I’ve seen estimates of an average of 100 tonnes per day of meteorites and space dust entering earth’s atmosphere every day, and if we add on avg ca 28 tonnes more per day for the satellites, it doesn’t significantly change mass.

Like the other commenters though, a range of other factors needs to be considered.

[removed]

[removed]

You can do randomised trials which are unblinded. Several have been done, including community studies in Denmark, Bangladesh and Burkina Faso. Mask adherence was very low in the intervention arms in the latter 2 of settings, which were done as cluster RCTs. In Denmark it was an individual level RCT so cannot assess masks as source control.

In short, inability to blind brings potential biases but is not a reason to not perform RCTs.

Ah I see! I felt confusion cos for sure we have pretty conclusive evidence of the deep harm of many industrial processes but what you're saying makes sense

[deleted]

Exotic?

The structure of the satellite is mostly aluminum, and the solar panels are mostly silicon. Burning them in reentry forms compounds with oxygen.

Those are the three most common elements on the planet. Aluminum-Silicon-Oxygen compounds make up more than 60% of the Earth's crust. Add water and you basically have common clay.

There isn't a single combination of elements that's less exotic.

I know nothing - in no way an expert but i would hazard that there is a definite gradient in intelligence/consciousness/self-awareness etc beginning with very simple immediate input-response with no significant ‘processing’ to neural networks that take inputs and build models of external reality mediating possible responses to those that build more complex models allowing greater flexibility and even models of the models/modeller. I wonder if self-consciousness is a sort of internal experience of a model of the models or model of the modeller. But no doubt rather like the concept of life itself these are difficult concepts to be entirely precise or draw definitive lines about. And obviously we should be careful about considering potential variety in something like intelligence because there are perhaps arguably creatures with complex but niche limited intelligence and those with more flexible wide-ranging, I think. It’s easy to see ourselves at the top of every gradient but that may be in the sense of plasticity (?) and range rather than in specific niches. If that makes any sense at all!

Seems more like they're implying that entrepreneurs will not accept anything that isn't straight up proving a negative. Which is logically impossible. Thus whatever "this is possibly bad" scientists come up with, will end up dismissed because it's not "This is 100% certainty bad".

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Heavy metals in the water may be really bad for animals, e.g. the European oysters which are nearly extinct in the copper-rich (tiny particles) north Sea. We should care about everything we do to our planet. You don't have to care about everything yourself of course. But don't dismiss it as unimportant just because you don't have the energy to care.

[removed]

You have two lungs, two liver lobes, two parotid glands, two thyroid lobes, two eyes, two ears, two arms, two thumbs, two legs, two cerebral hemispheres, two gonads, two breasts, etc.

Sometimes the "doubled" organs are so close together that they are considered one (liver, thyroid, brain ...). But that's just developmental happenstance. In some people, the left and right kidneys are combined into one giant "horseshoe" kidney.

[removed]

That would be a terrible rule. If you can't "add new sources and types of pollution", as you say, you've just eliminated perfectly reasonable ways to significantly reduce the sum: you couldn't use wind power, because it adds a "new source and type of pollution" in the form of broken turbine blades. Your rule, as stated, wouldn't let us consider the drastic improvement it makes in the form of reduced coal/natgas combustion. You would effectively mandate BAU.

[removed]

What about beetroot? Why does the colour get through to urine?

[removed]

[removed]

The colour of an object is defined by the wavelengths of light it absorbs. When you add lots of colours together, the absorbtive characteristics of each are combined together and, generally speaking, the darker it gets the more colours you add. If you were to perfectly combine an equal ratio of cyan, magenta, and yellow (incidentally, CMY is the negative/inverse of Red/Green/Blue), you'd get black.

This is in contrast to coloured light, which selectively emits specific wavelengths, rather than selectively absorbing them. In the case of equally combining red, green, and blue light emissions, you end up with white.

[removed]

As far as I'm aware, the sign conventions for work are the same. If the surroundings do work on the system, that would be negative work for the surroundings and positive work for the system. Can you give an example of what you mean?