"Doing it for the kids" he says to himself while she goes around and probably has sex with other people behind his back. Like I think we're all at the point where nobody would fault Will Smith for divorcing Jada pinkett and moving on.
I’m convinced she uses their kids as leverage over him. If he left, the kids could be squirrelled away by the church and he might never see them again.
I don’t think anything she does is behind his back, I think he’s fully aware of it. I’m not saying he agrees with it or anything, just that their relationship is pretty fucked but their reasons for staying together is between them.
I don’t actually know, but I get the feeling a lot of Hollywood marriages would be unrecognizable to me behind closed doors. Rich, attractive people tend to play by different rules.
At the end of the day, they can choose to live how they want. All while being scrutinized by the media. The price of fame, I suppose.
It’s all about maintaining his image as a family man. I’ve read articles about their relationship and from what It strikes me as a very unhealthy relationship.
I really don’t think it’s just to maintain an image. I don’t know him personally, but relationships get weird. Maybe he hasn’t divorced her because he is in a catch 22 with the property, their friends or his children. Maybe he still loves her. Maybe he loves the idea of her. Maybe he does it because she won’t take it well. There could be a million reasons. However, will does not strike me as a cold hearted business man. He might know his way around the actor scene but this ain’t it.
A friend of mine met him at a club event some years ago, and as he tells it, he was trying to act like he had that bde going on but it just came off as desperate. We really have nfi.
He mentions in his book that he always felt like he couldn’t protect people around him. I don’t condone his actions but clearly he has some shit to work out with a therapist.
William Jennings Bryant represented a case back in the 20s or 30s about the potential harm of anthropogenic global warming (now called climate change to try to meet science deniers in places getting cold due to changes in currents and jetstreams where they are). The science was known in the late 1800s. The exact science was known in the 1950s. The failure to act on that information is thanks in large part to corruption and greed. Anytime you hear “the science isn’t out yet” or “they didn’t use the narrow definition of the scientific method I learned in middle school in Nebraska involving a very specific structure of lab based experiment so climate science isn’t real science” you are hearing the output of nearly 80 years of not wanting to do anything about it because it would put this quarters profits at risk
And nuclear power was seemingly the future, the oil companies bear the vast majority of the blame but Chernobyl certainly didn’t help our current situation.
Even if it wasn’t human made, if we can do something about it and help ourselves out of it as a result, why shouldn’t we? It’s crazy that this is even an argument.
Yep, just like my body takes care of itself with fever and such when something multiplies too much and dumps its waste in me. Burn it out and flush it out, that’s just “nature taking care of itself.”
Not picking on you, but I see people use “AI” instead of “UI” more and more these days and I wonder if it’s part of the reason all startups suddenly feel like they have to introduce AI features — everyone keeps talking about how important it is after all
In my case it is auto correct on my phone. Maybe because people text about AI so much that their auto correct thinks it is supposed to be AI instead of UI. Like mine did.
I thought it was due to wanting to try a non corporate alternative to social media. Before Spez mishandling of the incident I was ready to just use old.reddit.com on Firefox and figure out how to get RES onto mobile, or just use it less and more on desktop only. Had he just quietly let the protest pass by without throwing a tantrum I’d probably still be using reddit.
That plays a role for a lot of people probably. I’d think the majority got ripped over the edge by the third party app thing because the default UI in the app and browser are just worse.
Had he just quietly let the protest pass by without throwing a tantrum I’d probably still be using reddit.
Honestly, if reddit has just been upfront and said “we need to consolidate where people browse our site on mobile for our IPO”, people would still have been annoyed but i don’t think all the drama would have taken place. The issue was really just in the way that the management handled the situation by giving devs a “fuck you” API pricing and acting like TPA devs were being unreasonable for not wanting to pay the ridiculous fees. If they had just been upfront and honest then I don’t think I’d be here on lemmy.
Didn’t most of us? If you were happy using reddit app you are almost certainly still drooling on yourself scrolling through the super sexy posts on /askreddit and think Lemmy is probably the name of a band that nerds like.
