• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • cinnamonTea@lemmy.mltoScience Memes@mander.xyzRadioactivity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The thing you said that someone disagreed with was calling it ionizing radiation, which is a more general term and describes radiation with enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule, which means stripping off at least one of its electrons. That requires a lot less energy than activating nuclei in an element that is not radioactive to radioactivity. UV light and X-rays are both ionising radiation, but are not from radioactivity and cannot induce radioactivity. Of course a lot of radioactive radiation (α, β, γ) is also too low-energy to activate more nuclei. It depends on the energy of the radiation and the specific element you’re trying to activate (how close it is to being radioactive, so to speak).

    So like CommissarVulpin said - the real danger is more likely to be contamination












  • cinnamonTea@lemmy.mltoScience Memes@mander.xyzBiomimicry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’d read this with commas around ‘like’, rather than with a period after it: “… how birds look, like, I’m afraid” works as a sentence while “… how birds look like. I’m afraid” is both wrong, like you point out, but also sounds much more serious than the jokey tone I’d expect from a message without punctuation and capitalization







  • Bike companies sell a much less expensive product and don’t, I would assume, sell that much more of it than car companies do. Thus they have a lot less money to spend on lobbying efforts. Also, they don’t tend to be well-known. My assumption is that having a base of support or popularity in the population, or at least having politicians be aware of your brand and your market share is important to have your voice heard in lobbying.

    It also helps car companies that, as someone else mentioned, oil companies lobby with them. For many of the reasons we like the idea of bikes - they don’t use oil, they are generally easy to fix, sustainable, last a while, etc., they are harder to lobby for, because they don’t lobby with anyone and they’d have to lobby against the profit motive.

    As for shoe companies, I’m not sure they would benefit from better walkability of cities. My feeling is, they make money mostly for aesthetic reasons or explicitly for gym shoes - neither of which would change much if people walked more. Their money is probably better spent on advertising.