Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.
In the last year of her life, my Mother-in Law's medical bills were approaching a million dollars.
Here's a woman who never smoked, didn't drink, and kept pretty fit, only to fall to dementia. Spent the last 10 years of her life in a nursing home, and she wasn't a happy demented.
What a loving and caring society, that would spend millions on keeping a person alive who doesn't even know who she is most of the time.
As a friend noted, "If we did this to a dog, we'd be arrested for cruelty."
The point is not to extend the time you hang around being in poor health, but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life.
That might not be the point, but it might be the effect. There are certain issues that are difficult to get around, such as the wear and tear on joints that goes beyond typical body repair processes. If we say increase average lifespan to say 200 years, we are going to need some serious work on our skeletons to replace the calcium phosphate and calcium hydroxylapatite they are composed of along with collagen. It just isn't up to the task of human type activity for that long.
grandparents not only give those of childbearing age more freedom to gather food etc, they were probably crucial in establishing bonds with other tribes, thus providing an important precondition for a larger society and eventually civilisation. Now-a-days, I think living healthy lives for longer has obvious bebefits - caring for a frail, elderly population is expensive for any society, but taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving, it also adds years in which people contribute to society.
Oh, good heavens. Assuming that you don't believe that humans will somehow become immortal, you would have to agree that we don't live forever. And if we lengthen lifespan, people are still going to age.
In the best case scenario, we'll spend a hundred years at today's 35, then gracefully expire of something something.
Much more likely if we double lifespan, we'll just double the time spent in any phase of life, from childhood to puberty to early adulthood and so on.
But the most likely scenario is that if we double the lifespan of humans, we'll be spending a lot of time at the elderly end of our life phase.
1) This is just going to add more years to the years in which they can get cancer (multiple times) and diabetes.
2) Robotics is already reducing the amount of work that's going to be needed.
3) This will continue to reduce the birth rate in developed countries.
4) Third World countries will continue to grow their populations.
You've nailed it pretty well. The problem with age extension is that all of the years are added on the wrong end. Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?
Duckduck Go has served me pretty well since I went to it.
I left Google during the days of second party link farms. This would be if I'd google for say "Barney Rubble". The top of the results would come back with links like "Best deals on Barney Rubble" and "Find all your Barney Rubble needs here! The first page and half of the second page was completely useless.
I guess that's been cleared up, but I see no reason to go back.
I'm not even sure why you are posting because this loony charging at windmills has been done over and over here, surely you haven't been taken in by it?
I like windmills! If I had mountain property, I'd let them build one on it.... In exchange for free electricity. Regardless, I like the juxatposition of the woods with something that looks like it was in a science fiction novel.
I'm kind of sick of all the stuff I found out about nukes in the early 1990s being still ahead of the cutting edge, and it's the "but the old nukes are perfect" cheerleaders that get in the way of actually moving towards perfect (or even good enough).
The real problem with nuclear energy power is people.
When you look at the accidents that have happened, the worst ones are based on people, either hubris, or institutional.
I spent a good bit of time investigating Fukushima using the open literature. I was horrified when the only conclusion I could make was that the reactor was simply going to fail. There was no other possibility, unless plate tectonics was going to end after it was built.
The reactor was sited on the shore of an ocean area where Tsunami was going to happen. The Seawalls were not of sufficient height to repel known Tsunami heights - verifiable through historical accounts and the rubble layer left by retreating Tsunami. With the inevitable breach, placement of the emergency generators and pumps was a certainty to fail, as the same retaining walls would hold the seawater back, and damage the emergency cooling system.
These were not things that were unforseeable, even without hindsight. These were basic engineering principles. But so often, people other than the engineers get to make the final decisions. Managers and accountants hold sway over engineers. Some people blame Japanese corporate culture. However, some details might be a bit different, but corporate culture in all places is not gear toward the amount of safety a reactor needs.
Which is why I hold the dual opinions that it is entirely possible to build a very safe reactor power generating system. But people are the biggest impediment.
If people would lose the radiofear for a moment, and just think of the radioactive material as a substance sharing two properties. Poisonous, and energetic. A Genie that must be kept in it's bottle. This must not be forgotten by anyone in the path. But it is.