I’m not fighting, I just want sync users to shut the fuck up and stop advertising their app at every possible minute, because those of us who aren’t using it have already decided it isn’t the one for us.
I use two and it’s okay. I uninstalled Reddit app today and deleted every account. I already had did it on the main start of July but the other accounts had to follow through
I’ve never tried this, but advice I’ve seen online is if your doctor won’t order testing, ask them to note in your chart that they are declining testing. Apparently the implicit threat of a lawsuit if they’re wrong is enough to kick at least some of them into CYA mode.
Well I’m guessing that the healthcare will pay it. And at least in Switzerland, the healthcare can announce official that they won’t pay anymore for anything that one doctor decides/order. So if the doctor orders to many thing, that the healthcare has to cover, then he soonly will lose his job. So in this way the doctor will only order stuff that are really needed and maybe won’t make a test against cancer (but this happens not really often)
Else if the customer has to pay, then yes it would be stupid to not let the customer do the test.
Yeah, great question, I don’t understand it either, but marginalized groups like women or people of color can have a hell of a time getting medical professionals to take their concerns seriously. Maybe it’s just a hubris thing. “How dare this person question my judgment when I’m the doctor?”
The research is out there with a quick search. As a white woman though, I definitely don’t need research to know it’s true. Especially with gynecological issues, pain levels, and psychiatry. We’re “hysterical,” and though they don’t use that word anymore, that judgement is alive and well.
I mean, there are tons of studies on racial and gender inequality in healthcare, but OK, go off.
For example, members of minority groups have longer wait times in the ER [7-9], are less likely to receive catheterization when identical expressions of chest pain are presented [10], and are less likely to be recommended for evaluation at a transplant center or be placed on a transplant waiting list when suffering from end-stage renal disease [11]. African Americans receive lower-quality pain treatment [12, 13], even when covered by the same medical insurance [14, 15] and seeking treatment at the same emergency department [16] as patients of other races. (journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/…/2015-03)
“I was told I knew too much, that I was working too hard, that I was stressed out, that I was anxious,” said Ilene Ruhoy, a 53-year-old neurologist from Seattle, who had head pain and pounding in her ears.
Despite having a medical degree, Ruhoy said she struggled to get doctors to order a brain scan. By the time she got it in 2015, a tennis ball-sized tumor was pushing her brain to one side. […]
Doubts about women’s pain can affect treatment for a wide range of health issues, including heart problems, stroke, reproductive health, chronic illnesses, adolescent pain and physical pain, among other things, studies show. (washingtonpost.com/…/women-pain-gender-bias-docto…)
Since the data has been collected from white majority countries, and I’d be very surprised to see the same trend in, say, China - I think it reflects basic tribalism more than anything.
Still a problem if you’re part of a minority group anywhere, but I genuinely think it’s a fundamental human characteristic.
The medication thing is because the trials are overwhelmingly run on white men aged 18-30. You can imagine the outrage if we’d been selectively testing on minorities, and women of childbearing age are avoided to protect any unborn children.
Complex topic, but these things don’t always come down to calculated racism. And yet there is that kernel of truth in it that people don’t want to confront, which is that humans have this basic level of racism “baked in” to the hardware. Tricky.
On top of that, I’m sure unhelpfully paternalistic and sexist attitudes do persist in medicine. Anecdotally, this can be particularly severe in Indian cultures - I couldn’t believe how differently a female friend was treated by the same doctor.
Edit: oh yeah, sorry, what I meant to say is only white people are capable of doing wrong.
This is actually true. We have an over testing problem in the western world and it does cause some people harm, at least in the form of stress and anxiety caused by believing you have something that you don’t (due to false positives), or in some cases in the form of unnecessary operations and their associated medical risk.
And that’s without getting into the financial impacts, whether that be an impact on an individual or, in a civilised country, on the government.
That’s obviously not to say that nothing should be tested. Only that tests should be limited to cases with a heightened risk, be it someone showing symptoms (as OP obviously was, which is why this general problem of over testing is not applicable in this case) or being part of a demographic know to have heightened risk, as determined by experts and medical best practices.
Pharmacist and 4th year medical student here. Medical tests are ordered based upon their statistical ability to alter your likelihood of a diagnosis. No test is perfect in either direction (negative result meaning you don’t have disease or positive result indicating you have disease). Tests cost money, take resources of the healthcare system, and have the potential to be wrong. When a test is wrong, it can result in financial, emotional, and physical harm to an individual.
Example: you’re an otherwise healthy 34 year old and you feel a little under the weather and are coughing. It’s only been going on a few days, mild fever, but you’re worried and you go to the doctor. Your doctor thinks this is most likely a viral infection, recommends Tylenol and ibuprofen and sends you home. You imply to the doctor you’ll sue if you don’t get antibiotics and a chest x-ray just to be safe. The doctor, rather than argue with you when they have a dozen other patients to see, just orders the stuff and moves on. The chest X ray doesn’t explain your cough, but there’s a small lesion of undetermined significance on the X-ray. Now you need a CT. The CT says “probably a self-limited granuloma from a fungal infection, can’t rule out cancer, correlate with biopsy”. Then you have to go get sedated, put a camera down your throat, and have a pulmonologist take a sample of your lung to see if you have cancer. Maybe you end up with a complication from the sedation or a pneumothorax. Meanwhile the antibiotics you took didn’t really improve your cough but now you have this uncomfortable itchy rash. Are you allergic to the amoxicillin? Or did you just develop the typical rash seen in people who have mononucleosis that also take amoxicillin? Will you get allergy testing for the amoxicillin? Just avoid amoxicillin, an awesome antibiotic, for the rest of your life?
We are restrictive in our prescribing of medications and tests not because we don’t care about you, not because we want to save the hospital or the insurance company money (in fact the hospital prefers we order more things because they make money on testing). We are restrictive because we want to maximize benefit while minimizing risk, and everything we do has risks and benefits.
Not to mention, the entire medical system does NOT want to prescribe antibiotics - especially cutting edge ones - unnecessarily, in the interest of dragging out the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains as long as possible. Some pathogen (commonly, though not exclusively, staph) somewhere will eventually mutate into a resistant strain to some particular antibiotic. This is extremely problematic, because it means that the antibiotic becomes essentially ineffective at eradicating that mutation of the pathogen. If this occurs with a cutting edge antibiotic, and the pathogen happens to be a strain that’s resistant to many other antibiotics, you get what’s called a “superbug”; in the worst case, you’re all the way back to “get some rest, stay hydrated, and good luck”.
There are some tests that can do harm to patients. In this case obviously a CT scan should have been ordered immediately, but not every pt with a cough needs a fat dose of radiation.
That’s terrible advice. I don’t know if any doctor that is “out to get you” by not ordering tests. Tests are not harmless. Improper testing can kill you. For example, you have a headache with no red flag symptoms. You keep pushing, some doctor orders an MRI and now you have what we call an incidentaloma. Some incidental mass that isn’t going to cause you any issue and is unrelated to your headache. Now you latch on to this abnormal thing, you worry about it, it affects your life. More scans and tests are done to figure out what this is. Eventually a biopsy is offered. Good news, it’s just some normal cells that happen to look funny on MRI, but completely benign. Bad news, the biopsy had complications and now you’re wheelchair bound for the rest of your life.
It’s thoughts like this where the “advocate for yourself” has turned into the “threaten the person that dedicated multiple decades of their life to help others to get what you want” that has lead to the insanely piss poor defensive medicine in the United States.
Tldr: refer every patient and order every tests until someone dies of bankruptcy or an unecessary complication because webmd.
Bad news, the biopsy had complications and now you’re wheelchair bound for the rest of your life.
how often does this actually occur? I assume if they’re doing biopsies of brain material there’s a risk but seems like it’s a low probability if they’re biopsi-ing your liver…
Also, when physicians find something wacky or unusual, is there any desire to do more imagine to see if that’s the only oddness? for example, I had a retrocecal appendix (discovered during my appendectomy) - is that the only thing going on that’s funky / unusual, or should I check / have imagine for other stuff? My docs didn’t have a consistent answer - one said yeah, one said nah, one said it’s nbd but if it was their appendix they might ask for other tests. :|
Fortunately my insurance is about as likely to pay for extra stuff as it is to cut my copay to zero, so it’s not an issue I can address, but it does hang around in the back of my head.
Not frequent, but enough to make you question are we truly doing no harm when we indulge people. Medicine is an art, at the end of the day its a mix of statistics and experience. Not everything has a clear cut or even a right or wrong answer. Do this long enough, and you’ll see things that have minimal risk turn into a clusterfuck.
For your question, yes I’ve seen minor things end up killing someone through sheer bad luck things can spiral out of control despite all the right steps being taken. Hence the inherent risk they mention of death during all informed consents.
FYI, finding an incidentaloma and doing another scan 3 months later to see that it’s disappeared is also life saving. My mother had a lung problem, got some imaging done, they found a lump in her lung, and instead of going directly to poking it for a biopsy or surgery, they checked 4 months later, and saw that it resolved on it’s own. If it was cancer, they would have seen changes in it, and known it was something to be investigated further at the time of the second scan. Doctors need to manage expectations and refer people for therapy if they have anxiety around their health.
Oh for sure, my comment is more towards people that won’t accept the diagnosis of everything is fine and no further testing is needed. Those people tend to yell, sue, go find some other doc, try chi blocking and crystals before they will talk to a therapist about their anxiety.
My comment about incidentaloma is more when you find something that wasn’t causing any true issue. Now what. You have to get another scan. But before that, there was no indication that anything was wrong because nothing was wrong. Now you’re stuck working and monitoring something that ends up being benign and would have been that way if you never look.
Same with any tests, there’s a rate of false positive to be aware of. When your suspicion is high, it outweighs it, but when it’s low and the test comes back positive, your stuck now and are often obligated to do unecessary work to prove that it was a false positive.
That advice was born from women minorities struggling to get doctors to take their concerns seriously. Look, I get that medicine is a risk/benefit analysis, but patients also need some level of recourse if they aren’t being listened to. I can’t imagine what it would feel like to be pushing for tests because you know something is off, only to finally be tested and told it’s too late, maybe if it was caught sooner. Yet, we know this happens. We also know that women and minorities receive demonstrably different care. That fact alone shows there are plenty of situations where a patient may need to fiercely advocate for themselves and question their doctors’ judgment.
I’m not saying completely ignore medical professionals and scream “lawsuit” because google. However, you live in your body and understand your own baseline more than anybody. Sometimes you absolutely can tell if something is truly wrong. Personally, I learned the difference between bad pain and there-is-something-fucking-wrong-you need-to-go-to-the-ER pain in my early 20s when I had ovarian torsion. Thankfully, I was at one of the best hospitals in the country, got a CT scan, and was in surgery lickety split. However, I met someone who had pretty much the exact same symptoms and story and ended up losing an ovary because she was sent home from the ER with them telling her it was normal cramps & anxiety.
Ultimately, imo it should be about informed consent. If you’ve gotten the same answer from 5 doctors and you still want the biopsy, despite the risks that have been plainly laid out for your, then fine. If you end up paralyzed, then you have to deal with the consequences of your decision.
I’m well aware of those biases, and I practice with the thought of always assume the patient is right and telling the truth. However once all the initial testing, exam, records scream negative, now you have someone that the best course of action is to help them understand they are not sick and truly healthy to avoid unecessary tests and complication. Surprisingly, some don’t like to hear that they are fine and healthy. Some Psych patients have much higher mortality, not because of being ignored, but because of over testing and complications.
The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh
I’ll be a source. I worked at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD for over 10 years. Because of the trend of shutting down nuclear, I shifted over to operating a combined cycle power plant. Calvert with 2 units did about 1800MW combined, base loaded 24/7 except for outages, and those were staggered so that when one went down for maintenance and refueling, the other unit was still throwing 900MW to the grid. My current plant has 2 gas engine turbines and 1 STG, and on a good day when we’re fully up 2x1 with ducts in, we can hit about 800MW when it’s called for. Balls to the wall in perfect conditions on a plant that’s not even ten years old, we can’t do half of what Calvert was doing and they’ve been operating since the 70s.
