/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10851551
>Not every single insert has that format
Yes, they essentially do. The only exception is where they claim to have tested for impairment of female fertility, whatever "evaluated" means in their word. Like junk science, like the rest of their work.

>Doctors need to understand the risks[...]
There's nothing of substance in the rest of this paragraph. I'm just acknowledging that I didn't skim your post, and theoretically risk:benefit is a thing, but there are other factors and incentives behind the scenes.

>Vaccines were tested in rct when the medical community didn't know if they were effective.
This paragraph doesn't make sense. They're never tested against a placebo. Childhood vaccinations are not studied in any controlled manner, which is the absolute bare minimum. Placebo controlled would be ideal, which I'm apprehensive about in that you have to vaccinate one of the groups, but what can you do. The children are maimed anyway.

>Besides being not a medical argument
Ah, I see. You don't like to think big picture. You prefer strict interpolation and you just stop when you hit a wall. We're not going to get on very well at this rate.

No, the act wasn't passed to shield manufacturers from fraudulent lawsuits. That's absurd

>I have no idea were you got this.
Because you haven't actually looked into vaccines. :^)
>(Fuck you, btw)

So renewables are pretty problematic in and of themselves. One there is the very obvious fluctuation in production capacity depending on ambient conditions. Secondarily there is a limited ability to store energy for peak demand. In combination tidal generators, wind, and solar would keep some less substantial populations sated, but where are all these variables practicable in the real world? Third, economically they could drastically cut well paying jobs worldwide. There are whole towns whose economies depend depend on mined resources. We're not talking exclusively miners, but equipment manufacturers, mechanics, geological engineers, bus lines, blasters, and countless contractors that serve various purposes as well as rail crews. Renewable maintenance is virtually non-existent, and construction is relatively simple. Fourth, there will, necessarily, be a supplemental requirement of nuclear fueled plants; this is a mining operation itself as the fuel must be taken from the ground. While risk is largely controllable there is potential for uranium and radon contamination outside of the minesite, and as such it could pose a risk to public health in the immediate area.

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/uranium-factsheet4.pdf

Anybody have viable solutions?

Is "heat" actually just a cloud of photons around an electron, or are photons some constituent part of the electron itself? It would seem that it must be the latter, as collision with a muon(?) will emit xrays, it seems to be more than a simple conversion. And yet, when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted, some of its energy is lost and turned to a higher state of excitation. Therefore, they do not seem to be so granular of a unit.

What are these things? What is it for a particle to be "excited"? I'm apt to try to take a reductionist approach and describe it in terms of its intrinsic machinery, but something about quantizing the process doesn't seem quite right. I just don't get it. What is "energy", is it a high level illusion for some more basic set of factors?