Slashdot Mirror

Fossil fool plants also cause bird deaths. Y'know, science...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

I'm not sure what you mean. The lunar temperature varies depending on whether it is directly within the sun or not to about 260 F or as low as -280 F https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html. Average isn't so useful in that context, but such as they've been estimated, the average is substantially lower than Earth https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869. More to the point, Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth is from the Sun, so even if the moon were the same temperature as Earth, that wouldn't matter much here.

I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?

Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.

Poor baby. When I have more time, right now I'm just zoning from some really hard stuff I'm doing. BTW, this is not your best work Mr AC.

All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.

I don't care what you think and I'm not going to be subscribing to the false reality of the accusations you're trying to impose in your inverted ad hom attack, especially after just telling me to STFU. Suddenly any respect I may have afforded you just disappeared.

As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.

First get your head around this and when you are finished get your head around this. You'll find it's reviewed by (IIRC) ten major universities with nuclear energy systems specialization.

You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims.

I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I hope your narcissistic rage calms before you sink into a deep depression for the next few weeks.

And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.

I won't be play trite words games with your disingenuity. Every sincere person who suffers from this ism and genuinely educates themselves about the nuclear industry comes to the same conclusion - because there is no other conclusion to come to once you do. However now it would seem you are something new, perhaps I am looking at a true Nuclear Narcissist suffering Nuclear Narcissism, this must be what happens to ideologues who have their social proof shattered by truth.

You have your citations now, go read them and educate yourself as I can't see you contributing anything more of value to this conversation.

That kids that use cell phones more are also the ones who aren't training figural memory.

Well, according to TFS, it's apparently especially the kids that hold the phone to their right ear that "aren't training" their figural memory. Funny how that works.

Also curious how the effect was only observed for calls, with one of the referenced articles stating:

No exposure-response associations were observed for sending text messages and duration of gaming, which produces tiny RF-EMF emissions.

I'll just go ahead and provide the answer, since it is incineration.

Your complaint about having a sub-100% recovery rate vs. a 0% recovery rate on supercapacitors is what, exactly?

Maybe someday we'll have recyclable EV batteries, but right now we just have recyclable battery cases and electrodes.

Wow, they only recycle parts that comprise the majority of the mass and represent the rarest, most valuable, most energy-intensive components of the cells. How horrific!

Compare this to traditional flooded-cell automotive batteries, where literally every part of the battery is recycled

Wrong. While some plants recycle all or part of the plastic, in most, the plastic components are landfilled. The smelting dust / slag is also landfilled. As the slag contains a lot of lead contamination, this sends a lot of lead contamination into landfills. The slag comes from recycling the battery paste, which requires sodium carbonate and iron, and creates sodium sulfate, iron oxide and CO2 as waste products. There's generally also significant SO2 emissions (scrubbers usually remove part of them, but in China rates of scrubbing are highly variable). As for the acid, in some plants it's sent off for purification and recovery, but it's more commonly simply neutralized, which consumes caustic and creates lead-contaminated sulfate salts. These are then theoretically sent to strip the lead out, but in the 3rd world this step is often either poorly done or not done at all. Some plants sell these salts onward (such as for detergent manufacture), but because of stringent lead requirements from buyers, the salts are most commonly dumped into sewage.

the most aggressively recycled consumer product on the planet

In China, at least, 30-40% of lead-acid batteries are recycled illegally in an environmentally destructive manner.

I want you to stop and think again about the oft-cited 99% lead recovery rate from lead-acid battery recycling. Ignoring places that perform illegal, dangerous recycling... think of what having 1% of the lead in all of the world's lead-acid batteries going into landfills, air, sewage, and other products means. Given how quickly every of the world's ICE vehicles goes through a lead-acid battery.

To expand upon this, Nigeria does have pretty substantial oil reserves that are actively being exploited, yet one of this weeks' headlines was that it surpassed India as the country with the most people living in poverty. Score one for the unregulated free market!

Als, GP should probably read up on the resource curse. Norway is possibly the first country to entirely avoid it; how they did it makes for an interesting study.

That is a lie, and you are a liar [newscientist.com].

