Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4530 profile views

ScienceNostalgia101's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. I don't know whether or not this anecdote is real, but it's the reason my attention was brought to the concept of "demolishing" condemned buildings and how wasteful it sounds, to say nothing of the perverse incentives to recruit demolition employees who might be biased by their destructive instincts against the possibility they're really being used as accomplices in vandalism. (After "The Troubles," a church group offering teenagers an opportunity to demolish a building sounds sketchy as all hell.) A: Obvious first question is; why aren't they just repurposed? If a building is no longer structurally stable enough for its former purpose, why not strip it of its desks / its beds / whatever else was applying too much pressure on the support beams and just let it be some big empty building to rent out to tourists and/or filmmakers who would apply relatively less pressure on it? Does it depend on the structural flaws for which it was "condemned" and whether or not the support beams are already broken beyond repair? If so, how did it not collapse while those things applying downward pressure were still inside it? B: If there's no longer any use to get out of the building, why not put a giant smokestack around the building, such that any fumes from its incineration are lifted past the level of free convection (assuming the incineration is saved for a day with unstable air) then pump in some extra oxygen if need be and set fire to the whole thing? That way you can put a giant pot of water over it and cook food in it (or use it for coffee, or tea, to share with everyone in the neighbourhood) in lieu of burning fossil fuels for said same heat, saving on their combustion both when the thing is burned, and when the fire is over and the ashes require less energy to transport than unburnt debris. What say you, Science Forums? Is there something I'm missing here?
  2. I was under the impression the point of soap was to make your hands too slippery for germs to cling to, and therefore have them all leave your hands, where they could have been harmful, and go down the drain into the methane-producing sewers, where they could be made useful. (Provided your infrastructure is designed to harvest the methane, of course.) Besides, what's stopping bacteria from evolving to survive "antibacterial" soaps like they did with antibiotics? in theory the point would be moot among those who wash their hands thoroughly enough, but antibacterial-soap-resistant antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a venue where sewer workers have to deal with them sounds like a recipe for disaster if sewer workers' protective clothing punctures...
  3. I... was not aware of that. At all. I thought all it'd do was increase the veggies' shelf life. Next time I'll only buy enough to use within however long they last in the cupboard. (Although looking up acrylamide on Google, I'm some glad I boiled my potatoes instead of frying or roasting them.) As for my immune system... I'm not immunocompromised or anything on that level, but I don't fully trust it, what with it having attacked my own insulin-producing cells as a type 1 diabetic. Isn't it early in childhood that the immune system figures out what's harmful and what isn't? How much further benefit is there in adulthood to deliberately eating food that was put on the same glass surface a bag of discoloured potatoes was previously on? Or is a few seconds' worth of immersion in vinegar going to make the point moot now anyway? I don't intend to walk on eggshells or anything like that, I just prefer to take precautions where it's not too much trouble.
  4. Not sure if this is worth a separate thread or not, but since it involves vinegar and household food / beverage items I figure this is closely-enough related. I recently threw away a big bag of potatoes (it was originally a big bag of mixed vegetables when I first got it months ago, but I finished everything but the potatoes first) because they were starting to look discoloured. As a precaution, I poured some vinegar onto the section of the fridge the bag had been touching, but then immediately wiped off the vinegar with some tissues. Is a few seconds' worth of soaking in vinegar adequate to disinfect it or would it need to be soaking for longer and/or soaking in something else?
  5. To be fair, it's possible to be okay with infidelity and still care even about someone who gets her needs met elsewhere when you fail to meet them. We have common ancestry with bonobos, after all. I think stronger evidence that Will's indignation was fake is in the fact that: A: This is the same guy who has joked about alopecia himself. B: He laughed until his wife glared at him. . . . Anyway, I forgot to consider Looney Tunes (I've actually in multiple debates on other sites invoked it as an example of double standards around cartoony vs. realistic violence; we go easier on content that sugar-coats the consequences of violence than content that bluntly portrays it, when quite frankly it should be the other way around; come to think of it that might be worth making its own thread for) but it's a little at odds with stuff that's often encouraged by parents; and insisted on by assertive parents; like Arthur, or Magic School Bus. In any case, it's pretty obvious that The Simpsons was expressly not intended for children; they just watched it anyway because they assumed everything colourful was meant for them, and parents either couldn't or wouldn't stop them. In any case, cartoons that are expressly fictitious and play violence for laughs are a tad different from a real-life grown man going unpunished for engaging in real-life violence.
  6. Children's shows usually condemn slapping. (Unless an old lady is slapping Rainbow Dash, in which case it's played for laughs because an old lady is doing it. And also, because she was shoved by Rainbow Dash across the street against her will; albeit on the false premise that she wanted to cross the street; not sure if that makes it self-defense.) A beloved celebrity slapping a not-as-beloved celebrity (well, at least beforehand) and not only going unprosecuted for it but having multiple public figures imply it's acceptable to use violence over words is going to make teachers' jobs a lot more difficult in the coming days, if not weeks. Just imagine the scenario. "But Miss! He made a joke about her baldness! If Will Smith can slap people for that, why can't I?"
  7. "It happens" is the most meaningless response one could possibly give. What matters is who is at fault. There were people even back then who knew it was wrong. Does that not, all else held constant, make them better people than most?
