A voice from the field here (Puglia, southern Italy). I can assure you that the landscape has changed drastically in a decade. Where a few years ago you could see immense expanses of green, now you see a ghostly landscape. It's incredible. Years and years have been spent inconclusively, both by politicians and by investigators, who have also wasted time with conspiracy theories.
Only a few people have replanted olive trees using species resistant to Xylella.
We also had anti scientific movements that opposed to the destruction of olive trees in a radius big enough to prevent the bacteria to spread to other plants. Farmers also tried to delay the process of trees eradications by packing the judicial courts with appeals. Some singers (such as Al bano, I think caparezza as well) also expressed to listen to the farmers and to not touch the olives, when scientists has been saying for years "listen, we don't have a cure, we can't cure the plants, we can only contain it before it spreads to wider areas".
This anti scientific behavior and this thinking of "farmers might know better than scientist" that is not only false, but dangerous when expressed by a public figure such as a famous singer, are what I were complaining about in a different comment about people being ignorant in scientific fields in italy and almost being proud of it [1]
I wonder what the legal implications are of ignoring a disease until it spreads to your neighbour's farm. Can the neighbour sue for negligence or something?
I think mechanical ventilation (MV) is less risky and almost as effective in preventing spread of viruses. Probably, coupling MV with a boxed UV lamp (no UV radiation outside the box) would be more effective.
That is not completely true. Thermodynamics tells that, overall, to produce energy, you must spend a lot more energy. You may think to the nuclear plant: it doesn't build by itself, you produce lots of environmental pollution to get it
Unfortunately the same is true of the dams required for hydro - after all, concrete is a major green house polluter itself. Not sure which requires more concrete though, per MW.
Still, nuclear requires fuel, and mining is an extraordinarily dirty industry, so I would guess hydro generally wins out overall.
However, if we are to avoid global climate catastrophe, we need to consume less energy, there is no future in consuming ever more but slightly cleaner. Especially given that in Europe and the US and so on we already have enough energy for all basic human needs, while the developing world still needs far more energy to achieve this. So to make room for them in the planet's remaining budget, we would have to not just stop building more, but actually reduce some of our power most likely.
An Hydro plant doesn't have the same security requirements as a nuclear one. You may think for example to shielding for ionizing radiation. It all adds up to the count.
I think being a generalist is definitely a value. In a near future, specialists will be substituted by artificial intelligence (AI). Generalists, instead, will stay at their place, since they do what AI (currently) can't: making connections.