Being able to count "nuclear fatalities" on one's fingers is hyperbole at best! As you source establishes, we can be fairly certain that there have been at least 43 deaths from the Chernobyl accident:

Two decades ago, John Gittus of the Royal Academy of Engineering told the UK government there could eventually be around 10,000 fatalities. Today, some – notably environmental groups – put the death toll well into six figures.
But that’s the extreme end of the estimates. “The only deaths that have been firmly established, either individually or statistically, are the 28 victims of acute radiation syndrome and 15 cases of fatal child thyroid cancer,” says Wade Allison of the University of Oxford.
... a 2006 study by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. This predicted that by 2065 Chernobyl will have caused about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers, compared with several hundred million cancer cases from other causes.
Agreement is unlikely any time soon.

That's more fingers than I have in any case, I don't know about OP.

Chernobyl killed/is killing at least 4,000 people [ourworldindata.org]

Against OP's more reasonable claim, that "[n]uclear is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels," this figure of 4,000, or indeed any other number, of potential deaths is fairly meaningless unless we also quantify deaths due to fossil fuel usage. The source you quote offers this assessment:

The potential risks of nuclear energy are real: in both Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths occurred as a result of direct nuclear impacts, radiation exposure and psychological stress. Nonetheless, of the two largest nuclear disasters, the death toll was of the order of thousands to tens of thousands in one, and thousands in the latest. Arguably still too many, but far fewer than the millions who die every year from impacts of other conventional energy sources.

Fukushima will have killed at least 400 people due to radiation exposure ...

Careful here! Your source reads: "The WHO project the number of deaths from low-level exposure to be close to zero, and up to 400 in upper estimates. It is not beyond possibility, and indeed looks increasingly likely, that there will be "close to zero" deaths due to radiation exposure. Paradoxically, the evacuated Fukushima residents will probably enjoy far lower mortality, especially from thyroid cancer, than normal, due to the extremely thorough screening (and relatively high treatability) to which this cohort is subject.

... not to mention the 1,600 who died due to the evacuation. You have to count those people, because they only had to be evacuated because it was a nuclear plant.

Well ... This paper calculates the only 25% of those evacuated "had to be evacuated because it was a nuclear plant." OP might well argue in reply that three quarters of those deaths are the result of "you anti-nuke people just [not] get[ting] it," (aka misinformed overestimation of the danger of low-level exposure). So be careful with this one too.

Finally in terms of relative safety we need to take into account Kharecha and Hansen's study which suggests that "that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net [i.e. taking into account estimates of potential nuclear fatalities] deaths worldwide between 1971-2009."

You're also engaging in the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Fossil fuels are also da

Studies have shown that a reasonable level of mature language shows intelligence, not a lack of.

No. The study showed that people who are fluent at swearing are not necessarily displaying a general lack of fluency with language.

Hydrogen fusing into helium isn't sustainable on stellar scales either. Eventually we'll have the heat death of the universe.

On human scales, the sun isn't going to run out of hydrogen and we're not going to run out of uranium. For the next couple of billion years anyways.

We may outpace the method of production. Uranium is renewed through soil erosion, as I mentioned before. At an extremely rough guess (0.84 * (6*10^21) * (2.1*10^-8)) there is approximately 10^14 tons of uranium on the planet earth. Or 100,000,000,000,000 tons. Which sounds like a lot, but not compared to the 600,000,0000,000,000,000,000 tons of the planet.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (they helpfully include mass)

Only a tiny fraction of that 10^14 tons is accessible, but it is constantly being exposed, eroded, and settling back to the earth. We can harvest probably couple tens of millions of tons of uranium if we really needed. 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, so figure we'd get single digits millions of tons of uranium processed into LEU. We currently use about 50 thousand metric tons per year. Currently, but even multiplying that number by any reasonable amount, we're not gonna put a dent in that 10^14. We KNOW we can harvest uranium from seawater. It's just currently/previously cheaper to conventionally mine. Now it's cheaper than we thought. And we previously had 240 ish years of proven reserves.

tl;dr = Earth is really really big. With a lot of surface. And erosion is nature's strip mining. We can advantage of that for an extremely long time.

Mapping the helium-3 distribution on the Moon is a worthy scientific endeavor - it will tell us much about how the solar wind interacts with the lunar surface.

But promoting the project for its "nuclear fuel" potential is so out of line with reality that it is deception, pure and simple.

First there is no prospect of building a helium-3 reactor. We currently cannot build a power-producing fusion reactor using the easiest fuel, deuterium-tritium, even though is reaction rate is ten thousand times faster than He-3/D at plausible temperatures.

