Slashdot Mirror

Locke2005s statement is in between those numbers, so he's not exactly right or wrong, but it's not bullshit at all.

Counting that way is wonky because we have a very small, high density area in the center of our vision and much lower in the rest. The standard measure of visual acuity (20/20) is resolving one arc minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. If you sit really close to the screen you get a ~50 degrees field of view so 3000 pixel horizontal resolution. But we know some people have down to 20/8 vision, so for them 3000*20/8 = 7500 pixel resolution.

However if you're viewing parallel lines you can get a kind of hyper-acuity called Vernier acuity that even in untrained people go down to 10 arc seconds and 2-3 arc seconds with training. Now 2 arc seconds (1/3600 of a degree) * 50 degrees = 90K, obviously we don't have that many photo receptors but if you want to make a screen of uniform density that's where you're at. It's pretty much irrelevant for viewing normal content though.

With all that said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone claiming a razor sharp 4K movie is fuzzy, unless you're staring at a Snellen chart the main reason they want to go beyond 4K is to be able to crop and re-frame in post. There's lots of other things like dynamic range, color space, color fidelity, frame rate etc. you should work on before going beyond 4K as an end point. Probably the biggest thing is if they can finally manage to make CMOS sensors work with global shutter - that is to say, reading out all the pixels at once instead of line by line, which creates all kinds of distortions when things are in rapid motion.

Fucking idiot. Buying an EV in Norway saves you $8000 per year in taxes. That's not operating costs, that is hard, cash subsidy because you bought an EV. Basically in 4 years, Norway will pay the cost of an ICE for you buy an EV. It's not because they are better - it's because they are fucking cheap compared, due to the tax subsidies.

It's pretty impossible that complex reasoning, creativity, social and emotional intelligence, and sensory perception will ever be done by a machine.

I mean, all that machines can do for creativity now is create art in multiple styles including abstract weirdness like Dali, create photorealistic art based on crude drawings supplied as source material, write shitty stories, and create pop songs. There's no way that they will ever do more than that in the future, right?

I'm sure that they will never be able to sense emotions in people, nor will they replace a therapist. We certainly won't try to get AI to determine if people are likely to be criminals or re-offend if they have been convicted before.

Computers definitely will never be able to see and sort things, smell, recognize songs, or have a sense of touch or feel pain.

It's one thing to lay out soft skills that a lot of people don't have and say that's where jobs lie in the future. It's a whole different ballgame to ignore the fact that computers are already making inroads there, and already are better than some percent of the population at those things. Unless the authors are expecting technology to suddenly go in reverse, they're packing bags for a ship that's already sailed.

Try starting here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Energy return on energy invested is the basic idea: how many barrels of oil do you get if you invest one barrel of oil in production? Shale oil and tar sands are quite a bit below the world average, which means middle east conventional oil must be considerably above that average.

Now, this is my speculation, but a bit of math with fuel prices would probably support it. Oil is a famously inelastic resource, meaning it doesn't really obey the law of supply and demand; demand is pretty much fixed, because transportation isn't something we can easily use less of. So the Saudi's are printing money, but shale oil and tar sands do okay too, even with their crappy EROI, because the price of oil is inflated due to its necessity for our transportation infrastructure. Because of the price of oil is inflated relative to its intrinsic energy value, almost nobody burns it to make electricity.

By the way, the conclusion of that paper is basically that we're screwed unless we improve our energy production technology. Economic prosperity is closely related to EROI; if you have low EROI you spend all your resources trying to produce energy, not much left over for other things. Fossil fuel EROI is all decreasing towards the danger zone. Hydro power has good EROI, but is mostly exploited. Nukes would work, at least for a while. Wind and solar are okay, at least in ideal locations, but need to improve in order to maintain our current prosperity.

Pretty much, yes, Martian atmosphere would appear from the melting of existing CO2 and water ice which would no longer be driven off into space. Global warming would speed the process.

I freely admit to being an optimist.