Also, nowadays, having kids are both men and women decision, not only men as in the past.
Where on earth did you get the idea that only men made that decision in the past. My mother told me once of her deliberate action to get pregnant so my father would marry her. Obviously, he kinda knew what they were doing, but she planned in depth the timing. Something similar happened with my son and his high school girlfriend. Fortunately she didn't become pregnant.
One of the most common arguments is about financial responsibilities after divorce.
When 2 people are in love, they do NOT expect a divorce. If one or both of them are thinking about divorcing while dating (or in a relationship), then they are not "in love" and very likely end the relationship before marriage.
I wonder. My wife and I planned many of these things out. We made certain she had her own credit rating, and all of the financial issues that can occur upon divorce or spousal death.
If people are so head over heels in love that they can't have rational discussions, perhaps that is shown in the divorce rate. Finances, personalities, all manner of things need to be taken into account.
I don't agree that there are convincing or rational arguments that marriage is a bad deal for men. Okay, there are some legal issues in some places,
You can invalidate my arguments as irrational - which is why I don't find it compelling or useful to discuss anything with you - you have your mind made up and are not open to change.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. Male interest in marriage, children and relationships is eroding, and eroding quickly. I wonder though, is the way to get more men interested in marriage to yell at them about how immature and selfish they are? Shaming is starting to not work any more. It is becoming entrenched in the male psyche that there are unpleasant people who just like to yell at them, and that avoidance is the best tactic. That's the real problem. When all the problems are the man's fault, we can just add this to the long list.
I think however that you and I should be able to find some common ground, that these immature and selfish men removing themselves from the relationship and reproduction pool should be seen as a positive by women, who will then be able to concentrate on all the worthy men who are left.
A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.
Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.
And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :
"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.
And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used
So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.
Nice weasel attempt, but all you have to do to prove your claim is correct is cite the plummet in conception rates.
Can you show me where I claimed the conception rates have plummeted?
But let's talk about conception rates since you fixate on it. We'll ignore that it isn't used too often in humans, it seems to be of maximum interest in bovines.
In humans the term pregnancy rate is used. It is also used a lot for IVF, which has a much lesser success rate than normal sex, so it's a bad term overall, and not a very good measure of sperm count and it's relationship to pregnancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Regardless to try to relate to your conception rate, any number we might come up with is difficult, especially in light of say, the USA's fertility rate hivering at just around replacement rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So are couples using birth control? Is age a factor? This is unclear, and there are political issues as well. Some articles about this, but not conclusive and hard to dig numbers out of, and I'm certain that they are hedging their bet. There is no doubt that most research on male infertility is mostly about women, as strange as that seems.
But without your trying to wiggle out of this, if you have an issue with the Mayo clinic's definition of male infertility, and with the US fertility rate, and with the sperm count heading toward that definition, then argue with them.
Again, no change in birth rate proves you are wrong.
One of the things I learned a long time ago was that arguing with people like you is pointless. I gave citations, and you just sit there and take an unrelated point and bandy it about
If you actually have the balls, take my citations and prove me and places like the Mayo clinic wrong.
More important question, are men with lower sperm counts more of less happy than men with higher sperm counts.
Weogh! That was a hard to parse as a Sarah Palin speech, so I'll just hit on the basics.
Your noting that a lot of men avoiding having children is part of another trend Men are becoming less interested in marriage, and oddly, women are becoming more interested than a few years back. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... And given some other trends, the numbers might decrease yet more. Certainly given that college campuses are trending a 10 percent gape between female and male and growing, http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... there wil be a lot of educated women - who probably do not want to marry lesser educated men - who are going to have an issue with marriage and reproducing.
There might be some relationship between lower testosterone levels and men dropping out of society and marriage and children - I don't know enough to make that presumption. Generally when you ask those men who choose to opt out, thier ansers tend to be that marriage and relationships are just not a good deal for men. They do make an argument that is fairly convincing and rational. But once we get into social matters it is hard to get definitive causes and effects.
You missed the important part, no doubt on purpose: it doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100 million.
SRSLY?