Second we already can accurately forecast that when we can build a fusion reactor that uses that easiest to burn D-T fuel it will not be able to compete with any commercial source of electricity. The capital and operating costs of such a plant place the electricity cost at about ten times what wholesale electricity has been selling at for decades (an inflation adjusted current $30/MWh). This recent paper (accessible through Sci-hub) places the economics of a D-T plant in the best possible light and comes up with electricity costs due to the high capital cost of $175-$312 MWh*. Remember that He-3 fusion is ten thousand times harder, and we now have to mine the fuel on the Moon.

The only theoretical advantage of He-3 fusion is the lack of neutron emission from the main reaction (side reactions would still produce some). This would greatly reduce the neutron damage that requires periodic replacement of parts in D/T (or D/D) reactor, and greatly reduce the radioactive waste produced from neutron activated components. These are not major contributors to the projected cost of fusion power (the paper above assigns $14/MWh for these combined, 5-8% of the projected costs), so greatly reducing them does little to improve it.

And long before we can build a working He-3/D reactor, we will be able to build a D/D reactor using cheap, plentiful deuterium, available for a few thousand dollars a kilogram on Earth in effectively unlimited supply. The D/D reaction is "only" a few hundred times harder than D/T.

*The paper ultimately claims that it would be competitive, when externalities are costed, mostly by assigning very high externality costs to every other form of power, and assumes that all of that will be some day captured in electricity pricing. Its treatment of on-shore wind, and solar PV is especially suspect since it assigns levelized costs per MWh, 40 years in the future, that are several times higher than current, demonstrated costs now. This is a lot of special pleading.

Just wondering if there is an expert here who can translate these levels.

It was recently reported that India's water supply in the Punjab region has concentrations of Uranium as high as 579 ug/l, well above permissible WHO limits of 30 ug/l. Measurements as high as 1440 ug/l have occurred elsewhere in India. As one point of reference, New York's water was reported to have a high of 0.1ug/l though the US as a whole was stated to have an average of 1.17 ug/l which means there are some places higher. Finland had the highest number with 6000 ug/l as their max.

But, given that a liter of seawater is about 1025 grams, seawater at 3.3 parts per billion uranium/seawater would seem to translate to 3.22 ug per liter of freshwater.

This would seem to indicate that many regions of the world have far higher concentrations of uranium in their groundwater than what is present in seawater.

The statement that their is 500 times more Uranium in seawater than on land could still be true because groundwater is a small portion of land and there is so much more seawater than groundwater. But it would seem that the best application of the technology due to higher concentrations available would be in cleaning the Uranium out of some of our groundwater supplies. That would help the people in those areas while providing a large portion of the Uranium to meet the world's needs. A region using a billion gallons of water a day (I don't think this is an unusual number for 10 million people or so,,, NYC is higher) is using over 8 billion pounds of water. If its uranium concentration is high enough that filters made of this material could extract a few hundred pounds per billion, you could reach tons per day.

Replacing the entire world demand of around 70,000 tons per year does not appear achievable without processing the much lower concentrations in seawater, but I guestimate by looking at tables of groundwater concentrations around the world that half of the world supply could be achievable and it could help pay for providing fresh water.

My question is whether I am translating ppm to ug/l correctly. If ppb is ppb of weight, I think it is correct. But if it is ppb of atoms, then it is way off because a Uranium atom weighs so much more than the average atom in seawater. Does anyone know?

Research on extracting uranium from seawater using polymer matrix materials has been going for decades, with significant progress. The projected cost of extraction has fallen to as low as $350/kg, which is actually less than the peak spot market price of uranium hit in 2007, but higher than the 10 year average of about $100/kg.

This paper does a nice survey of this work up to about 2014, and does not include this most recent project. You can use SciHub to get the whole article but the abstract I link to provides a good summary of its key points which are:

• Adsorption capacity was the largest driver of cost.
• A higher capacity did not necessarily mean a lower cost.
• Many substrates were employed: polyethylene was the most widely and recently used.
• Passive mooring systems were more economical than pumping seawater systems

The abstract gives a price range of $400-$1000/kg but if you read the paper the lower bound is really about $350, and obviously only the most cost-effective systems are going to be candidates for eventual commercial use. This latest work cited in TFA uses (potentially recycled) acrylic, and the focus seems to be on finding a better cost/performance ratio, whereas most of the research has focused primarily on performance. I would like to see this work put into context with all the other work that has been done, to see exactly what the advancements/benefits are.