Our own experiments on Earth with greenhouse gasses and global warming might provide some useful data, although I'd rather experiment on Mars.

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

I don't know why you have an issue with this.

I have an issues with this because, by all my research, you are wrong on this. You have failed to provide a citation proving this, I have failed to find a citation proving this. The math is NOT "right above". You have posted no math that I can see. Indeed, I keep encountering statements in documents that air core transformers can sometimes be preferred in order to prevent Hysteresis and Eddy loses, otherwise known as "iron losses". Air core works better at higher frequencies, Hmm.. I wonder what EV inductive chargers use... Ah yes, high frequencies. 85 kHz seems common, though some are much higher.

2. Coupling factor, as shown by my and your sources, is somewhat independent from the core material used. An iron core transformer CAN be less efficient than an air core transformer. YOUR citations show this.

You will never be as efficient when you terminate your charging system with a transformer (air core or iron core, although iron is more efficient) as compared to a hard-wired connector. Just not going to happen.

What do you meant terminate? The transformer is necessary regardless of connector -whether inductive or hard wired. You're going to need to match wall voltage to what the battery needs, and the best way to do that is with a transformer. It's also hardly the "end" of the circuit. You're still going to need to transform the power from AC to DC, for example, and likely are going to want to smooth it out.

Combined with your insistence that iron-core transformers are always more efficient than Air Core and other issues like seemingly being totally ignorant of the effects of frequency on transformer design, the general necessity to match wall voltage to battery voltage through the use of a transformer, etc... I don't believe that you are actually an EE. You're making too many basic mistakes about physics. If you are an EE, you're probably a very specialized one that doesn't deal with the same issues that will come up in designing an inductive charger for EVs.

I've also told you a couple times what you need to do to convince me.
1. Citations, Sources. I'm not taking your word on this stuff. Note that most of my posts are littered with citations. The one time you tried, you linked to sources that agreed with me!
2. Reasoning that goes beyond the transformer/inductive loop. As I've said, I'm looking at the complete system, not just the loop.

For example, what is your response to this?
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Transportation Efficiency Group
Average efficiency, level 2(240V) charge: 86.4%, level 1(120V): 83.7%.
Interestingly, temperature can change the charge efficiency by more than 2%!
Then the DOE chimes in, with a wireless charging system that is 90% efficient.
Plugless power, is getting 84-90%

The quoted official, Momentum Dynamics, it might be important to note that they've been targeting bus charging - 200kW. So, if the technology scales well, that could be part of their claiming high efficiency.

What's up with wireless EV charging - has an interesting writeup of what's going on under the hood. Though it mostly focuses on the cost, which can be cheaper for wireless? Interesting.

One reason f

More efficient? That's a lie. Flat out. They are not even as efficient. Even your own numbers say so.

Then cite them. Prove your assertion with evidence. At this point you're committing the fallacy of "proof by assertion". IE that you'll prove your argument right if you merely say it enough times.

Meanwhile, well:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vi...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://insideevs.com/momentum...
https://www.businesswire.com/n...

And I don't think you realize that the losses of the inductive charging portion is in addition to the losses of the charger in the first place. It's an additional loss...

Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that they're looking at "wall to battery" efficiency. Wired chargers have losses as well. It could very well be that inductie chargers are covering up, efficiency wise, by being substantially more expensive, but I've done the research.

Inductive chargers are integrated. It isn't charger + inductive coil, it's an inductive charger. It's a complete integrated charging system(assuming it is efficiently designed).

Though it is good that we've identified where the difference in thought comes from. Problem is, I believe you're wrong because you haven't actually cited any evidence.

Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer, are you?

Back to ad hominem attacks are we?

Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer either, and as you apparently aren't willing to do research, like what I actually DID, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I've taken classes in electronics and I'm perfectly able to read and interpret studies and technical documents, you're talking out of your ass?

Stop and think: what is more efficient - power via high-tension line, or power via broadcast energy?

Red herring fallacy. What is efficient for transporting electricity over hundreds of miles in the hundreds of kV isn't necessarily efficient for transporting electricity over something like 6".

In addition, because we are looking at chargers, which have to alter and maintain specific voltages, amperages, not to mention converting AC into DC, there's quite a bit of electronics involved. That is where the savings are seen.

Plus, consider, the inductive element is like 6" of travel. How many feet of power power cord are we typically looking at? Probably 9 feet or more?

Finally, consider that I'm showing citations of 90% or more efficiency. The difference between 90% and 92% isn't all that great, and can be justified through things like system convenience and life. If you end up having to replace the power cable more often than the inductive unit, whether due to wear, weathering, accident, theft*, or vandalism**, you may find yourself having to do a cost analysis to determine which is more economical. Well, you need to do that anyways, but that comes down to having to bust out the spreadsheets on specific proposals that are deeper than we're going here anyways.

TLDR: Stop attempting argumentative fallacies on me and debate properly and we might get somewhere.

*Damn copper thieves feeding their meth habits....
**A properly buried inductive unit should experience less vandalism than an open air cable.

Basically you're switching from a 100% efficient cable to 80% efficient wireless.

Problem:
1. As LynnwoodRooster identified, cables aren't 100% efficient themselves.
2. The 80% efficiency is for the entire charging circuit, and is a false number. I'm seeing numerous examples around 90%.

Of course, the ideal isn't to just look at the "wireless link" and assume all other parts are still present and the same loss. It's better to look at the loss from the input on the charging 'station' to what the vehicle receives. Most charging stations have extensive electronics, after all. Inductive chargers allow some of the loss to be "shifted" to the inductive link, as the link itself remains ~90% efficient.

As of 2012, China's level of motorisation was at approximately 80 passenger cars per 1000 population, a level last seen in the United States in the year 1920 [1].

65,000 tons of uranium a year, of which we are extracting <1% of the energy. Good news: we can recycle it and extract all of the energy from "spent" fuel, after which nothing remains but short-lived fission products. The technology exists, we just don't use it. (Though the Russians do have breeder reactors in commercial operation.)

Moreover, the 4.5 billion tons of U in seawater are an equilibrium concentration, which is constantly being replenished by the earths crust, so even that is vastly underestimated. Our terrestrial uranium supply will outlast the sun. "Renewable" is a deceptive and dangerous term.

Of a similar energy density, 5,000 tons of thorium in a LFTR would be enough to power the entire world for a year, not just replace the uranium powering conventional reactors today. Again, the technology exists, it just needs to be commercialized.

Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.

True; actual development has show us that nuclear has a negative learning curve, renewables have positive learning curve, and the growth is constantly underestimated. So, yes, the future seems to be rather clear, save for some kind of unpredictable revolution that can't be counted on.

Good news! The TCO of electric vehicles is already lower than ICE vehicles and will continue to fall as cheaper electric models are introduced and battery technology matures. So not having enough gas stations isn't going to matter for very much longer.

First we were told cockroaches were the only things that were survive a nuclear war. Now we are to believe that insects are super fragile? I don't think so, they have a super short lifespan and prodigious replication rates so as to be able to out-evolve any threat and take over any exposed ecological niche.

SuperKendall, you are making incorrect logical steps. I'll spell out for you where.

The popular press article said "More than 40% of insect species are declining". That relates to a sentence from the original academic paper, "Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades." https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Obviously that means that 60% of insect species AREN'T declining.

Your faulty logic was (1) from the figure that 40% are declining you understood that all insect species are fragile, and (2) you know that cockroaches are robust and assumed they must be in the 40% of declining species, rather than in the 60% of non-declining species.

If we abandon that faulty logic and instead think how to reconcile the data which suggests decline in some species, with the knowledge that cockroaches are robust? Here's one obvious resolution, building as it does upon your own statement about fast-breeding and adaptability:

https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...
"Fast-breeding pest insects will probably thrive because of the warmer conditions, because many of their natural enemies, which breed more slowly, will disappear, " said Prof Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex who was not involved in the review.

"It's quite plausible that we might end up with plagues of small numbers of pest insects, but we will lose all the wonderful ones that we want, like bees and hoverflies and butterflies and dung beetles that do a great job of disposing of animal waste."

Prof Goulson said that some tough, adaptable, generalist species - like houseflies and cockroaches - seem to be able to live comfortably in a human-made environment and have evolved resistance to pesticides.

Actually the American Dream is a bit of a myth, especially these days.

Pew did some research on it, but this article has some great graphs illustrating how social mobility has declined in America (and many other places).

People born in the 80s have a much poorer chance of moving up in the world than their parents. Their fortunes are much more closely tied to their parents'.

Americans tend to overestimate social mobility by quite a margin, which stops them taking action (via the ballot box) to fix it.

https://insight.kellogg.northw...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

They don't even hurt when you re-use them four or five times.

If the goal is to reduce CO2 then we need nuclear power, as it has a lower carbon footprint than wind, solar, or geothermal.

Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

You've rolled this out again. First the "blog" misrepresents the paper it is based on which is originally about human health and not a comparison of carbon sources from energy systems.

Also the paper *itself* neglects to take into account the human health implications from mine tailings and radon released from mining that finds its way into the water table.

The only way the carbon claim for nuclear can be made is when uranium mining is done with in-situ acid leach mining, which happens to be illegal in teh US and Russia.

I'd expect to see one at a GameStation near you pretty soon. I'd be very curious to hear about your work. How, for example, do you deal with the "smoothing" problem? With differentiating between small muscle or neurological impulses and the significant signal that people actually want action for, as quickly as possible, without waiting too long to accumulate a valid signal? I'm looking at https://www.sciencedirect.com/..., which gives a good detailed analysis of the problem. The necessary delay to accumulate a reliable signal is roughly 200 milliseconds. That is fairly slow for a reactive "twitch" combat game.

Is it comparable to the delay of electro-mechanical devices you've used? I'm quite curious if you've seen limits to response time with your techniques, or to hear what basic mechanical or electrical designs you use. With some luck, if they're continuing with this project, perhaps they would provide some funding or consulting work for children their design does not quite work for.

The paper can be downloaded (no paywall) from here. Equation 5 "Net equation" is
2Na + 2H+ -> 2Na+ + H2, E0 = 2.71V.

So yes, it works by consuming sodium metal. I am underwhelmed.

How much energy could we get from the metallic sodium if we didn't turn CO2 into NaHCO3 as a side reaction? What is our efficiency at making metallic Na? If these cells are sufficiently cheap, reliable, high power output, and efficient there might be potential for using this for grid scale energy storage in the form of metallic Na. Doing so would have an advantage of energy storage being limited only by your ability to store sodium, so it could work on seasonal timescales. Of course, then you'd have seasonal H2 production which would carry its own storage issues.

You want evidence? Try this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

I'm assuming your para about thousands of people learning Chinese in three years is a joke. I believe there are also documented cases in medieval times of Krakens and Griffins and Basilisks, oh my...

And yes, people can pick up a half dozen languages. If you add together the languages I've learned (and mostly forgotten), you could come up with a number like that: Spanish, German, Tzeltal, Shuar, French, Italian (plus of course English). (It helps that all but two are related, and three are closely related.) I suppose if I put them to use on a frequent basis, I might not have forgotten so much. But I would never have passed for a native speaker in any but English.

If it is cross cultural how do you explain places like Iran where more than half the STEM graduates are female? How about China

Less gender equality and personal freedom in those countries. More equality and freedom means men and women are more able to make choices and express their differences.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...

But: Gender disparities in science and engineering in Chinese universities:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

It means that once it's manufactured, there is no part of it's operation that pollutes.

Which is a non sequitur as in the example of the plastic forks and steel forks. By the way, in the European Union plastic cutlery will be banned by 2021 (steel cutlery is still fine).

PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.