Imagine what modern nuclear tech could do. We should’ve been a step ahead of everybody with this.
Thanks for this. I did ask OP for sources, in other words links to verifiable data to back up the assertion that:
“Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
It’s the difference between spending 0 seconds looking it up and wanting “a source”, versus actually looking it up and not finding anything, then asking where the info comes from.
Asking for a source just to ask for a source is called sealioning.
Asking for a source just to ask for a source is called sealioning.
Good grief, no.
I read so much absolute bullshit around nuclear and renewables where people just write out their feelings on the subject. Asking for sources to back up their claims isn’t sealioning, it’s a polite way of asking someone to try and back up their claims with facts.
In this instance, OP said, “Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh”
I want to know what they’re talking about. If they’re saying 1 solar panel or wind turbine has a smaller output than a nuclear plant then … well yeah, that’s obvious. If they’re saying renewables won’t work without nuclear then that’s a straight up lie and I’d like them to post sources to back up that assertion.
We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago
now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes
Running in fucking circles about how to save the planet.
Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league
So which part do you know to be false, that you couldn’t easily look up and had to ask him where he got this obscure info? Which part do you want him to source? All of it? Even the part where we are running in circles fixing climate change? Or is it the part where current plants are being showered in money to make up for extended lifetimes?
OPG manages power production for all of Ontario, with 2 nuke plants putting out over 3 GW each, for a total of ~6.5GW, OPG generates about 18-19GW so 30% is covered by two plants
The majority of the remainder is hydro across 66 fucking plants. And nothing else comes even close in output
And these are CANDU reactors, they don’t require refined uranium, and don’t contribute to proliferation like other plants, they also don’t meltdown explosively since boiling the coolant reduces the nuclear reaction rate.
So this kind of got lost in the weeds, and I see the argument below. The real reason I wont provide sources is partly because it is very easy to look up, and the reality is I could write a thesis with a ton of fucking sources and never cover it all. Typically, in an actual scientific debate, the onus is on you to provide a source which debunks my claims. However, I can give a short summary with some general, but verifiable numbers. I did a quick search for all of this, and most of it is on wikipedia with sources listed.
The average American nuclear power plant provides about 800-1000MW of energy, and has a life time of about 35-40 years. The US has 88 of them, most of which have been running since the 70s. Their age means many should be considered for decommissioning soon, but since we haven’t been building new ones to replace them the old ones continue to be serviced while we seek alternatives.
America’s largest solar farm produces ~350MW, which is less than half of a nuclear plant. That’s actually pretty decent, but this is the high end of the scale for solar, and this output is only achievable in perfect conditions (weather, daytime, location). At night it produces nothing. So the major problem many solar / wind enthusiasts ignore when discussing this is what happens then? How do we store enough power to sustain a city, or something larger, through every night? Those mighty big batteries aren’t eco friendly either, since at the moment our best option is lithium. That may change soon but we can’t really move on maybe.
My point to start with was that we should have never stopped building nuclear - we could have pushed fossil fuel out ages ago, but lobbyists really fucked that. Solar is great, but we need like 200 more of those major solar farms and an absolute fuckload of massive batteries, and the logistics of that is a nightmare that is unlikely to see fruition in time. It will be a long time before we have enough solar / wind to do more than supplement our power grid. We should keep building it in the meantime, but it is also a slow process, much like building nearly any large scale power generation.
To be clear, I am in favor of both. Nuclear should have always been the back bone of our power grid. Solar should be coming online as supplementary power supply allowing us to decentralize and support the transition to greener tech. This is not an either/or situation - we really need both, or fossil fuels will royally fuck our planet first. Maybe someday we will be efficient enough to go all solar, but expecting it to replace fossil fuels AND nuclear in the near future is just unrealistic idealism. We will die before hitting such ideal goals - in the meantime we must compromise.