Just out of curiosity, are you a pediatrician or OB/GYN and if so - or even if not so, give me the cites to illustrate that which you are so certain of. The idea that a male producing half of the sperm of another especially 50 million per ejaculate is as fertile goes against everything I have been taught and experienced. Your expertise in this matter is requested.
Thank you in advance for providing this information. Here is something that I know, and am awaiting for your debunking of the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise...
39 million sperm per ejaculate is considered as a low sperm count. the present day average of 50 million is getting close, and will perhaps reach that level in the future. Then again, I believe that you actually think that if a male produces even one sperm, the woman will beome pregnant. I'll respectfully ask for the debunking of the acrosome reaction in whic many sperm attach them selves to the zona pellucida and create enzymes that allow the one sperm that does the actual insemination to pierce the egg and finish the fertilization process.
He is correct, or haven't you noticed that nobody is claiming that the conception rate has plummeted?
The number of sperm released in ejaculate is directly related to fertility. There is a process called the acrosome reaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While only one sperm performs the actual fertilization, it requires a lot more of them to prepare the egg.
And the ones who think that "some" and "Many" are evidence of making straw men. Unless of course, and can be proven that there are no treehugginng Nimby's and no anti environmentalists in here.
pushing for zero waste by using energy to recycle everything
It's kind of sad to see science education slipping so much. You never get zero waste. You've been fed a stupid and counterproductive lie that is going to hurt nuclear advocacy more than help it. That doesn't mean the waste can't be managed though. The Harford facilities website will help to undo some of that propaganda damage with a dose of reality. I suggest you look at that before embarrassing yourself any more here.
Pushing for zero waste doesn't mean that people think there will ever be zero waste. It's ont of those things like the acceptable number of murders, or the acceptable number of bugs ant their feces in your Cheerios. The "acceptable" number of each is none at all, but won't ever happen. It's just one of those things that people have to say while knowing it's never going to happen.
Ok, and when the birds get stuck against the cage itself? or killed while flying into the cage?
And it wouldn't work anyhow. This isn't like a fan guard that keeps kids from getting their fingers mangled, it is going the other way, and anything that would keep a chickadee or winter wren out of the way would deflect a metric mess of wind away from the turbine blades, playing hell with efficiency.
Birds hit trains, planes, and automobiles, buildings, people, and a few get hit by wind turbines. People need to go to youtube and search "bird hit by" and bird flies into" and sadly, it turns out that a lot of birds are killed. I don't see any one saying humans should all live outdoors or not drive. While there are tactics that can be taken to reduce this, the birds still fly into things.
Some environmentalists will oppose this because of presumed bird mortality
How hard can it be to put a cage around this thing? In terms of not having to clean bird guts out of your machines alone this seems like a no-brainer.
Really hard. Modern Wind Turbines are really big, and a cage with sub-bird sized holes in it would be pretty heavy.
My wife and I are birders and friends with birders. I haven't heard complaints about avian mortality except form two groups. The NIMBY crowd, and people who don't want any power sources but coal and nuclear, and are mock concerned. It's like the people who tell you about how awful CFL's are because they have mercury in them, while you are standing in their shop full of 4 foot flourescent bulbs.
It does happen occasionally, I've even seen a video. But if bird mortality was a real problem, birders would be storming the gates like the Visigoths.
The anti-turbine mob are all nimbys worried about spoiling their views
What's so bad about not wanting your views spoiled?
Nothing at all. It doesn't mean your want will trump everyone's need however. If you really need pristine natural views that look like they have not been touched by humans, you need to go to places that are pretty close to pristine, with very few humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Joints, ligaments and bone tissue is living biologically avtive tissue so they can adopt to wear and tear just like skin and muscle.
Perhaps you are young. It doesn't work that way.
Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.
In the last year of her life, my Mother-in Law's medical bills were approaching a million dollars.
Here's a woman who never smoked, didn't drink, and kept pretty fit, only to fall to dementia. Spent the last 10 years of her life in a nursing home, and she wasn't a happy demented.
What a loving and caring society, that would spend millions on keeping a person alive who doesn't even know who she is most of the time.
