-1=e^ipi

Btw, the fact that females have a higher reproductive cost, which results in males being more disposable is seen across the animal kingdom. For example, the praying mantis. After sex, the female eats the male, since the male is no longer necessary and the extra nutrients for the female helps the survival of the species.

Sign, fine I'll use facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster About 2.7 × 1016 Bq of Cs-137 entered the pacific ocean and a similar amount of Cs-134. The half life of Cs-137 is 30 years and the half life of Cs-134 is 2 years. This means that Cs-137 is the main concern so I'll focus on that. Cs-137 is much heavier than water, so most of it will quickly sink to the bottom of the ocean. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that doesn't happen and that the Cs-137 gets evenly distributed across the pacific ocean. The pacific ocean has a surface area of 165.2 million square km and a volume of 714 million cubic km. This means that average ocean depth is around 4.322 km. So when spread over the entire ocean, this is 163.4 Bq/m^2 and 3.78 x 10^-2 Bq/m^3. Water is a decent absorber of gamma radiation and has an attenuation coefficient of 9.7/m. This means that an individual on the surface of the Pacific ocean receives 3.78 x 10^-2 Bq/m^3 / (9.7/m)/2 = 1.95 x 10^-3 Bq/m^2. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/muscle.html The mass absorption coefficient of human tissue is about 3.074 x 10^-6 m^2/g. So this means that a human is receiving roughly 5.99 x 10^-9 Bq/g. Cs-137 releases 1.176 MeV of energy when it decays, so this means that the human is receiving 7.05 x 10^-9 Bq*MeV/g of radiation. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV per gram. So the above value is equal to 1.13 x 10^-16 rad*Bq. Converting this to mSv gives 1.13 x 10^-15 mSv*Bq. Taking into account the number of seconds in a year, this corresponds to 3.57 x 10^-8 mSv/y. By comparison, average background radiation in Canada is about 1.8 mSv/y. So Fukushima increases your radiation exposure by less than one fifty-millionth of background radiation.

Meanwhile, mainstream campus feminists are so intolerant of Janice Fiamengo that they successfully silence her from speaking at her own university. But it's not like intolerance of freedom of speech is a new phenomenon at Canadian Universities. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/extremists-disrupt-dr-janice-fiamengos-lecture-at-university-of-ottawa-video/

And you could also die from a flying spaghetti monster suddenly appearing and crushing you. It's a matter of probability.

Probably because of all the anti-nuclear hysteria that prevents investment. If all the subsidies to solar went to thorium salt reactors, I have no doubt that number would be greater than zero.

Other posters. Energy loss from battery storage depends greatly on the period of time that you want to store that energy for. Storing energy for a few hours when the power goes out isn't quite the same thing as storing power for 24h every day, let alone storing power captured during the summer for the winter. My understanding is that in a decade, battery technology might improve enough to make solar + battery be cost competitive in sunny regions with fossil fuels / nuclear, but the battery technology will only be good enough for dealing with diurnal variation, not seasonal variation.