Do you have any opinions on light water SMR designs? Do you think the idea to mass produce them and distribute these smaller reactors on a local basis is feasible, or do you think if they are mass produced we would be more likely to see them clustered in series in more modern plants?
Idk much about that in particular but I can speculate based on what I know about the power industry and business in general. I think larger modular clusters (10-30) would be more common just because of the infrastructure needed. Sure, we might see instances of 1-3 units here and there, but I imagine that if a company is already going to the trouble of buying a plot of land and building a switchyard, getting water access and RO-EDI tech for it, cooling water of whatever type, n+1 redundancy on all equipment, radioactive waste management including on-site storage of spent fuel, etc while also welcoming the NRC and FERC and whoever else to scrutinize, it makes the most sense to have several units making money power. Like anything else, upping the scale makes the cost per instance go down. Nuclear in the US has a fuckload of red tape and permitting and oversight that cost a lot of money to stay on top of. There could be good applications for small clusters like closer to urban, more densely populated areas where land is expensive and the power needs are the immediate vicinity. Or in developing areas that don’t have much power demand, at least not yet. There’s no good reason why a small cluster couldn’t replace the remaining coal plants. It’s also completely feasible to throw some up at military bases or large university campuses for training and their own power needs. Big power will want to squeeze as many into as small of a space with as little maintenance requirement as they can get away with because everything they do is in the name of maximizing profits for shareholders. But for nationalized power like in France, it kinda doesn’t make sense to build anything else right now.
Maybe the best part of SMR tech as I understand it is that somebody could get the land and permits and infrastructure set up for the end goal but just build a small percentage of the reactors at first, and then scale up later. This is cheaper to start, faster to build, and is a perfect proof of concept strategy to get investors excited at funding the bulk of the project.
The number of people who still think nuclear power is a manageable risk in any capacity is really depressing. We still have no idea what to do with all the nuclear waste we’re creating even now. And that’s not even considering the impact of having a nuclear plant when you’re in a war.
“Ukraine seems to be fine” is an odd thing to say considering what is going on there in general, but to your point, we can be glad that the fighting around Chernobyl did not do more damage. There’s also a difference in strategy when a country attacks their neighbour to annex their land. If they instead want to mess with a country further away, they can just drop some bombs on their nuclear plants and see what happens.
The entire French nation begs to differ. Look at that map! Power generation alllll over the country, not tucked in an unpopulated area or clustered in one spot ‘just in case’.
Then look across the border at Germany. The CND and Greens did a number on then generations ago, and Russia has kept up the fear over nuclear so they were able to keep Germany dependent on Gazprom. Until Ukraine.
I have no idea what the CND in Germany is supposed to be and neither has Google.
France had to repeatedly power down nuclear plants and buy electricity from neighbours because they couldn’t cool their plants. Because there was so much drought in Europe there wasn’t enough water. A phenomenon that will surely never happen again in Western Europe in the next couple of decades.
This is the other issue about thermal plants including coal, natural gas, concentrated solar power (CSP), and nuclear: water cooling.
All of these plants boil water to pass over a turbine and crank a generator, but that steam needs to be cooled so it condenses and makes a closed loop. You need cooling water to do this, and a lot of it.
If water is becoming scarce, and we have other needs for it like residential or agricultural uses, then that can greatly impact thermal generators, leading to outages like you say if cooling can’t be done.
Chris Nelder with the Rocky Mountain Institute has a good podcast episode on this on his The Energy Transition Show podcast. Check it out!
France has not been at war since they started building nuclear plants and has no solid plan for dealing with nuclear waste either from what I can tell.
France comes begging across the border for coal and gas electricity in hot summers when their reactors have to lower output because river water for cooling is too hot. Then they pat themselves on the back because the CO2 is not generated within their borders.
The vast majority of “nuclear waste” is just common items that have come into contact with radiation. The really radioactive portions can be, and are safely stored within the facilities themselves.
Sure, the barely radioactive waste components do need to be buried (or it seems like that’s the current trend), but they pose no risk to anyone as long as they’re not digging them up.