But that won't be for a long time. We have proven uranium reserves on land good for over 100 years at current rates of use before the price will rise to $350/kg. The world produced $75 billion of electricity from nuclear power last years (at $30/MWh wholesale price) and the cost of the uranium to fuel it was $6.8 billion (using the ten year average price). At $350/kg the cost would be $24 billion, a significant increase in total electricity cost, but in the context of the trillions of dollars of economic output that runs on that electricity, one that could easily be absorbed. But the uranium in seawater is a 13,000 year supply, so it will not run out on any relevant timescale.

And if and when we need to use seawater uranium, one can expect that that $350/kg figure can be driven lower, with an additional century of research and a sustained focus on commercialization.

If you value students' lives, build smaller schools so that the students know each other and so that the adults can recognize all their faces. We didn't have school shootings before schools got so large that the adults no longer were able to know not only their students but the whole school population. Drawing students from many neighborhoods to a distant, alien school doesn't help. Go back to a 1960's-era model of small, neighborhood schools.
Research indicates that school size is a predictor of mass shootings: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331917300241
If you need facial recognition tech to police your students, you have already failed by creating schools so large that human beings cannot recognize students' faces.

I think that's for momentum scaling. But impact craters generally scale with energy. A portion of the projectile's energy is transferred to the target and excavates a crater (O'Keefe and Ahrens, 1977). So the excavated crater scaling is really somewhere between momentum and energy. The pi-scaling relation's give a weak dependence of crater diameter on energy D ~ KE^0.22 (Melosh, 1989), or D ~ v^0.44. I believe depth-to-diameter ratio is more or less constant (Nagel and Fechtig, 1980), at least for simple craters. So you'd get a similar scaling for depth on velocity. Of course, 2 km/s is hardly even hypervelocity, so this scaling might not even apply yet.

(I know, these are some pretty ancient references.)

We've done the experiment side-by-side in Germany and Korea: same populations, starting at the same level of development.

We've done the experiment with free market countries turning into socialist countries and failing, in Cuba and Venezuela among many others.

And it's been shown that this isn't just an all-or-nothing effect, but that "levels of freedom relating to use of markets and property rights appear to be driving the causal relationship between economic freedom and growth."

While you are certainly correct that pot is incredibly unlikely to be helpful here you veer into some pretty heavy scare tactics that dont have a lot of truth to them.

"". In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances [americanad...enters.org]"

For starters, medical pot is legal in more states than not so why are we assuming the purchase would be illegal? After that, a small amount of critical thinking quickly brings up the question, why would some one selling weed spend money lacing their product and not tell the person buying? Your own link even states there's no data on the subject.

Here's a nice snopes link debunking the latest panic of fentynal laced weed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

"And stop claiming that marijuana is harmless. I see too many people land in our ED as a result of this type of self-medication."

While, much like drinking, there are those who will do truely stupid things while high pot is far safer than every day activities like sober driving or manual labor professions.

While you are certainly correct that pot is incredibly unlikely to be helpful here you veer into some pretty heavy scare tactics that dont have a lot of truth to them.

I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to? I have not referred to any well publicized and likely misleading sources used by the war on drugs - I have not referenced the usual claims of lowering IQ or as a gateway drug even though it is reported in a peer reviewed journal. I specfically avoided such sources because I knew someone would attempt to discredit them. What I have given you is clinical experience (19 years now) of issues that I have encountered with actual patients that I have treated. I have had people so strung out on drugs that they failed to recognize a decline in their health that made their condition worse. I have stuporous individuals who have serious medical derangements that we could not determine from their history (they weren't able to talk or were exhibiting paranoia) or from physical exam (they were so out of it I couldn't get they to react to any exam or they refused to cooperate with the exam) Related reference here. It is still illegal to drive after using marijuana in Colorado and California.

In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances [americanad...enters.org]"

For starters, medical pot is legal in more states than not so why are we assuming the purchase would be illegal? After that, a small amount of critical thinking quickly brings up the question, why would some one selling weed spend money lacing their product and not tell the person buying? Your own link even states there's no data on the subject.

Here's a nice snopes link debunking the latest panic of fentynal laced weed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

While an increasing number of states are allowing "medical marijuana", there are very few registered patients in most states (

You might have missed the news on CD awhile back, ask your doctor if he/she knows what causes Crohn['s]

This is a very interesting article and they may be on to something, but it is far from the first time Crohn’s disease has been attributed to microbes. They make a good argument, but I don't think that this closes the case yet. They specifically note that this is for "Familial Crohn’s Disease" and not all cases are familial. This was also a study that only looked a 9 family, with an n of 20, so this is not a very large study, and these are likely geographically co-located (but they did not give a lot of data on that). I'll avoid a long history of the disease and just place the gentle reminder that correlation is not causation (and in medicine the level of evidence for proof is often much higher than in other sciences). A lot more research needs to go into this - but investigating the complex relations in the gut biome is probably going to yield some very good insights.