I have wanted to do this thread for a while but never got around to it. But a recent video by Janice Fiamengo has incentivized me to make this thread. First, I want to introduce the concept of reproductive utility to a tribe and how it relates to evolutionary psychology. So humans and their cultures are shaped by the forces of natural selection. A tribe with traits that increase its chances of reproduction will over time dominate over tribes that do not have these traits. So let's first consider the fact that most societies historically have traditionally had negative views of gay and transgendered people (with some exceptions). One possible explanation for this is that acceptance of gay or transgendered activities within a hunter-gatherer society either reduces the number of offspring for the tribe or significant reduces the genetic pool of the tribe by reducing the number of people taking part in reproductive activity. As a result, a tribe that has negative views of gay or transgendered people may tend to dominate over tribes that have positive views of gay or transgendered people because the former has a reproductive advantage. So overtime, the lower reproductive utility of gay and transgendered people to the tribe result in these people having lower value to the tribe than straight or cisgendered people. Now how does this relate to the concept of male disposability? Well there are obvious reproductive differences between males and females. Females have to go through 9 months of pregnancy + breast feeding so have a much higher cost of reproduction than the few calories of energy that males have to put in for sperm. As a result, a tribe's reproductive ability is primarily limited by the number of women in the tribe. If a population loses half of its men, it can rebound much more quickly than if it loses half of its women. So men have lower reproductive utility to a tribe than women because men are more expendable; this is known as male disposability. As a result of this, tribes that develop cultural traits that take advantage of male disposability will tend to be selected over tribes that are more egalitarian. So if two tribes go to war, then one that sends men to fight and die rather than women will be favored. If there is a dangerous task that has a high probability of death, such as going out hunting giant woolly mammoths that can crush you, you want men to do that task. Since human tribes will evolve to value the lives of women more than men, this causes men to do far more risky activities that have a decent probability of death, which means that men will on average have a lower probability of engaging in reproductive activities. This is supported by genetic studies, which suggest that historically, 4 women reproduce the next generation for every man (see link below). http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success This male disposability means that human societies over time have socially and genetically evolved to value women more than men and have caused society to empathize less with men than with women. This is known as the empathy gap, and is explained in more detail in the video below: I invite you to see the video but I'll also list some brief examples of this empathy gap: -Society cares a lot about women's issues and goes to great lengths in protecting women, but men's issues are scoffed at or are looked at as 'an attack on women' and therefore should be ignored. For example, society will talk about the gender wage gap and constantly exaggerate it, but doesn't really talk about the life expectancy gender wage gap, the work place death gender gap, the suicide gender gap, the homelessness gender wage gap, etc. - Society funds women's cancer research more than men's cancer research even relative to the number of deaths by cancer type. - Take the case of Boko Haram. When Boko Haram massacres a bunch of school age boys, it either doesn't make the news or is barely mentioned. However, when Boko Haram kidnaps school girls, suddenly it is a big issue that the people in the West and Nigeria suddenly care about. Do the boys not matter? If you look at media reports of these massacres, when men are massacred, they are referred to as 'people', but when women are massacred they are referred to by the media as 'women'. When both men and women are massacred, they are referred to as 'people, some of which are women'. The choice of wording is to illicit the highest emotional response, and because women have more value to society than men, you want to indicate when women are killed, but keep things ambiguous when men are killed. - Let's take Anita Sarkeesian's criticism of Hitman Absolute. So Anita Sarkeesian is a self described feminist and probably believes in her mind that she takes the position of gender egalitarianism. However, valuing women over men is so ingrained in our society that even when Anita looks at a game in which the overwhelming majority of people that are killed are male, because you can kill two women in the game (even though you aren't supposed to and you lose points in the game for harming civilians) in Anita's mind this game is all about violence against women. What about all of the men that are killed, is there no violence against men? But of course any criticism of Anita's work is portrayed by the media as 'evil misogyny by people that hate women'. Below is a video on an example of criticism of Anita's criticism of Hitman Absolute. - Canada even glorifies violence against men through its love of the NHL. I.e. a bunch of men ramming each other into boards, punching each other and giving each other concussions rather than playing hockey. Not only does reproductive utility explain why societies may have cultural aspects that result in men having higher death rates (for example, 'women and children first' policies, men should never hit women but not visa-versa, and male only drafts) but it can explain a lot of the differences in gender roles that are observed. For example, traditionally in terms of dating, employment and elsewhere women are traditionally supposed to be 'passive' while men are supposed to be 'active'. This can be explained by reproductive utility since as women have higher reproductive utility, they have greater intrinsic value so do not have to work to obtain value, and working to obtain more value is arguably undesirable for a female because working to obtain value may result in a higher chance of dying (and a women's chances of reproduction are very high since reproduction rates are limited by the number of women), where as men do not have this intrinsic reproductive value so are forced to work and compete to obtain value and have a chance at reproduction. So a lot of what is viewed as 'patriarchy' is rather men having less intrinsic reproductive value to society and having to work hard and do risky activities to obtain value. And societies that traditionally encourage men with an illusion of masculinity if they perform activities that have a high probably of death, such as fighting in a war, are the societies that would be favoured via natural selection. Anyway, I'll end this post with a link to a video on this topic by Karen Straughan.

