Slashdot Mirror

Follow up: https://www.livescience.com/47... Life Science article on current mass extinction event.

They're actually fairly common, with about 20-40 air bursts occurring each year. They're pretty evenly distributed. Russia just seems to get a disproportionate number because it has the most land area of any country by almost a factor of 2. It's also got a large population spread throughout that very large land area. The country covers pretty much the same latitude as Canada (second-largest country), but Canada is mostly deserted at higher latitutdes. So that increases the chances of a meteor being seen/recorded over Russia.

It's also worth noting that the ancient Egyptians also witnessed large meteor events and used the material to create jewelry for royalty and ceremonial weapons.

The experiment was about reversing entropy, not actually reversing the flow of time.

That is interesting enough, why make up stupid headlines?

Same thing happened a ways back about some chemist unboiling an egg, which some copywriters (not linked article) tried to make it sound like time was being reversed.

This is important because PTSD is higher in drone pilots.

I don't know why this nonsense keeps getting repeated. Where the fuck did it even come from?

https://www.livescience.com/47...

"About 1,000 United States Air Force drone operators took part in the study, and researchers found that 4.3 percent of them experienced moderate to severe PTSD. In comparison, between 10 and 18 percent of military personnel returning from deployment typically are diagnosed with PTSD, the researchers wrote."

As an added bonus:

"The percentage of drone operators in the study who had PTSD was lower than the percentage of people in the U.S. general population who have the condition"

Never create a weapon that you wouldn't want to fall into the hands of your worst enemy.

That's stupid. I don't want my worst enemy armed with anything at all. If we followed that advice we would have never created a stick.

CO2 levels have been much higher in our planets history. In the days of the dinosaurs we had levels 5 times what we have today.

https://www.livescience.com/44...

In a few centuries we could hit the levels that the dinosaurs lived in at our current rate.

https://www.scientificamerican...

We should take care not to pollute and certainly take care of our one and only planet. That being said the sky is not falling and scaremongering isn't science.

Well, except for the bit of some of it getting into California wine. Or that "Further, most bottles of wine made after 1952 do contain at least a little bit of this nuclear twist." It's almost as if there were something nuclear throwing large amounts of something, something into the air. Thankfully none of that's dangerous levels, but it's not much of a selling point that you need large amounts of water for cooling and so any accident you have could potentially result in detectable traces a quarter a world away.

Seriously, the only reason the US was interested in nuclear power in the past was precisely the massive amounts of waste material the US was creating in its nuclear weapons program. With the US building massive amounts of bombs and fronting almost all the costs of initial collection and processing of fuel, it's little wonder that nuclear power seemed so dirt cheap that it wouldn't need to be metered. Then the 80s happened and just growing the stockpile was seen as a bad idea.

Of course at that point we also started to learn that decommissioning old plants was going to be tons more expensive than original stated, and we still had no idea what to do with all the waste because the US refuses to allow reprocessing it. Even if the US was willing to take up the cost itself of processing the waste, we'd still want to decommission all those older plants and start over. Yet, that's incredibly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it. Should the US buy out all the old nuclear plants to build better designs? I'm not saying NMBY has nothing to do with it, but it has very little to do with it in a lot of areas; I mean, as much as people bitch about fracking, that's happening all over the place and still heavily expanding.

The void is likely a result of a net outflow of ice from the glacier over time

That tends not to carve out voids at the bottom of glaciers. When the terminal end of the glacier moves away, upper portions fracture straight through under tension, creating crevasses. One thing that does erode glaciers from the bottom is melt water. Either dropping to the base of a glacier through crevasses from the surface or due to volcanism underneath the glacier. Melt water is quite evident, so lacking that evidence, it really looks like volcanism.

1. For every turbine erected, cut down a tree, so the total wind blockage remains constant. Ban the planting of new trees.

Even if your comment wasn't completely absurd in the first place, the Earth loses 18.7 million acres of forests per year .
So yeah, there's already plenty of "wind changing" going on, more so than we could ever erect enough windmills to counteract.

I would say that if flowers and other plants can 'hear', they are likely only going to be able to hear things that increase their chances of reproduction and survival.