As a friend noted, "If we did this to a dog, we'd be arrested for cruelty."
The point is not to extend the time you hang around being in poor health, but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life.
That might not be the point, but it might be the effect. There are certain issues that are difficult to get around, such as the wear and tear on joints that goes beyond typical body repair processes. If we say increase average lifespan to say 200 years, we are going to need some serious work on our skeletons to replace the calcium phosphate and calcium hydroxylapatite they are composed of along with collagen. It just isn't up to the task of human type activity for that long.
grandparents not only give those of childbearing age more freedom to gather food etc, they were probably crucial in establishing bonds with other tribes, thus providing an important precondition for a larger society and eventually civilisation. Now-a-days, I think living healthy lives for longer has obvious bebefits - caring for a frail, elderly population is expensive for any society, but taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving, it also adds years in which people contribute to society.
Oh, good heavens. Assuming that you don't believe that humans will somehow become immortal, you would have to agree that we don't live forever. And if we lengthen lifespan, people are still going to age.
In the best case scenario, we'll spend a hundred years at today's 35, then gracefully expire of something something.
Much more likely if we double lifespan, we'll just double the time spent in any phase of life, from childhood to puberty to early adulthood and so on.
But the most likely scenario is that if we double the lifespan of humans, we'll be spending a lot of time at the elderly end of our life phase.
Umm, no thanks.
Four predictions:
1) This is just going to add more years to the years in which they can get cancer (multiple times) and diabetes.
2) Robotics is already reducing the amount of work that's going to be needed.
3) This will continue to reduce the birth rate in developed countries.
4) Third World countries will continue to grow their populations.
You've nailed it pretty well. The problem with age extension is that all of the years are added on the wrong end. Who wants to spend 30 years in their 80's?
I left Google during the days of second party link farms. This would be if I'd google for say "Barney Rubble". The top of the results would come back with links like "Best deals on Barney Rubble" and "Find all your Barney Rubble needs here! The first page and half of the second page was completely useless.
I guess that's been cleared up, but I see no reason to go back.
Oh, you've already got an implemation planned?
Thank you for being so responsive!
I'm not even sure why you are posting because this loony charging at windmills has been done over and over here, surely you haven't been taken in by it?
I like windmills! If I had mountain property, I'd let them build one on it.... In exchange for free electricity. Regardless, I like the juxatposition of the woods with something that looks like it was in a science fiction novel.
I'm kind of sick of all the stuff I found out about nukes in the early 1990s being still ahead of the cutting edge, and it's the "but the old nukes are perfect" cheerleaders that get in the way of actually moving towards perfect (or even good enough).
The real problem with nuclear energy power is people.
When you look at the accidents that have happened, the worst ones are based on people, either hubris, or institutional.
I spent a good bit of time investigating Fukushima using the open literature. I was horrified when the only conclusion I could make was that the reactor was simply going to fail. There was no other possibility, unless plate tectonics was going to end after it was built.
The reactor was sited on the shore of an ocean area where Tsunami was going to happen. The Seawalls were not of sufficient height to repel known Tsunami heights - verifiable through historical accounts and the rubble layer left by retreating Tsunami. With the inevitable breach, placement of the emergency generators and pumps was a certainty to fail, as the same retaining walls would hold the seawater back, and damage the emergency cooling system.
These were not things that were unforseeable, even without hindsight. These were basic engineering principles. But so often, people other than the engineers get to make the final decisions. Managers and accountants hold sway over engineers. Some people blame Japanese corporate culture. However, some details might be a bit different, but corporate culture in all places is not gear toward the amount of safety a reactor needs.
Which is why I hold the dual opinions that it is entirely possible to build a very safe reactor power generating system. But people are the biggest impediment.
If people would lose the radiofear for a moment, and just think of the radioactive material as a substance sharing two properties. Poisonous, and energetic. A Genie that must be kept in it's bottle. This must not be forgotten by anyone in the path. But it is.
> arguing with people like you is pointless.
You have not, apparently, learned that.
Then again, if I can irritate the guy, that's a plus.
Biggest factor in the Mac malware gambit is still market penetration.