So highly recyclable that the US still lack an infrastructure to recycle them. In the EU, PV panels are recycled because it is mandatory by law. In the US, an expert of solar energy technology at the Electric Power Research Institute said: "Either [PV recycling] becomes economical or it gets mandated. But I’ve heard that it will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical."
There is also a peer reviewed article[YanXu 2018] on the matter. It states: "At present, from the technical aspect, the research on solar panel recovery is facing many problems, and we need to further develop an economically feasible and non-toxic technology".

it is all politics.

Only in the imaginary world where science doesn't matter and Earth gets warmer because it feels loved.

Yawn... politics.

And there I thought that mentioning methods "like bio leaching" was implying that you should not just dump those things anywhere.


There are microorganisms which can reduce arsenades from arsenites found in inorganic compounds. Apparently this is already a growing problem in India, where bacteria leaches arsenic from the soil into their ground water, which then contaminates large areas and other organisms with arsenic.
As far as gallium arsenide goes, I'm aware of some bacteria that can leach gallium from the compound, possibly exposing the arsenic to the environment.
All perfectly natural bacteria and quite possibly not the end of this since their metabolisms are highly flexible.

Bottom line: Don't dump your electronics just anywhere. Don't burn your electronics. Bring them to a facility that is capable of adequate disposal/recycling.

Thatâ(TM)s true of households but not individual immigrants.

And it turns out that poor immigrants are actually using less welfare than poor native families: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

This probably isn't much different than ant colony solutions, which have been studied for quite a while. The results aren't perfect, so it's not a true solution, but I think the experimental results show that the solutions tend to be close enough to ideal to be useful.

Multiple studies have shown that 100% of energy needs can be met by renewables. We don't need fossil fuels. Here's a few... try Google for more... https://interestingengineering... https://physicsworld.com/a/100... https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Then how come we aren't?

Because of rich guys in top hats smoking cigars, cackling with glee as the planet burns?

Multiple studies have shown that 100% of energy needs can be met by renewables. We don't need fossil fuels.
Here's a few... try Google for more...
https://interestingengineering...
https://physicsworld.com/a/100...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

That is true and all but it is also wildly inconvenient. Some satellites sometimes dip below 100km during transfer to a higher orbit. Do they momentarily leave space? And what do we call that place were you can occasionally encounter a non-crashing satellite?

Also, unlike the KÃrmÃn line, the 80km line stays nicely put while the real KÃrmÃn line dances around all the time.

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

1993 https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

1980
https://www.nature.com/article...

Many others. Basically scientists got curious about what possible risks to unknoqn biospheres could exist from burying radioactive waste and started looking, and kept finding bacteria in really absurd places. Plus the petroleum industry always had an interest in the topic because it helps explain certain sources of biomass that may well be producing some sources of carbon fuels that don't quit fit the usual "buried ancient plant matter" theories

Individual panels seem lower but like in this article from 2011, what matters more is the system efficiency. Solar panels had improved even more by 2014 , with clear pathways for further improvement and that is even before looking at concentrators. Overall though, the real question is cost per watt which was $0.35/watt without subsidy in the US in 2017 and has an even clearer path to become cheaper and more productive.

Well, I did provide a link to a study just before in a post. There are dozens more. Here's another one
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

In any event, spark plugs can't fail in an EV (obviously) and running out of charge, like running out of fuel, is not a reliability issue.

Here's a summary of their claims from a more respectable source:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

As any good source should, they link directly to the actual articles and you can read them yourself. This is a published comment on her method:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

In short, she's using an oversimplified model of the sun, knows nothing about the impact on climate and the implications would anyway be very small (-0.3C compared to a warming of +0.2C per decade).

I remember the solar cycle was a popular scape goat for global warming about 20 years ago but the focus shifted after a few years when there was just to much science showing the effect was minimal. Back then, the claim was that sunspots caused more solar storms and a "huge" amplifying effect due to cloud formation etc. Further research showed the effect was small and the deniers changed focus. This seems like a remake.