Flowers responding to sound/vibrations isn't so wild if you think of Venus fly traps, which have small hair-like structures that sense movement and create electrical signals to trigger the trap to close. (Details: https://www.livescience.com/15... ) If there is a survival advantage to detecting and attracting pollinators, then maybe there is a similar mechanism to release nectar or pollen tuned to insect-specific sound frequencies/vibrations.

Armchair science is fun!

I'm sure that 131 degrees Fahrenheit is not hot enough to kill the wee beasties found in a human body.

Doesn't have to. That's not how composting works. You are thinking in terms of cooking which is not what is going on. Composting relies on various thermophilic organisms to consume the decaying matter and they generate heat as a by-product. In fact it doesn't work if it gets too hot and kills the microorganisms. That heat is what is generated by them doing their work. When they have digested the matter the compost cools down again.

We don't use human feces as fertilizer for much the same reasons

No the reason we don't use human feces as fertilizer is something quite different. Compost is quite safe to use and carries no meaningful risk of transmission of harmful pathogens. It's a completely different process with completely different risk profiles.

LOL! It's physically dangerous to bounce a ball and try and throw it through a hoop?

There are more injuries in basketball than there are in any other sport.

prohibitively expensive to get a football and throw it around with friends? Most folks I know drive a car. The difference is I can't do any of that at a world class level.

It seems odd that you'd mock, given that's the context I was referring to. It's dangerous to play pro sports, and it's expensive as well. You probably don't know anyone who can afford to put together a NASCAR team.

The folks making big money in competitive gaming are very good at what they do. I would stand the same chance of winning a game of horse against Steph Curry, or a race against Jeff Gordon as I would a game of Fortnite against Ninja.

I'm not doubting their talent, and the fact that I can't beat them doesn't mean that I'd find it interesting to watch them. I can't do plumbing as good or as fast as a pro, but I wouldn't want to watch a live stream of them installing a sink.

https://www.livescience.com/62...
Artifacts of human or other industrial civilizations are unlikely to be found on a planet's surface after about 4 million years, said Frank and study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. For instance, they noted that urban areas currently take up less than 1 percent of Earth's surface, and that complex items, even from early human technology, are very rarely found. A machine as complex as the Antikythera mechanism â" which is considered to be the world's first computer from ancient Greece â" remained unknown until the development of elaborate clocks in RenaissanceEurope.

One may also find it difficult to unearth fossils of any beings who might have lived in industrial civilizations, the scientists added. The fraction of life that gets fossilized is always extremely small: Of all the many dinosaurs that ever lived, for example, only a few thousand nearly complete fossil specimens of the "terrible lizards" have been discovered. Given that the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens are only about 300,000 years old, there is no certainty that our species might even appear in the fossil record in the long run, they added. [In Images: The Oldest Fossils on Earth]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/s...

âoeOur cities cover less than one percent of the surface,â he says. Any comparable cities from an earlier civilization would be easy for modern-day paleontologists to miss. And no one should count on finding a Jurassic iPhone; it wouldn't last millions of years, Gorilla Glass or no.
There is tons of theories that there has been previous intelligent civilizations prior to our own current one. Hell, NASA is even researching it. You are a moron to just activity dismiss this possibility. Both articles I reference note that artifacts would not survive millions of years.

Do I believe this? Not at the moment. But I am not a moron like some posters here that would refuse to acknowledge the possibility, even if a fucking previous intelligent artifact hit them in the head and was dated to 1,000,000 years of age. Fucking idiots

Morality is a an idea. Nothing more nothing less.

No. It's demonstrably more than that. I'm not claiming any religious justification for it.. But morals and right/wrong are more than ideas... I'm not a philosopher so it's hard to explain.. and this isn't probably the best example or analogy, but maybe it'll at least clarify how I view it..

It's like Karma.. I believe in Karma.. Not because of God or Buddah or whatever, but a simple truth is that if you are an asshole, pretty soon non-assholes aren't going to want to be around you.. Your inner circle will devolve to just assholes.. Assholes are assholes.. Assholes tend to treat each other poorly.. That's why they're assholes..

Good people tend to treat each other well. They generally don't tolerate assholes for long.. Eventually your inner circle is other good people.. Good people don't fuck each other over.. i.e. they aren't assholes to one another.

