I’ve heard of tragedeigh names before, but this takes the cake.
I’ve heard of tragedeigh names before, but this takes the cake.
Just for regular boating purposes.
I’m pretty sure the fanart of that exists somewhere. Rules 34 and 35, y’know.
Crossposting across instances is a thing, so go ahead and do just that 👍
Every sixty seconds, a woman in Britain gives birth. She. Must. Be. Exhausted.
NL guy here.
So a centre marking tells me it’s an 80 km/h road, and the side markings, together with the trees off to the side, aim to optically narrow the road, making drivers more conscious of their speed. This is part of the Dutch universally applied standards of traffic calming.
If there were only markings on the side, usually a little inwards from the roadside, it’d be a 60 km/h road. This would be even more pronounced if the space outside of those lines had red asphalt. In such a case, it’s sometimes allowed, or even expected, for cyclists to cycle in the main roadway.
On this location though, the bike lane is off to the side. It’s an 80 km/h road, that’s too fast for on-street cycling.
As a Dutch person, nah. Double sided guardrails are the norm in here. It’s relatively uncommon to find a guard rail that’s single sided.
As someone who lives there, you’d wish. Instead it’s a real place to be envious of 😛
And only quartz and amethyst at that smh
He’s information vegetable, animal and mineral
If the item shows any black-body radiation in the wavelength range of visible light, i.e. it can be seen with the Mk. 1 Eyeball, it’s absolutely too hot too touch, let alone eat.
Not to forget that if it’s glowing red, it may be hot enough to set your head on fire the instant you stick it in your mouth. So do not eat anything that’s glowing red from black-body radiation
If it’s red from black-body radiation, you should be more than fine with regards to contaminants.
You should be more concerned with nutrition. Or the current complete lack thereof. After all, anything healthy has by that point gone up in smoke.
City “twinning” goes beyond the EU. And it can happen for all kinds of reasons. My favourite example is the towns of Dull, Scotland, Boring, Oregon and Bland, New South Wales.
I’m pretty sure France is one of those places and they have an amazing track record.
Even better: reprocess the fuel. The linear fuel life time decommissions nuclear fuel as useless while it still has 90-something percent of energy potential left. Having a more cyclical life cycle allows for the spent fuel to be reconstituted into new fuel, and to be used anew. All the waste that does end up being produced is only a fraction of the waste produced in a linear process, and only dangerous on a societal timescale instead of a geological one.
… What a terrible day to have eyes, I must say…
For one, even with disasters factored in, nuclear kills only 0.04 people per TWh of energy produced. Coal kills 160. That is four orders if magnitude more.
Oil fares better, but with 36 fatalities per TWh, that’s still a thousand times more deadly than nuclear.
For two, every milligram of emissions from nuclear power is accounted for, as someone in the other thread said. All the waste fits inside a football field, and is stored in ginormous casks which can stand being smashed by a train, and are so thick you can hug them with no consequences to health and safety.
Meanwhile, emissions from coal and oil are vented to atmosphere. Including volatile radioactive trace contaminants. Which means that ironically, on top of the greater fatalities and the carbon emissions, fossil fuels have worse nuclear emissions.
As for storage, for one, that’s hampered because the oblivious and the malicious get to contribute to the discussions. Fact is that there are sites for long term storage, which are in the process of being filled with spent fuel.
For two, much less of that stuff is needed if spent nuclear fuel is recycled. Which Japan and France do.
Finally, an electricity grid needs three things: capacity, stability and flexibility. Both nuclear and renewables offer stability, but only nuclear offers stability, while renewables offer flexibility.
The solution is not nuclear XOR renewables.
It is nuclear OR renewables.
Or nuclear AND renewables.
Deze commentaarsectie is hierbij overgenomen door het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden.