William Richardson2 said:As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for locking this thread.
For the last few months, half the posts have been nothing but casualharbor9 links about the exact same thing—this supposedly unprecedented catastrophe—while the other half have just been endless ad hominem arguments. I honestly feel like this specific thread has seen more personal attacks and insults this year alone than every other thread on the entire State Farm forum combined...
It has definitely turned into the absolute worst topic on the natural science boards...
Oh, really? So casualharbor9 is solely to blame for all that? Or is it the loose cannons like Lolek and Bolek who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about, yet show up to the subforum for entirely different reasons? And what "unprecedented catastrophe" are you even talking about? I’ve cited various studies and expert opinions, provided measurement results, and shared reports from the scene, only to be met with mindless trolling and labeling anyone brave enough to offer a critique—including even a world-renowned physicist like Michio Kaku. Just because radiation from the Fukushima disaster isn't detectable on the Moon (yet) doesn't constitute some grand argument in favor of nuclear energy, no matter how hard you apologists try to spin it that way.
Zachary Mendoza2 said:😕 I’m still not following your train of thought. Who exactly would be—or even need to be—a banned user's clone here, and what on earth does that have to do with locking a thread? 🤷
Just drop that part then. What matters is that someone else gets it.
Zachary Mendoza2 said:I’m not entirely sure what you’re implying with that last sentence.😕
- It’s a bit like this situation.
The thread was locked for reasons that should be pretty obvious from the explanation provided, especially given the two previous warnings. It devolved into personal attacks and fell well below the standards expected here at State Farm. The other moderator option would have been to leave it open, but then we’d be handing out bans—including one for you.
- I already laid out in my opening post why that explanation doesn't hold water for me. You're just repeating the exact same point that prompted me to start this thread in the first place.
I don't know if you realize it, but you're getting quite emotional about this topic, and it's preventing you from contributing anything substantive. You keep engaging in personal battles with anyone who disagrees with you, and your posts are becoming more about quantity than quality. As I mentioned in the two warnings and my final post on the thread, please just calm down—for your own sake, primarily, but also for the rest of the community, and honestly, just to stop making the moderators' jobs harder. The world won't end if the thread stays closed until there’s actual news worth discussing; we've already covered practically everything else extensively.
Whether you believe it or not, the thread is currently closed primarily as a favor to you, to give you some time to cool off so you can return to writing calmly and intelligently, as is your usual style and what we prefer. I don't know why you see nuclear apologists everywhere and cast yourself in the role of a martyr or a truth-bringer. If you sleep on this for a bit, I'm sure you'll realize how skewed that perspective is...
- Thanks, but I’m looking for objectivity on this topic, not favors.
- Why am I seeing all these nuclear apologists popping up? I’ve already explained my stance, but I suppose there’s no harm in repeating it (-quoting here):
"I am all for building more nuclear plants... That accident was practically inevitable... I think we could cover the entire Sahara with solar panels, but that would be insanely expensive, hard to make profitable, and short-lived... plus, they don't work at night... Panic actually causes more damage than the actual danger... Sure, there are alternatives, but this is the best option we have for now... Solar energy definitely isn't an alternative for mass energy production... Renewables CANNOT meet the energy demands of a modern civilization, at least not on a state-by-state level... Besides, radioactivity has some very positive effects on certain illnesses, so it's not true that radiation is always a negative thing... And people fail to realize it would be 1,000 times more expensive to produce those amounts of energy using solar cells; plus, they have a relatively short lifespan and don't work at night, so you'd need incredibly expensive batteries—and a massive amount of them if you were trying to replace all conventional power plants... As for radiation, it's negligible, even near the plant itself... How else are we supposed to power the 'high standard of living' everyone wants? Or industry?... Just like with the Fukushima disaster, that radiation is negligible... And it's at least 1,000x less risky than getting cancer from the STRESS of unemployment... Again, the radiation is negligible, even right next to the plant... But transitioning entirely to 'renewable' sources is stupidity and a waste of money... Furthermore, 'renewable' energy sources aren't any less dangerous; they're actually more harmful and more expensive than nuclear... and less efficient, too... The only things keeping 'renewables' alive are gullible people and lobbyists looking to line their pockets... that's why they attract more funding and seem more likable than some 'dangerous' nuclear plants... And the release of radioactive elements into the atmosphere is practically non-existent (negligible). Anyway, all those 'dangerous' elements/isotopes decay pretty quickly... Like I already wrote, living in a city is much more harmful than some 'radiation' from a nuclear plant... The Fukushima disaster happened. So what? We can't just abandon nuclear energy because of it... it's the truth. Nuclear energy has a bright future... Just as Americans face issues due to culture, the media has issues because panic sells much better than the truth... Instead of actually studying the real situation a bit more objectively and rationally ( - one of the best ) ...etc etc etc..."
- I don't see myself playing any roles here, and if anyone has a distorted view, it's the self-proclaimed scientists outside of this forum.
For instance, the Pacific Ocean monitoring program you mentioned (which only measures cesium-137), the one you linked us to, explicitly states for now that there are absolutely no indicators of radiation danger—none at all. However, some potential results might be expected from this spring onwards, over the next few years, depending on ocean currents. It's a perfectly soothing report at this moment, and honestly, you'd have to be incredibly brainwashed to view such a report as something terrifying that "nuclear apologists" need to shove in our faces. Regardless, we'll have to wait some time for the results of that monitoring, especially if we want them to actually be meaningful for assessing the scale of the disaster...
- How "soothing" is it really to measure radiation 10,000 km away?Whether you live right next to an energy facility claimed to be "perfectly safe" or miles away—well, you can decide that for yourself. It’s funny, though; you don't see people running joint safety assessments when they're absolutely certain a site is foolproof. That’s exactly what I find hard to swallow from nuclear apologists. They bury the conversation under mountains of empty platitudes and propaganda... honestly, I don't know why it's such a struggle for people to see through it.
The thread was closed this morning, and you're already showing signs of impatience. Like I said, it'll reopen once there's actual news worth discussing. Please, just take a breather. You haven't even received a warning yet, and until recently, you handled disagreements with other members quite well. I'd prefer if things stayed that way.
- Closing a thread based on arbitrary personal criteria while waiting for "significant news" is nothing more than censorship.
- I am perfectly calm.
- What "disagreements with other members" are we even talking about here? Like this, this this, this...?
We can wait and see what the admins say, along with the other users following the Fukushima situation. If there's interest in continuing the discussion immediately, then we will—but let me tell you right now, if it continues the way it was going when we closed it, expect warnings and bans. We won't proceed until the level of discussion meets the standard expected here at PZ.
Essentially, a moderator's explanation might seem straightforward to a casual observer, but it simply doesn't align with the actual facts.
Because moderator Zachary Mendoza2 says:
Look, since we've pretty much covered everything there is to say about the Fukushima disaster, and this discussion has devolved into nothing but bickering and repetitive talking points, it's time to close this thread. If any major news breaks regarding the Fukushima disaster, we will reopen the topic. My sincere thanks to everyone who helped us shed light on the events there, their context, and their significance. Locked.
The discourse surrounding the Fukushima disaster is only going to expand over the coming years. We are looking at an endless cycle of discharging massive amounts of highly radioactive water, the launch of the Pacific Ocean monitoring program, and the start of high-risk operations to move spent fuel rods that will drag on for a year. Furthermore, the true scale of this entire situation is only just now surfacing after three years. Therefore, I find the excuse that the topic is "exhausted" to be entirely unconvincing. As for the supposed "arguments," the responsibility lies primarily with the subforum moderators. They allow reasoned posts to be met with labeling and endless personal attacks, while simultaneously glossing over the most primitive propaganda from pro-nuclear apologists. Frankly, it’s a situation beneath a forum that claims to promote natural science.
I would argue that the real reason this thread was shut down was to protect certain personal egos and opinions, which have absolutely nothing to do with scientific principles. I am more than willing to elaborate on my claims—provided the higher forum authorities actually have the desire for further discussion. If not—well, good grief. We still have the general nuclear energy thread, not specifically regarding the Krško plant, and the renewables thread, so we will see what constitutes empty rhetoric versus scientifically accepted facts. That is, if by some miracle we don't run into a "banned user's clone" first.😁
slygardener47 said:... Regarding the surgery itself—do you have any idea what the ballpark cost might be if I went through a private surgeon? This one won't touch the case...