And for how long to they have to be “safely stored”? For how long do they have to be buried without anyone digging them up? And where are we burying anyway where there is no risk of anyone digging them up intentionally or accidentally, no risk of natural phenomena interfering, no risk of the barrels breaking and nuclear waste seeping into our water? There is a reason why countries have been struggling to find these safe storage spaces for decades. I’d argue that is because there aren’t any.
Reaching for an unproven concept of “drilling really deep holes” that’s barely a few years old to convince people there is no problem with long-term storage of dangerous waste we’ve been accumulating for decades, but sure, I’m just a NIMBY.
I’m glad you took the time to completely not read the article that I sent you. I know you didn’t read it because if you had read it, you would see that we have discovered several times over the past few billion years that nature had made its own deposits of nuclear material in the same manner as we are advising the waste to be deposited in. It’s not new science. We have evidence of it occurring naturally multiple times and no issues from that. No spread of radiation from that. No inundation of groundwater from that. But yes you’re correct and all the nuclear scientists are wrong clearly.
Whether it would work or not wasn’t even the main point of what I said. But that doesn’t matter to you anyway as your strategy to debate seems to be to call others stupid often enough until everyone else understands how smart you are. Good luck with that.
if someone gives you cited information and you refuse to read the cited information, then You’re not stupid. You’re willfully ignorant which is far worse. It’s not dangerous waste if it’s properly handled and treated and disposed of.
The architecture of the housing facilities is quite an interesting thing to look into. They’re pretty safe, other than like catastrophic tectonic activity as far as I know.
I think the more interesting part is the labelling of those sites. Well, the potential ideas to mark these areas as dangerous to dig/disturb. What I’ve seen is that it’s trying to mark them for the far future so that even if you don’t know the language, it’s (hopefully) obvious.
I don't think nuclear power was killed by NIMBYs, at least not entirely. In the 1970s and 80s the financial world started taking a much more short-term view. Nuclear power plants have such a huge up-front cost that you aren't going to see returns for decades. When the market wants numbers to go up every quarter they're not going to finance something that won't make a profit for 20 years.
The problems with nuclear power aren’t meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that’s just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.
It’s not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can’t do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.
And it wasn’t some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don’t know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn’t some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.
If we built breeder reactors we could use the spent waste fuel to power the entire US for 1000 years. That runs into plutonium existence problems, but it’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
However, I still agree with what you’ve said. We should limit our nuclear footprint to key isotope production, but we really shouldn’t be doing that until we’ve gone full carbon neutral.
Edit: In case you can’t see the reply to this comment, my conversation partner has given me more information I didn’t have before. Breeder reactors are neat, but they have more issues than I originally knew. (Still a badass concept though :P) journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007
The problem here is the AM/FM distinction: Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic.
Fucking Magic is great if you’re writing scifi, or trying to sell snake oil to investors. The Hyperloop and FSD are examples of Fucking Magic. Sure, they could, in theory, exist, but they don’t, and we don’t know how long they would take or even if they make sense in the long term.
There’s nothing wrong with working on new technologies that may as well be Fucking Magic until they do become viable.
However, if you are making plans for how to proceed with your policy goals, you need Actual Machines. Actual Machines can’t do miracles and fix all of our problems overnight like Fucking Magic can, but they have the benefit of existing. We know their actual benefits and their actual drawbacks. We know that they won’t present some brand new problem that makes them impossible to work with, because they are mature. Trains and bicycles are Actual Machines. Wind, solar and hydro power are Actual Machines.
Cars are also Actual Machines, and thanks to over a century of maturity, we can confidently say that they are not sustainable at their current scale. Nuclear fission is similar.
We don’t know if Fucking Magic will make the transition to an Actual Machine, and if it does, whether it will turn out to be viable.
If breeder reactors are going to become a technology we can rely on to solve our nuclear fuel and waste issues, then they need to make the transition from Fucking Magic to Actual Machines to finally being viable, and that could take decades or more of further research, and yet more decades to actually build the things. Sure, that could come in time to extend our nuclear fuel reserves before they run out in around a century, but it might not. We just don’t know. It certainly won’t come in time to make a difference to climate change.