If you make a habit of screwing over your friends/neighbors/coworkers, you're an asshole.. Eventually only assholes will associate with you and, sooner or later, one will fuck you over... Karma!

Morals have been observed in the other higher primates (Chimps, Orangutans, etc). Give two Chimps the same task but pay one with more pieces of fruit and they know they're getting screwed. They get angry.... Chimps even demand fairness from each other. Not just from humans..

Fairness is not a human construction.. It's a natural phenomenon.

https://www.livescience.com/26...

The end of the solar system is about 122 astronomical units (AU) away from the sun

It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells.

I already know more about them than you appear to.

You yourself need to read up on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (at least), which demonstrates how warmer oceans add moisture to arid regions, just as cooler oceans dry things out. As I said...

Keep up with the research man. My point stands.

https://www.livescience.com/29...

You get jet lag when you cross to a different continent on the other side of the world. Not a single hour. Jeez, Grandpa.

Yeah, who cares about science when you can have snark?

Not to mention statistically significant heart attacks increase during spring time change.
https://www.livescience.com/50...

Undersea volcanoes do not generally have an effect on the sea ice above. They can have more of an effect on glaciers when it's close enough to the surface.

If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.

The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! Volcanoes? Climate Change! Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change!

There is so much turbulence inside a fireball with volumes of gas expanding and compressing faster than sound waves can travel across them. However, with the Sun, there are sound waves that travel across the interior:

https://www.livescience.com/62...

Approximately 1 in 300,000 according to this article (Nature article).

Assuming temperatures were random (and thus the climate isn't affecting the results) and independent, I think you'd be looking at much worse odds. Let's say there were actually 1,000 record cold events as previously claimed, that means there were about 1,970 record warm events (using the 1 to 1.97 ratio). I tried to calculate the probability using those numbers, but the best answer I could get was less than a 0.0001% chance of it being random. Most of my attempts failed because the calculator couldn't handle size of the numbers involved. So, you should probably go with the actually published research in the Nature article, but I thought I'd try to ballpark the "it's a coincidence" odds. The odds are, I think, quite a bit smaller than a 0.0001% chance, but I can't figure out how much smaller right now.

We have known for some time that Antarctica's subsurface lakes are rich ecosystems. This is the first plausible location to look for life on Mars that we have discovered (as opposed to merely hypothesized).

Ice is also relatively easy to drill through, or even penetrated with an ice subterrene.

It will be a much larger operation of course than any lander mission to date, by far.

Or we could just not do it. It really is that simple. Of course, let's ask ourselves why we want killer robots. We're pretty much past the stage of "defense". Nukes & MAD make that pointless. And hell, so did globalization. You don't shit in your own backyard and for the same reason we're not going to go off and start blowing each other away. The damage done would outweigh the benefit. There'll be brush fires here and there but big scale wars are a thing of the past, if only because they rich won't let us wreck their stuff anymore.

Oh, I wish. But I surely do not trust leadership. And there is at least one - but no doubt a few more - who are itching to use nucs. Crazy thing is there are a fair number of people who are actively wishing for a world ending conflict.

https://www.amazon.com/Have-Ni...

https://www.livescience.com/14...

http://www.signs-of-end-times.... Dr. Thomas B. Slater, Professor of New Testament at Mercer University On end times date:

“The end of times is something that we all expect and hope for and look forward to but most Christians aren't in the business of trying to predict that date. They are working toward that date.

I've heard a lot of this hoo-haw from religious people who are happy to have the world end. Of course, they just want to light the fuse so they can be raptured. What a death cult.

But that is what we are up against.

Oh hell - I'm harshing my mellow.

Uh, rats are an invasive species on the islands in question, and we in have HAVE studied what happens when you get rid of them on such an ecosystem.
https://www.livescience.com/40...

If you read the article, it has nothing to do with rat droppings, it has to do with the loss of bird dropping when rats are established as an invasive species complicating birds nesting (or at least nesting successfully) on such islands.

Probably more correct to say "oldest rock color".

No, the oldest confirmed rock on Earth at 4.4 billion years old is a nice blue zircon.

