|
Lack of shades aside that's real cool that a laser can float a bubble
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Lack of shades aside that's real cool that a laser can float a bubble I can hear the guy who did my laser safety training screaming from retirement.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
I can't find any other info about bouncing bubbles on lasers
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Using a laser on a reflective surface without shades seems... unwise...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Is that one of those lasers you can buy on AliExpress that’s technically illegal because of how dangerously bright they are?  Might have been this thread that I saw this in but I’ll post it anyway https://youtu.be/DMVWW-bmKwQ
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
B-Rock452 posted:If you have Instagram, North American Rescue posted a photo that shows the aftermath of a wood chipper accident. Apparently the guy survived but good lord it's horrific Do you have a link to that? I wanna see it edit - found it, wish i did not  Jabor posted:Another interesting radiation and wood related thing: trees in the Chernobyl exclusion zone don't rot - at least, not as much as trees everywhere else. They just die, and stay standing there dead, and the leaves pile up deeper and deeper on the ground. Imagine how fierce forest fires were back then? Higher oxygen levels and thousands of years worth of wood on the ground to fuel the flames. Tumble fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Robert Facepalmer posted:John McAfee would probably bring some exciting insights... Yeah, he might kill a guy or pay his Belizean housekeeper to poo poo in his mouth either or
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Another interesting radiation and wood related thing: trees in the Chernobyl exclusion zone don't rot - at least, not as much as trees everywhere else. They just die, and stay standing there dead, and the leaves pile up deeper and deeper on the ground. This sounds entirely fake lmao
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:This sounds entirely fake lmao Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Memento posted:
The first author is an anti-nuclear hack whose findings are consistently unreproducible, and the last author has been a pariah ever since he was ruled to have fabricated data to prove some bunk evolutionary biology hypothesis. Googling him finds this article from 2006 where the only person to defend him is the first author. So yeah, this is 100% bullshit lmao
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
it's an interesting thing to consider. radiation, and in particular a chronic low level of radiation, doesn't have the same effect on every creature. high-level radiation of course kills pretty much everything very effectively through brute force. continuous exposure to low-level radiation is generally bad for humans because many years later we get cancer and die. but in the short term it's often unnoticeable. the same amount of radiation that gives a human cancer in twenty years means essentially nothing to animals that aren't going to live that long in the wild anyway. a mouse doesn't have to worry about maybe developing cancer even two years from now; if it survives without being eaten for three months it can have a litter of babies and that's all that matters for population dynamics. this is part of why the chernobyl exclusion zone has such incredible biodiversity. of course, part of the reason that low-level radiation doesn't hurt humans in the short term is because it actually does, but our bodies are good at killing mutant cells and repairing damage. that doesn't apply to anywhere near the same level when you're a single-celled organism. consider that man who got stuck in a food irradiator in russia and survived for over a year after a dose of radiation that destroys all microorganisms in seconds. it's certainly plausible that the low-level radiation in the area is having the effect of constantly suppressing the growth of decomposer organisms, while not doing much at all to mice and birds and deer, and posing a long-term but not very acute threat to humans who wander in. e: well, looks like while I was typing that post a paper was posted and then immediately debunked. lol. I wonder what the actual data says
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Debunked in the sense that some of the authors are known shits, I don't think it's been debunked in the sense that anything disproving it has been posted. Even people with an agenda do publish correct things sometimes. That said my memory of that stuff was from news articles that likely were based on that same paper, unless someone's tried to replicate the findings since, so I don't exactly have a strong position in favour of it being true.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
people who oppose the industry can't be trusted. only people who work for the industry know what's best.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:people who oppose the industry can't be trusted. only people who work for the industry know what's best. ah yes, Big Nuclear, that industry with so much power that nuclear plants are springing up left and right every day
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
We don't even have nuclear rights with our property and some company set up a reactor in my back yard.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it's an interesting thing to consider. radiation, and in particular a chronic low level of radiation, doesn't have the same effect on every creature. One thing to consider is that low level radiation* doesn't actually seem to be harmful to people---it seems like our bodies deal with it just fine. Basically anywhere there is a lot of granite has significantly elevated background radiation, but no more cancer than average. This is important because it basically disproves the "linear threshold model" for radiation, which is used to claim that cancers caused by radiation have a linear response to dose and that there is no threshold below which radiation causes no cancer. Despite lots of evidence showing that this model is bullshit, it still gets used as the conservative estimate for radiation induced cancers for entirely political reasons, and is much loved by anti nuclear advocates. The usage of this model following Chernobyl caused a ton of psycological and economic damage from people in western europe overreacting and freaking out despite not being at risk. I'd wager that an entire generation of anti-nuclear fanatics was born from the pscyological trauma caused by the linear no threshold model lmao. *depending on your definition of low level
