Hmm... maybe sound deadening, as someone pointed out. But also during accidents the body can contorts in the wierdest of ways. In an accident I was in, the driver of the car that struck me injured his hand. Not from the accident itself -- instead, his airbag inflated rapidly and threw his hand into the A-pillar.
I suspect so too that toxic retardants are "merely" cost effective and that the law does not mandata
That the NHTSA "passed a law requiring their use" is a frustratingly imprecise phrase.
I went searching and found the probable requirement from the NHTSA: "Material shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more
than 4 inches per minute."
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nh...
Don't jump to conclusions of it being bad software. It's more likely that a mid-level manager with little to do had a pet peeve and dreamed up this directive. The software was probably a fig-leaf.
I am so tired of people masquerading as organisations. North Yorkshire Council indeed!
Rather, announcement by organisations should disclose the people responsible for key decision-making. Like this:
The North Yorkshire Council Manager in England announced that, consequent to the approval by supervisory manager John Sumpter-Willowden of internal memorandum dated 2/2/22 authored by assistant-manager Jill McGraw-Hill, it will ban apostrophes on street signs...
> All three chemicals
Wool, on the other hand, is naturally flame resistant
Quoting article phrase in a different context:
> any such protection comes at a price
So true. Why are carmakers not investigating this? It's definitely possible:
I don't know either. But it could be greed. I know of two companies of different size merging, and the owners retaining managers from the smaller company and purging the rest.
Why? I don't know. But there may be the assumption the smaller company is leaner, pays less, and its managers know how to deliver more with less.
But that smaller company was small for a reason. This is often missed.
Renewables have issues. I'm no fan of windmills - birdkillers that generate harmful infrasound; and how do you recycle turbine blades anyway? But there's been promise shown recently with vertical windmill designs and wood-based construction techniques. Solar panels were net-energy-negative until a decade or so ago (if you factor in the cost of mining and smelting the panels). Now you still have the cost of batteries.
But you're too kind to those who espouse your own viewpoint. The ourworldindata article in particular makes the laugable claim that nuclear power is the most land efficient. It implies all the nuclear power generation in the world occupy just 765 sq kilometers of land (calculation based 0.3 sq m per MWh x 10% of 25500 global terawatt-hours being generated by nuclear).
But 765 sq km is when nothing goes wrong. Just Chernobyl already rendered 2,600 sq. km uninhabitable.
> would be relevant if people were proposing
I don't trust the people proposing. They've been proposing and pointing to new and shiny designs for decades. We will still find new ways to stuff up.
> Removing land from use to grow crops by utility scale solar is no accdent...
Which may be true. But those solar panels can be removed in a week and the land returned to farming. Dams can be blown up and windmills torn down. Even coal and gas fired power stations can be shut and the land used for other things. Try doing that with the Chernobyl exclusion zone. And this isn't even counting the land or resources allocated to storage of nuclear waste.
> Nuclear power isn't perfect
No power is perfect. But nuclear power is in a sinister league of its own for the damage it causes when things go wrong. And things ***WILL*** go wrong.
You won't let an infant play with a straight razor. Why are we still playing with nuclear fire?
> > "though attempts have been made to represent this as a specifically nuclear subsidy"
> Did you bother to read your own quote?
Reading this statement and appraising it lead to different outcomes.
> If a bearing failure on a windmill causes a wildfire then we can expect the costs of extinguishing the fire and compensating victims to be borne by the state..
Wow -- I'm surprised by your assertion: that wildfires caused by private wind farms are indemnified by (practically) all the governments of the earth.
> Go ahead, try spreading lies
In the absence of any references, I doubt your assertion. But unlike you, I'm not going to attribute it to malice.
In the meantime, nuclear plants slowly get built. And ever so slowly, not-so-insignificant tracts of the earth are rendered permanently uninhabitable after nuclear accidents.
(Source - Googling these disasters and their exclusion zones)
Hopeless optimist that you are, you probably see a declining trend (or no trend) in these bits of earth we are writing off in pursuit of our nuclear dream.
But this isn't even counting the land or resources allocated to storage of nuclear waste.For example, France produces 2kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant per year. (Source: https://www.orano.group/) Let's extend the French model across the globe. So we generate 4 kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant of the earth per year -- in perpetuity! No problem! We'll just virtify the waste -- using nuclear power to smelt the glass and steel. Now that energy is cheap, lets build flying cars powered by green hydrogen produced using nuclear power? Whee - why not! Now we generate 4 kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant of the earth per year -- in perpetuity!!!
Look, I don't pretend to have the answers. All I'm suggesting is this: perhaps your freedom from doubt about the benefits of nuclear power is unwarranted.
>Selling indulgences to emit CO2 is a fool's errand
> We have such an energy source with nuclear fission.
The nuclear power industry demands indulgences too! The cost of radioactive waste management and reactor decommissioning after its useful lifetime is usually underestimated. But the biggest indulgence is the demand for government indemnification of nuclear accident cleanup costs.
For example, quoting https://world-nuclear.org/info...
On the other hand it was realized that nuclear power makes a valuable contribution to meeting the world’s energy demands and that in order for it to continue doing so, individual operator liability had to be curtailed and beyond a certain level, risk had to be socialized. The state needs to accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as with everything else in industrial societies, though attempts have been made to represent this as a specifically nuclear subsidy.
Is the CO2 stuck in limbo?
"What about this photo frame"
"Oh I was thinking of keeping that on top of the dresser in case I went ahead and bought it"
"What about this beeswax polish"
"In case I bought this wooden bowl instead of the photo frame"
There's enough evidence. Ban PFAS!
Boycott the companies that use them, that make them, or even think about fighting bans in court!
Keeping things shiny is no excuse for killing people.
I see the 'correlation is not causation' FUD-wars start up all over again as we saw smoking, then passive smoking, and now vaping.
What if the user dies? Is silence consent to the site's unilaterally changed T&Cs?
What if a modelling agency does this:?
"Look, so-and-so just died. Quick! Let's change our T&Cs to grab his AI voice and likeness acting rights for-evah!"
Where are they?
It may get to the point people run old Windows full screen in a VM on current Windows
There is a critical mass of Teslas that aren't smart enough to be driving either. See "The final 11 seconds of a fatal Tesla Autopilot crash":
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Most drivers only drive poorly in certain sections of the drive. The question is whether what Tesla is doing helps or hinders poor driving.
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
