Recent comments in /f/science

AutoModerator t1_j9404ml wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

darga89 t1_j93zhjp wrote

> Or, stronger wood in traditional stick built houses wouldn’t be awful

yeah right, they'll just increase stud spacing and reduce sheathing thickness with any new tech advances.

69

BigPickleKAM t1_j93vjdc wrote

Depending on the size of the building wood can have a better fire survivability rating than steel as wood beams take a long long time to burn through to a point of failure. While a correspondingly strong steel beam would lose its ability to remain rigid.

​

>A fire test conducted in 1961 at the Southwest Research Institute compared the fire endurance of a 7x21-inch glulam timber with a W16x40 steel beam. Both beams spanned approximately 43.5 feet and were loaded to full design load (approximately 12,450 lb.). After about 30 minutes, the steel beam deflected more than 35 inches and collapsed into the test furnace, ending the test. The wood beam deflected 2 1/4 inches with more than 75% of the original wood section undamaged. Calculation procedures provided in a new publication available from the American Wood Council, entitled Technical Report 10: Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members, estimates that the failure time of the 7x21-inch wood beam would have exceeded 65 minutes if the test had not ended at 30 minutes.

​

Of course wooden beams large enough to build a modern sky scraper would be so large they would eliminate all interior volume making them a non practical choice. But for low rise apartments it can be a good choice.

7

macgruff t1_j93unb0 wrote

Correction… via your own source, “a” study found…. This is the error of thinking in todays glut of information from anywhere and everywhere. Curation is actually a good thing as it would have weeded out this article to obscurity. I’m not outright refuting the veracity of this , one, study. But, it didn’t also look long term about the efficacy of showing teens that it is an option and in their later years may be more receptive. If you ask a bunch of kids, “What’s better? We spend an hour talking about Tiktok? Or we do some mindfulness exercises?” Of course they’re going to say “it’s boring”. They’re teenagers. Quite literally their brains are still developing but to throw the baby out for the bath water is a very bad conclusion made by this, one, study.

What I’d rather see is a meta-analysis study across many ages, survey/data collection methods, pooled mental health data, etc. and who knows… maybe it will confirm this, one, study. But to go find, one, study to back your assumptions is a slippery slope to follow.

No criticism, Im not attacking you

4