I haven't the slightest clue. My own procedure happened way back before all these healthcare reformers started trying to "fix" everything. You might want to check in this thread.
Have you considered getting a second opinion from another specialist?
I dealt with this exact nightmare for years; constant sinus cycles and polyps, especially whenever I found myself in hot, dusty, or smoky environments. Between the nausea, the insomnia, the parched throat, and that terrifying sensation of being unable to breathe, I actually resorted to shoving rubber tubes up my nose just to get some air.
Back then, I’d use Otrivin or Nazivin drops—though Benadryl made things even worse for me—by tilting my head back and dropping them deep onto the polyps. Honestly, it felt like there was a Kraken living inside my sinuses. But you have to be careful; using those stuff too much can wreck your nasal lining (and if I recall correctly, mess with your heart, too). I eventually went under the knife twice for cleaning procedures. For a little while afterward, I felt like a brand-new person, but the symptoms inevitably started creeping back. Things have settled down somewhat now; both nostrils are clear enough, but my sense of smell and taste have basically vanished. Plus, the left side occasionally bleeds—but hey, that’s not the only place I’m losing blood when I’m watching a Sunday afternoon football game.😁
Try sleeping in a cooler room; it might also be that airborne dust bothering you. But from what I've been through, I'd say a surgeon is really the only one who can offer a permanent fix.
You can definitely find more useful info over here:
bluemason3 said:And Nazi ideology doesn't exist as an active, legal political force, but it does persist as an ideology—as a myth that binds certain people together. Sometimes they show up in organized groups using its symbols, which is why we still call them (neo) Nazis, even if nothing is ever quite identical to the original historical mythologized source.
Give me a break, 🙂. As soon as Dr. ŽAP set foot on American soil, he immediately pulled out his fascist membership card! My grandad used to tell me how he watched him do it while he was heading off to Australia! ...
Anyway, I'm a little confused by this whole mess of factions—the partisans, the Chetniks, the various splinter groups, etc. If you had Chetniks turning into partisans, and even the fascists weren't necessarily at each other's throats (and vice versa)*, then why, hypothetically speaking, couldn't an ex-partisan like Dr. Franjo Tuđman have simply become a fascist??
*and then they claim there was no unity or brotherhood 🤷
Or is it just a matter of knowing how to wear the right coat at the right time?
I respect everyone’s perspective here, I really do, but I have to side with Steven Sanchez28 on this one—it’s just the cold, hard truth. We can't exactly afford to look the other way when reality keeps hitting us in the face every single day. And that’s why I’m sticking to my guns regarding what I laid out in the first part of post 64; we need to abolish money altogether and implement a much fairer system of distribution.
It feels like we’ve drifted quite a bit from the actual core of this thread. If I recall correctly, the original premise was this: to what extent does our own comfort and privilege blind us to the struggles of the rest of the world, and how much would that reality actually shift the way we behave?
Lawrence Wells said:I know plenty of people who would trade their entire retail empire in a heartbeat if they could just be free from cancer. Money isn't everything—believe me.
The thing is, I mostly just know people who have cancer but *don't* own a massive retail chain. They end up at the doctor only to be told they'll have to wait seven or eight months for a screening. By the time that window finally opens, they don't even need the screening anymore. Meanwhile, the guys running the big corporations? They can just buy out an entire diagnostic wing. They can buy the therapy that actually buys them more time.