So I'll continue with my standard answer for Crohn's that "we still don't know for sure" - but we're getting closer.

There's more subtle experiments that can show the effects of external influences on people's thinking, e.g. enclothed cognition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

There's no evidence such tests aid in education.

I was rather skeptical of this claim (typically, though not always, something isn't done for no reason at all) so I did some quick Google searches.

I don't believe your claim is true from the following: https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/03/11/do-higher-satact-scores-indicate-college-readiness/, https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2016/10/34716_Kwon_Jamie.pdf, and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090148/ which showed among the top results when searching for whether or not these tests were correlated with college GPA.

The short answer is that yes, they are correlated. Are they a perfect measure of success, of course not. It's pretty easy to come of with a plausible example of a person with a high score that has been driven by their parents all their life coming unraveled in college because they never learned to function for themselves, or an instance where someone did poorly in school in their youth or teens due to a terrible home situation that begins to excel once they're in college and removed from that environment.

If you wanted to show that these tests were useless you'd want to show that any of their predictive ability can also be captured by some other measurement (e.g. high school grade, ASVAB, midichlorian count, etc.) that does could be used as a prediction for success. However, as it's unlikely for any one thing to be a perfect predictor, using these tests is probably useful. There was even one study that found the ACT/SAT to still posses predictive ability after controlling for general intelligence measurement aspects of the test. The study is paywalled so I can't read it to determine if it's actually any good, but that's what's being claimed.

If you have a test that's supposed to measure educational attainment and it does a reasonably good job of that (which you could check based on comparisons with high school GPA) and you find it isn't correlating well to college outcomes, you might want to check what the hell it is you're teaching in college. If there's no difference in outcome between people at the very top of the SAT and those at the very bottom for a course, I'd question if it has any educational value. We could probably come up with an easy example where we have a course the assign's grade based on height. It's possible that there may be a correlation (suppose people with better nutrition are on average taller and smarter as a result of physical development, which makes sense) between test score and height, but it's unlikely. We can see that ACT/SAT would have no predictive ability for success, but that doesn't mean those tests are useless, just that the course is worthless in terms of education content.

Of course you don't want to use these tests as the only factor either. I've known plenty of people with what could be described as some type of test anxiety who are incredibly brilliant, but buckle under pressure or when put on the spot. In and ideal world, we'd identify those students and help correct this problem early in life, but we're clearly not there yet. So while we shouldn't use these tests of tests as the sole criteria for college admission, it's completely false to say that they have no ability to measure educational outcome. Maybe if you're handing out degrees in underwater basket weaving, then having a good ACT/SAT score does fuck all for students, but you're probably not going to find a lot of doctors, engineers, programmers, etc. that have scores in the bottom quartile for those tests.

It would be interesting to compare that to a Ni-Fe battery with the additional equipment for automated maintenance.

Human (and to a lesser extent primate) brain size has been related to a repeating gene group error

just sayin...

I'd rather live near a nuke plant and far, far away from any large grid scale solar installations. I don't want to deal with any of the heavy metals that would leach off of the panels, no matter how slowly they leach.

This paper simulates leaching in a landfill by crushing the panel and running an acidic solution over it. When they did that, they found the leachate to be far over the federal limits for heavy metal content. But when it wasn't acidic, there was minimal contamination.

Given that large grid scale solar installations aren't a) crushed and b) having acidic fluid run over them continuously, I think you can stop worrying about leachate.

By all means, avoid living near a solar panel recycling or disposal facility. But also don't live near a facility that makes or disposes of any other electronics, because you'll have the same issue.

...I immediately started to Google for 'Climate goats'.

The advantages of goats for future adaptation to Climate Change: A conceptual overview

Is graphene safe?

"We do not yet know whether graphene flakes can become airborne and inhaled in a form that is dangerous during use."

Are carbon nanotubes the next asbestos?

"The difference with asbestos was that the hazards were not known or ignored; large-scale use meant large-scale production, resulting in emissions that weren't properly controlled, which in turn caused exposure at unsafe levels and then widespread disease. This should never have happened and should never again happen."

Where as rural areas need you to buy the 5000sq ft mcmansion that costs $1500/mo in mortgage payments on top of $5000/mo in car, fuel and maintenance costs.

