Unfortunately, nuclear power isn’t really economically viable in countries like Australia (nor is there much appetite for it). We’d be much better off heavily diversifying to renewable energy imo
Something. (I stopped comparing human beings to animals when I realized it was an insult to animals.)
1 Like
- The World Health Organisation warned that there is no evidence antibody tests can show if a person who was previously affected by the novel coronavirus is immune to reinfection.
- Antibodies can’t guarantee long-term immunity from the virus for recovered patients or former asymptomatic carriers, officials said Friday
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/coronavirus-antibodies-cant-guarantee-long-term-immunity-who-said-2020-4
The problem with solar, wind, tidal, etc. is the limitations of batteries. The sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow, etc. So power must be stored in batteries and usable on demand. Battery tech is just plain awful. Renewable energy is never going to be viable until battery tech is given a massive upgrade.
1 Like
Here’s the problem:
Hydropower via dams spells doom for migratory fish species some of which are important economically (Salmon)
Also just because desert land isn’t usable by us doesn’t mean it isn’t solid habitat for wildlife. (I’m a biology major so conservation of habitat is also a massive concern for me)
Wind power also has its issues but I’d rank it the lowest. Of course, everything we do causes some amount of impact but the idea is what causes the least? I wish people would get over their apprehension with nuclear as while solar, hydro, and wind are better than fossil fuels…solar and hydro at the very least are not much better in terms of a different form of impact.
Stop paying attention to WHO. They’ve disgraced themselves.
4 Likes
whatever is going to happen, had better happen quickly, seeing as how the Confederacy just raised the old battleflag in Michigan.
scoff You haven’t spent enough time in biology classes. Just because your dog is a good boy doesn’t change the absolute brutality exhibited in nature.
2 Likes
Those two points are very up in the air. Notice how the wording suggest that there is “no evidence” that antibody tests render a human immune to getting infected again. Then, the second point, suggests that the antibodies don’t guarantee long-term immunity.
That, to me, sounds like they’re saying “you may or may not be able to get infected again, but you’re gonna get sick again a few years from now.”
It’s like the flu. You get a shot for it every year, or you don’t. If you don’t, you have a higher likelihood of getting the flu. If they were testing folks who had recovered fully from the virus, then they more than likely had antibodies.
It’s just up in the air whether or not they can protect a human from getting the disease again, getting it worse, and dying as a result. That’s why vaccines exist.
Also, this. They recently banned folks under 21 (18-20) from smoking NICOTINE PRODUCTS. 
I’ve seen worse to be honest…
brb reanimating the corpse of Gen. Sherman.
1 Like
Plz don’t, I’m from Georgia and would not like to see my house burned down…Well, I did live closer to downtown Roswell than downtown Marietta…Maybe my family will be fine.
Normally I insert some jocularity relating to all this. Not today: I wasn’t being funny.
And neither are they.
(Actually, I liked bio). Nature’s brutality is raw, unconscious forces in balance. That of human beings is by choice, and often deliberately cruel. We are out of balance, with the power to destroy the surface of an entire world.
If I may: we’re half-demon. Fortunately though, we’re also half-angel.
Winnie the Flu? Is that you? You’re right, your country is great!
I’d beg to think that deliberate cruelty and true altruism are behaviors that arise as a consequence of increased brain capacity and that it is not unique to humans. Why do I think that? Dolphins. Dolphins will show deliberate and intentional displays of cruelty and have been recorded to commit acts of what can only be described as altruistic. In the end, take out the romantic aspects of what you said, when you are aware of how brutal nature is, conscious or not, and that it was from nature where we came, a lot of our behaviors begin to make a lot of sense and aren’t all that much a sign of humanity’s status as a unique evil but instead the consequence of the world we evolved in.
No, its not. Its actually a seriously powerful disease thats killing many, 50,000+ now in USA. More worldwide. You can’t “overhype” something that within 1-3 months killed 50,000+ alone in one country by one cause.
This thread is still up.
~https://time.com/5610878/2018-2019-flu-season/
That is incorrect as to your numbers.
~https://healthvigil.com/flu-season-deaths-us-worlswide/
~https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
Indeed, I am aware of this evolutionary span of cruelty and altruism. (And as such, we do have far more in common with the natural world than seemingly not, as was hopefully implied in my first post.) But by the time this set of dynamics got to humans, our capacity for abstract thought, symbolic ego and believing in fictions has enabled us to take it to whole new heights: a difference in degree so great, it’s become a difference in kind.
I don’t think we’re ‘evil’. My insult-to-animals post merely reflected my own emotion: anger and sadness from what we do, in contrast to what we can be.
1 Like