That's again, hugely oversimplified. Your body will certainly metabolize muscle mass that is lightly used. That's part of the wonder of how sophisticated our body is-- it rations limited resources. A muscle that is not used much is consuming calories without providing benefit. A drop in food consumption can defintely lead to a loss of muscle along side a loss of fat, not after. And the result is a reduced resting metabolism. Famine victims aren't fat. They also have paltry muscles.
First rule is, there is always someone opposed. There will be some doom and gloom environmental group that comes out opposed to fusion.
Ah, but in the current political climate, you can nail opposition to fusion as anti-environmental, and that should hopefully at least confuse some opposition enough to make them check facts. After all, anyone who opposes fusion is encouraging the use of fossil fuels.:)
And if you really want to make fusion sound like a clean energy source in the current political climate, stop referring to it as a "nuclear fusion power plant" and start referring to it as a "hydrogen fuel power plant". After all, in the current public view, "nuclear"=bad and "hydrogen fuel"=good. And of course, you wouldn't be lying, since fusion runs on hydrogen, and would also be very handy for running large scale electrolysis of water.
Environmentalists generally don't mind fusion, as it is a safe, and very eco-friendly way of producing energy. Which is, you know, what they like.
Well, occasionally perhaps, when you run in to someone who understands the distinction. It seems that every time I bring fusion up, it has to be explained that it is not fission. A lot of people hear the word "nuclear" and just immediately get worried. This is why the term NMR ("nuclear magnetic resonance") had to drop the word "nuclear" to establish the MRI ("magnetic resonance imaging"). The word "nuclear" wasn't marketable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's again, hugely oversimplified. Your body will certainly metabolize muscle mass that is lightly used. That's part of the wonder of how sophisticated our body is-- it rations limited resources. A muscle that is not used much is consuming calories without providing benefit. A drop in food consumption can defintely lead to a loss of muscle along side a loss of fat, not after. And the result is a reduced resting metabolism. Famine victims aren't fat. They also have paltry muscles.
Ah, but in the current political climate, you can nail opposition to fusion as anti-environmental, and that should hopefully at least confuse some opposition enough to make them check facts. After all, anyone who opposes fusion is encouraging the use of fossil fuels. :)
And if you really want to make fusion sound like a clean energy source in the current political climate, stop referring to it as a "nuclear fusion power plant" and start referring to it as a "hydrogen fuel power plant". After all, in the current public view, "nuclear"=bad and "hydrogen fuel"=good. And of course, you wouldn't be lying, since fusion runs on hydrogen, and would also be very handy for running large scale electrolysis of water.
Well, occasionally perhaps, when you run in to someone who understands the distinction. It seems that every time I bring fusion up, it has to be explained that it is not fission. A lot of people hear the word "nuclear" and just immediately get worried. This is why the term NMR ("nuclear magnetic resonance") had to drop the word "nuclear" to establish the MRI ("magnetic resonance imaging"). The word "nuclear" wasn't marketable.