No, in actual rural areas, that 5,000 sq. ft. "McMansion", as you called it, costs about $180,000. That's only $908 per month.

And nobody in rural areas spends $5,000 per month on a car. Some folks don't even spend $5,000 on a car, period. Also, gas prices are a buck a gallon lower than in California, so even if you drive half again farther, you break even. Also, your license plate costs you $27 instead of a grand.

So when it comes to resources, the planet maximum was about 4 billion. We're at 8+ Billion. We're going to start seeing wars over clean water, and we've seen first-hand what this looks like in California already, where the farmers plant highly inefficient crops (almonds) , because they're the most profitable, but suck the water supply dry. California at least has the option to use desalinized water for non-irrigation (using it on crops will reduce the size of them, and eventually render the soil useless.)

Come again? Desalinization is not used for irrigation because of the high cost, not because it damages the soil. In fact, both Spain and Israel use desalinized water for irrigation routinely, and Spain is making plans to dramatically increase their desalinization output for agricultural use.

Further, there's no reason to believe that we are anywhere near the maximum capacity of this planet. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling something. Does this mean that population growth is zero-risk? Of course not. There's always the possibility that the world could stop trying to innovate and solve the problems that population growth causes, in which case yes, we would eventually be screwed. But realistically, that's what people do, so concluding that we're screwed basically requires completely ignoring everything that makes us human. I'm just not willing to do that, and you shouldn't, either.

CO2 will increase heat in the atmosphere; that's not a question at all. Basic physics and such. However, most AGW models set the feedback sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 at 3K, when in actually seems to be about 1.1 K. That would also explain why most AGW models run hotter than measurements and need to be constantly "retuned" to fit the past (and continue to fail predicting the future).

Not this "time is quantised" nonsense again. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Super infections are common.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

That would make sense, actually ...

Radio waves have been used to promote wound healing. It was mentioned in the earlier thread discussing the pre-publication draft of this study.

I know of a study in which simulated cell phones were shown to promote the frequency and growth of tumours in mice that had been deliberately given cancer. That study confirms an earlier study. What would make this more credible is that this group's job in general has been to replicate junk science about RF to prove it wrong.
The point here is that small tumours that have been caused by other sources than cell phones are more likely to survive the onslaught of the body's immune system and be able to grow to become life-threatening.

I'm just posting these here for further discussion. I'm not a physician or biologist myself, and not a kook either. So don't shoot the messenger, OK?! Do let those who are knowledgeable enough to comment something useful comment instead.

Here is the article which the Nature summary linked in the ./ summary summarizes.

The Nature summary links to that article and states "The new AI tool, developed by Marwin Segler, an organic chemist and artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Münster in Germany..." Weirdly, Segler is not listed as an author on the article and none of the article's authors are at Münster. Even stranger, Segler is not even cited.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Yea... we don't share a common vocabulary and text has it's limits.

Read these and then try to read my statement below them in light of them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

https://www.fasciablaster.com/...

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Note especially:

Massage Treatment

Each subject received a total of eight 30-minute massage therapy sessions during the 4-week treatment period. Two massage therapy sessions were administered each week and were separated by at least 48 hours. Massage therapy treatments were conducted by certified massage therapists, each with a minimum of 1000 hours of training and with 3 to 21 years of professional practice. A standardized, precise 30-minute massage treatment protocol was developed, refined, and practiced by each therapist for 4 weeks before the study began. The treatment protocol consisted of 6 distinct phases within the 30-minute time frame; brief descriptions of each phase follow.

Phase 1â"preparatory tissue warm-up

(3 minutes) included bilateral pressure moving from the lower cervical region to the occiput. This procedure was repeated, with completion of 3 passes bilaterally.

Phase 2â"myofascial release

(5 minutes) included 3 palmar glide passes each over the deltopectoral, deltoid, and posterior deltoid regions bilaterally. Additionally, 3 passes with a soft fist contact were made from the occiput to the lateral shoulder along the upper trapezius bilaterally.

Phase 3â"axial cervical traction

(2 minutes) included application of manual axial traction with 1 hand under the head and neck and the other hand on the forehead. Gentle traction was applied with the head first slightly flexed, then with slight right lateral flexion, and finally with the head in slight left lateral flexion. Traction was held for 15 seconds in each position.

