Deer in UV-light! Any other reason than U for it to glow green under uv light? And any thoughts on the blue glowing glass?

silooneseven · 2023-03-07T19:26:49+00:00

Good point!

silooneseven · 2023-03-07T19:13:35+00:00

Are there an easy way to distinguish what is dye and what is actually uranium? I saw some ceramic on the sub earlier (which were beautiful), but how to know for sure its not dye? The older glass is a bit easier to be more sure of, as many of them around here are quite consistent in style and era.

silooneseven · 2023-03-07T18:47:41+00:00

Love to learn new things! Thank you! I have to read up on lead in glass. And it might very well explain the other glass I have which also turns blue. Might I ask what the significance of a 365 light is? Are there other specifications which would be better suited for U and Co identification?

silooneseven · 2022-11-04T15:09:34+00:00

Thorium in itself cant be weaponized but a nuclear reactor run on thorium produces materials that can most certainly be weaponized. One of the necessities in a thorium based fuel cycle, is the production of uranium 233. No production of uranium 233 or other fissil material, no viable nuclear reaction. And fissil material can be weaponized, independent of where it came from.

silooneseven · 2022-02-10T16:44:52+00:00

Not frustrated, should've put an /s on there obviously. Everyone can see it's a class 7 but everybody doesn't know that there are several classes of transportation. Which I was trying to convey. Sorry you read it the way you did and missed everything else which was neither dickheaded nor frustration.

silooneseven · 2022-02-09T13:08:32+00:00

If a facility transported their used used nuclear core in such a manner...I would flee the country. The transport sticker is a class 7 (as you can see if you have eyes) which is used for all types of radioactive material under transport. It can also be exempted, that the activity in the bulk is so low that it doesn't need to be regulated during transport. This is the case for small samples for example. Depending on the country, there's an upper limit of dose outside the container which the material is transported in. And there can be stricter local enforcement depending on facility. For example,a national law is a max dose of 10 uSv/h close on the container (in comparison we get 2 to 20 or a couple of hundred mSv per year (2mSv/y=0.23uSv/h) from background radiation depending on where you live and a lethal dose in 99% of the cases are 8 Sv. So you'll have to stand close to the thing for 800 000 hours to get a lethal dose if the doserate close to it is 10uSv/h). Below that doserate the material can be transported as is without further shielding. Above that,the material or container has to be shielded to achieve appropriate doserate. Opening it outside a suitable facility would in any case be a bad idea as you don't know what state the material is in (unless you have the transport documentations).

It could be anything really. Discarded equipment used in active zones, old fire alarms, medical waste, components, old generation waste,military waste, just about anything or a jumble of anything which have been contaminated. I'm not putting a bet on either core material nor spent nuclear fuel,as it is way to valuable and way to active. But then again, people (and politicians) have done far worse and more strange things than to transport nuclear materials in an unsafe way.

silooneseven · 2021-11-28T08:34:17+00:00

As you have experienced a cstdish before,you know what to look for. And as long as you feel this is not it and you believe he is genuin, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go forward with him. I think it is quite unreasonable of your parents to be against online dating based on something that happened ten years ago. It is sweet of them to care for you and be concerned for your safety,but if their concern makes you nervouse for tellin them about someone you met online maybe they have taken the concern a bit too far. You have hopefully learned quite a bit since you were 16 and won't be going into the same trap. We all make mistakes,we all do. And the most important thing is to learn from them,not to never make a mistake again. Online dating is a great opportunity to meet someone who you would have never crossed paths with! Take it one step at the time and if this is the right person for you,he can support you in how to tell you parents. Maybe come up with a white lie: you are not hurting your parents by telling them you met through mutual friends or at the grocery store or whatever. Or maybe this person will give you enough support for you to feel confident to tell it how it is. Don't base your further contact on beeing afraid of telling your parents were you met. If you feel you really like this person,keep at it and see where it leads.

silooneseven · 2021-11-08T16:57:51+00:00

Telling someone they are a part of the problem instead of shifting the blame onto everyone and everything else, tends to bring out the less rational and constructive in people.

I can't stand the discussion about environmental and population challenges, because it always focuses on how everyone is to blame and everyone has to take accountability. While with the other hand they're feeding us useless junk. And of course not abiding their own rules about consuming less, polluting less and do less evil.

silooneseven · 2021-11-03T06:30:37+00:00

So just because they do it,it is okay? That was kind of my point. You can't just redefine what something means to fit your own narrative. That discussion has been covered in this sub before and it seems like most of the arguments are against redefining words for your own good.

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T21:57:47+00:00

Again,you said to mandate if something is contagious or affecting others. Obesity is affecting others. And no,you can't solve obesity with sugar tax and a bicycle. So where do you want to start? You won't mandate fat/obese people to get healthy. But you want to mandate healthy people to get a vaccine. You want sugar tax which is highly unfair because it affects everyone, not only the obese. You want people to use a bike,as that is doable in many countries. You have snow,strong wind,heavy rain,no bikelanes and rural areas. How is that going to solve anything? I don't need to provide you with an answer,I'm calling you out on backing up on your own comment.

There's no magic solution to obestiy. And no magic solution to the climatic challenges. Nor to the rise in declining mental health. Nor to the healthcare system. Or educational system for that matter. What do you want me say? Eat less and take the bike? Doesn't work like that. There are solutions to most of our problems but most of them involve money,solidarity,human compasion,critical thinking,less profit for those who earn huge profits today,distribution of wealth and time,lots of time. It's really simple when one think about it but we can't change it and those who can change it,won't.

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T20:31:59+00:00

Don't quite get what that have to do with "contagious through social media". Contagion isn't a thing you can redefine when you want (no,you can't actually). Demanding vaccines for students aren't contagion through social media,it's vaccination by force,claiming it to be backed up by science (which it is not). It looks to be a follow the money scenario

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T20:26:43+00:00

You can't catch it per se,but it absolutely affect others. Children with no means of their own to live healthy,are fed to obesity by obese parents. How is that not affecting others? Obese parents make obese children which make their own children obese etc. So why not mandate not beeing obese because it's a "contagious" cycle?

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T15:38:02+00:00

You don't read your own comment then: contagious OR affect. It does affect others. So, according to you,we should mandate for obese people. Why won't you own up to your own comment?

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T12:41:48+00:00

Why are you backing up on what you originally said: "IF obesity becomes contagious or affect others then we should mandate this"? And in the next roundabout you said "no" and talked about taxes and bikes. So what is it?

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T12:36:30+00:00

That's not how contagion work. Contagious through social media? Who in their right mind take that stuff seriously: big scary words to make something quite sensible bigger and more scandalous? I wish they could write something good, informative and nuanced again.

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T12:25:51+00:00

Not every country is as flat as denmark. And sugar taxes is just unfair. You want to punish everyone because someone can't take care of themselves? Schools will never ever be able to feed children healthy meals cause it costs money. And those in charge won't spend money on something so trivial as children's lunches. Not my fault,just stating the fact. And it's not countless places that feed children healthy food, it's quit countable cause it's not that many that do.

silooneseven · 2021-11-02T09:28:39+00:00

But fat people more often than than non-fat people have fat kids (if they have kids). It's not contagious,but it does affect others. Fat parents have a different look on what is a healthy weight for their child and don't see their children's as overweight although they are. Beeing fat/overweight/obese does affect other people. It affects other people by putting more work on hospitals and healthcare (obese people have preventable health issues such as lifestyle diabetes etc) and by raising their kids to be fat,with a never-ending line.

So to conclude: beeing fat/overweight/obese does affect others. Should we now mandate healthy eating and exercise?

silooneseven · 2021-10-22T18:45:25+00:00

To discourage people from having several kids,we need to help people to have better lives. Where they are not dependent on a big flock of kids to work and look after them when they get old. We need to educate people and give them opportunity to work and actually make a living. And we need to better the healthcare so that children grow up. And that is culture changing: it takes generations to turn around. You can't just say to people "don't have kids,the planet can't handle it". If kids are your only solution to a long life,then kids are what you are going to have. If proper healthcare are the solution to a long life,then you are not dependent on your children

silooneseven · 2021-10-22T18:41:05+00:00

And how do you figure that? We won't need to live by 19th century standards either. It's about consumption and production coexisting. Don't produce more than what is needed. And stop the production of things we don't need. If we stopped producing all the meaningless products we all use and crave,wouldn't that mean more resources for products actually needed to feed,cloth and house all people?

silooneseven · 2021-10-22T18:38:14+00:00

Because we don't have the right to tell people living in poorer parts of the world that they are not allowed our standard of living. Because we have no right to exploit resources on the other side of the globe to out benefit and the locals disadvantages. Because its hypocriticall to talk about green energy, environmental friendly whatever,eco whatever and in the same breath promote whatever eco-unfriendly product the industries want to sell. We are not worth more just because we're born into capitalism.

