> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence
Pure Americium-241 is extremely radioactive 0.0000045 grams of the stuff puts off useful amounts of radiation for smoke detectors, it’s half life is also 432 years.
As an alpha emitter it’s not that bad to stand next to but internally it doesn’t take much to be lethal.
This is a manufactured product not waste from a nuclear reactor. We use it because it’s an alpha emitter, there’s harder to shield material with similar half lives they are just less useful. I bring this up because longer half lives don’t mean safety. If you’re looking for a weapon, salted nukes are the stuff of nightmares if they use something with a month long half life or several hundred years.
> I don’t know how to gauge
And that’s the issue here, you need to do some more research before making such statements.
Actually, it's exactly what I said. Here's the quote:
>It is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.
See? Exactly.
> Yes it is.
No it isn't.
> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence
lol, you never provided us with any in the first place! Why would I waste more time and effort disproving some claim of yours, than you spent trying to prove the original claim in the first place? That'd be falling for gish gallop.
Until you produce sufficient evidence to convincingly prove that your original claim is true, we can safely assume it is not. So, onus is on you: It's up to you to prove your own point, nobody else. If you’ve got data, let’s see the data.
Chernobyl happened while I was alive. It wasn’t that long ago. The leader of the Soviet Union who presided over the disaster (Gorbachev) died only 3 years ago.
Aside from that, “because communism” is not a serious answer.
Whether a deregulationist considers themselves communist or capitalist is a red herring: being in favor of dangerous deregulation spans many different national economic persuasions.
From your link: "Although CO2 gets most of the attention, it accounts for less than half of this warming. Two-thirds come from non-CO2 forcings." So it's much over 5%.
All of transport sector emissions makes up 20%. The other subsectors are decarbonising, but there's no tech solution in sight for air travel in the needed timeframe. And air travel is growing alarmingly quickly (doubled between 2006 and 2019).
All the individual slices of the pie we can tackle are pretty small, aviation is one of the bigger ones. We can't keep subdividing and then concluding for each one that it's too small to matter.
That's true, but of course this is a much slower rate of improvement (30 years to 2x) than the growth of air travel, and has slowed in recent years[1] since seat density and seatu utilization can't be increased much more without radical approaches like sedating people and stacking them like cargo.
While the percentage shows that aviation is not a *priority* for climate change, the required reductions in CO2 emissions for the climate to stabilise are around 99.9%, so aviation-induced emissions will have to come down at some point.
That's awesome thanks. Would be great if it also show'd what the average residential customer was paying as well as the average industrial users cost per kWh so we could get an idea of the cost of manufacturing as far as electricity input goes.
I hear this often, but I'm struggling to understand how taxing the wealthy will build houses, or lower the price of energy?
Taxing the wealthy does one thing very well: transfer money from the hands of the wealthy, who are notoriously good at managing their wealth, in to the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who are notoriously bad at managing other peoples money.
The way the wealthy "manage their wealth" is by buying up assets (including housing, etc) driving up the price for everyone else causing exactly this sort of cost of living crisis you referenced.
Not really that difficult to understand. You should read up on the history of US taxation and how much stronger the middle class was when the wealthy got taxed fairly.
You could not have agreed with my point more clearly. You don’t want to pay more, you want to force everyone richer than you to pay more. That’s the problem.
I want them to pay the same amount I do as a percentage of their earnings. But they don't, they pay far less as a percentage of their earnings. THAT's the problem.
If you seized every billionaire’s money the government would be financed for less than a year. If you want sustainable taxation to finance your climate agenda you need to convince everyone to pay more. But people won’t do it unless you pitch it as a free lunch.
2021 data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control:
Bulgaria and Croatia had the highest rates of trichinellosis at 0.42 cases per 100,000 population, accounting for 58% of all cases reported in 2021. Taking those two countries gether and extrapolateing to whole US population of 3400 hundred thousand (340 million) would be 1428 cases - definitely much higher that <20, which would be something like 0.0002 per 100,000.
The total number of reported infections in 2021 was 79 cases for the whole European Union / European Economic Area was 79 cases for a total population of 4500 hundred thousand (450 million), an infection rate of 0.02 cases per 100,000.
Discounting the two worst countries would reduce the number to about 40 cases per 4500 hundred thousand population would bring the rate of infection to something like 0.008 - not entirely too far from the US.
In really, it’s not convenient to move all waste heat to where it’s more needed.