  8. I mean, if he called a policewoman who responded to the 9/11 scene "G.I. Jane" she might probably take it as a reference to her heroism anyway. Offense is taken, not given. Plenty of people react to jokes about baldness non-violently. No, there's not. It's either wrong or it isn't. If standards were different in the 1950s and 1960s, the standards were wrong and failing to see how society was wrong is a moral failing. Just as future generations will one day see what we were wrong about. Anyway, Will's only in his early 50s anyway, so it's not like he was around for either of those decades.
  9. Bit of a misnomer. What I meant was more so whether the heat or other effects of the radioactivity can force a chemical reaction to occur that could start a fire that wouldn't otherwise have started. I'm not accusing these cartoons of nefarious intentions or insinuating an obligation to realism or anything like that, just more out of curiosity whether it was a reference to anything real and/or coincidentally resembles something real. A lot of Simpsons moments are known to have had more truth to them than initially realized when it comes to things like, let's say, stuff about the legal system, but whether it's similar for the sciences is a distinct question.
  10. Jada is 50 years old. So let's cut the crap with the "age" angle. It's about male vs. female. Yeah, baldness can be attractive in a male; supposedly; though it's impossible to prove they're attractive because of said baldness and not because of it. A lot of guys find some women who happen to technically be overweight attractive; does that make cheap shots about a woman's weight fair game too? (Oh wait, guys get cheap shots about their weight all the time; see also Donald Trump.) An insult to Rob Reiner's baldness is an insult to baldness, and in turn, a de facto insult to Vin Diesel's as well. The only way it isn't also an insult Jada Pinkett Smith's is if the sexes involved are relevant. But more to the point... why would Rob Reiner be insulted about his baldness, other than because people find it unattractive? You can't have it both ways. If it's attractive, the insult makes no sense. If it's unattractive, then you're attacking them for an involuntary physical trait. If men don't resort to violence over cheap shots at their own baldness, they shouldn't resort to it over cheap shots about their wives' baldness. You're missing the point. Chris Rock didn't smear people with alopecia as being at fault for their own condition. He just made a joke about it. Jokes about type 1 diabetes, as long as they don't spread misinformation, don't bother me near as much as even the most well-meaning ignorance someone takes without doing their due diligence to make sure they're getting it right. Of course, none of this is cause for violence. The proper place to deal with the spread of misinformation is by refuting it; and if that doesn't work, too bad, so sad, that's the price of living in a civilized society. The proper place to deal with distasteful jokes is by condemning them. If the public doesn't share your condemnation, too bad, so sad, that's the price of living in a civilized society.
  11. Bill Maher jokes to Republicans that "you will still have diabetes", and though I think he meant type 2 (he often jokes that Republicans are fat) the problem in my eyes isn't the insensitivity, but the actual harm done, by contributing to a misconception that falsely gets type 1 diabetics blamed for their own condition, contributing to the false perception that we brought this upon ourselves, and in turn, to lack of support for forms of research that could cure this condition already. But more to the point. Does apolecia cause people to die statistically years younger than everyone else? (Wikipedia says it doesn't affect life expectancy at all.) Does it have any equivalent to sufferers spending every waking moment of every day not being sure if hypoglycemia could get them killed? The whole thing just seems like a case of vanity. Plenty of people are ridiculed for their bald heads without resorting to violence over it. Rob Reiner comes to mind.
  12. In The Simpsons, Homer attempts to grow a donut to a larger size using the reactor core. In the show, not only does this not work, it causes a fire that apparently spreads up the sides of the cooling tower for some reason. A: Is fibre-reinforced plastic combustible enough that a fire that started in the reactor could travel up the sides of the cooling tower? B: Can radioactivity react with any standard donut ingredients to start a fire? Would the fire be started by the radioactivity itself, or by the heat associated with such radioactive materials?
  13. I was hoping some people here had already heard of it. Like, if someone in the physics forum had asked "what is the probability that atoms don't exist" I'd have said "akin to the probability that you could shoot a bullet at a piece of tissue paper and have it fly right back at you" because that's exactly how my professors in my undergraduate years summarized the findings of the gold foil experiment. I was hoping the life sciences had their own analogues to that. In any case, I am content with the answers thus far. It is possible, if unlikely, therefore Judd Apatow was technically right and therefore those making him out to be wrong were wrong themselves. . . . Oh, and Phi For All, as a type 1 diabetic myself, I'm far more offended by things that cause us actual harm than by mere insensitivity.
  14. https://pagesix.com/2022/03/28/judd-apatow-says-will-smith-could-have-killed-chris-rock/ What is the probability that one slap could have caused someone to lose their balance, fall, and hit their head in a life-endangering manner? How does this compare to, let's say, every day risks like the risk of driving, or not-as-everyday risks like the risks of getting hit by lightning when standing outside in a thunderstorm?
  15. It's more so because said cartoons have piqued my curiosity about very specific aspects of chemistry. Same reason I already have analogous threads for pop cultural depictions of physics and biology; you have a means to discuss these things while the matter is still fresh in your mind from the spark the fictional portrayal created in your mind. Speaking of which, thanks for the feedback thus far.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.