Wrong!

Here's something you could educate us both on, how much would this algae based fuel cost?
Why don't you google it?

https://www.google.co.th/searc...

1.7 million hits ...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/... an easy read, you can even download the PDF.

And as you are so fond of youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or if you like a more official one: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bi...

So, your defense is your ignorance?
Ignorance about what? If you disagree with me or I say something wrong: it is not a lie. Period. The previous discussion is/was not about anything where anyone could be proven wrong ... so there is neither ignorance nor lies. You believe that more nuclear power will help to solve problems by producing bio fuel. I pointed out that this is unrealistic regarding prices. If you want to go deeper into that: simply calculate how many gallons fuel the US needs per day. Then calculate how many nuclear reactors you need to build to produce it ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day).

Energy per gallon: 370kWh ... so you need to produce 390e6 * 379kWh in electricity per day and convert it loss free into synthetic fuel. That means 6158750000 kW power capacity. That is 6159 GW. With a capacity of roughly 0.5GW per reactor, you need 12,000 new reactors. Good luck finding places for only a fraction of them in the US. But I guess I made somewhere a mistake, so feel free to divide it by a factor of 10 :P

You're just talking about the health-related deaths. I was talking about traffic deaths, where there is a statistically significant increase at BOTH time changes — specifically, on the Monday after the spring shift to DST and, curiously, on the Sunday of the fall shift away from DST.

Maybe there was something wrong with it, but the following was done 20 years ago:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Can anyone explain why mice needed to be studied when it looks like human studies were already done with a few different "types" (again, not a chemist here) of linalool?

Thanks.

OK, I agree that the energy spent in "burying rock or coal" shouldn't be spent. Just call it carbon neutral.

Or skip the conversion to methane, and just pump the CO2 down-hole.

Even better, put the CO2 to economic use, for enhanced oil recovery, improving crop yields with CO2 enrichment, mitigating soil alkalinity, and many other industrial and agricultural uses.

How much did it cost the company to develop the vaccine? How much does the doctor's time cost? How much does the transport and storage of the drug cost?

It isn't the ingredients that are expensive.
The Gardasil-4 manufacturing facility cost Merck over $1 billion to build.
A Gardasil-4 is estimated to cost around $0.50 a dose to manufacture.

Merck sells Gardasil-4 to third world countries (through an NGA) for as little as $4.50 a dose - explicitly because of higher prices in first-world countries. If all countries paid the same price, it would be in excess of $75 a dose.

I don't know that it's common knowledge, but asphalt is actually highly recyclable. Granted, the sources are generally industry-based, but even studies don't put the rate at lower than 90%. Granted as well that not all roads are strictly asphalt.

But it seems strange to highlight the fact that one could recycle sections as though other road materials aren't able to be recycled.

Ok, here are a couple of non-Wikipedia sources on Arctic amplification:

Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models

Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis

We already have several ways to "pay for" free and open software.

1) Dual licensing: Several high profile projects, including QT, Ghostware, and MySQL use these for benefiting both closed source commercial, and open software. There is even research on this topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

2) "Patronage": Since middle ages artists depended on wealthy "patrons" to commission their work. The end result was "open" in sense they were usually presented in cathedrals, or museums, but the work was paid for powerful individuals. Now we have companies like IBM, RedHat, and even Microsoft sponsoring open source projects that benefit all.

3) Amateur work. The work itself has an intrinsic value in terms of intellectual gratification. Many people will contribute to open source projects just because they can on their own time.

The system actually is tested and works. It has produced great results, and used by billions of people today. Of course new ideas for patronage could arise, but it does not mean the current ones are broken.

Yes, but have you thought about the risks of L.E.D. lights?

Here are a few papers:

1) Light-induced retinal damage using different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

2) White Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Domestic Lighting Levels and Retinal Injury in a Rat Model [Environmental Health Perspectives] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I hear that this new "fire" thing is dangerous. Have there been any studies on the dangers on having a personal fire inside caves?