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Nobody talkin' bout that Pakistan airliner crash, apparently caused when the pilots attempted to land with gear up, after a terribly unstable approach? There are lights and buzzers and TOO LOW GEAR UP callouts on an Airbus, how do you gently caress that up? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/crashed-pakistan-plane-hit-runway-times-approach-200528184334265.html https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pakistan-jet-crashed-shortly-after-bizarre-landing-attempt-at-327-kph-2236782 Number_6 fucked around with this message at 05:59 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
I watched an older documentary on Chernobyl which interviewed these old Russian doctors. They argued that not only is low level radiation not a carcinogen, but that low levels protected you against cancer development. I wonder which documentary it was, it had a great moment of a Russian doctor telling the camera that radiation is a piss poor carcinogen. I was surprised to see that take on it. Just a casual googling: Some Paper posted:The shape of the dose-response curve for stochastic effects (mutations, neoplastic transformation, and cancer) of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation or genotoxic chemicals has been the topic of continuous debate (Kondo 1999; Calabrese and Baldwin 2003a,b; Feinendegen et al. 2004; Pollycove 2004; Sykes et al. 2004). The key discussion relates to whether the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model for low-dose extrapolation of cancer risk is valid (Ootsuyama and Tanooka 1993; Azzam et al. 1996; Tanooka 2000; NCRP 2001).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Radiation hormesis is mostly pushed by cranks and people with something to gain by polluting/not remediating contaminated sites, but the linear, no‐threshold model for cancers caused by ionising radiation is totally and demonstrably wrong. It’s just politically convenient to pretend otherwise. If a thousand units of absorbed radiation dose increases your chance of getting a particular type of cancer by ten percent, we pretend that a dose of ten units would increase your risk by one tenth of one percent. In reality, it won’t. It’s hard to say what the real risk is because the data gets so thin at these levels, but it’s well less than a tenth of a percent.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 07:55
|
|
|
Comparatively, at high dosages the cancer risk doesn't just start levelling out, it drops.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
I mean, technically, yeah. Ouchi didn’t die of cancer.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/ejO7JvT.mp4 Woof
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
What in the hell was that?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
If you see the flame front coming forward from the car, it looks like there's LPG collecting on the ground, either from the car that explodes, or that car happened to cause a spark and the gas is coming from one of the buildings. The one that catches on fire very quickly would be my first bet. edit: watching it a few more times and seeing how incredibly fast the fire catches in that building, I'm convinced that's where the gas is coming from.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
Bertha the Toaster posted:What in the hell was that? Big rear end puddle of some sort of flammable liquid on the road that is coming from the yard of the building that goes up, and that cars exhaust set it off. ORRR it was just a driveby building incineration
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
Oh yeah, now I see whatever the liquid is coming from the right. Cheers guys.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Why did the howitzer cross the road? To get the the River Rhine?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
Memento posted:If you see the flame front coming forward from the car, it looks like there's LPG collecting on the ground, either from the car that explodes, or that car happened to cause a spark and the gas is coming from one of the buildings. The one that catches on fire very quickly would be my first bet. and the van collects some vapor when it drives over the puddle, and that blows off its bumper when it ignites, crazy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
Drive- by arson.Jabor posted:Another interesting radiation and wood related thing: trees in the Chernobyl exclusion zone don't rot - at least, not as much as trees everywhere else. They just die, and stay standing there dead, and the leaves pile up deeper and deeper on the ground. Slanderer posted:The first author is an anti-nuclear hack whose findings are consistently unreproducible, and the last author has been a pariah ever since he was ruled to have fabricated data to prove some bunk evolutionary biology hypothesis. Googling him finds this article from 2006 where the only person to defend him is the first author. What a shame, this could have been a solution to the depletion of fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 11:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:To get the the River Rhine? Glad to see the German military is on the same level as everybody else nowadays.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Why did the howitzer cross the road? That's not a howitzer, it's clearly a self-propelled gun.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/M29FHL8.mp4
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 13:32
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:To get the the River Rhine? Hö hö, jemand der Rhein schießt. I'm not translating that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Do you know where this climb is? Gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
I always wonder if these fisheye GoPro camera’s are distorting what’s really a completely safe tiny hill or rock instead of a giant kill you mountain.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
That honestly looks very safe with the ropes and stuff. Safer than normal scrambling with no harness. I probably still wouldn't do it
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
Ornamental Dingbat posted:Drive- by arson. Its still largely the only solution to it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Number_6 posted:Nobody talkin' bout that Pakistan airliner crash, apparently caused when the pilots attempted to land with gear up, after a terribly unstable approach? There are lights and buzzers and TOO LOW GEAR UP callouts on an Airbus, how do you gently caress that up? I assume the alerts are in English. There was a period of a number of crashes in East Asia because the pilots didn't actually speak English and couldn't understand the plane alerts. One of them had one of the pilots asking "What does 'Pull up' mean?" as one of the last bits on the flight recorder.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 15:38
|
|
