266 karma · joined June 18, 2018
https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf
"Solar panel waste can include heavy metals such as silver, lead, arsenic and cadmium that – at certain levels – may be classified as hazardous waste"
They literally hammer into your head for months on end that employees will do the absolute bare minimum not to get fired in every MBA program.
Ordinary pay gets ordinary effort. And businesses always want the cheapest supplier.
If a solar facility gets carpet bombed during a war, you think it's more likely it will all just get somewhat cleaned up, and lots of it will be left in-situ and plowed over, or someone will actually remove every little dust particle? I think the lazy way out is what is most likely.
Because I cannot.
Someone posted a timeline above in years, amusingly it lines up quite well with this hypothesis: https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.php?threads/dead-internet-...
now you got my attention?
https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.php?threads/dead-internet-...
You can easily outbid the miners, since your idea is so much more superior. You might make billions.
When are you starting that business?
must be another deboosted keyword in here somewhere!
Until then enjoy being wrong.
US-based miners use the absolute cheapest they can find, as doing otherwise would make them globally non-competitive, as e.g. miners in Paraguay have access to lots of excess hydroelectricity, or miners in Kazakhstan have access to cheap coal. Since hashing units are more or less the same, it all boils down to electricity costs.
Miners even go as far as using methane from animal waste to find absolute cheapest fuel: https://financefeeds.com/unusual-way-power-crypto-mining-ani...
Burning animal waste methane is actually carbon negative, wonder if anyone on this board will finally acknowledge that mining can be good for the Earth, if done properly.
It has recently successfully proven this in Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/crypto-energy-texas-...
"May not seem like much, it can matter during times of peak demand, said Joshua D. Rhodes, a research associate with the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin"
"The Webber Energy Group is a research group at UT Austin. We analyze energy and environmental problems"
a plainly false statement was made: "it's the only truly global pandemic in a century", your goalposts movements notwithstanding.
Lack of knowledge around basic facts of the field (public health) is a clear and immediate disqualification from any further consideration.
Do you really make suggestions on changes to public heath and epidemiology based on "a quick google"?
Best of luck to you.
That's why certain vaccines are NOT given to certain populations. That's precisely why JCVI declined to recommend, it was based on RISK vs benefit considerations.
Because we know. In an emergency, in a global pandemic, a recommendation AGAINST universal vaccination isn't taken lightly, and you seem to imply you know better than JCVI?
lol.
FALSE. 20+ countries.
You apparently simply refuse to follow the science from credible authorities.
>But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that.
FALSE. Again, why are you refusing to follow the science?
UK's JCVI which is the official scientific body advising the UK govt, and staffed by internationally renowned immunologists and infectious disease specialists, recommended against universal vaccination to 12-15 year olds.
It was specifically due to the risk-benefit consideration, because the benefit is marginal and risks of infection in that age category are very low. [1]
This is the list of the prominent scientists who made those calls.
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)
on the NHS website I linked: "if you're pregnant or under 40 you'll usually be offered appointments for the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines"
Notice how AZ is NOT offered first to those under 40. Did you expect something like: "WARNING. AZ WILL KILL YOU"?
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc...
Like the NIH Office of Vaccine Research.
They declined to recommend universal vaccination for under 15. Politicians disregarded the advice.
Pollard literally invented the AstraZeneca vaccine, has to recuse for all these meetings, but on this forum - he’s an antivaxxer loooooool
He literally invented half of the vaccines you took as a child lmao
Directly from the Finnish and British governments.
First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer.
The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too.
Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of competent authorities.
and yet they kept at it for two years.
Moderna remains banned in the Nordics for boys/men under 30. NHS does NOT give AZ boosters, only mRNA. NHS will not give AZ for those under 40, only mRNA.
[1] https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavir...
That's why they are either limited or outright banned for certain populations.
Moderna remains banned in the Nordics for boys/men under 30. NHS does NOT give AZ boosters, only mRNA. NHS will not give AZ for those under 40, only mRNA.
Follow the science below:
[1] https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavir...
Never eventuated, like you mean Astrazeneca was never suspended in eighteen countries on three continents? and Nordics never suspended Moderna?
That never happened in your reality? Wild.
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)
Are they all populated exclusively by anti-vaxxers?
Astrazeneca was suspended in eighteen countries across three continents. Nordic countries pulled Moderna.
"no harm"? really?
1. 1968 flu pandemic. 2. 1957 flu pandemic
Latest: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
"This work provides further evidence of sustained immune response in children up to 1 year after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection."
More details on the mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030176 "Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans."
Follow the science. There is no need to panic.
Don't these "bots" all have unique payment details?
My issue was with the comment somehow suggesting the entire system (Big Bad Market) is somehow less wise than an individual actor.
Yet, the entire system contains much more information, that the individual actor does not, and can never have access to, e.g. value judgements of other market participants he will never meet.
Markets, at the core, are just auctions. It's one way to resolve the question who gets the scarce resource first. At other times, it's medical triage, a system very different from "free markets". It can also be first-come, first-serve, which is what currently being attempted by Adafruit now.
Many such options. Why is "free market" judged to be inappropriate here?
From my experience in markets with severe shortages, first-come/first-serve rationing approach never failed to produce a poor supply, and free floating markets were always oversupplied (to a varying extent, but in general there was a trend).