Some OSHA regulations
Not one OSHA regulation applies. this isn't America. We have standards which I- having worked with a number of American safety-responsible personnel - think are generally tighter. Those standards are designed by the Health And Safety Executuve and are enforced with the power of the criminal law. Directors of companies do get jailed for breaches on occasion, and HSE inspectors who achieve that are very happy to have achieved it.
In other parts of the world evidence is always
Let me guess - you're an American?
It's the way that you think there is a single place called "the rest of the world", and that it is a homogeneous, uniform place defined by it's not being America. Hint: there is human variation outside your experience of your home country. (Actually, there is probably more variation in your home country than you are aware. How many of your country's native languages can you at least read?)
The big problem is that most of the mid atlantic ridge is REALLY DEEP.
... and devoid of effective traps.
Yes, people have looked. Seismic is cheap, particularly if academics pay to shoot it, and then release the results.
Now if the Hydrogen is near one of the Islands on the mid atlantic ridge then it could be reachable.
Volcanic islands are above sea-level ("Doh!"), but are built up in layers by eruptions from a more-or less central vent. Try working out a way to do that which doesn't have, on average, beds of contrasting ages inclined to the vertical. The geometry doesn't allow for it.
So you're going to have a really severe problem accumulating large amounts of hydrogen in one place.
Finding a good natural example of a common rock type that is impervious to hydrogen on a time scale of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years would be a necessary novelty too. Hydrogen is damned good at finding leaks in machined products, let alone natural products.
Regardless of the ultimate origin of the fluids, unless you've got an incredibly prolific point source, you also need the correct interplay of vertical (pressure-driven) and horizontal transport of your fluid into a trapping structure in order to get a commercially viable fuel reservoir. You also need the fuel generation, transport, deposition of the trapping formation and formation of the trap to happen in the correct time relationship. Which is why many seismic ("echo-sounding") structures which are identified from the surface turn out to be barren of fuel accumulations, though they may have evidence (bitumen, hydrocarbon trapped in fluid inclusions in authigenic mineral overgrowths) of having had fuels pass through them in the past
Nobody with a financial clue spends today's private money exploring for stuff they won't be digging up and selling for decades.
Unless of course, your discovery/ appraisal/ construction/ exploitation cycle is decades long. Which inlcudes, for example, deepwater (*) hydrocarbon deposits in remote (**) regions. In which case, I've been watching around $800 million be spent before the oil industry's current tanking.
(*) 1.5km water depth and deeper
(**) no refining/ processing facilities within 750 km or 2 national boundaries.
Not really sure where you got that from. Dinosaurs are descended from fish. You could say "humansd are fish" too,
but descended from doesn't mean we are one by any common definition of "fish"
I do point out that the context that I am talking is the terminology of cladistics. Which, being logical, will eventually take over.
Osteichthyes (colloq. bony fish even though it includes things not called fish)
... such as elephants, titanosaur dinosaurs, whales, avian dinosaurs and Ken Ham.
We also have jaws, which crucially hagfish do not.
I did actually use the term "gnathostome" in one of my drafts of that sentence. The details of those less-derived parts of the vertebrate phylogeny are still a bit unsure in terms of what order things happened.
whereas colloquial classifications are unlikely ever to
That is a problem for colloquial classifications. Are whales fish because they have bone, or are they fish because they live in the sea? In which case, mud skippers are not fish, and the case of all fresh-water fish is very open. As you say, set operations are useful, but you then have to include in your description of an organism the list of which set operations you have considered useful to apply. The point of cladistics is to try to restrict that list of set operations to those which can be observed in the organism itself through it's morphology or genetics.
I disagree. Birds are no more dinosaurs than dinosaurs are fish.
I agree with your grounds for disagreement, but disagree with your conclusion. Birds are indeed no less dinosaurs than dinosaurs are fish, because, as you seem to forget, dinosaurs are fish.
So are we. (Assuming that you are a human, a mammal, etc ; I think the acceptance of my blood by the human medical authorities indicates that I too am human.)
What distinguishes fish from elasmobranchs (sharks, rays and other less-derived gnathostome craniate vertebrates) is the presence of bone (as opposed to cartilage). We have bone, trout have bone, birds have bone (and non--bird dinosaurs had bone - the histology where preserved is unarguable) ; elsamobranchs don't have bone. Also, elasmobranchs, humans, fish and chickens (with a little bit of persuasion, to suppress the developmental silencing of tooth-development genes) have teeth, which hagfish do not have. Welcome to the wonderful world of cladistics, the science of phylogeny. "Descent with modification," as Darwin put it. If evolution is true (which it is), then traditional classifications of animals will eventually need to reflect that. Which does happen, even in the irrationality of English - you might remember that we (our species) had been hunting whales for several centuries and classifying them as fish before anatomists received enough material to identify them as being mammals. Classifications do change. I'm just trying to get that change started in general language, since the argument (over cladistics as a way of classifying evolving organisms) is finished in the scientific community.
and Japanese cars by the laughable 10-15 cycle, where the highest speed involved in the whole cycle is 70 kph (under 45 mph), with an average speed 1/3rd of that.
What are actual driving conditions like in Japan? What are actual driving speeds?
The last time I saw anything about driving in Japan, it was a footnote to a programme that pointed out that before you could buy a car from any Tokyo dealership, you had to present them with your parking permit. No parking place? No car. One parking place, it displays the registration number of the car permitted to park there. Same for the second parking place, which had to be a different car. All tied into the tax and insurance system.
Meanwhile, for commuting to and from work, essentially everyone used the trains. Because there simply wasn't enough road space to move the population with buses, let alone cars.
So a top speed of 70kph and an average of 25kph isn't necessarily unreasonable.
(Thinks : 1440 minute per day, so two nines would be 1426 minutes. Am I actually down for a quarter hour per day? Probably. Rarely more than 2-3 minutes at a time, but multiple times per day.
Going to uni in the UK, the lecturers recommended books, none were mandatory and the library usually stocked a bunch of copies.
... which were mostly kept in a separate area (at my uni) known as the "high demand area", from which you could only book a volume out for periods of one or two days. Not returned on time? Your ID would be rejected for any other books. Just to persuade you to return the volume to the "high demand area".
another [app] can detect radiation.
There are other ways of detecting radiation than Geiger counters (electrometers, for example), but I struggle to work out how or why the appropriate sensors would be included in a regular mobile phone. I could almost see the point of a USB-powered device, which you might communicate with through an application. But you still then need to look carefully at the calibration procedures and reference materials for it to be much use.
Amazon do such things for about $600, so I guess it's shoddy writing rather than someone successfully breaking the laws of physics.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad