Recent comments in /f/science

Aardark235 t1_j7n1l4x wrote

Reply to 15 million people live in possible flood path for melting glaciers | Glacial lakes can cause flooding if an ice or rock dam holding back the water fails, an analysis has found by chrisdh79

I got to witness a small glacier dam burst in the Wind River range of Wyoming. The amount of power released by even a small lake is unfathomable. It sounded like a 12-lane highway even from a mile away. Can’t imagine the destruction of a big glacier lake.

1

DorianGre t1_j7n16sg wrote

Reply to comment by PinkFloydBoxSet in In a study examining conversation as a vehicle for social influence, researchers found that changing the mind of someone who is dismissive of efforts to protect the planet could be accomplished by sharing a pro-sustainability point of view during a verbal or written exchange. by memorialmonorail

And Arkansas and Illinois. Finding large tracks of land for sale that hasn’t had some part of it enrolled in a wetlands or conservation easement is getting more and more difficult. (Also, this will be a large problem in the future. Forever use bans is not best productivity or ecology.)

1

SevenOnEarth t1_j7msdmq wrote

Reply to In a study examining conversation as a vehicle for social influence, researchers found that changing the mind of someone who is dismissive of efforts to protect the planet could be accomplished by sharing a pro-sustainability point of view during a verbal or written exchange. by memorialmonorail

So you're saying the rest of the world just needs to have a calm talk with The United States and lay its consumption out in a rational way. Everyone will see the need to change their lifestyle to save the planet.

​

https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm

0

zehvthestranger t1_j7mryjn wrote

Reply to comment by osnapitsjoey in The discovery of an 80-million-year-old fossil plant in California pushes back the known origins of lamiids to the Cretaceous, extending the record of nearly 40,000 species of flowering plants including coffee, tomatoes, potatoes and mint that survived cataclysm that killed the dinosaurs by giuliomagnifico

You don’t become a botanist if you love yourself, but only if you can embrace chaos and uncertainty.

3

Aporkalypse_Sow t1_j7mm7s2 wrote

Reply to comment by traketaker in A systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that increased consumption of dietary carbohydrate intake is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. by Meatrition

I was merely pointing out that being overweight had nothing to do with his situation. Being overweight isn't going to win health awards, but you can limit your calories and still be a train wreck inside.

1

WeAreAllFooked t1_j7mhxze wrote

Reply to comment by Ksradrik in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992

This is patently false. Name me one nuclear accident not named Chernobyl or Fukushima where the reactor failed and lead to widespread contamination or verifiable health issues in the surrounding areas.

Chernobyl was a perfect storm of corruption, extremely poor reactor and containment design, and lax safety standards. Fukushima was caused by collusion, corruption, and inept management between the government of Japan, the regulator, and TEPCO.

Modern reactor and containment design are miles ahead of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and all reactors are designed around negative coefficients to prevent a possible catastrophic failure

1

WeAreAllFooked t1_j7mfysr wrote

Reply to comment by strokes_your_nose in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992

Basically coal contains trace amounts of radioactive elements and those radioactive particles are spread when the coal is burned and the waste gases are dumped in to the air.

1993 article mentioning it: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1002/ML100280691.pdf

2007 article mentioning it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

A Canadian company wanted to buy up all the coal that was sitting around to extract radioactive isotopes from it and turn it in to nuclear fuel, when the coal companies found out about it, they immediately squashed the sale because of potential optics surrounding coal-fired power plants and the release of radioactive material. I'm trying to find the article that talks about it, but it's been a while since I read it

3

danielravennest t1_j7me7ig wrote

Reply to comment by jeffwulf in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992

Natural gas started replacing coal due to fracking making it cheaper. This started several years before wind and solar were competitive. Now all three are killing coal, but as wind and solar keep getting cheaper, less of it will be natural gas (14% this year for new NG in the US).

1

danielravennest t1_j7mdwc5 wrote

Reply to comment by KetaCuck in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992

> We'd basically have to build one nuclear power plant a week for the next 25 years.

The world installed an estimated 268 GW of solar in 2022. Assuming a 20% "capacity factor" (actual average output accounting for night and weather) that comes to 53.6 GW average power. Note: US average capacity factor for solar is 24.4%, but not everywhere is so sunny.

A typical size for a new nuclear plant is 1 GW, so that is 53.6 nuclear plants, slightly more than one a week. It is just solar uses a fusion plant that is safely located 149.6 million km away.

2