complete fail...got that backwards.
Was meant to be because women live longer.

Slightly more chance you die a healthy woman
Might not be worth the risk.

You could read the article and find out. (or just the first sentence of the summary if you're pressed for time.)

If you have lots more time, try an experiment. Self identify as female and see if the research is wrong, and the mosquitoes are just being sexist.

You do realize Russia tried that already. And Europe has already countered it in Ukraine.

Russia has already lost about 1000 tanks. Against NATO? NATO has aircraft, the next 1000 would far far quicker.

Bullshit.
Name one.

Not yet.
But you're forgetting how quickly they built those Covid hospitals.

And there's plenty of idle developers "for some reason".
2 birds, one stone.

On the contrary. It's much easier to evict someone who hasn't moved in yet.
It's all just paperwork. No locks to change. No stuff to throw out into the street. You don't even need to repair all the vandalism.

Thank you AC. But our princess is in another castle!

True. That works for all governments everywhere.

Which China has been doing very successfully for the past 30 years. It really is unprecedented.

Which is the American / Western style version.
Vote for my team, because the other team is worse.

America never cuts corners, has bad management or QA. American regulations are impeccable.

America would never put profits above safety.
Why just look at Boeing and the 737 MAX... Oh...

Did you mean to cover your slippery slope with so much oil?
Simple solution is again, don't do that.

So we reduced the pollution and didn't bankrupt everyone. Huzzah!

There already is, so it's a bit silly of you to make such a claim... You must mean "not enough profit".
You literally want to destroy the world because we aren't making "enough profit" with the cleaner alternatives.

What happens if there is almost as much profit? And a tiny subsidy or helping hand to get started tips the balance?

There it is.
Surprised it took you that long.

You just prefer we subsidize nuclear instead.

And if we can't? Just let the world burn and everybody die for your free market ideology?

And plenty of intended consequences.

That's the point...

Yes, also the point.

So don't do that then. Set an amount you're willing to set aside.
Crisis averted, we didn't spend the entire US budget on solar subsidies. That was close.

The benefit is not destroying the planet we are all trying to live on.

If that's the depth of your understanding then there isn't much else to say.

Small animals living in soils, called soil invertebrates, represent a very diverse group of soil inhabitants. They include earthworms, woodlice, spiders, springtails, mites, and some insects.
So mostly not insects then.

The linked study was on "leaf litter" (actually just 4 types of leaves) not the "tree husks" you originally claimed. Let's pretend it's close enough. There's some "tree husks" in actual "leaf litter".

You still haven't shown that the insects "are all dead"
You just keep trying to change the topic. Why is that?

Such a reader... Your own study shows it was mostly radiation but only slightly related to large soil invertebrates (we can pretend insects if you like). Oops.

How is there any difference though? You claimed all the insects were dead...
Thanks for proving you don't read.
And for proving you were lying all along.

In case you're playing along at home it's microbes and fungi that are the main cause of the slower decay, not any variation on "insects".
It's all in the study Luckyo linked to, but failed to actually read or understand.