Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#71

Post by isodude »

j-pb wrote: post #55
arcticbull wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds, though, and is the safest form of energy in terms of (human) deaths per terawatt hour. This kind of data should inform our decision making.

Yet... I'm all in for nuclear, once we know how to get rid of the waste products. It's never been about reactor safety, we have a storage problem, that hasn't been solved yet. Without that we're just slithering into the next "waste product that we don't know how to get rid of" cycle. Also even if we had solved it, it's too late to go nuclear now. The next 20 years will be crucial when it comes to stopping climate cha…

AFAIK, we have enough material on land to power for quite a while in the future, if you use gen4 facilities.

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#72

Post by j-pb »

isodude wrote: post #70
j-pb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but a cat doesn't power 400-4000 households. Yeah we are ruining the planet, but the "wind turbines kill birds" thing is FUD spread by the fossil lobby. The alternative to wind turbines is more climate change which kills an insane amount of birds in comparison.

They do though. They also create an enormous sound, not where they are located but three kilometers away. The design might be the best from a effeciency perspective, but it's very ugly, doesn't "adapt" to the sorrounding environment and from what I've gather quite hard to service. We must be able to do something better.

Yeah they do kill birds. 1 Turbine kills the same amount of birds as 1 cat.

Highways kill way more birds than turbines.

Lived near one, was dead silent.

Stop spreading fud.

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#73

Post by isodude »

j-pb wrote: post #72
isodude wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do though. They also create an enormous sound, not where they are located but three kilometers away. The design might be the best from a effeciency perspective, but it's very ugly, doesn't "adapt" to the sorrounding environment and from what I've gather quite hard to service. We must be able to do something better.

Yeah they do kill birds. 1 Turbine kills the same amount of birds as 1 cat. Highways kill way more birds than turbines. Lived near one, was dead silent. Stop spreading fud.

Maybe there's just the same amount of birds dropping down from the blades as 1 cat kills, but that's a pretty crude way of looking at it. They have been around in their current capacity for a relative short time. We will not know exactly how much bad effect it has until things seriously brake and when that happens we already invested heavily in a lot of metal building that we need to maintain to extract value out of.

Having less kids would be a more easy fast way if you want to combat climate change for one.

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#74

Post by pvaldes »

arcticbull wrote: post #49
Forricide wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that "In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year." [0] Although it's true that everything we do as a species / society has an impact on the environment, I think it's still important to look at things like this with perspective. Unfortunately, even green/renewable energy sources have a negative impact on the environment; wind isn't t…

Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds, though, and is the safest form of energy in terms of (human) deaths per terawatt hour. This kind of data should inform our decision making.

> Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds

It kills a lot of birds in fact, even if some species manage to survive somehow

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/

This does not change the fact that wind energy would benefit of a redesign

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#76

Post by inugo »

Scientific studies on 5G effects show a 1°C temperature increase in tissue during in vitro testing, while in vivo testing studies show an 80% exposure-related reaction rate in mice, rats, rabbits, bacteria, fungi and other living tissue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/#__ffn_...

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#77

Post by arcticbull »

pvaldes wrote: post #74
arcticbull wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds, though, and is the safest form of energy in terms of (human) deaths per terawatt hour. This kind of data should inform our decision making.

> Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds It kills a lot of birds in fact, even if some species manage to survive somehow https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ This does not change the fact that wind energy would benefit of a redesign

I'm not sure it's worth even looking at Chernobyl data as an example of the impact of nuclear energy in a forward-looking way. I too can pick worst-case numbers [1] but I wouldn't be doing so in good faith.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#78

Post by pvaldes »

arcticbull wrote: post #77
pvaldes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds It kills a lot of birds in fact, even if some species manage to survive somehow https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ This does not change the fact that wind energy would benefit of a redesign

I'm not sure it's worth even looking at Chernobyl data as an example of the impact of nuclear energy in a forward-looking way. I too can pick worst-case numbers [1] but I wouldn't be doing so in good faith. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Yes, there are a lot of things that kill birds. We all know it.

Nuclear is still one of them, and the previous claim than nuclear doesn't kill any birds is still false.

In any case, a flood is safer for birds than radioactivity. Most of them can fly and will lay a second clutch of eggs. All ends in hours or days, not in 1000 years so, what is the point here? This is not a dichotomy.

Re: Botswana: Lab tests to solve mystery of hundreds of dead elephants

#79

Post by pvaldes »

ljf wrote: post #46

I'll see if I can find the article but a couple of years ago there was another mass die off of a type of deer that has an enlarged nose. It appears the the average temperature had risen just enough to allow a common bacteria they had in the nasal passage to replicate at speed and poison them. It wasn't just the temperature, but the humidity (or lack of) that also led to this, I'll see if I can find the article. https…

Yup, the rain...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Kazakh...

"Most of Kazakhstan’s water supply has been polluted by industrial and agricultural runoff and, in some places, radioactivity".

Post reply on HN