Okay there’s our smoking gun! So they too eat bats probably. I gotta assume that wherever we find bats, there’s at least one idiot hungry enough to fry one.
Well I can’t speak for that YouTube video, but my searching is coming up with a bunch of people saying that bat meat is generally not eaten in Japan. There might be people there who eat it. Who knows? People eat roadkill.
Pretty sure I saw this referred to as Flesh Eating Bacteria a couple of days ago. I’m sure “tissue-damaging” is just as effective a warning moniker to keep people alert.
That’s correct. A majority of the increase is due to strep throat cases; there’s also an increase in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome from the bacteria going systemic. There is not a significantly increased amount of necrotizing fasciitis that I’m aware of. It’s been going on for a few months now.
Cs-137 and other fission and activation products can be largely removed by treatment. H-3 is a bit trickier since it literally is part of the water. Luckily it’s a fairly weak beta emitter with a relatively short half life so causes very, very little long term harm.
All that other stuff was filtered out, but the tritium is near impossible to separate, because it is chemically identical to the hydrogen in normal water.
As for caesium, there are still detectable amounts of Cs-137 in most of the word from the thousands of atomic bomb tests. It’s half life is just 30 years, but it will still be detectable for a hundred years or so because of the huge amount we released.
A banana naturally has has around 15 Bq of potassium 40. Assuming a volume of 100 mL, mashed bananas have around 400 Bq/L.
Currently, the treated water has around 250 Bq/L, around a fifth of mashed bananas. In other words, a banana smoothie could easily be more radioactive then the water as it was released.
The banana’s potassium 40 has a half life of more then a billion years, so it’s not going anywhere, unlike the tritium who’s amount will half every 11 years. Also, potassium is concentrated by many plants and animals, while tritium is not.
Thing is, life will find a way to survive despite our best efforts. We’ve seen mass extinctions before. Whether the human species survives is another matter.
I think a more-interesting metric than price in store is what their marginal cost of production is relative to the marginal cost of production of real meat. That’ll cut out fixed costs like R&D that’ll be more-prominent at limited scale.
It won’t, but at least you’re not part of the problem anymore. You might inspire other people to. And every person who goes plantbased makes it more politically viable to enact policies to encourage plant based over the most destructive other foods. Try to avoid discouraging people who try to do the right thing, help them make a bigger impact instead.
Yeah, because banning cruelty free alternatives for those that can’t or won’t take the jump to fully vegan yet is SURE to decrease factory farming of animals 🙄🤦
Just because there’s a demand for something doesn’t mean you have to deliver. There needs to be environmental protections in place to avoid overfishing. The article points out a ban on trawling as a possible step, but spends too much time pointing at the aquaculture industry.
The oceans are fucked, and we need to start taking conservation seriously.
The Norwegian salmon industry has cut fish meal and oil to around 30% of feed, down from 90% in the 1990s. Further reductions have remained elusive, though, as farmed salmon still need omega-3 fats and acids mainly found in marine life.
Hmm. So omega-3 fatty acids are the bound on other food sources?
Microalgae are unicellular species containing eukaryotes and prokaryotes (Wen and Chen, 2003). The smallest microalgae are only a few microns, while the larger ones can reach a hundred microns and are widely distributed in the ocean and freshwater (Ryckebosch et al., 2012). As the only creature that can de novo synthesize omega-3 fatty acids efficiently in nature, historically, humans have commercially used microalgae for a long time as food, fodder, and a chemical of high value.
Sounds like it’s generated by algae. Farm omega-3 fatty acids too? Maybe genetically-engineer to try to increase yields?
Moreover, the development of sequencing, genetic engineering and bioinformatics technology has significantly contributed to the synthesis of omega-3 PUFA. It has provided essential information for optimizing the enzyme system for algae to synthesize high-value oil (Yang F et al., 2019; Degraeve-Guilbault et al., 2021). The synthetic pathways of PUFAs in algae are relatively well-understood, and many desaturases and elongases in algae or other species have been identified. Additionally, the enzymes present in algae have also provided crucial information for the synthesis pathways of omega-3 PUFA in other species, such as fungi and plants (Rezanka et al., 2017). Compared to the fermentation mode and genetic engineering of yeast and other microorganisms, the tools available for algae still need to be developed (Xue et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2015; Khera and Srivastava, 2022).
Advances in genetic engineering technology are essential for the synthetic biology of algae. However, many algae can only undergo genetic modification, such as RNAi, which cannot be stably inherited (Kugler et al., 2019). Alternatively, high-producing strains can be screened using blind mutagenesis. Nevertheless, if significant breakthroughs occur, many efficient photosynthetic chassis cells could provide a vital platform for the production of PUFA, carotenoids, and other substances. Algae, with their ability to use light energy and cheap carbon sources to produce PUFA, hold great potential for the future. With its high photosynthetic efficiency, algae can be used as chassis cells to transform into a cell factory that can synthesize omega-3 PUFA using solar energy and cheap carbon sources. Thus, genetic engineering technology to transform microbial fermentation for PUFA production is currently an important means to achieve commercialization.
There is more that goes into an airplane than the people maintaining or assembling it, which can and does go afoul. There is the entire manufacturing process, how materials are sourced, processed, refined, machined/formed, heat treated, stress relieved, coated/plated, assembled, and the list goes on. That is a major factor why aircraft are so safe and if you think China's material and process controls are as rigorous as someone like Boeing or Airbus, it isn't. It has taken decades of actual aircraft manufacturing to get the formula right for those respective companies and they continue to evolve as time goes on and new information is learned.
and if you think China’s material and process controls are as rigorous as someone like Boeing or Airbus, it isn’t
Source? You can probably point to specific processes that are done better in the US/Europe. But which ones are preventing China from building a reliable plane?
We tested Comac parts for FAA certification. When you've tested parts for decades you can pretty much nail down the cause of the failure be it design, process, materials, a combination and so forth.
Also the c919 is only certified in China. It can't fly in the US or Europe.
That which made China will also be its downfall. They can’t manufacture and sell cheap junk for decades, then turn around and expect people to trust their lives in their planes.
Boeing isn’t better, by any means. Nationalize them and imprison the CEOs
Seems you are greatly bothered, seeing as you make not one but two answers of significantly less relevancy to that single post. Anyway, condolences for living in a wilderness and using 30 year old computer since this is the only way you could maybe don’t notice that the “everything made in China is poor quality” is an very old meme.
japantimes.co.jp
Active