I wasn’t trying to insult you, I am honestly just angry at how our society has poisoned everyone’s thinking into this bizarre quasi-religious faith in technological miracles so it can sell them fantasies, and I think the Actual Machines / Fucking Magic distinction is an entertaining way of making the absurdity of it very clear.
While those are all fair points, it’s also important to note that Gen IV reactor technology has projected generation efficiencies of very roughly 100-300x the energy yield from an identical mass of fissile material when compared to Gen II and Gen III reactors. I dare say that would change the efficiency equation rather significantly if those numbers pan out in the implementation stage.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Nuclear displaces fossil fuels at a better rate than renewables and is just as low carbon impact as them. We could replace the entire fossil grid with nuclear in 10 years if there was public support and demand for it, but fossil giants have been parroting the same antinuclear myths and fears dor the last 70 years and its so widely spread even pro renewable people have been deluded into thinking nuclear is bad for the planet when it might very well be our last best hope of fixing greenhouse emissions without the entire world reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.
Nuclear plants wouldn’t take so long to build if people stopped trying to sue and protest their construction and sabotage it with all the red tape. If permits were approved and certified tomorrow a new plant could be operational in 10 years. 5 if it was actually funded and supported. Building the plant is easy, its cuttinf through the red tape encouraged by the oil lobby that is takes decades
But what if one of those stray radio nucleides corrupts my potential grand grand grand grand children 500 years down the line? What say you of your safety margins then?. (Dies of coughing due to coal Ash)
I think nuclear and fossil fuel people all the same people. Its all energy investors. Nuclear would come with a lifetime storage contract with the ability to continually jack up the public cost indefinitely as the requirements change. Seems like an industry that would appeal to the fossils fuel types.
I don’t understand why individuals are so set on centralized generation. We suddenly have the capabilities to decentralize generation and greatly reduce the need for the grid. I think it is worth it for the aesthetic advantages alone.
My opinion is that to be truly decentralized we should do both. Not just physically decentralize by location, but decentralized in a sense of having multiple options. We should do solar, and wind, and nuclear power. The power output of solar and wind is just not where it needs to be to replace both nuclear and fossil fuels, so I do have to argue in favor of building more nuclear power, but that doesn’t mean I am against building any other renewables as well.
When my internet goes down, my provider unlimits my phone so I can hotspot the house through 5G still. If I go out, the modem switches to a backup 4G they unlimit too. If it takes a few days, they start throwing the refunds or free month at me. I’ve actually told them I’m not too upset and away for the weekend, so they don’t have to go above and beyond.
Communications regulators. Only for us evil “socialist” countries.
Funnily enough, I tried this once when my Internet (shitfinity) went out for two days. I asked the online chat rep if I could be reimbursed for the outage. They replied with, “due to the outage, we will be crediting (128.99/30*2)=$8.60 to your account.” With the math included and everything. They probably have a lot of people trying to get a free month out of a few hours without service and just started doing that, haha. I couldn’t be mad.
As an Asian this whole thread feels so weird and I can’t tell if people actually eat rice with ketchup or they are tricking me into trying an abomination
Why can’t y’all just make normal children’s food like chicken curry with rice? Stop putting so much sugar and corn syrup in everything.
If this continues we’ll have to retaliate: see how certain East Asian countries make pizzas and burgers and see how you like it! (PS: it was flatbread with corn and ham as the only toppings)
Oh and the original answer: since so many people have already answered soy sauce, I’d say chicken soup or pork broth.
I wouldn’t say it’s common, but I also wouldn’t say it’s unheard of…and I would never put it past Americans to try an odd condiment application.
Honestly though, when you look at the ingredients, it’s not too drastically far off from the ingredients of a sauce you might specifically put together as part of a more traditional rice dish: tomatoes, vinegar, onion, garlic, ginger, coriander, cumin… bit heavy on the sugar but a lot of sauces in Asian cooking are even sweeter.
I agree it seems repulsive on the surface to me too, but now that I’ve been thinking about it…I kinda wanna try it.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.