That scheme is problematic. Such nets would capture just the coarsest particle as well as a large quantity of marine life, while the scale of the waste is truly epic - both in terms of area and of depth.
See for example the points from
1. NOAA Marine Debris FAQ 2. A good popular article
Once, I said to him, "Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics." Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But he came back a few days later to say, "I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it."
-David Goodstein
Often this is paraphrased as, "if you can't explain to to a first year student, you haven't understood it."
I think you're reading too much into the jargon. Re-reading the quotes you posted earlier, it seems to say that people should not only improve the clarity of scientific information, but also frame that information in terms of its relation to their lives and that of their communities. Nowhere does it say that facts should be suppressed or omitted, just that inclusive educational techniques should be used to transmit them.
Unfortunately, the extreme level of jargon employed in the paper shows that they failed to follow their own advice.
It would be interesting to also see a breakdown by fields of scientific literacy. I'd wager that the trend is not the same between, say, biology or geophysics and astronomy or engineering.
Ozone is a good example, but nitric oxide is probably better. Our bodies are really doing an amazing amount of stuff with that little molecule, all while we try to stop our cars from coughing it up.
Nitric oxide is a good one for that so-called argument, since most people know its a pollutant emitted by their car (but not that its a local regulator that controls blood flow).
The sex is determined by the SRY gene, which is located on/in the Y chromosome. In some species, such as the kangaroo, the Y chromosome only carries this gene.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't breathing oxygen at a low partial pressure pull CO2 out of one's blood the way hyperventilating does?
So where is the shopping gene? It's on the leg of the X chromosome missing in the Y.
Great, you just explained why men are twice as susceptible to the bad allele.
That scheme is problematic. Such nets would capture just the coarsest particle as well as a large quantity of marine life, while the scale of the waste is truly epic - both in terms of area and of depth.
See for example the points from
1. NOAA Marine Debris FAQ
2. A good popular article
You mean, "so learn to use thorium." Not quite the same...
Word.
Once, I said to him, "Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics." Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But he came back a few days later to say, "I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it."
-David Goodstein
Often this is paraphrased as, "if you can't explain to to a first year student, you haven't understood it."
You can't pick it up with nets, because all that plastic is in the form of tiny particles suspended in the water.
It was a giant snowball before life arose
More like a hellish inferno.
science is all about proving you are right
No, it isn't. Science is about proving that the other guy is wrong.
And your post just equated science with opinion.
I think you're reading too much into the jargon. Re-reading the quotes you posted earlier, it seems to say that people should not only improve the clarity of scientific information, but also frame that information in terms of its relation to their lives and that of their communities. Nowhere does it say that facts should be suppressed or omitted, just that inclusive educational techniques should be used to transmit them.
Unfortunately, the extreme level of jargon employed in the paper shows that they failed to follow their own advice.
It would be interesting to also see a breakdown by fields of scientific literacy. I'd wager that the trend is not the same between, say, biology or geophysics and astronomy or engineering.
We replaced CFC's with 'green' versions, but did that really help?
Yes
Ozone is a good example, but nitric oxide is probably better. Our bodies are really doing an amazing amount of stuff with that little molecule, all while we try to stop our cars from coughing it up.
Nitric oxide is a good one for that so-called argument, since most people know its a pollutant emitted by their car (but not that its a local regulator that controls blood flow).
No, it isn't.
You'll die. Our bodies use the concentration of CO2 in our blood to determine whether or not to breath.
Ref.
For countering that bizarre argument I typically go to nitric oxide, rather than oxygen, because everyone knows NO is a pollutant.
NOx/SOx
Two good examples of pollutants which happen to occupy diverse, essential biological roles.
100% nuclear powered electricity generation
Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough Uranium for that.
How about nitric oxide? Definitely a pollutant, definitely essential to higher life.
Photovoltaics are already at or near their maximum theoretical efficiency, which is several times more efficient than natural photosynthesis.
So, no Moore's Law in that sense, although they can get cheaper.
What makes something a "pollutant"? Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide are universally considered pollutants, yet they are essential to life.
(Carbon monoxide is used at least for signalling in heme metabolism, while nitric oxide turns out to be involved in almost everything).
Computing a regression to some arbitrary curve is not the same thing as applying a physical model to data.
The sex is determined by the SRY gene, which is located on/in the Y chromosome. In some species, such as the kangaroo, the Y chromosome only carries this gene.