[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We're looking for alternatives, but until we'll be able to replicate an entire system in vitro the results won't be as reliable. That would lead to less reliable drugs or a much slower progress, as we would need human testing for more possible drugs.

There are those who see one way or the other as the better, it really depends on your "ethical priorities"

It depends on the cancer: different animals behave in a more or less similar way to the human system, so after you've gone past the mice stage you choose the ones whose system more closely resembles the human one

[removed]

This was a concern that was discussed quite a bit in pop-science, tabloid, and conspiracy circles back when the LHC was first starting up. In short, these black holes would not destroy the Earth. Due to their small size they grow much slower than they would decay due to Hawking radiation. Even if Hawking radiation works differently than we think at those scales and they don't decay, they grow so slowly it would take eons for them to eat the Earth.

Cosmic rays with way more energy than the LHC bombard the Earth all the time. So the fact that the Earth still exists would tell us that these micro black holes, if they form, won't destroy a planet in less than billions of years.

[removed]

[removed]

Well the "left and right brain" theory has been disproven for a long time.

The idea that there are right-brained and left-brained people is a myth. Although we all obviously have different personalities and talents, there's no reason to believe these differences can be explained by the dominance of one half of the brain over the other half.

If you're talking about pure functionality things, then it doesn't really mean anything beyond that being the dominant neural pathway developed during their life.

Yes, while it is above the glass transition temperature it will be rubbery and become glassy again when it cools.

[deleted]

Mass euthanization is coordinated by a government agency. Lots of people will be involved.

Where mass euthanasia is required, the chosen euthanasia methods must consider the animal welfare implications while meeting biosecurity requirements and minimising the risk of disease transmission.

It requires someone trained to handle the materials and equipment. Another person to confirm each animal has been euthanized. That can be veterinarians, but it can also be slaughterhouse workers or others skilled in the trade.

During a mass outbreak there is often a labour shortage of skilled experts. Third party non-government experts may be called in.

Recommend methods for mass chicken euthanization is filling an entire shed with carbon dioxide gas, then any survivors are hit with a non-penetrative captive bolt gun.

[deleted]

Thank you but does the body know if an Antibody has binded to its target? Or does it just hope it does

If making black holes is a really a potential outcome of the LHC I'm mildly shocked we just let the LHC run without some appropriate protections (if that's even possible)

Is that a yes?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Everyday you consume about 100,000 pieces of microplastic. However, when you die if you open up your body, only about 1000 pieces will be inside.

Overall: microplastics mostly pass harmlessly through any filter we can design. It doesn't stick to anything and it just keeps on moving around. It's a difficult problem.

The first step is capturing microplastics. There isn't a good way to do this. We can capture macro-plastics easier using simple size filters, that's the rescue mission you see where people are pulling out fishing lines, raincoats, plastic bottles, etc. We don't have any good techniques to pull out microplastics. We can use centrifuges, reverse osmosis or solvent extraction - but none of those can scale up to the size of a river or ocean. There are chemical gelling products that sponge up the microplastics almost like running a ball of plasticene over carpet to pick up dirt, but again, really niche stuff that doesn't scale up well.

The second step is sequestration or destruction of the capture material. It's always going to be mixed plastic waste of little recycling value - we don't even recycle easy post-consumer plastics so nobody is going to put energy into environmental plastics. One option is to burn it. Destroys the plastic and converts it to carbon dioxide. Another is landfill, which is really good at trapping solids to deal with later. A more advanced option is anaerobic digestion - where we break the plastic back to it's starting materials or convert it to biogas which can be used as fuel.

The accounting (money, energy, emissions) for this is messy. Maybe you need to fuel up boats and trucks to move all the plastic around, so overall emissions go up. Someone also needs to pay for this work, and maybe that money is better spent elsewhere on bigger problems.

Right now, best targets are reducing the sources. You get significantly higher bang-for-buck.

[removed]

Europe doesn't have as much space as the US and nobody wants landfills near them so for the most part miscellaneous/non-recyclable plastics are just burnt along with other kinds of trash in special facilities that are equipped to handle toxic smokes

plastic is petroleum-based so it burns pretty well and modern incinerators double as power plants

p.s. I suppose you could say it's one kind of chemical transformation...