BigAssFan

This Wiki-page is mostly about the brain, not the rest of the body. But you are right that there is a close relation between body and brain. Following article explains some dependencies. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/brx2.43

Also, monkeys are forced to get the last coconuts off the trees. Animals basically used as slaves.

Not unclear as a whistle.

It’s just the creation of particles with an ultra-short lifespan, which then decay into other particles. Only there are more of this type than expected, but still within the tolerance of what the theory predicts. Additional tests are needed to say anything conclusive. That’s just what they normally like to do at CERN, they’re quite good at it. They also started the world wide web, back in the day.

Seems that Austria is just as racist as France, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, England or the USA. I probably missed a few along the way.

You are the utter cunt here yourself, with your short-sighted opinion. Can’t you see the parallel in polluting something of value? Like is being done to our planet? And those people’s grandchildren will be even more annoyed when they have hardly any food left, with weather catastrophies ruining their existence. OK, that was a bit harsh, but you catch my drift.

Still puzzles me why everybody’s still shopping at Amazon.

Still, she’s the best that you can get.

Wouldn’t sexism be even more prevalent in right-wing spaces? Or would you say that it’s pretty evenly distributed over the political spectrum?

You’re still killing animals mainly for fun, which is not ethical no matter how you turn it. Humans generally do not need to eat meat, as they’re omnivores. Keeping animals uses up large amounts of land and produces unnecessary greenhouse gases. With the amount of people and cattle being held on this planet, something has got to change in our behaviour in order to get things more balanced and keep a healthy planet for future generations. You try to keep old habits intact, which are not sustainable in the current world. Perhaps you don’t want to know about this take on things, but I’m presenting them anyway, hopefully it will have an influence on your future thinking.

The solutions are there, but nobody will risk loss of power or popularity. But no worries, nature will strike back harder and harder.

Just go eat plant-based all together, so we won’t have these problems that endanger the existence of life on our planet. Including humans.

*That’s /s

Why is a sandwich pizza not a thing already? Like a calzone, but without folding anything.

We can see that 2. is longer than 1.

No expert, but my take on this is that medicines work because they resemble the chemicals your body already makes itself. Better not interfere with a finely balanced immune system in which pain is an essential signal for the body to cope with infections and injuries. It might be more comforting to take a pill against something but I’m afraid it messes up the immune system too much, better to avoid that as much as possible. Works fine for me.

A good day day day.

Let’s just stop trying out new referenda, OK?

Well, your view is not unbiased, perhaps it’s difficult to do here, given the limited amount of writing room. And in a discussion it seems to be obligatory to only mention the parts that are favourable to one’s personal outcome, somehow. But still. Even though you seem very convinced on the pros of nuclear, others still beg to differ. Like this research shows. Money remains an important driver of the whole issue, and money being spent on nuclear cannot be spent again on wind turbines or batteries. Unbiased information is difficult to get online however, most websites on the matter have preconceived ideas that they present. Nuclear waste also concerns medium and low level waste, which are a lesser problem, but still a problem in larger quantities. And high nuclear waste remain radioactive longer than homo sapiens has been around, so although the quantity is not a lot, its longevity makes up for it, so it remains quite a problem for which no final solution has been found. As I wrote earlier: the debate is not over just yet, otherwise it would not be newsworthy every time again. Strong opinions on both sides do not make up for it, usually a strong opinion is not backed up by knowledge and facts alone, but also on feelings and emotions, otherwise it would not be a strong opinion. Which makes the discussion more difficult.

The arguments of Greenpeace against nuclear power have nothing to do with age though. It’s too expensive, which takes money away from e.g. wind and solar, with less carbon-free energy in the end for the money spent and more fossil fuels being used as a consequence. And still produces nuclear waste. Just develop batteries, hydrogen and the likes for storage. And ban or tax the use of fossil fuels. This debate is not over yet, not by a long shot, and climate will remain in the news as long as we live, I’m afraid.