My high school friend's mom was so much fun. I now understand why my friend was always scolding her, when I was always so jealous she had a mom that was that cool and free spirited.

Really confused why this one got downvoted to hell.

Right? Another one from Al Jazeera a few days ago.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/27/musk-says-media-racist-to-whites-asians-after-dilbert-backlash

Yeah, I only took a single survey course and still hated it. I'll stick to E+M and quantum...those are more straightforward.

Yeah. It was a lot of, "Okay, we don't have any first principles for you, but here's the function that seems to be describing what's going on. Just memorize it." And there were so many patterns, and patterns of patterns to memorize. And it just wasn't fun or interesting to me at all, haha.

Same with mine. Just it was uncomfortable to ask certain genuine questions I didn't know the answer to, lest I be treated like I have a tinfoil hat. Nuclear was one of my least favorite subjects, so there were other more pressing questions to focus on for the exam.

This is very informative. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

I'm also a sorta physicist (if you consider a physics masters student a physicist.) That could be due to difficulty in isolating variables. But assuming it's true, would it continue to be safe if we assumed occasional nuclear disasters every few years if we scaled up during an era of more frequent natural disasters?

There are less condescending ways to speak to people. I'm getting an MSc in physics. My PI is a computational nuclear physicist. He collaborates with Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And no one I've asked has addressed these points whenever I ask them beyond "lesser of two evils." Which if it is, then I'm willing to accept it. But things are still designed by fallible humans. Nuclear mistakes can't happen anywhere close to as frequently as oil spills do. And cleanup can't be as shoddy as what we see from oil companies (spreading chemical coagulant to sink massive blankets of oil onto the ocean floor, for instance.) And no one seems to have projections.

Also, if you're under the impression that this whole capitalism thing is good for public safety, boy do I have some pipelines, plumbing systems, pollution standards, global policies, safe contamination levels, and Healthcare systems for you, friend.

I'm not against nuclear power. I'm just genuinely not sure. To me, it just doesn't seem like the slam dunk option that people often present it to be. I do recognize the best of the evils argument, I guess. But it doesn't seem consequence-free.

Would you be able to quantify, "not the big baddie that people keep thinking it is." How bad is it, and how bad would it be if scaled up to meet all our energy needs? I've never gotten a straight answer on that. Radioactive decay lasts an extremely long time, and nuclear power mishaps don't not happen. How can we be sure our plants are resistant against natural disaster (like Fukushima,) especially as natural disasters are predicted to increase in spate and severity? How can we be sure they won't be susceptible to accidental leaks (like San Onofre?)

As for your second point, you're assuming integration into the capitalist system by way of investors automatically implies the best results to humanity. Environmental sustainability is a goal for investors/private companies unless and until it interferes with the bottom line. Then it's a nice-to-have. Call me a cynic, but I type this from a phone with a lithium ion battery which, if designed as intended, should cease to work right around when the next galaxy comes along. I suspect that advances in radioactive waste safety will improve until it's cheaper/easier to dispose of waste in the way that's worse for the environment (which after some point, it always is) if we continue to leave our energy demands to the private sector.

I'm not against nuclear power. I'm just genuinely not sure. To me, it just doesn't seem like the slam dunk option that people often present it to be. I do recognize the best of the evils argument, I guess. But it doesn't seem consequence-free.

Would you be able to quantify, "not the big baddie that people keep thinking it is." How bad is it, and how bad would it be if scaled up to meet all our energy needs? I've never gotten a straight answer on that. Radioactive decay lasts an extremely long time, and nuclear power mishaps don't not happen. How can we be sure our plants are resistant against natural disaster (like Fukushima,) especially as natural disasters are predicted to increase in spate and severity? How can we be sure they won't be susceptible to accidental leaks (like San Onofre?)

As for your second point, you're assuming integration into the capitalist system by way of investors automatically implies the best results to humanity. Environmental sustainability is a goal for investors/private companies unless and until it interferes with the bottom line. Then it's a nice-to-have. Call me a cynic, but I type this from a phone with a lithium ion battery which, if designed as intended, should end up in a landfill right around when the next galaxy comes along. I suspect that advances in radioactive waste safety will improve until it's cheaper/easier to dispose of waste in the way that's worse for the environment (which after some point, it always is.)

Just because 14% isn't 50% doesn't mean that bad science isn't passing through the filter. And whataboutism, especially pointing at a social science for replication, certainly doesn't invalidate the points this article is making. Doctors are fire hosed with pharmaceutical propaganda under the guise of impartial science.

Huh. I just had a free sample from Trader Joe's today and hadn't even thought about the fact that I hadn't had one in years.