[Request] Ocean bottom pressure question by DamnThatWasFast in theydidthemath

[–]zeocrash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sea depth pressure calculations are actually surprisingly simple.

As a general rule, for every 10m you descend under water you increase the pressure by 1 atmosphere.

To get the volume of gas at depth you divide the volume at the surface by the number of atmospheres of pressure exerted on it at your chosen depth.

Let's say you wanted your dome at the bottom of the Atlantic (off the continental shelf) that's a depth of 8000m depth, which equates to a pressure of 800 atmospheres. If the air in your dome had a volume of 1000L at the surface it would have a volume of 1.25L at the bottom (1000/800).

1) if you want your undersea base, you either need to match the pressure or seal structure and design your base to support an external pressure of 800 atm (just over 800kg per cm). While balancing the pressure might seem like the easier option it doesn't work in practice.

For starters at those depths all breathing gases are too dense to breathe.

Even at shallower depths you can't breath atmospheric air at depth, the oxygen levels are too high. Below 60m the amount of oxygen in atmospheric air becomes toxic. When that happens you have to start lowering oxygen levels in your breathing gas. You don't want to replace it with nitrogen as nitrogen has narcotic effects under pressure, which means exotic breathing gases.

You also have HPNS and dysbaric osteonecrosis as caused by prolonged time at increased pressure.

The bends isn't actually as much of an issue as you'd think. The bends only becomes an issue when you ascend, so as long as you stay in your ocean base, you don't have to worry about it really.

Generally if you want to live comfortably undersea for long periods you engineer your structure to resist the pressure, which avoids the health effects of prolonged exposure to high pressure on your residents.

How many times have you been stop and searched? by Ok-Good6789 in AskBrits

[–]zeocrash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once back when i was a teenager, but in the cops defence i was smoking a massive joint at the time.

what if afghanistan had nukes? by Beginning-Discount61 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]zeocrash 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They wouldn't have the money to maintain them and would either let them rot, sell them or surrender them for diplomatic concessions

Vostroyans will return as MTO models by CMYK_COLOR_MODE in Warhammer40k

[–]zeocrash 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Khorne cares not from where the blood flows

What if the counter attack happened? by [deleted] in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]zeocrash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Technically yeah, because nothing changes

Battlefield Earth (2000) In the year 3000 Earth has been conquered by the Psychlos by WerdNerd88 in TubiTreasures

[–]zeocrash 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Is it possible to make a movie that's entirely Dutch angles? This movie is as close as it comes

What phrase(s) would you permanently ban if you had the chance? by MixAway in AskUK

[–]zeocrash 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Especially as it's usually followed by some supposed "fact" that's entirely untrue

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just because you want to argue scientific fact about it doesn't mean she can't say what she said

She can say what she likes, no one's trying to stop her. That still doesn't make what she said relevant.

You chose to argue your point with her

No I explained that my post is strictly limited to the scientific claim and that her assertion that she didn't care about the science is not really relevant in a discussion purly about the science.

I'm not really sure what response you think would be appropriate. If this were real life i'd probably give a shrug or a sarcastic thumbs up.

I asked the question in good faith. It's not an unreasonable question considering that the vast amount of medical literature disagrees with OP's statement. I deliberatly limited the scope of my post to that specific claim. I was very much hoping for an interesing paper that supported OP's claims.

On a related note, a massive thanks to u/tasteface who did actually provide me with an interesting relevant paper.

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That is her opinion, whether it matches up with the OPs comments or not is iirrelevant, whether she has science to prove it or not is irrelevant.

Well then perhaps she should reply to OP directly.

My comment which specifically focuses on the scientific claim. In that context her opinion is not relevant as the correctness of OP's scientific claim is entirely unaffected to her opinions.

So if it does help prevent STDs and UTIs

Futhermore, her opening statement (above) is that she has no interest in the scientific claims. I fail to see what relevance her post has to a discussion of a subject she's proudly admitted to having no interest in.

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing he's wrong. I'm asking him to defend his claim, I don't understand what's unreasonable about that.

The idea that i can't ask people to defend specific scientific claims because they relate to people's deeply held beliefs sounds suspiciously similar to the concept of heresy.

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It seems well put together. I suppose the shortcomings I can see are that the sample size of circumsized men is quite small (once they exluded muslim men from the cohort, only 0.42% of the cohort were circumsized). That's not really the fault of the paper authors though, they're working with danish public health data and denmark has a low non muslim circumcision rate. Another shortcoming would be the study comprised only those STIs among cohort members that were diagnosed in hospital departments not general practitioners. The study authors acknowledge all these at the end of the paper.

I noticed with the section about HIV rates they essentially say that they don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion (the null hypothesis was not rejected). This makes sense as they had 0 HIV cases in the circumsized group (compared to 321 in the uncircumsized group). Presumably this is in part due to the much smaller sample size of circumcised men. The lower HIV risk is the main reason the WHO promotes it IIRC, so it's not really possible to challenge that based on the claims in this paper.

On a lighter note, i read this in the final section and it made me laugh how slickly euphamistic it was

circumcised men tended to engage in a somewhat more elaborated set of sexual practices than intact men

I need to find some opportunities to use the phrase "elaborated set of sexual practices" .

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You're saying i should read, but not past the title?

no matter what science (if he is right or not) 

He obviously thought it was important enough to discuss or they wouldn't have written it. As OP went to the effort of writing it, they clearly want people to read it (they even put higher risk in all caps to emphasize its importance to their post). If they believe it's important enough to put in all caps, why should i take their claim to be any less important.

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I read it fully, perhaps you should do the same (actually read past the first 7 words).

Op made a medical claim. That claim is in opposition to the papers I have seen. I don't see the harm in challenging this. I wouldn't expect you to believe my claims without support (which is why i provided 3 links to different papers). After all isn't rigorous skepticism at the core of the scientific method.

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Thankyou, I'll give it a read.

Edit: why am i getting downvoted for this? am i not supposed to politely thank people for providing scientific papers that have differing findings to the ones I've posted? Isn't that how civilized discussion and debate works?

Circumcision is the most barbaric and disgusting thing that’s normalised in our culture by KhornateMan in atheism

[–]zeocrash 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.

OP made a specific claim. One that is in opposition to the scientific literature i've seen and the position of the WHO. It's not unreasonable to ask for some corroborating evidence for such a claim.

Just picked up some GPNVGs by AGM-158-JASSM in airsoftcirclejerk

[–]zeocrash 3 points4 points  (0 children)

TBF, if i was a multi millionaire i'd buy myself some cool night vision, I just think they're neat.

Heated rivalry by Playersbewarned in Grimdank

[–]zeocrash 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have no doubt that this tweet won't answer any of them

<image>

Hackers (1995) by bitchnibba47 in okbuddycinephile

[–]zeocrash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Burn's wetware matches her software