Money might have been a necessity once, but in this era of advanced technology, it’s nothing more than a generator for sociopathic relationships. We need to abolish money entirely; it creates gross imbalances in our productive, social, and biological structures, forcing unnatural and unethical hierarchies upon us. http://www.ted.com/conversations/189...at_all_ca.html
mistyjackal842 said:Of course money matters. But what good is it if you can't actually achieve anything even with it? When my mother's health suddenly took a turn for the worse, she was stuck in a standard hospital ward where they didn't even know who she was, let alone wanted to help her. Honestly, I would have moved her to intensive care immediately—I would have paid whatever they asked. I know that in the ICU, doctors are constantly present and provide much better care for critical patients. But there was just no way to get her transferred to intensive care, even though I've read in every medical textbook imaginable that sepsis and septic shock need to be treated in the ICU. It felt like hospital policy dictated that everyone just had to die in a regular ward without adequate support. I just don't understand it. It's like they don't want to move someone with a severe illness that requires antibiotics into intensive care; instead, they just write them off and essentially sentence them to death. My mother was only 68, and she was actually a microbiologist herself, having spent her entire career working on vaccines. If I lived in England, I guess I wouldn't have had these issues; I would have just moved her to a private hospital, even though the public hospitals there maintain a pretty high standard too. She definitely would have survived because they would have actually looked after her. Or, if they had at least transferred her to the Mayo Clinic... she worked right across from that building her whole life, and I'm sure they would have helped her because they don't turn anyone away. Maybe I didn't handle the whole situation perfectly, even though I was demanding she get antibiotics via IV immediately given how critical she was. But I know that even at Johns Hopkins Hospital, they administer intravenous antibiotics; my mother received them back in 1999 while she was in the pulmonary ward at Johns Hopkins Hospital dealing with an embolism. But now, absolutely no one at Johns Hopkins Hospital wanted to help me during the strike; they all just made me feel like I was being foolish. The on-call vascular surgeon told me there was plenty of time and that I shouldn't overreact—it was Sunday, and he just didn't feel like doing anything. He said we had to wait until Monday and other such nonsense. He didn't even recognize the first signs of sepsis, and I suppose any surgeon should be able to recognize that.
Take this to the media—show it to a TV station, a newspaper, or an online news portal... this kind of filth shouldn't stay hidden, especially now while those scumbags are busy bickering between politics and their own self-interest... and perhaps there's enough evidence here for an international court, if not for our own domestic laws and injustices...
Brandon Gomez2 said:About 15 years ago, I was out riding my grandfather's old Rog touring bike—you know, the kind with no gears, a coaster brake, and a front lever that just pressed some makeshift pad against the tire from above. Anyway, I ran over a chicken. It was fatal. Honestly, I probably would have missed her if I hadn't slammed on the brakes to avoid her; instead, my rear tire basically cut off her one path back to the safety of the coop. Ever since then, whenever I see poultry, livestock, dogs, or kids near the road, I immediately slow down to a walking pace.
The thought for starting a thread like this recently crossed my mind, mostly because I can't stop thinking about those mangled, pathetic little carcasses scattered along the road.
There was this one time I was rushing through Queens (New York City), and this medium-sized dog suddenly darted out from a side street right into my path. I clipped him with my wheel, and the poor thing bolted off with a yelp. I really hope I didn't break anything, and I'm praying he isn't just some stray—he had a collar on, though he looked like a purebred street urchin at best. That experience taught me a lesson: no matter how much of a hurry I'm in, I always need to leave myself enough room to brake when faced with these kinds of surprises.
And yeah; there was another instance, during some pretty gusty weather, where a flock of sparrows flew right in front of me. The wind caught one and sent it straight into my spokes, causing it to bounce off. I turned around to see if it was okay, but it had already fluttered off into some bushes somewhere. I hope it recovered.
Now, I try my best to avoid slugs, which seem to be everywhere on the asphalt after it rains... and even if I spot a line of ants, I'll actually stop and lift my bike over them...
Even tiny little things like fruit flies or nematodes have those sluggish periods where they’re basically impossible to rouse from their stupor. But when you look at the animal kingdom as a whole? There isn't much of a pattern to be found. It’s all over the place. You’ve got certain species of bats that spend about 20 hours a day just dead to the world, while large grazing mammals—take horses, for example—get by on less than four hours of sleep, often just catching a few minutes of light dozing while standing up. And then there are the dolphins and whales; some mothers and their calves can go an entire month after birth without ever actually closing their eyes. Nature doesn't exactly follow a schedule, does it?
There was an old school of thought that suggested our bodies build up some kind of internal toxin during our waking hours—a sort of metabolic sludge that eventually reaches a breaking point, making sleep feel absolutely unavoidable. But, predictably, science never actually found this mythical substance. Instead, we have more modern hypotheses to contend with. One theory suggests that throughout the day, we’re essentially burning through essential molecular building blocks—things like proteins, RNA, and cholesterol—that the brain needs to function. We aren't just "cleaning out toxins"; we're recharging the battery by replenishing those depleted supplies while we sleep. Back in 2003, this hypothesis regarding synaptic homeostasis hit the scene. The idea was pretty straightforward: during sleep, our synapses undergo a sort of weakening process to clear out the clutter, effectively making room for new memories to take hold.