However, the oldest "colour" in the Universe though is technically the Cosmic microwave background. Some of those photons used to be in the visible spectrum but are so old, dating from 300k years after the Big Bang, that the expansion of the universe stretched them into the microwave region. So, if anything, the oldest colour is what we now perceive as the black between the stars and galaxies.

As and ye shall receive: https://www.livescience.com/28...

We should be concerned about the size of the asteroid as the energy contained therein is proportional to the mass, but its proportional to the SQUARE of the speed... so we should be concerned with the size, but fascinated by the speed of the inbound. First,. it cuts down on our reaction time, second, speed is what brings the energy. Did like NM's treatise on Supersonic Lizard tails though: https://www.livescience.com/52... - I think I'd be twice as eccentric with half the cash!!!

I stand corrected that general aviation death rate is 1 per 100K hours. I also got the traffic death rate 100x too high. It is actually roughly 1 death per 100M miles.

However, this article conveniently converts the traffic death rate into hours and still ends up with general aviation deaths 19x higher than traffic per hour. Ant that's very generously assuming that average traffic speed is 50 mph. Again, general aviation includes bizjets, etc, so the accident rate for tiny planes is surely higher than that. And the traffic accident rate is already pretty scary.

Still, ~20x risk doesn't inspire confidence.

Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history.

You're so full of shit.

https://www.livescience.com/59...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The lie that nuclear waste "has never harmed anyone in human history", comes from a industry lobbying group called, "The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information". It is pure horseshit.

PopeRatzo, usually you make sense, but in this case, no.
The post you responded to is about waste from nuclear reactors.
Neither of the links you provided are referring to waste from nuclear reactors.

Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history.

You're so full of shit.

https://www.livescience.com/59...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The lie that nuclear waste "has never harmed anyone in human history", comes from a industry lobbying group called, "The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information". It is pure horseshit.

Here's a good article: https://www.livescience.com/27...

Exerpt:
Medieval religious leaders in Europe did not support the use of zero, van der Hoek said. They saw it as satanic. "God was in everything that was. Everything that was not was of the devil," she said.

Wallin points out that the Italian government was suspicious of Arabic numbers and outlawed the use of zero. Merchants continued to use it illegally and secretively, and the Arabic word for zero, "sifr," brought about the word "cipher," which not only means a numeric character, but also came to mean "code."

I also highly recommend Charles Seife's book "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea".

Enlightenment will come via suffering.

And we still have natural resources.

And our colleges are great, a few years won't impact that.

We have a lot of smart people, but less are coming here than in recent decades.

I'm not knocking anyone on Earth here, just making some generalizations. My kids are in a US based International Baccalaureate program focused on French. I would like them to school in Europe (I've never been).

Anyway, we could see a party-reversal on certain issues as happened around the Civil War (tariffs as the cause I would guess, and propping up already insolvent coal/energy operations is not the best move fiscally):
https://www.livescience.com/34...

Watch the debt and the short term interest rate. A higher interest rate helps savers (retired folk who have been suffering), but it hurts those who borrow (workers). Obviously it's not that simple, but it rhymes.

Oh, the Social Security program recently had to access the trust fund (first time since 1982), but it and Medicare are on the way to insolvency:
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...

Don't get me started on bridges that need repairs... (I kid, I kid)

Its funny you post this in support of the supplement industry who more than pharmaceutical companies fund & lobby politicians to maintain their ability to peddle snake oil with no evidence of efficacy. On the other hand actual medicine is subject to rigorous testing to both ensure safety and efficacy.

If you want to complain about the pharmaceutical you should be complaining about the trend lately for predatory pricing and massive price increases.

The pharmaceutical industry is guilty on all counts. But that's off-topic for this discussion, which is the pharmaceutical industry's stranglehold on advertiser-supported media.

But since you went there, let's point out that it's so disingenuous of you to claim that I'm supporting the supplement industry (I did not), that they lobby more than pharmaceutical companies (laughably wrong), AND defend the pharmaceutical company's supposedly "rigorous testing" that I can only conclude you are employed by or shilling for those pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical contributions VS. Supplement manufacturers. Also, Drug lobby second to NONE

As far as that "rigorous testing"? Yea, it turns out, pharmaceutical companies are fond of only publishing clinical trials that have positive results, while failing to publish trials that show no efficacy or bad side-effects.