I'm at war with nature now? Oh well, let's add it to the list of misogynist, racist and other nonsense labels that I receive. Let's try this precautionary principle right now and see if you believe in it. The worst that could happen if you make another post in this thread is that it could anger the flying spaghetti monster, who will use its powers to turn you into a giant meatball. Do you want to become a giant meatball? If not, don't post in this thread. Or maybe, it would be more sane to take probability into account when making decisions.

Because if you think the opposition to all nuclear energy and gmos, and support for things like homeopathy is unscientific then you are a global warming denier or oil industry shill. That's how logic works apparently. *sarcasm*

Please define 'my side of the argument'. Wait, so the existence of X occurring justifies moving away from X? Okay, let me try that logical form and see if you can see a flaw in it. The rapid increase in life expectancy is a sign that we need to collectively back off from increasing life expectancy. Does that work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle A pragmatic approach is to not take into account costs of energy or probabilities associated with certain events? How about all the people that will die due to lower access to power to heat their homes, or to help fund hospitals? If say so... Still is irrational.

So that means you reject the strong precautionary principle? 1. So first you say that probability distributions should matter, now you say that we can determine which policies make sense without taking into account those probability distributions... I guess you don't reject the strong precautionary principle. 2. Costs are not some sort of step function. Mitigation policies have negative impacts on quality of life, and the effect is continuous (arguably mitigation costs are a roughly quadratic function of the level of mitigation). Realistically, the only policies that would reduce CO2 emissions and wouldn't negatively impact standard of living are getting rid of all the irrational anti-nuclear policies, which you ironically oppose.

Are you one of these 'solar roadway' people as well? I'll point out a few things: 1. Solar panels are more effective if you angle them towards the sun and have the angle change throughout the day. 2. Solar panels are more effective if they aren't covered in grit, you need to clean them. 3. Solar panels might not be very effective at keeping out the rain to make sensible shingles. 2. Energy storage to deal with variability in output remains an issue, there is a limit of what % of your power can be feasibly solar due to variability.

Up is down, left is right in Orwellian progressive land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.[1] The aim according to this often complex and contested concept[2] is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,[3] religion, sex,[4] ethnicity,[4] race, caste,[5] or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender, or sexual orientation. I guess equal opportunity is a microaggression.

Different technology is used in different places. Japan is basically the only major Asian country without a CANDU reactor. And even in terms of light water reactors, newer reactors are far safer than the over 40 year old technology that was used for the Fukushima reactor.

Seriously, Fukushima used technology that was decades outdated, survived an Earthquake, and primarily had an issue because a Tsunami knocked out the backup power generators. In the end it killed no one. Different types of nuclear reactors have different possibilities of meltdowns. CANDU reactors used in Canada are far safer than the light water reactors used in Fukushima. And what about Thorium-salt reactors?

The price of solar varies greatly by location. In some locations it is arguably cheaper, but not everywhere is Southern California or Saudi Arabia. Secondly, simply looking at price per kWh doesn't take into account variability in production. If the sun isn't shining when you need it to, then it isn't very useful. Not only do you have to deal with diurnal variability but also seasonal variability. In a country like Canada or Germany, when you might need energy the most (say winter, when it is cold), you have less sunlight. The variability can be dealt with if it is used in combination with another source of energy that can soak up this variability (hydro or coal are good at this), but this means that there is a limit to what % of total power production can be reasonably made to be solar (or wind); this usually amounts to a few percentage points of total energy production (unless you want to have lots of coal or gas plants). Nuclear on the other hand gives you a stable energy source that doesn't emit CO2 for the entire year, so can be used to produce the vast majority of your power. The cost of nuclear energy is inflated due to all the anti-nuclear laws and opposition in developed countries. Also, because it isn't used on a massive scale like it could otherwise be used, we aren't taking advantage of economies of scale which could make nuclear power much cheaper than it already is.

People get far more radiation exposure being in airplanes than being in a nuclear reactor.

Because... ... ... ...double standards

I have the same position. Legalize it, tax it. But I don't think there should be a requirement about where the tax revenue needs to go.

If the microaggression thing was just about pointing out that small statements or actions can be demeaning/hurtful and that this can add up over time, or that professors should stick to class material, I would have no problem with it. But its pretty clearly that many SJWs want to use anti-microaggression policy to silence dissenting opinions made by students/faculty at universities during their own free time, for example if they make a statement on facebook.