Sleep isn't just some continuous void; it actually unfolds in four distinct stages, each lasting about 90 minutes, with the whole cycle repeating five or six times a night. The first stage is just that initial drift into slumber. It’s highly individual—usually somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes for most people. Sometimes, as you transition into the second stage, you get hit by one of those hypnic jerks—those sudden, uncontrollable muscle twitches. Personally, I find those happen more often when I've had an especially grueling day. Once you settle into the second stage, which lasts roughly 20 minutes, your muscles start their recovery process. If you happen to wake up during this window, you actually feel pretty refreshed; for instance, a quick 30-minute power nap usually does the trick for me. Then comes the third stage, often called "slow-wave sleep" because of the specific EEG waves produced. This is where the heavy lifting happens. Various restorative processes kick in, like the release of growth hormones from the pineal gland to stimulate bone and muscle repair, while prolactin works on regulating the immune system. This is also the hardest stage to wake up from. If you get jolted awake after about 45 minutes in this phase, expect to feel groggy, confused, and incredibly irritable. This third stage typically lasts around 60 minutes, but only during that very first cycle. As the night progresses, its duration shrinks with every subsequent loop, being increasingly replaced by the final stage: REM. That's when the dreaming happens, a process designed primarily to help with memory consolidation.
In one study where rats were kept awake indefinitely, most of them died off after just 21 days. In another experiment involving human volunteers kept awake for 29 hours, researchers found that their white blood cell counts spiked—essentially looking as though they had sustained actual physical injuries. It’s a common misconception that only those massive, all-nighter bouts of sleep deprivation actually do any damage to your body. In reality, dragging yourself through the work week on a chronic deficit of rest is just as hazardous. After reviewing fifteen different studies spanning twenty-five years and involving roughly 470,000 participants across eight different countries, researchers from the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom have reached a pretty sobering conclusion. It turns out that consistently getting less than five hours of sleep per night significantly ramps up your risk for diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and even certain types of cancer. Is it really worth sacrificing your long-term health just to squeeze a few more productive hours out of a Tuesday? Probably not.
They actually tried using medication to hack the system by trimming away the less essential stages of sleep. On paper, it worked—they managed to compress a full night down to just five hours. But, predictably, the psychological side effects kicked in hard, and the whole study had to be shut down. Is it really worth it if your mind starts unraveling? Apparently not. There are also mechanical techniques for sleep deprivation—and no, I’m not talking about setting an alarm clock. 😍..., but regarding that other matter—I’m honestly too exhausted to get into it right now. I need sleep. 😬
It’s a scientific fact that sleep handles a massive amount of heavy lifting for the body. So, what exactly is your plan? Are you just going to refuse to sleep now?
The short version: a few years back, I took a nasty fall and dislocated my shoulder, tearing several ligaments in the process. Two weeks later, I was in surgery at a private clinic where they reset the bone using a screw and repaired the ligaments. That screw held for about ten days—though I’m probably the one to blame there, since I apparently rolled onto that side in my sleep and heard a sickening *pop*.
Over the next three months, during various follow-ups, the doctors at that same facility kept insisting everything was perfectly fine. They claimed there was some "minimal" cranial displacement—roughly the thickness of a bone fragment, give or take—and argued that another surgery wasn't necessary. Does that mean the clavicle doesn't actually need to be in its natural position? If so, what on earth was the point of the first surgery? Eventually, after three months of this botched healing, I had to practically beg another surgeon at the same hospital to at least remove the screw, since it had migrated out of the lower bone and was causing issues. Instead of doing what I asked, he performed a clavicle shortening procedure without ever informing me or getting my consent.
Everything is fully documented in my medical records.
Now, nearly four years later, my left shoulder looks visibly shorter, my range of motion is limited, and any kind of strenuous physical labor is painful. Sometimes, the pain just hits out of nowhere for no apparent reason.
I filed a lawsuit against the hospital. An independent medical examiner—handpicked by the defendant's insurance company, naturally—did a three-minute "examination" of me. My lawyer already told me the expert's findings aren't looking good; apparently, according to them, nothing is wrong. I haven't even brought myself to read the actual report yet. I just don't have the energy.
Kevin Nguyen3 said:No. Absolutely not. There is simply no connection to manic behavior here whatsoever. Why must everyone insist on jumping to such extreme conclusions? It just isn't the case. Can you honestly believe that? Is it really possible to just... decide? To simply wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I'm bored with this whole addiction thing, so I'm just going to stop being sick now"? It’s absurd! Truly! There is absolutely no way anyone can overcome an addiction like that—not by sheer willpower alone, and certainly not through such a reckless, nonsensical approach to a serious medical crisis. How can anyone even attempt to tackle a problem of this magnitude with such a flippant attitude? It’s impossible! She simply isn't in a position to hit the gym right now, let alone fall head over heels in love or pick up some intense new sport. Isn't that exactly what was highlighted in the opening post? It was all laid out right there from the very beginning! Where is the motivation in this OKP? It’s just... non-existent. Truly. And don't even get me started on the lack of any additional incentives! Does anyone else feel this void? Is there even a point? There simply isn't any drive here, nor are there any bonuses to make it worthwhile. Nothing! Medication is quite literally her only lifeline at this stage. Without them, there isn't even a conversation to be had about psychotherapy. There simply is no other way forward. Is there any other path? I don't think so. There are no alternatives here. It really isn't about her age! Honestly, why does everyone always jump to that conclusion? It’s such a tired argument, isn't it? Age is just a number, but people act like it's some kind of definitive barrier. It truly has nothing to do with how old she is. When medications finally start doing their job—after what feels like an eternity of waiting, mind you—that’s usually when the real work begins. That’s when you transition into psychotherapy. And let’s be honest, isn't that the only way? Medication can stabilize things, sure, but it’s the therapy, combined with various self-help strategies, that actually tackles the lifestyle shifts required to make a change. It’s about attempting to dismantle those obsessive patterns that just won't quit interfering with a normal life. Can one truly find peace without addressing the root through such dedicated effort? I sincerely believe it is the only path toward meaningful transformation. I see everyone here speculating about bullying, harassment, parental neglect, and all that other stuff... but let's be honest, isn't it all just guesswork? We are making assumptions. Does anyone actually know what the specific trigger was in that exact moment? No. In fact, there might not even have been a single trigger at all! That is precisely why they call it a "silent illness," isn't it? It creeps up on you when you least expect it. We keep feeding her nothing but conflicting information, and instead of actually sharing some real experiences, the whole thing just turns into The Muppet Show. It’s honestly ridiculous... how can anyone expect clarity when we're acting like this? Truly unserious.
What used to be attempted a few decades ago via surgical scalpels and sucking up brain matter with pipettes, is now being done chemically. And the most common results of this "treatment"? Lifelong addicts who can't get out of bed or even lie down without a handful of pills, all while dealing with side effects hitting the liver, kidneys, and stomach... all to the sound of applause from psychiatrists at symposiums in the fanciest cities, which are organized and funded by pharmaceutical companies.
OCD: ... fear... fear... fear... Our brains, much like those of our ancestors millions of years ago, experience fear and signal the body to react. The only difference is that today, fears are often caused by a cocktail of real and imaginary (or purely fictional) problems due to our increasing capacity for abstract thought. Consequently, the brain simply doesn't know which reaction to trigger, so it sends signals for random responses that look senseless to the outside world. Instead of violently interrupting this confusing brain-body interaction with chemicals because it's the modern (and highly profitable) medical standard—even if it's essentially a system of trial and error—perhaps we should look at the causes of these situations from a biological-informatics perspective?
Amy Fowler58 said:😲 If this is what things look like post-op, I honestly don't want to know what the pre-surgery state was. That shoulder doesn't look functional at all, though I suppose if they patched up every single ligament and tendon, you might be fine. You'll just need a massive amount of time and serious physical therapy to get everything strengthened and back where it belongs.
Does anyone actually believe bone can just slide back into its proper place through physical therapy alone? I highly doubt it.