Drinkypoo is correct at least as far as the current round of fracking goes. They are injecting absolute crap in the ground, industrial waste and chemicals that they have laying around and can dispose of. If they were in fact using water, even grey water it would be a different story.
Not to mention the link between fracking and earthquakes, which may or may not be true.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fra...
https://amp.livescience.com/62...
https://www.abqjournal.com/151...

"new gif" https://imgur.com/a/0GVpB2s

"newer star-field stabilized gif" https://imgur.com/p05aEhm

"article" https://www.livescience.com/62...

Seems to be a little different. It's a 25 minute video that has been compressed in that GIF, so the effect is 'dramatized'. https://www.livescience.com/62... According to that report, the GIF, impressive as it is, is somewhat misleading.

Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.

No but certain questions are yes and no. For example we don't understand gravity completely but it's "settled" that mass causes gravity and not pixie dust. That doesn't mean that science stops looking at gravity in detail.

No--we know that mass and gravity are connected. We have *guessed* that mass is the cause, but in reality we have no idea.

References: Here and here

Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.

That's as idiotic as saying "yeah smoking has severe consequences, do we need to stop doing it?"

As a full-time employed scientist that has worked in academic, government, and private sector environments: I sure see a lot of people who know about smoking's severe consequences and yet choose to continue doing it. It is a political question. The science question is answered with "there's a consequence". The political question is simply "can we live with that consequence?"

Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).

Bahahahaha. Climate scientists have been studying the inputs for like 50 years and you think they didn't think about this issue or investigated it. Again that's like tobacco companies trying to argue that lung cancer could be caused by other things thus smoking can't be the cause of lung cancer.

You talk about it as though scientists have looked into it, decided it doesn't have an impact, and stopped. Shall I remind you that space weather is a large field employing thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers, and that the government continues to fund research on that very thing?

If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).

Well that's like saying gravity is settled and we don't need to spend any money on LIGO or research on gravity.

Newtonian mechanics and gravity are not the same thing. GP is right; no one does research on Newtonian mechanics, so it is, in a sense, "settled". As in, "this is useful, but not correct enough to continue, especially since the paths of general relativity and particle physics have been opened and prove to be more accurate than Newton's laws."

Interesting you referred to dragons in your post:
https://www.livescience.com/59...

Nerds, for some values of "nerd" actually do change population growth trends. There is a direct correlation between smaller families and economic growth. There are plenty of examples, but a quick search led me to this: https://www.livescience.com/43...

According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today.

It is also worth considering that technology allows people to live in higher density. If the entire population of the world were to live in one area at the same density as people do in New York, then the entire world population could live in a space the size of Texas. https://www.treehugger.com/sus...

There is nothing new in this article, I found a similar article from 2013 https://www.livescience.com/34...

Wtf? Is it global warming or climate change? It's so freaking cold here in Florida I wonder where they're taking temperature readings, maybe in their rectums? Boiling over the scam hasn't taken effect? Remember the coming ice age in the 1970's? All scare tactics no solutions just send more money!

Global Warming leads to more extreme weather conditions. This means while the mean temperature of the planet increases, some parts will get a lot hotter and other parts a lot colder.

I've added emphasis in the quotes

https://www.livescience.com/37...
[...]
Extreme weather is another effect of global warming. While experiencing some of the hottest summers on record , much of the United States has also been experiencing colder-than-normal winters .

Changes in climate can cause the polar jet stream — the boundary between the cold North Pole air and the warm equatorial air — to migrate south, bringing with it cold, Arctic air. This is why some states can have a sudden cold snap or colder-than-normal winter, even during the long-term trend of global warming, Werne explained.
[...]

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-...
[...]
Factors that come into play for regional weather (and indeed global weather) are Earth’s seasons, ocean patterns, upper winds, Arctic sea ice, and the shifting shape of the jet stream (see below). These factors can lead to extreme weather in various portions of northern mid-latitudes—such that some places get tons of snow repeatedly while others are unseasonably warm.
[...]

There is some evidence suggesting that as a species we are on average becoming more stupid https://www.livescience.com/37.... Would it be that much of a surprise if a less intelligent species found simpler music more attractive?

As to sad and angry, well, at a grand scale is there anything much for our species to feel particularly chipper about?

Music reflects the times people live in and we've got a lot of things that need fixing - best get started!!!

see here.. Ben Shapiro is quite possibly the least credible source you could have sited. You can probably email the professor sited (or buy/read his books) if you want more sources.

And it happened between today and the _1860s_, not the 1960s. If you only go back 70 years yeah, you won't find evidence, because you didn't go back far enough. But that was the point, wasn't it?

Also, nice straw man. Whether the Ds & Rs switched sides has nothing to do with the reality of the Southern Strategy. The evidence for which comes from Republican strategists who came clean out of guilt. And that's before we start talking about stuff like how our (heavily supported by Republicans) Drug War is basically a round about way to enforce racial segregation or how all those civil war statues the party's so busy defending were put up in the eras of Jim Crow laws.

Seriously, you can't be this naive. You have to know this stuff. You're either being willfully ignorant to preserve a world view that makes you feel good about yourself or your hoping to join 'ole Benny S. in the popular pass time of making money off the working class by selling them political viewpoints that solve nothing but do separate the working class (there's that Southern Strategy rearin' it's ugly head again).

Here is a list of a few ways to disperse the Earth
https://www.livescience.com/17...

Sounds like you need to go get a job as a pizza delivery driver. You'll change your tune in about a week, 2 at tops.

I don't know. I have been underpaid in the past, and I don't feel I was particularly open to tax fraud then. I will admit that I have never been in particularly high risk of not having enough money to pay my expenses, with solid family support available if necessary, so I might feel different if I was just scraping by.

Is it so strange to think that income should be reported as required? It seems like at least 84% of people agree with in that "they thought it was not acceptable to cheat at all on taxes" according to https://www.livescience.com/81...

It looks like I am in the majority on this one.

Photons with energies in the range 3-10 eV can cause damage to DNA, but can't cause ionisation. Ultraviolet photons have energies in the range 3-1000 eV, so not quite all of them are ionising, but all of them can damage DNA (thus causing cancer).

And even that is only true because the government's definition of "non-ionizing" (10 eV) is arbitrary and wrong, as it is based on the minimum energy needed to ionize Hydrogen or Oxygen. However, other elements ionize at a much lower energy. At the low end, Cesium atoms ionize at only 3.89 eV, which makes the portion of UV that is not ionizing almost nonexistent. In fact, a whopping 86 elements ionize below 10 eV (source: Lenntech), making that limit not just wrong, but alarmingly wrong.

Of those 86, to my knowledge, about sixteen are biologically significant:

• Potassium: 4.34 eV
• Sodium: 5.14 eV
• Lithium: 5.39
• Aluminum (debated): 5.99
• Calcium: 6.11
• Chromium: 6.77
• Titanium (debated): 6.83
• Magnesium: 7.65
• Copper: 7.73
• Cobalt: 7.88
• Iron: 7.9
• Boron: 8.30
• Cadmium (in microscopic sea life): 8.99
• Zinc: 9.39
• Selenium: 9.75
• Arsenic: 9.79

Notice that some of those are pretty critical biologically, like Iron (0.006% of body mass according to Live Science), Calcium (1.5%), Sodium (.15%), and Potassium (.25%). So the so-called "non-ionizing" radiation still has the potential to create ions in materials that are fairly common and fairly important inside your body. And some of the trace minerals like Zinc (0.0032%) and Cobalt (0.0000021%) play a role in gene regulation, so ionizing those elements is probably not a good idea, either.

It depends strongly on the type of metal though. Iron, even in small chunks, is not going to be an issue because it will rapidly oxidise to rust which is readily found naturally.

Or maybe it will.

Turkeys Are Twice as Big as They Were in 1960

Whereas US males went from an average 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 195.7 pounds in 2014, a mere 17.6% gain.

Come on humans. Keep up!

There are plenty of other options for plant life with equivalents to chlorophyll: https://www.livescience.com/13...
Also we usually can only detect light spectrums of the atmosphere, not of the flora on ground.