Phase 4â"trigger point therapy procedure

(15 minutes) consisted of scanning palpation of the upper trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, suboccipital, splenius capitis, levator scapulae, and temporalis muscles to locate and manually treat trigger points.16 When located, active trigger points were treated by pincer or flat palpation with just enough pressure to elicit referred pain or autonomic referral phenomena. That pressure was maintained on the trigger point until the client reported that the referral pain had dissipated or for a maximum of 2 minutes. Pressure on the active trigger point was then slowly eased to elicit a vascular flushing. This procedure was repeated 3 to 5 times on each trigger point. Typically, 6 active trigger points were treated in the time allotted.

Results
A decrease in both frequency and duration of chronic headaches.

(But also notice a small sample size for this study. /shrug)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

----

Okay, so in light of those:

Imagine your entire body is enclosed by a layer beneath your skin of soft leathery material which can become less flexible in certain directions and put tremendous pressure on underlying tissues. Pressure applied in directions different than that of the pressure can soften, lengthen, and extend the soft leathery material, reducing pressure on the underlying tissues.

Especially in the case of chronic headaches and migraines this can reduce the duration and intensity of headaches and migraines ( migraines having nausea, light sensitivity, and visual distortion in addition to pain). In my personal experience, the migraines f

1) This is a press release that was picked up by a minor news service, then picked up by other news services. ... In other words, the study is not to be trusted, and the news release is fake news, at least until a real news agency can thoroughly check something rather than just accept the word of someone that already has a reputation for accepting junk science

The press release refers to a peer reviewed paper in a reasonably reputable journal:

Falcioni, L., et al. "Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission." Environmental research (2018).

You can find the original article here.

It's just a conceptual label. The core claim of the Electric Universe -- the most important -- is simply that we can model cosmic plasmas as laboratory plasmas. Astrophysicists disagree, and instead model them as fluids subject to gravity. Yet, there is no fluid model which can ever accurately explain the behaviors of electricity and magnetism -- so where we see cosmic plasmas conducting, realize that the models in widespread use by astrophysicists today cannot explain this. By contrast, astrophysicists have rigidly stuck to claims that Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality undermine the notion of electricity in space. The recent announcements that electric currents travel along AGN (black hole) jets is an unacknowledged admission that Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality are meaningless conjectures. And those of us who have paid attention to concepts from the plasma laboratory understand that plasma double layers will make Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality meaningless (double layers are what allow the formation of complex macroscopic charge structures in plasmas). But, even though double layers have been definitively observed within both the plasma laboratory and even the Van Allen radiation belts, astrophysicists have refused to classify them as astrophysical entities. There have been a number of observations in recent years where scientists expressed surprise by some observation which was readily explainable with laboratory plasma physics concepts like double layers.

Those who are following the debate can see clearly how this is playing out; those who refuse to track it lack the context necessary to judge the debate's trajectory -- and these are the same people, imo, who have come to accept space as mysterious. Much of the mystery is actually introduced by the idea that gravity is dominating at the larger scales. The electrical cosmology approach generally treats gravity as a localized force which becomes irrelevant at the interstellar scale.

To go into more detail would take many more pages.

The EU arguments about cosmic plasmas can -- and actually have been -- put into mathematical terms by people who have no relation to the Electric Universe at all.

Re: "I have no idea what it is, specifically, that you're upset about that people won't accept as science."

Sort of. What I am actually arguing for is that people should track controversies over time. We need to crowdsource information about controversies, and what I promise is that if we do finally create such a system, it would boost the rate of innovation in the sciences across all disciplines.

The debate over electricity in space is merely a piece of a larger puzzle which speaks to our awkward interactions with scientific claims. That's at least how I view it. It is not the end of the story, and there is a lot of progress which can be made from merely studying the ways that people interact with scientific controversies. This is what I've been doing for 12 years now, and it's how I will design the social network which will eventually fix these problems.

It's important to stress that this is not an idea I came up with last night. My approach was to embed myself into the Thunderbolts Group, and then over the course of many years, I ran their claims directly against their biggest critics + the public. By observing the reactions to the same claims, many times over, you start to observe patterns. The point is not to say that this is all that is important; the point is that the social processes play an inordinate role in how people come to these conclusions. There is very little engagement with actual claims and technical details happening -- and this should to some extent alarm people -- because it should be clear that this is how groupthink can emerge.

Posting anonymously because I can't avoid moderating your post "overrated" (because "huge mistake" is not an option). The abstract you are linking is a different paper, which studies the impact of 50Hz electromagnetic radiation. The paper being discussed now studies the impact of 1.8GHz radiation, eight orders of magnitude higher. The actual link for the paper under discussion is this one.

