Saleh
@Saleh@feddit.org
- Comment on I'm pretty sure all of us have given up on any boomer giving us anything anyway 14 hours ago:
So much this. In my country my parents generation could afford buying a house on two middle class incomes when they were end of 20s early 30s. In my generation that is only possible with generational wealth.
- Comment on Pretty interesting when you really think about it. 5 days ago:
Passports weren’t a general concept until the end of the 19th century. Before they were mostly to allow passage to certain areas inside one country, rather than for movement between countries. There have been Identifications for Nobels and Diplomats though.
Anyways the whole concept is mostly a concept of modern nation states not of ancient tribalism.
- Comment on nuclear 5 days ago:
Did people during the concept and design phase of these anticipate them causing disasters?
Did the people who operate them adhere to best safety practices, maintenance and regulations?
Did the regulatory authorities ensure that there would be no disaster possible through enforcing said regulations, in particular regarding location specific concerns such as Tsunamis in Fukushima?
As long as you have the same human characters in the same economic structures in the same administrative structures, there is no reason to be confident, that these disasters will not happen again.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
There are plenty of projects with similar risks in other fields all the time.
Then name three examples please, that have a Chernobyl level of risk.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
Which is why both technologies need to be abolished asap and replaced with cheaper and sustainable renewable energies.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
A reactivity accident is a situation in which such a control device that absorbs neutrons malfunctions or is accidentally removed for some reason, causing a sharp increase in the nuclear reaction, leading to an output surge and sometimes a runaway reaction. Some SMRs, however, are not confined to the existing light water reactor (LWR) concept of ‘no fuel supply during operation’, but have the concept that fuel supply during operation is possible. Since such reactors are not overloaded with fuel, there is no possibility of a reactivity accident even if there is a failure in the control devices.
Page 4. Describing exactly what i said.
n Japan, where even at 30% power with zero coolant flow, the reactor shuts DON automatically without the insertion of control rods, and heat can be removed without mechanical means by radiation and natural convection to the water-cooled cooling panels outside the reactor. Figure 2.2 shows the results of the zero-coolant test.
The US metal-fuelled fast reactor, the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II, 19 megawatts electrical (MWe)), shows similar results to the above when the coolant flow is set to zero […] Aurora (4 MWth) by Oklo, which applied for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) in 2020, has the same characteristics as the EBR-II.
Page 6, which refers to the graphic on page 7. So this only applies if the reactor was at around 30% or less of the design power output.
Meanwhile, the largest equipment in an NPP is the containment vessel. Containment vessels are generally much larger than reactor vessels. With a diameter of more than 10 m and a height of more than 30 m, they cannot be transported by ordinary means, such as by trucks on public roads. Although a containment vessel is important equipment for preventing the release of radioactive materials in the event of an accident, it is possible to have a design concept without a containment vessel if the NPP has other equipment that has equivalent functions or safety characteristics. The presence or absence of a containment vessel is another guideline for determining whether modularisation can be achieved.
Page 10.
Yeah great idea. This is Titanic all over again. We don’t need a last resort because we have been so smart, that all preliminary features are deemed infaillable. A story as old as humans building complex technology.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
If you want a reaction that you can take energy away from the reaction, the reaction needs to create more energy than it needs to maintain itself. If you fail to take that energy away, the reaction will accelerate and your output will grow even further.
It is basic physics.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
For starters we are talking about concepts, not actually built and tested Reactors. If you have any connection to scientific research, technology development or engineering, you should know that between hypothesis, laboratory testing, prototype development, technology upscaling, establishment of production lines and finally long term operation routines there is a lot that will not be like expected, has to be revised, adjusted, scrapped, redesigned…
The history of nuclear energy is riddled with cases of hubris leading to disasters. It is evident that so far humans were unable and unwilling to give safety the proper considerations.
