Today I Learned

[mfb]

Where are those costs not included? Every opponent of nuclear power makes sure they get overestimated as much as possible.

This is simply not true

Well, "every" is an exaggeration. Apart from that, it is true.
A typical example from Germany: We have a "Brennelementesteuer", a special tax specifically for fuel of nuclear power plants. This tax is included in the costs of nuclear power, although it is just a redistribution of money from the companies to the public. But it gets worse: some argue that the Brennelementesteuer could be higher, and then claim it would be a subsidy that the tax rate is not higher. This made-up subsidy is then also counted as cost of nuclear power.
Germany heavily subsidizes wind and solar power. Does this increase the cost of nuclear power? Obviously not, but someone found an argument for it: Mining and processing uranium and operating various systems in a nuclear power plant costs electricity, and those costs are taken from the German electricity mix, which includes wind and solar power. It also includes coal, which is then counted as CO2 emission from nuclear power.

If there is any possibility to add any amount of money to the cost of nuclear power, someone did that.

Nobody on this planet can afford to a) build thousands of safe places for nuclear waste over and over again and b) guarantee to safely guard it for the next 40 billion years.

There is no need for either of them. Oh by the way, the Earth did a pretty good job of storing uranium for billions of years. Doing it even better than that is quite a high standard.

Nobody can afford to insure the risk of a major accident as it happened already twice in about 50 years since we started to use fission.

This is not a problem of cost, it is a problem of scale and the unclear way to quantify a possible damage in money.

If you really price in these two factors of costs nuclear energy couldn't be afforded by anyone.

Nuclear power saves lifes and health compared to fossile fuels. The cost is negative.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population.

I'd still like to know which two accidents you're referring to here.

 

[mfb]

Sorry, missed your post. Chernobyl and Fukushima, sure.

Why can't you move away from a coal plant?

Take a map, draw 100 km circles around each coal power plant, and see what is left. Then draw 200 km circles and see what is left. Finally take the CO2, where the circle is the whole surface of Earth. You can move away from the direct neighborhood where you can paint your house every year, but the dirt of coal power plants gets spread over a large area.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There were two accidents where the radiation levels exceeded those from typical coal power plants. None of them were at a level where direct consequences (radiation sickness and similar) would be a problem for the population.

Sorry, missed your post. Chernobyl and Fukushima, sure.

If you are saying that no one in the population around the plants died within a couple weeks like the nuclear workers did, then, yes. But since so many birth defects and cancers were directly caused by those accidents, it is not accurate to suggest they were consequence-free for the people in the vicinities. Those sites are poisoned in complex configurations, which is why they have to permanently evacuate large numbers of people. Simply being evacuated is a traumatic experience.

I'm getting my info from the wiki articles. Since this is such a controversial subject, I'm making the assumption that what's there has been batted back and forth enough times by editors on both sides of the issue that it's the safest to use as a reference.

 

[OCR]

One of the most unusual, and rather ugly nuclear power reactor accidents I've read about... The SL-1.

A later investigation concluded that the 26,000-pound (12,000 kg) vessel had jumped 9 feet 1 inch (2.77 m) and the upper control rod drive mechanisms had struck the ceiling of the reactor building prior to settling back into its original location. The spray of water and steam knocked two operators onto the floor, killing one and severely injuring another. One of the shield plugs on top of the reactor vessel impaled the third man through his groin and exited his shoulder, pinning him to the ceiling.

 

[mfb]

If you are saying that no one in the population around the plants died within a couple weeks like the nuclear workers did, then, yes. But since so many birth defects and cancers were directly caused by those accidents, it is not accurate to suggest they were consequence-free for the people in the vicinities. Those sites are poisoned in complex configurations, which is why they have to permanently evacuate large numbers of people. Simply being evacuated is a traumatic experience.

I did not say consequence-free. I said: at radiation levels where radiation influences are coming from low radiation doses, i. e. mainly a higher risk of cancer. Which makes it comparable to the effect of radiation from coal power plants (and radiation is by far not the worst product of coal power plants - but still more than from nuclear power).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I did not say consequence-free. I said: at radiation levels where radiation influences are coming from low radiation doses, i. e. mainly a higher risk of cancer. Which makes it comparable to the effect of radiation from coal power plants (and radiation is by far not the worst product of coal power plants - but still more than from nuclear power).

Are you saying it was unnecessary to evacuate them?

 

[mfb]

It was certainly necessary to do evacuations. I don't get it, what is your point with those questions?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It was certainly necessary to do evacuations. I don't get it, what is your point with those questions?

You seem to be saying that, despite nuclear disasters, nuclear is overall safer than coal in terms of radiation. What's missing from that, in my understanding of the situation, is the fact that the after effects of nuclear disasters are mitigated by evacuating huge numbers of people, while no one gets evacuated from the vicinity of coal plants. In other words, it is not that radiation from nuclear disasters are slightly less bad than coal radiation, it is the fact special measures are taken after nuclear disasters that aren't taken with the much less concentrated ongoing coal radiation that skews the statistics. Local poisoning from radiation was much worse at Chernobyl and Fukushima than what those places received from coal radiation, therefore, evacuation was in order. Evacuation took place, and the natural consequences of the concentrated radiation was avoided.

Not that I'm a fan of coal at all. Coal is so bad for so many reasons it hardly constitutes a viable alternative to nuclear.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Today I learned a huge difference between Russian and Hispanic cultures. In Russia, apparently, the expression, "Eff your mother!" is not an insult to the listening party, but an expression of general exasperation or surprise:

"Ivan Ivanovitch just found 4 bottles of vodka he forgot he had!"

"Eff your mother! Let's go visit him."

Or:

"Pavel Pavlovitch got fired!"

"Eff your mother! He owes me 30 rubles!"

 

[mfb]

You seem to be saying that, despite nuclear disasters, nuclear is overall safer than coal in terms of radiation. What's missing from that, in my understanding of the situation, is the fact that the after effects of nuclear disasters are mitigated by evacuating huge numbers of people, while no one gets evacuated from the vicinity of coal plants. In other words, it is not that radiation from nuclear disasters are slightly less bad than coal radiation, it is the fact special measures are taken after nuclear disasters that aren't taken with the much less concentrated ongoing coal radiation that skews the statistics. Local poisoning from radiation was much worse at Chernobyl and Fukushima than what those places received from coal radiation, therefore, evacuation was in order. Evacuation took place, and the natural consequences of the concentrated radiation was avoided.

To summarize: concentrated radiation is better because you can avoid it with reasonable effort. That is my point.
Maybe it is clearer with an example. Consider the following two scenarios:
- you know a meteorite will hit 1 out of 1 billion houses and kill everyone in that house but no one outside. You do not know which house will be hit, so evacuation is not an option - everyone has to live with a higher risk.
- you know precisely which house the meteorite will hit. If you do nothing, the effect would be the same, the inhabitants of one house are killed. But you can do better! You can evacuate this house.

Coal is so bad for so many reasons it hardly constitutes a viable alternative to nuclear.

Well, it is used as alternative.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To summarize: concentrated radiation is better because you can avoid it with reasonable effort. That is my point.

OK, I now understand that was your point. I have to disagree, though, because evacuation is extremely traumatic:

Effects on evacuees[edit]

In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:[230]

We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominantly] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.[230]

A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.[231]

Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[231]

Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely to face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.[232]

A survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.[28][233]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Effects_on_evacuees

 

[mfb]

I have to disagree, though, because evacuation is extremely traumatic:

It should be done only if the negative effects of radiation would be worse than the negative effects of evacuation, of course.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Today I learned scientists at Cal-Tech think they might have found evidence of a hitherto undiscovered large planet in our solar system:

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/9th-planet-may-lurk-in-the-outer-solar-system-160120.htm

 

[fresh_42]

What really astonishes me is that one scientist gave it a 0.007% probability for not being number 10. (I like Pluto.)

 

[mfb]

What really astonishes me is that one scientist gave it a 0.007% probability for not being number 10. (I like Pluto.)

That is not what they did. They say the probability of a random arrangement as signficant as observed in the particular properties they look at is 0.007%.
Look at 10000 sets of parameters and the chance to find a 0.007% coincidence among them is about 50%.
Roll a die multiple times, let's say the results are "42556235". The probability to get exactly this series is less than 0.007%. How unlikely was that?

 

[jtbell]

Today I learned a technical investing term. When the stock market falls a lot, then recovers a bit, then continues merrily falling, it's called a dead cat bounce.

 

[fresh_42]

Today I learned a technical investing term. When the stock market falls a lot, then recovers a bit, then continues merrily falling, it's called a dead cat bounce.

The analysts' passion for charts and their interpretations of them always remind me on astrology, homeopathy and other esoteric non-sense.
Same stupid stuff since Pythagoras. I call them chartists. It's as reliable as weather lore are and as soon as they unexpectedly change they have another explanation along the new lines at hand.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Today I learned that the air's temperature and humidity influence the formation and shapes of snowflakes.

 

[jtbell]

Today I learned that one of Scott Walker's predecessors as governor of Wisconsin suggested a new slogan for the state's vehicle license plates:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/08/us/wisconsin-s-license-plates-won-t-say-eat-cheese-or-die.html

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Today I learned some numbers are vampires.

125460 = 204 × 615 = 246 × 510
13078260 = 1620 × 8073 = 1863 × 7020 = 2070 × 6318
16758243290880 = 1982736 × 8452080 = 2123856 × 7890480 = 2751840 × 6089832 = 2817360 × 5948208
24959017348650 = 2947050 × 8469153 = 2949705 × 8461530 = 4125870 × 6049395 = 4129587 × 6043950 = 4230765 × 5899410

I should be able to have a career where I play around with recreational number theory all day.

 

[fresh_42]

Today I learned some numbers are vampires.

125460 = 204 × 615 = 246 × 510
13078260 = 1620 × 8073 = 1863 × 7020 = 2070 × 6318
16758243290880 = 1982736 × 8452080 = 2123856 × 7890480 = 2751840 × 6089832 = 2817360 × 5948208
24959017348650 = 2947050 × 8469153 = 2949705 × 8461530 = 4125870 × 6049395 = 4129587 × 6043950 = 4230765 × 5899410

I should be able to have a career where I play around with recreational number theory all day.

Here some food:
$2^n+7^n+8^n+18^n+19^n+24^n = 3^n+4^n+12^n+14^n+22^n+23^n \;∀\, n∈\{0,1,...,5\}$

I'm still asking myself: Who found this? And why? And is he still at good health?

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Here some food:
$2^n+7^n+8^n+18^n+19^n+24^n = 3^n+4^n+12^n+14^n+22^n+23^n ∀ n∈\{0,1,...,5\}$

I'm still asking myself: Who found this? And why? And is he still at good health?

Oh man I love that. That's going in my nerdy notebook.

 

[alan4903]

Today, I learned that going gluten free leads to no benefits in healthy people.

 

[Sophia]

According to conference in Davos, 2 million people will lose their jobs because of robotisation in next 5 years.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

According to conference in Davos, 2 million people will lose their jobs because of robotisation in next 5 years.

From what fields? I am assuming areas like fast food?

 

[OmCheeto]

From what fields? I am assuming areas like fast food?

From the article I just read:

Davos 2016: More than 5 million jobs will be lost to robots by 2020 says WEF* study
January 19, 2016

Jobs Lost
4,759,000 clerical/administration
1,609,000 Manufacturing and production
497,000 Construction and mining
151,000 Sports and creative industries
109,000 Lawyers
40,000 Mechanics/maintenance
-------
7,165,000 total

Jobs Created
492,000 Banking, accounting, insurance
416,000 Management
405,000 IT/data analysis
339,000 Architecture and engineering
303,000 Sales
66,000 Teaching and training
-------
2,021,000 total

net loss 5,144,000

It looks like the Luddites were about 200 years too early.

wiki on the Luddites; The Luddites were 19th-century English textile workers (or self-employed weavers who feared the end of their trade) who protested against newly developed labour-economizing technologies, primarily between 1811 and 1816.​

It will be interesting to see how AI shifts the job markets in the future, once it really gets going.*WEF: World Economic Forum
wiki on the WEF; The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, based in Cologny, Geneva. Recognized by the Swiss authorities as the international institution for public-private cooperation, its mission is cited as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas".

 

[mfb]

Today I learned: There are papers about sheep collisions.
(from @Dr. Courtney).

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Thanks to Moon, today I learned about placental hormones.
and this poem is for Moon:

Out of the mud grows the lotus
It's not the lotus that does it.
Out of the egg comes the chick
It’s not the chick that does it
These are things I’ve realized
And that, too, I didn’t do.

 

[Psinter]

Today I learned there exist plants with things called psychoactive alkaloids.

Alkaloids - Alkaloids are a group of naturally occurring chemical compounds that contain mostly basic nitrogen atoms.
-Wikipedia

A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, or consciousness.
-Wikipedia

I must be careful then when making teas. I don't want my brain function to be changed.

 

[WWGD]

Today I learned there exist plants with things called psychoactive alkaloids.

I must be careful then when making teas. I don't want my brain function to be changed.

Actually, just about anything you do changes your brain function, though not necessarily in a radical way. The changes in brain states are needed to adapt to a changing world.

 

[Sophia]

Today I learned there exist plants with things called psychoactive alkaloids.

I must be careful then when making teas. I don't want my brain function to be changed.

Is there a difference between these alkaloids and those chemicals present in traditional drugs?

 

[Psinter]

Actually, just about anything you do changes your brain function, though not necessarily in a radical way. The changes in brain states are needed to adapt to a changing world.

Thanks for that tip.

Is there a difference between these alkaloids and those chemicals present in traditional drugs?

It says the difference is that some traditional drugs use them as base. I'm guessing they are different in some drugs and the same in others.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It says the difference is that some traditional drugs use them as base.

But what is the article referring to when it says "traditional?" It's "traditional" for some Native Americans to eat peyote cacti as part of ritual ceremonies in order to induce 'mystical experiences,' in other words: hallucinations, highly altered perceptions, and extremely out-of-the-box states of mind. A person on peyote is essentially helpless and has to be watched over by a shaman. Naturally psychoactive plants (and there are a lot of them) are, consequently, extremely dangerous. They definitely produce radical mental alterations.

 

[Psinter]

But what is the article referring to when it says "traditional?"

It says here that it means this. Look:

Alkaloids - Many have found use in traditional or modern medicine, or as starting points for drug discovery.

But I bet Sophia and I meant normal drugs used by doctors.

Naturally psychoactive plants (and there are a lot of them) are, consequently, extremely dangerous. They definitely produce radical mental alterations.

Yup. Just what I was thinking! That's why I used the little face: And said I must be careful when making teas. I most definitely don't want to hallucinate.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And said I must be careful when making teas. I most definitely don't want to hallucinate.

You are not making tea from random, unknown plants are you?

 

[Hornbein]

Natural drug plants often have a complicated mixture of alkaloids while synthesized alkaloids are pure.

 

[Psinter]

You are not making tea from random, unknown plants are you?

Nope, I would never... Well... I may have... Only once... Deep in the forest a plant smelled really good and was different from everything around it. But they are probably unknown only to me. Scientists must have written something about them somewhere. I just have to look for it and educate myself.

 

[Sophia]

I've just read in the newspaper that there have been several cases where toddlers got swollen breasts after their parents gave them baby food containing meat from foreign chickens. The chickens were fed with growth hormones and large doses of antibiotics.
It is recommended that people don't buy cheap meat from central and south America that have been not properly checked. This is not commonly sold here as fresh meat, but it can be included in processed products where people don't expect it.
The case is now investigated by veterinary police.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I've just read in the newspaper that there have been several cases where toddlers got swollen breasts after their parents gave them baby food containing meat from foreign chickens. The chickens were fed with growth hormones and large doses of antibiotics.
It is recommended that people don't buy cheap meat from central and south America that have been not properly checked. This is not commonly sold here as fresh meat, but it can be included in processed products where people don't expect it.
The case is now investigated by veterinary police.

Recommended by who? The CDC or FDA or someone authority we should listen to? Or some fringe group of alarmists peddling pseudoscience?

I don't want your arguments or reasoning. I want to know if you can show your assertions are backed by reliable sources.

 

[Sophia]

Recommended by who? The CDC or FDA or someone authority we should listen to? Or some fringe group of alarmists peddling pseudoscience?

I don't want your arguments or reasoning. I want to know if you can show your assertions are backed by reliable sources.

Official authorities in Slovakia who are responsible for checking food safety ( government veterinary office. I don't know what's the English equivalent ) .
We have had many scandals with low quality food in last years. That means products not meeting European standards.
Mostly if was cheap foreign food aimed at low income customers.

 

[OmCheeto]

I've just read in the newspaper that there have been several cases where toddlers got swollen breasts after their parents gave them baby food containing meat from foreign chickens. The chickens were fed with growth hormones and large doses of antibiotics.
It is recommended that people don't buy cheap meat from central and south America that have been not properly checked. This is not commonly sold here as fresh meat, but it can be included in processed products where people don't expect it.
The case is now investigated by veterinary police.