Yes, but have you thought about the risks of L.E.D. lights?

Here are a few papers:

1) Light-induced retinal damage using different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

2) White Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Domestic Lighting Levels and Retinal Injury in a Rat Model [Environmental Health Perspectives]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

What's weird about it is that, while the studies of cannabis smoke itself - like the one in your link - show that it should have serious negative health effects, studies on the health of users find no such effects. This suggests that either there is something in cannabis that counteracts such negative effects, or that the way or amount in which it is consumed is different enough to mitigate them.

I see a lot of claims with no sources or evaluations of magnitude or probability

Yeah but but pulling the claim that micro and nano plastics are completely harmless in every way out of your ass without a shred of evidence to back it up is just fine?

https://www.lunduniversity.lu....
https://www.nature.com/article...
https://www.iflscience.com/env...
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://www.iflscience.com/pla...

The plastic polymer may be inert, but that does not apply to the additives that are mixed in with it.

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

Quite apart from the fact that filter feeders of all kinds ingest these small plastic fragments in large quantities along with plankton and it clogs up their intestines. The problem is not jut limited to filter feeders, all kinds of fish and other marine animals swallow bits of plastic after mistaking them for prey items. Nanoplastics have been found to cause brain damage in fish and what's more they have been found in fish eaten by humans. This means that as humans eat organism whose flesh contains plastic fragments these will enter the human body and there is a real chance they will accumulate and that humans will suffer damage to their health as a result. I just don't see any reason why somebody would be against cleaning up, and ending the dumping of, large amounts of plastic garbage. The stuff does not belong in nature and we can change our consumption patterns to eliminate the problem without it bringing about the downfall of human civilisation as we know it.

The plastic polymer may be inert, but that does not apply to the additives that are mixed in with it.

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

I'll admit my arguments were based on observation and personal experience, but at the same time you didn't offer any counter evidence.

I'll provide a link to one study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

In terms of economics of consumption we can see how the drop in price of sugar helped drive the increase in the amount of sugar we eat: http://www.divineeatingout.com... . I mention this, because any time something is cheap we tend to consume more of it.

No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.

I don't think I'm following your reasoning here. It looks like you're referring to Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) graph in section 12, however, the graph for Nuclear EROEI seems is based on the assumption that high quality uranium to fuel nuclear power plants will run out in the year 2070. That makes the EROEI for the plants go to 0 at that point (which is worst than break even, because it represents a 100% loss of the invested energy). I looked for a better source that would give me some comparison values and I found this meta-analysis. In it, the authors conclude that the average nuclear plant has a 14:1 EROEI (look for figure 3 for the comparison graph), you source has a EROIE of about 2.5 for current plants, which is much lower. It's slightly lower than wind and coal and slightly higher than solar PV. As an aside, I found an article on Forbes that claimed nuclear had an EROEI of 75, but I think it's an editorial from a nuclear industry advocate...

It's important to note that the EROEI for coal, natural gas, and oil are all declining as it becomes more expensive (and energy-intensive) to access new deposits. The EROEI for nuclear may also decline, I can't be sure if the original analysis included the energy cost to store nuclear waste (What energy for storage? Well, you probably need to employ guards at the storage site for at least 60 years, for example, and they probably like heating, air conditioning, lights and maybe a fridge to keep their lunch in). The Solar PV and the wind values should increase as better construction techniques and materials decrease the energy investment cost of materials.

So can you provide a clear explaination why you think nuclear has an EROIE of 1?

Here's a study showing positive returns for increased wheat yields with CO2 up to 2000 PPM, but a maximal increase around 890 PPM.

Sure. In general phone use and especially internet smart phone use is detrimental for children. Some examples (easy to find if you do actually look at health journals) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... and https://www.sciencedirect.com/... And especially so for students in class. https://www.tandfonline.com/do... If you don't have access just read all of the abstract, since it is the summary. For more easy to find papers check the links on the hosting pages and especially in the references provided in these papers.