But from a practical point of view anyone with some industry experience would find the idea insane, that Small and Modular systems, so high throughput of small batches would increase safety. It is much more complicated to provide Quality and Safety checks in such an environment. Especially as these would be done by multiple for profit companies, the necessary oversight would be more difficult to provide for the regulation authorities, so in the medium run we will get Boeing like situations. Just that cost cutting and mingling will lead to reactors contaminating large swaths of areas on top of potentially killing hundreds of people.
So now you explain, why we should totally listen to the claims made by for profit cost cutting companies, that are solely based on concepts, without any actual field testing.
Because that was exactly the Titanic situation. People believed it to be unsinkable and decided to cut on costs for emergency measures. Reality proved them wrong on the first and last voyage.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
Can’t have a runaways reaction like the Titanic was unsinkable.
- Comment on nuclear 6 days ago:
Station safety is so overboard, that we only had like three meltdowns or so, and only some hundreds of thousands of people killed by premature cancer deaths as a result of them and some million or so permanently displaced.
But surely after the next event we will have learned and then it will be totally safe. Like they said after Three Miles Island. And like they said after Chernobyl. And like they said after Fukushima.
- Comment on NBC News Does Entire Piece Trying To Link CEO Shooting To ‘Violent Video Game’ 1 week ago:
Marilyn Manson and Eminem are the real culprits here.
- Comment on Indian start-up Yes Madam fires employees who indicated being stressed in the survey 1 week ago:
If my business is local, buying from local suppliers as much as possible and employing local people it shouldn’t matter at all, if these local employees are ethnically the same and all have the same nationality.
So i would take it more as the former, ultra nationalist.
- Comment on Joe 3:16 2 weeks ago:
I suggest using your political powers to move relevant things. Biden and the Dems dont do that. Instead they abuse it for nepotism
- Comment on Joe 3:16 2 weeks ago:
Oh you think the Democrats going low will benefit the people?
The Democrats going low will just mean that they’ll fully fuck over the people for their billionaire donors together with the Reps and then they’ll remind you that this is exactly what you asked for. And now back to work for minimum wage. The GDP isnt making itself.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
Why do we not have issues with the plague anymore? Because of hygiene. Did any of the diseases you mentioned from raw milk cause pandemics? No. Are there other Bacterial diseases that had been local pandemics? Yes. Cholera mainly. Was the transmission mainly from human to human? No, it was usually through contaminated water.
This is very different from the viral pandemics by the like of the Spanish Flu or the SARS viruses. But none of these spread from people eating contaminated food.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
Me: Still i would like to say that i don’t think raw milk is a problematic vector for pandemics to spread. Chance is people will get the shits if hygiene is bad, but i doubt a viral pandemic to spread because of raw milk. More likely would be farm workers getting an infection over the air and then spreading it to other humans.
You: People who study viruses for a living seem to think it’s possible, but I guess as long as you doubt it, no problem.
Me: Pandemic from raw milk? Do you have a source for that?
I am still waiting for the answer on my question. And again if you have such great knowledge in virology and i am lacking such knowledge it should be easy for you to provide me with comprehensive sources supporting your claim, that “People who study viruses for a living seem to think it’s [a viral pandemic to spread because of raw milk] possible”
Putting words in my mouth and changing the goal post doesn’t change the fact that you claim knowledge about virological matters, that you refuse to support with sources.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
None of these diseases is viral. They are all bacterial. You said:
I think you need to take a basic virology course
As you have such adapt knowledge about virology: Which viral infection is transmitted through raw milk, especially one that can cause a pandemic and can you now finally provide actual scientific sources of scientists considering these an issue? Clearly you must have had these in your virology classes, where you took your in depth virology knowledge from.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
First of all COVID wasn’t transmitted from eating. It was likely transmitted from animals that were still alive at that market and it was always a respiratory disease.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2
And then again what is your conclusion? To ban all products and activities, that have a principal possibility of transmitting diseases? Because then nothing much is left to be done. So obviously the probability needs to be a relevant factor. Which brings us back to the question if you have any source of scientists indicating that raw milk would be a relevant vector for the transmission of respiratory diseases.