Which if true, would be a good reason to use one. But no, like it or not, Windows is much more vulnerable,
Also, nowadays, having kids are both men and women decision, not only men as in the past.
Where on earth did you get the idea that only men made that decision in the past. My mother told me once of her deliberate action to get pregnant so my father would marry her. Obviously, he kinda knew what they were doing, but she planned in depth the timing. Something similar happened with my son and his high school girlfriend. Fortunately she didn't become pregnant.
One of the most common arguments is about financial responsibilities after divorce.
When 2 people are in love, they do NOT expect a divorce. If one or both of them are thinking about divorcing while dating (or in a relationship), then they are not "in love" and very likely end the relationship before marriage.
I wonder. My wife and I planned many of these things out. We made certain she had her own credit rating, and all of the financial issues that can occur upon divorce or spousal death.
If people are so head over heels in love that they can't have rational discussions, perhaps that is shown in the divorce rate. Finances, personalities, all manner of things need to be taken into account.
For the record, we've been married 40 years.
I don't agree that there are convincing or rational arguments that marriage is a bad deal for men. Okay, there are some legal issues in some places,
You can invalidate my arguments as irrational - which is why I don't find it compelling or useful to discuss anything with you - you have your mind made up and are not open to change.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. Male interest in marriage, children and relationships is eroding, and eroding quickly. I wonder though, is the way to get more men interested in marriage to yell at them about how immature and selfish they are? Shaming is starting to not work any more. It is becoming entrenched in the male psyche that there are unpleasant people who just like to yell at them, and that avoidance is the best tactic. That's the real problem. When all the problems are the man's fault, we can just add this to the long list.
I think however that you and I should be able to find some common ground, that these immature and selfish men removing themselves from the relationship and reproduction pool should be seen as a positive by women, who will then be able to concentrate on all the worthy men who are left.
One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.
TFA doesn't mention testosterone being down.
Ol Olsoc does. https://www.healio.com/endocri...
http://www.webmd.com/men/news/... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d...
A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.
Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.
And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :
"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.
And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used
So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.
Nice weasel attempt, but all you have to do to prove your claim is correct is cite the plummet in conception rates.
Can you show me where I claimed the conception rates have plummeted?
But let's talk about conception rates since you fixate on it. We'll ignore that it isn't used too often in humans, it seems to be of maximum interest in bovines.
In humans the term pregnancy rate is used. It is also used a lot for IVF, which has a much lesser success rate than normal sex, so it's a bad term overall, and not a very good measure of sperm count and it's relationship to pregnancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Regardless to try to relate to your conception rate, any number we might come up with is difficult, especially in light of say, the USA's fertility rate hivering at just around replacement rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So are couples using birth control? Is age a factor? This is unclear, and there are political issues as well. Some articles about this, but not conclusive and hard to dig numbers out of, and I'm certain that they are hedging their bet. There is no doubt that most research on male infertility is mostly about women, as strange as that seems.
But without your trying to wiggle out of this, if you have an issue with the Mayo clinic's definition of male infertility, and with the US fertility rate, and with the sperm count heading toward that definition, then argue with them.
I've given an internet troll neough of my time.
Again, no change in birth rate proves you are wrong.
One of the things I learned a long time ago was that arguing with people like you is pointless. I gave citations, and you just sit there and take an unrelated point and bandy it about
If you actually have the balls, take my citations and prove me and places like the Mayo clinic wrong.
More important question, are men with lower sperm counts more of less happy than men with higher sperm counts.
Weogh! That was a hard to parse as a Sarah Palin speech, so I'll just hit on the basics.
Your noting that a lot of men avoiding having children is part of another trend Men are becoming less interested in marriage, and oddly, women are becoming more interested than a few years back. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... And given some other trends, the numbers might decrease yet more. Certainly given that college campuses are trending a 10 percent gape between female and male and growing, http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... there wil be a lot of educated women - who probably do not want to marry lesser educated men - who are going to have an issue with marriage and reproducing.
