Recent comments in /f/science

marketrent OP t1_j7d9ke4 wrote

Reply to comment by crimeo in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

>crimeoPhD

>I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question

>>Am I just blind, or is there no actual data here?

>Where is the data? WHAT was reviewed by their peers? They haven't actually gone out and done or measured anything to be reviewed, unless I'm missing it in the article.

Findings in title are quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper T. Brown, et al.^2 as cited in my excerpt comment.^3

Perhaps correspondence with the authors — environmental physicist Laura Revell, planetary scientist Michele Bannister, and first author Tyler Brown — may be productive.

^1 Rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2023/rocket-industry-could-undo-decades-of-work-to-save-the-ozone-layer.html

^2 T. Brown, M. Bannister, and L. Revell. Envisioning a sustainable future for space launches: a review of current research and policy. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2152467

^3 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/10ufb9b/new_review_finds_that_rocket_emissions_in_the/j7bisdk/

−21

crimeo t1_j7d7hmt wrote

Reply to comment by marketrent in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question

> Am I just blind, or is there no actual data here?

Where is the data? WHAT was reviewed by their peers? They haven't actually gone out and done or measured anything to be reviewed, unless I'm missing it in the article. Hence the "am I just blind?" because I was confused how this would be published if so and am doubting myself. The blind part is an honest question

18

triffid_boy t1_j7d787t wrote

Reply to comment by ElectronGuru in Vitamin D supplements linked to reduced risk of suicide, study of veterans finds by thebelsnickle1991

Vitamin D should be taken with food with some fat in, but there isn't great evidence saying you should avoid taking vitamin D in the afternoon or evenings. Logically, since you make vitamin D from the sun exposure during the day, natural vitamin D levels are probably highest around noon-2pm.

5

crimeo t1_j7d745h wrote

Reply to comment by OrangeYouGlad100 in In Monet's impressionist paintings, that dreamy haze is air pollution, study says by WouldbeWanderer

Sorry, sorry. Anyway yes to a degree, but your dynamic range would be scuffed and you'd still make more mistakes. Like by analogy, if I'm a carpenter and I try to build a set of cabinets with a ruler that only has 1 centimeter markings and no millimeters anymore, they're going to be way shittier and not line up quite right ans not close fully, etc., even though I'm consistently using the same rulers throughout. The lower precision will make the answers float around further from the true mark.

It will always just add more and more errors.

edit: or not an analogy, just the extreme version of this actual issue would be full colorblindness, i.e. grayscale. You could still paint in color but you'd have to guess which color. Partial points along that continuum will be some way in between "the right color" and "guessing"

2

marketrent OP t1_j7d6yce wrote

Reply to comment by crimeo in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

crimeoPhD

>Uh am I just blind, or is there no actual data here, just some dudes waving their hands and hypothesizing stuff they think is plausible?

>And that hypothesis, even, is especially un-compelling IMO when they include hypergolic propellants in the list: that is the source of most of the super toxic shit BUT is also definitely not the propellant being used in the vast majority of those extra 100 launches.

>Hypergolics are used for military rockets mostly where stable storage for years is the main concern. Commercial launches use almost entirely vastly cleaner RP-1 refined kerosene, hydrogen, or methane fuels

The authors are “just some dudes” whose review of research and policy is peer-reviewed.

The lexicon for describing peer-reviewed hypothesis — could or plausible included — may be unfamiliar to audiences accustomed to assertions of opinion.

−30

OrangeYouGlad100 t1_j7d6dc3 wrote

Reply to comment by crimeo in In Monet's impressionist paintings, that dreamy haze is air pollution, study says by WouldbeWanderer

No need to be snarky.

If cataracts just makes things look blurry then you're right.

If cataracts makes bright colors look dull, for example, then he would still choose paints that match the true colors of the scene. The bright colors in the scene would look dull to him, but his bright colored paints would look exactly as dull.

1