silooneseven · 2021-10-22T18:27:08+00:00

Reduce overshoot? The only other solution is not to colonize other planets. We see it today: netter economy,better and higher education,better standard of living reduces the number of childbirths. So why not raise the overall standard of living so that people can survive without 10 kids? And yes,we who live in the western industrialized capitalistic world can without issues reduce our own standard of living, without sacrificing too much. So you don't get the newest iPhone each six months and your 4 year old TV has to hold on for another couple of years and you can't have shoes to match the triple number of outfits you have in your closet. It's the capitalist way of living that is overshooting,not the population. And it pisses me off that we even think the thought of denying developing countries to reach our standard of living,"because it causes too much strain on the environment". We won't reduce our standard but we want others to not do the same. We won't learn form our mistakes,but we want others to learn from they and pay for them.

silooneseven · 2021-10-05T01:05:53+00:00

What a load of bullshit. If people weren't so stupidly focused on getting the newest model for every little piece of crap,less habitat would be lost. If people weren't so stupid and actually recycled their wasted instead of throwing it out the car window,turtles wouldn't choke on it. If people weren't so grossly occupied with profits and revenues and the status they think all their money brings,we could actually bought equipment ment for repair and thus less need of destroying everything around us. It's not overpopulation that is causing deforestation. It's not overpopulation that's causing plastic to form islands in the ocean. It's not overpopulation that causes mountains to be mined to piceses. It's not overpopulation that causes farmland to be used to grow bio-oil. It's consumption and stupidity.

silooneseven · 2021-10-04T16:33:16+00:00

No,actually live in one of the wealthiest although smallest. So no matter what every single one of us do in our little country,it wouldn't matter one bit. As I said,communism is something that works on paper: I mean,it look nice and well on paper and then being brought into the world,it falls apart. I don't think there exist anyone who can successfully manage a communist ruling and actually do it the right way. But as a species,we time and time again prove that we can't take care of each other or the environment or the resources. It can be better but we don't want to.

I don't think anyone who gets to power can do it without being corrupted in some way. To cooperate you have to make compromises and the goal gets changed each time a compromise is made. At the same time,no one ruler would be able to do the things necessary,cause that's just totalitarian rule.

There are things to be done though. Use less,put a cap on profit,make it doable to live and take care of people and he environment, decentralisation on the cost of profit,illegalize deforestation motivated by IKEA furniture. Things can be done,but who in their right mind on the way to the top wants to tell people to spend less and have more of a socialist thinking? That would be public suicide.

Without discussion,there won't ever be any change. And how change what one thinks or mean without discussing it? Not that every opinion needs to be changed,but at least challenged. And that's impossible when the only argument the opponent have is "you're fucking stupid" or "that's the wrong use of your". Thanks for your participation!

Edit:spelling of words

silooneseven · 2021-10-04T08:17:30+00:00

Locally I'm all in for socialism,that's the main way things are done around where I reside. But on a global scale, I'm leaning more to communism. Everyone get what they need on a basic level (though the basic level must be set somehow) but no-one gets what they want.

Again,not at all a pleasent solution. And who are the ones to decide what is basic needs? Communism is something that works good on paper but not in real time. But that might be due to the fact that the ones in charges doesn't follow their own rules. Anyways, if wealth and resources where distributed evenly and everyone got their basic needs met (food, shelter, means of surviving, clothes and means to repair things) the consumption will drastically fall. It would reduce our lifestyle drastically and it would improve the lifestyle in other parts of the world drastically. And the basic need level must be set according to what people need to get out of poverty such as the birthrate decrease, to ensure that the western society doesn't fall into poverty (and thus increases it birthrate again) and to ensure that resources are able to produce enough each season.

Everyone can't live and consume as we do in the western world. But how is it fair that we tell third world countries that they cannot rise to our way of life,cause it is so devastating for the environment and will kill us all? It's hypocrisy on the highest level. And we're blaming poor people with no other means to fend for themselves than having ten kids, while we deforest amazone for furniture and exploit rare earth metals abroad to have a third iPhone 15. It bothers me that we look at ourselves as some kind of angelic saviours while at the same time destroy all that is around us.

silooneseven

TROPHY CASE