There might be some relationship between lower testosterone levels and men dropping out of society and marriage and children - I don't know enough to make that presumption. Generally when you ask those men who choose to opt out, thier ansers tend to be that marriage and relationships are just not a good deal for men. They do make an argument that is fairly convincing and rational. But once we get into social matters it is hard to get definitive causes and effects.
You missed the important part, no doubt on purpose: it doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100 million.
SRSLY? Just out of curiosity, are you a pediatrician or OB/GYN and if so - or even if not so, give me the cites to illustrate that which you are so certain of. The idea that a male producing half of the sperm of another especially 50 million per ejaculate is as fertile goes against everything I have been taught and experienced. Your expertise in this matter is requested.
Thank you in advance for providing this information. Here is something that I know, and am awaiting for your debunking of the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise...
39 million sperm per ejaculate is considered as a low sperm count. the present day average of 50 million is getting close, and will perhaps reach that level in the future. Then again, I believe that you actually think that if a male produces even one sperm, the woman will beome pregnant. I'll respectfully ask for the debunking of the acrosome reaction in whic many sperm attach them selves to the zona pellucida and create enzymes that allow the one sperm that does the actual insemination to pierce the egg and finish the fertilization process.
He is correct, or haven't you noticed that nobody is claiming that the conception rate has plummeted?
The number of sperm released in ejaculate is directly related to fertility. There is a process called the acrosome reaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While only one sperm performs the actual fertilization, it requires a lot more of them to prepare the egg.
Not happening without those other sperm.
Only the ones made of straw.
And the ones who think that "some" and "Many" are evidence of making straw men. Unless of course, and can be proven that there are no treehugginng Nimby's and no anti environmentalists in here.
It's kind of sad to see science education slipping so much. You never get zero waste. You've been fed a stupid and counterproductive lie that is going to hurt nuclear advocacy more than help it. That doesn't mean the waste can't be managed though. The Harford facilities website will help to undo some of that propaganda damage with a dose of reality. I suggest you look at that before embarrassing yourself any more here.
Pushing for zero waste doesn't mean that people think there will ever be zero waste. It's ont of those things like the acceptable number of murders, or the acceptable number of bugs ant their feces in your Cheerios. The "acceptable" number of each is none at all, but won't ever happen. It's just one of those things that people have to say while knowing it's never going to happen.
One sperm is enough, doesn't matter if it's 100 or 50 million.
You flunked health class and sex ed, eh?
Wait - why is it actually bad ?
We want less kids, no?
One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.
So while it is a good idea to not breed like bunnies, only apocalyptic misandrysts can be happy about this.
Ok, and when the birds get stuck against the cage itself? or killed while flying into the cage?
And it wouldn't work anyhow. This isn't like a fan guard that keeps kids from getting their fingers mangled, it is going the other way, and anything that would keep a chickadee or winter wren out of the way would deflect a metric mess of wind away from the turbine blades, playing hell with efficiency.
Birds hit trains, planes, and automobiles, buildings, people, and a few get hit by wind turbines. People need to go to youtube and search "bird hit by" and bird flies into" and sadly, it turns out that a lot of birds are killed. I don't see any one saying humans should all live outdoors or not drive. While there are tactics that can be taken to reduce this, the birds still fly into things.
Some environmentalists will oppose this because of presumed bird mortality
How hard can it be to put a cage around this thing? In terms of not having to clean bird guts out of your machines alone this seems like a no-brainer.
Really hard. Modern Wind Turbines are really big, and a cage with sub-bird sized holes in it would be pretty heavy.
My wife and I are birders and friends with birders. I haven't heard complaints about avian mortality except form two groups. The NIMBY crowd, and people who don't want any power sources but coal and nuclear, and are mock concerned. It's like the people who tell you about how awful CFL's are because they have mercury in them, while you are standing in their shop full of 4 foot flourescent bulbs.
It does happen occasionally, I've even seen a video. But if bird mortality was a real problem, birders would be storming the gates like the Visigoths.
The anti-turbine mob are all nimbys worried about spoiling their views
What's so bad about not wanting your views spoiled?
Nothing at all. It doesn't mean your want will trump everyone's need however. If you really need pristine natural views that look like they have not been touched by humans, you need to go to places that are pretty close to pristine, with very few humans.