgment of them as a nation. (For over 2 decades after WW2, the US acknowledged Taiwan's government as the leadership in China).

The Effects: Unparalleled death and destruction as China focused its limited resources on self-defense and control. Chinese leadership was effectively forced to take futile measures to improve steel and military production, even as their citizens starved. Although estimates vary, most put the death toll between 10 and 30 million.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/m ao.html
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warsta t1.htm#Mao

Practical Implementation

The US holds vast economic and political resources, putting it in a prime position to implement effective foreign policy.

-Incentives for US companies to build factories in these nations. With the exceptions of extremely hostile nations like North Korea, this offers local citizens the promise of work and a stable income.

-Affirmative Action and government scholarships for foreign students. For example, a US law that provides grants to colleges for enrolling Iranian students, and scholarships to said students. This will appeal to the Iranian government, since it gives their best and brightest access to some of the finest research institutes in the world - putting them in a position to improve their economy.

-Public acknowledgment of a positive relationship. Rather than accusing these nations of "evil" and "terror", the government should send a clear sign that it prioritizes human progress and freedom. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the US should still support democracy. But rather than imposing democracy from the top, we have several opportunities to show these nations the effectiveness of a democratic system.

Everyone Wins

Iran gains the economic framework needed to be an influential and important state (a key part of national pride). America gains key partners overseas that can use their economic and creative energies for cooperative purposes. American citizens gain because they no longer have to invest in costly and inefficient wars to conquer these nations outright.

A central issue to many of the debates on the politics forum is energy - generation, limitations, or use. Yet many people have misconceptions or unanswered questions about what energy really is, and what all of the stories really means. This thread is created to serve as a reference, to make the political issues related to energy and power more clear and understandable.

What is energy?

Energy is the ability to change motion. Energy is the ability to stop a moving car, get up in the morning, or shoot a rocket into space. More interestingly, energy can be very quantitatively measured and calculated.

Objects have two kinds of energy: potential and kinetic. Kinetic energy is the motion of an object. Potential energy can be freely converted into kinetic energy, and kinetic can become potential.

How do we measure energy?

In the metric system, energy is measured in a basic unit called a "Joule".

If you want to experience what a joule is, take something that weighs one pound. Raise it 3 inches above the ground. Drop it. Congratulations, you have just converted one joule of gravitational energy into heat energy.

As you can probably tell, that's not a whole lot of energy. A joule is an extremely small unit of energy

Another nice place to see this in action is food. The Calorie is a unit of energy, and one calorie is 4184 Joules. Yep, that's the same Calorie you see on food labels. So in each day (assuming you follow the 2000 calorie a day guideline), you should consume about eight million joules of energy each day!

Is energy the same thing as electricity?

Electricity is an easy way to transport and use energy, but it is not the only form.

Are power and energy the same thing?

No, energy is a measure of the ability to change motion. Power is a measure of the change in energy.

What's a watt? Is a watt a measure of energy?

No, the watt is a measure of power. Power is energy per unit time: Joules per second, the same way speed is measured in miles per hour.

Speed is how much you change your position in a certain amount of time. Likewise, power is how much you change your energy in a certain amount of time.

So if a power plant makes 1000 KW, that means it makes 1 million joules of energy every second. (Remember that the K means multiply by 1000).

What's a volt? Is a volt a measure of energy?

No. Volts = energy per charge.

Is infrared radiation the same as heat?

No. Infrared radiation is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Basically, when at atom gets excited, and full of energy, it sometimes will decide to give off electromagnetic radiation. The hottest molecules give off the highest energy radiation, while the cooler molecules give off lower energy radiation.

http://cdn.libsyn.com/astronomy/ems510 .jpg

What we call "light", is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that our sun gives off. A hotter sun would give off higher energy radiation, and cooler objects give off lower energy radiation.

Normal, everyday objects, like you or me - are full of lots of excited little molecules. But since we're all a tad bit cooler than the sun, the radiation that we give off has less energy than the sun's visible light. So we give off infrared radiation.

Since everyday objects emit infrared radiation, it is a useful tool for finding heat. Infrared is caused by heat - it is not the same thing.

What is temperature?

Everything around you - even you! - is made up of lots of tiny molecules. But these molecules are not staying in position. Rather, they are rapidly moving and jiggling around - bumping into each other. Temperature is a measure of how much of this "jiggling" there is (per unit mass).

Can I build a perpetual motion device?

No. In a closed system, there's only a certain amount of kinetic and potential energy. Since energy can't come out of nowhere, eventually your device will start to decay until it is completely random.

If I have two magnets, and I let them fall towards each other, am I creating energy out of nothing?

No, the magnets have electromagnetic potential energy that is turned into kinetic energy when you let go and let them hit each other. To give them back that ability to cause motion, you'll have to move them apart, putting in your own energy.

In other words, they have potential energy, which can be converted into kinetic energy. To get them to create more kinetic energy, you'll have to bring in outside energy (maybe from your hand).

How do hydrocarbon (fossil fuels) work?

Oil, coal, or any of your other favorite fossil fuels are large molecules composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms.

These large molecules share amongst themselves many electrons, and have a great deal of electromagnetic potential energy (since electrons repel each other, and want to get farther apart).

In the presence of oxygen, these hydrocarbons break apart and form Carbon Dioxide and water. In the carbon dioxide and water molecules, the electrons get to be closer to the protons, and farther from other electrons. Because they get closer together, some of their electromagnetic potential energy is converted into kinetic energy (hence the reason why molecules undergoing combustion are very hot). Some of the energy is also converted into electromagnetic radiation (hence the reason why fires tend glow and emit light).

How does solar power work?

Since light (and all electromagnetic radiation for that matter)

How does hydroelectric (dam) power work?

Light from the sun strikes water molecules on the Earth. This electromagnetic potential energy (all light is, really) excites the water molecules, and turns them into gas (something we see as evaporation). With more kinetic energy, the water molecules bounce up towards the atmosphere, and eventually condense as clouds. When it rains, much of the water falls in the mountains, and flows downward into rivers. These rivers are dammed, and the water flowing down spins a turbine.

In short:

1. The electromagnetic energy of the sun's light is converted into kinetic energy for the water particles
2. The kinetic energy of the water particles is converted into gravitational potential energy
3. That is converted back into kinetic energy of flowing water
4. Electrical potential energy is generated by the turbines

How does nuclear fission work?

If you ever get the chance to look at a periodic table, you'll see that Plutonium and Uranium are extremely large and massive. The centers of Plutonium and uranium atoms are full of protons, which, as you remember, repel each other. This makes these molecules highly unstable, since they're composed of particles that are trying to get away. Imagine trying to stick the South ends of twenty magnets together, and you get the idea.

In high energy situations (nuclear bomb or power plant), the protons in the nucleus are able to escape. Since they are repelled by lots of other protons, they gain a lot of kinetic energy (speed). We see this as an explosion and a shockwave.

How does nuclear fusion work?

There is an attraction between protons and neutrons called the "Strong Nuclear Force". In small atoms like Hydrogen, where there is only one proton in the nucleus, the atom is actually somewhat unstable - since it mostly lacks this binding "glue".

Because of this, protons like to get closer to neutrons, the same way the Earth and the sun try to get closer together. Nuclear fusion is bringing two hydrogen atoms together and converting that potential attraction into motion.

This was intended to be written for a general audience. If anything was unclear or difficult to understand, please do not hesitate to inform me so I can work on correcting the problem. Also if I made any mistakes or errors, I apologize.

My email is Alex6200@gmail.com

alex6200@gmail.com