As it stands it seems to me that you just dislike raw milk for some reason, which has nothing to do with it being a relevant risk for diseases to spread or not.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
For starters i find it unlikely that a respiratory disease is transmitted through food. Possible sure. But by the logic of “possible” rather than “probable” we should never leave the house again.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
Pandemic from raw milk? Do you have a source for that?
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
I was just giving reason, that exist to prefer raw milk. I only ever drank raw milk when spending vacations on a farm and i didn’t buy cow milk since a couple of years.
Still i would like to say that i don’t think raw milk is a problematic vector for pandemics to spread. Chance is people will get the shits if hygiene is bad, but i doubt a viral pandemic to spread because of raw milk. More likely would be farm workers getting an infection over the air and then spreading it to other humans.
- Comment on ugh i wish 3 weeks ago:
Because raw milk contains everything, including all the fat and all the vitamins.
Processed milk usually is first separated between fat and liquid and then the fat is readded. Also the pasteurization destroys some of the vitamins.
More importantly though it just tastes different.
Finally if you want to make yogurt or cream cheese, you want to work of raw milk because it contains the fermenting bacteria, but that is more of a niche application.
Pasteurization by default does not remove all bacteria and probably also not all viruses.
- Comment on Jesus Christ 4 weeks ago:
The one does not contradict the other. God uses the extreme weather to punish the destruction of his creation by humans.
- Comment on the lifestyle 5 weeks ago:
You can save template in Excel too.
I know Excel is wonky sometimes and it is from Microsoft, so it comes with a whole lot of bullshit around it, but in terms of available features it is quite solid nowadays.
- Comment on Nuclear Demonology 1 month ago:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact. It can also mean an apathy towards such religious belief and refer to personal limitations rather than a worldview. Another definition is the view that “human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.”
Aside from that, whether you accept and believe scientific discoveries remains a subjective choice. In social sciences like history or economics it often happens that two contradictory views are equally legitimate. And again the look in the past is valuable. Many scientists were ridiculed, sometimes even persecuted for their ideas to be outside the consensus of their time.
Assuming that what you consider the accepted truth because it is the accepted opinion of our day and age could proof equally fallible like the ancient Greeks and Romans ridiculing the now accepted germ theory, for which we have ample evidence thanks to the development of microscopes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#Gree…
So your original ridicule is perfectly viable. It just not only applies to the statements of Tucker Carlson, who i probably despise equally as you do.
- Comment on Nuclear Demonology 1 month ago:
Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no deity.
The scientific approach is agnosticism. In the absence of evidence, or what one considers evidence, the scientific answer is “i don’t know”.
Personal experience and evidence are two different things.
And a lot of what we consider to be scientifically proven, are theories, which are subject to constant change. The best example probably being atomic models and how rapidly they developed in the early 20th century. However that Bohrs atom model of circular movement of electrons around the atoms core was succeeded by more detailed models and the circles being disproved, doesn’t mean Bohr was any less of a scientist or evidence based researcher.
Meanwhile except for very few physics experts we all just accept that orbitals are the best approximation we have right now, because we read it in some book.
- Comment on Nuclear Demonology 1 month ago:
you are now banned from Atheist Memes.
- Comment on Know thy enemy 1 month ago:
that is quite simple actually.
Butter and skimmed milk also come from the same source. You have a complex mixture of stuff that is differently viscose, so in mixture it all ends up with a certain viscosity. Now you separate it and you get stuff that is almost solid and you get stuff, that is very liquid, or in the case of crude oil you get some gaseous fractions.
- Comment on Know thy enemy 1 month ago:
This is wrong in some many ways. To add to the already mentioned. Ocean water is the largest carbon dioxide buffer by absorbing CO2 to become carbonic acid. As the sulfur acidifies the Ocean, this “competes” with the carbonic acid, increasing the CO2 emissions from the Ocean.
In other words, all geoengineering tropes end up being horseshit.
- Comment on Anon awakens an ancient evil 1 month ago:
Guess that was a freudian missspelling