There are other comments presenting and discussing the flaws of the study, but linking to a different paper is completely misleading.

Meanwhile: "In 2006 [...] aspirin alone accounted for 61 deaths."

Causes ~13% more unnecessary traffic deaths: TRUE
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Right there... in the opening paragraph.

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Right there... in the opening paragraph.

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Air pollution ALONE may have taken more than a million lives. Perhaps that seems trivial in a country of well over a billion people but it's 1/2 the number of people in their standing army

If we look at the population of China at 1.379 billion people vs. the US in 1970, the year the EPA was founded, at 205.1 million the equivalent percentage of the US population in comparison to your 1 million would be 148,730.

According to this publication from MIT, There are an estimated 200K deaths per year in the US that are caused by air pollution.

Even if we go with the same year to look at the population, The US is at 323.1million. The equivalent number of today population would be 234,300. Damn near that many people die per year from air pollution in the US. Hell, in a little over 4 1/4 years, a million people die in the US from air pollution. I'd say they've certainly learned their lesson much faster than the US had, or has for that matter. The EPA was founded 48 years ago and The percentage of US residents that die from air pollution isn't that much better than China is today.

The fractional reserve and the loanable funds theories of banking are both wrong.

How Do Banks Create Money?

JohnnyCalcutta is correct, someone mod him up.

Not necessarily. If the car is burning hydrogen, inhaling the exhaust is just going to make you damp.

NOx is produced by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) with atmospheric oxygen (O2) at high temperatures. So yes, in fact, an engine which burns hydrogen will produce NOx. NOx production is not an inherent property of the fuel, just the combustion temperature. This is why diesel engines have a greater problem with NOx emissions than gasoline engines - they burn more efficiently, but that higher efficiency means higher temperatures, which means more NOx produced.

Hydrogen fuel cells do not produce NOx because they combine the hydrogen fuel with atmospheric oxygen electrochemically, instead of via combustion.

There is a new paper in the journal Measurement that describes what entanglement is. It is not consciousness. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Yeah I might believe that if the other creator of SecureDrop had not also "taken his own life".

Unfortunately for the foil-hatted around here, there is a well researched phenomenon known as "suicide contagion", whereby people who know someone who has committed suicide are themselves at a higher risk of suicidal behaviour -- as high as a 65% increased risk.

Yaz

ORLY?

RLY

Then please show me the source of Damore's conviction that conservatives somehow "tend to be higher in conscientiousness". If that is not an arsepull, then what is?

Why would you question a claim that you could very well look up for yourself? Not very conscientiousness of you.

The reference for his claim, which cites a study and says:

"The best predictor of party preference wasn't any of the socio-demographic characteristics--it was the personality trait "openness," which in the big five model means curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. Openness was tightly linked with voting for the liberal party. The second-best predictor was the personality trait "conscientiousness"--organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party."

Again, "broadband" has been coined independently by several different groups of people. The fact that some used it to describe a specific technology does not change the fact that different people have used it to describe different things. For instance, here is a patent from the 50s for an antenna that uses the term without having anything to do with FDM beyond the fact that radio signals have a finite bandwidth. Here is a paper from 1988 that refers to "broadband" acoustic signals.

The common ground for these definitions is "has a relatively large bandwidth", which would make "broadband" a natural fit. Using the term for internet speeds was a small step since in the domain of radio transmissions an increase in bandwidth generally corellates to an increase in data transmission capacity.

Sorry, try asking on a tech oriented site, rather than a kegster of retards like Slashdot. From my simple reading of summaries like this, it appears as if there are two different reference masses on the satellite, in carefully controlled conditions, their position on board measured to within atoms through what looks like capacitive feedback. The masses are electrostatically adjusted to keep their position. If there is a difference in the adjustment required (the satellite is in freefall, but presumably needs to keep its own position adjusted, in turn requiring the masses to be), this would indicate a difference between gravitational and intertial mass.

Those with such skills likely know it

Nope. 80% of drivers rate themselves "above average".

"Received 27 April 1984, Revised 22 May 1985"

I can think of a billion reasons why your reference study is worthless.

"Do you use your smartphone while driving?" is the only question necessary to prove how bad drivers are today. Self-assessments are now irrelevant.

Those with such skills likely know it

Nope. 80% of drivers rate themselves "above average".

Nah, not really. http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... (tardigrades) http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... (lichens and bacteria)