pinball1970

I cannot comment, I don't understand enough of the subject. Apologies

Send the quote

A little more please?

+1 I would like to think the mods may step in if a poster was liberally dishing out DVs. A genuine post should receive a bit of slack. Some kids on here are posting some decent stuff so even if they get it wrong, a DV may be a bit harsh IMO. Show some love and appreciation!

No it finished in the 15th and my link was to the 17th. Your article mentioned the 1800s I checked it briefly. I will read all of it later.

Infant mortality back then was higher due to points in the posts already mentioned. Disease was attributed to "bad air" maisma and even things like curses and spells. Ignorance of the world around them and poor hygiene have been cited however, I like this story of a 17th C village in Eyam, that deduced infected cloth from London began a deadly outbreak. They isolated from the outside and also introduced social distancing in the village. The obviously had no knowledge of microbiology, fomites, vectors but took a scientific approach. One to visit on my travels. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyam

With things like this helping. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Ouch. True though!

Yes and they died in larger numbers back then because of the reasons we gave.

Vaccines is a big one and smallpox being a good example in particular. Eradicated now but it is estimated to have killed half a billion people in total. Child birth was a risk only a few hundred years ago, no pre natal medicine for potential issues and no sterile conditions for the birth itself, stated from other posters that germ theory had not been developed. A failed crop could be devastating to a community and there was no technology regarding pesticides or high yield crops. Childhood illness, treatable today like asthma, type one diabetes, respiratory infections, some cancers would have been a death sentence in those times. Water borne illness is still a big killer today in certain parts of the world and would have been a lot worse then and more widespread.

Nonsense. This is a serious site and a serious sf. Try again with some thought this time.

It's not solved, we would have heard.

South Europe is supposed to have a very good diet, red wine, olive oil, fish, Traditional, obviously no crap fast food and ready meals.

The UK is in the same boat with 2/3rds overweight and 1/4 Obese. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/update-to-the-obesity-profile-on-fingertips/obesity-profile-short-statistical-commentary-may-2024

When I was your age I was doing homework, playing football and learning to play music.

58, that makes me granddad.

I think for youngsters, lay people interested in science they are totally fine. For me, getting all excited with a note book on my knee, waiting for Alice Roberts on human evolution was a disappointment.

I have dipped in an out of this thread so please forgive me if I am repeating other contributions from good posters. Pi is not physical, neither is a circle, square or triangle. They are idealised geometric objects and numbers that can be derived from them. Platonic. You will absolutely never find a circle in the universe Physics is empirical, things we can observe, measure and detect. It turns out that the mathematics of those objects can be used effectively in physical theories. Pi is not physical.

Did you get this from Ai? The format looks Ai ISH. The "old" quantum model was superceded, electrons do not "travel," in that way, North to South. We have a few experts here @joigus who will critique better than I.

Cool +1. It helps the site, alerts the mods

Just to add PAH Chemistry is another. Below is just the abstract so ill post a link to the article too. https://phys.org/news/2025-06-cosmic-chemistry-breakthrough-largest-aromatic.html https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adc911

It happens on the other sites im on. Just report it and it will get picked up and binned.

David Attenborough is a one a off and has a created a genre in documentary. You get information but because he primarily talks about extant life on earth, that is what you see, in action and it is superb. I would put the Sky at night in the same bracket. As for the others you can argue they will get kids interested because the presenters are a little rock and roll, sex up the science and do not just present the dry facts on black boards or in labs. However, when you get to A level and uni that's what learning science is, guys in lab coats in the labs or at the black board/ using power point. My comment was not a slight on your judgement, I was giving an honest appraisal of how I see a lot of these type programmes going now, that's it. your posts are generally of a high quality.

The Magnuson one may be difficult to get but that book introduced me to the subject so have a look. His sources were the archaeology journals of that time.

These are primarily entertainment programmes not educational. Attractive presenter, dramatic music, exotic locations, some cool tech and bingo. I detested the Brian Cox stuff and Alice Roberts was even worse. You could condense the programmes by two thirds and still get all the info across. Sometimes they get it right, some of the Jim Al Kalili physics documentaries have been very good. On the whole? Nice for kids but very light on the info. This one could be okay though? Always hope!