Interesting. When I was going through puberty, I developed lumps under each of my nipples, about an inch in diameter, and about 1/2 inch thick. I thought I was going through some hermaphroditic phase and was turning into a girl!

Fortunately, my micro-boobs eventually went away.

But today I learned that the condition has a name, gynecomastia, is very common, and other boys get freaked out about it too.

Gynecomastia in Adolescent Males [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc]
...
Pubertal gynecomastia is self-limited in 75 to 90% of adolescents and regresses over 1 to 3 years. Observation and reassurance are widely regarded as the safest and most reasonable treatment. However, because gynecomastia in adolescents occurs at a sensitive time when boys are increasingly aware of their self-image, health care providers may be questioned by the patient and/or his family about the role of pharmacological or surgical therapies.
...

The 3 or 4 articles I've skimmed through this morning regarding the condition seem to indicate that gynecomastia is a "hormonal thing". (I ain't no doctor, so that's what I'm callin' it!)

In regards to your situation, one article indicates that yours is not the first incident:

Female Infants Growing Breasts: Another Disaster From Hormones in Milk Production [Huffington Post]
10 August 2010

People are very upset about this, and for good reason. Female infants in China who have been fed formula have been growing breasts.

According to the official Chinese Daily newspaper, medical tests performed on the babies found levels of estrogens circulating in their bloodstreams that are as high as those found in most adult women. These babies are between four and 15 months old. And the evidence is overwhelming that the milk formula they have been fed is responsible.
...
In the 1980s, doctors in Puerto Rico began encountering cases of precocious puberty. There were four-year-old girls with fully developed breasts. There were three-year old girls with pubic hair and vaginal bleeding. There were one-year-old girls who had not yet begun to walk but whose breasts were growing. And it wasn't just the females. Young boys were also affected. Many had to have surgery to deal with breasts that had become grossly swollen.
...

A quick google indicates that Huffpo didn't make up the story:

An epidemic of precocious development in Puerto Rican children [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
September 1985

Abstract
An alarming incidence of premature sexual development has been reported in Puerto Rico during the last 7 years. A significant increment of premature thelarche, premature pubarche, prepubertal breast enlargement in boys, and precocious pseudo-puberty in girls has been observed throughout the island. Several food specimens analyzed by chromatography and cytosol receptor assay revealed significant levels of estradiol equivalent in some meat samples. We suspect that the early sexual development is caused by exogenous estrogen contamination in the food ingested by the children and by their mothers.

Terms in the NIH abstract that I am not familiar with:

Thelarche: the onset of female breast development
Pubarche: the appearance of sexual hair
Chromatography: the collective term for a set of laboratory techniques for the separation of mixtures
Cytosol receptor: an intracellular receptor protein, especially one for a steroid hormone
Assay: analysis to determine the presence, absence, or quantity of one or more components
Estradiol: ... is a steroid and estrogen sex hormone, and the primary female sex hormone...
Exogenous: introduced from or produced outside the organism or system; specifically : not synthesized within the organism or system​

 

[Sophia]

Thank you OmCheeto for your research. I've not heard of those cases but it doesn't surprise me.
What's horrible is that these substances can get into baby food. Only time will show what kind of chemicals we consume every day and put on our skin in cosmetics.
When I first started reading about these things I was very concerned and tried to avoid everything. But soon I saw that everything is contaminated to some degree, even bio vegetables cannot be 100% clean so I decided to just forget about most of these dangers and live a normal life. Otherwise I would be either dead or end up in a mental hospital :-)

 

[Sophia]

Thank you for the info about gynecomastia. Never heard about it but it may be useful in case I'll have a son.

 

[Hornbein]

Thank you for the info about gynecomastia. Never heard about it but it may be useful in case I'll have a son.

According to the Mayo Clinic, gynomastia can be caused by

• Alcohol
• Amphetamines
• Marijuana
• Heroin
• Methadone

and numerous pharmaceuticals. So the rumor that marijuana can cause it is true.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thank you OmCheeto for your research.

You are welcome.

I've not heard of those cases but it doesn't surprise me.
What's horrible is that these substances can get into baby food.

Did you hear about the 2008 Chinese milk scandal?

The 2008 Chinese milk scandal was a food safety incident in China. The scandal involved milk and infant formula along with other food materials and components being adulterated with melamine.
China reported an estimated 300,000 victims in total. Six infants died from kidney stones and other kidney damage with an estimated 54,000 babies being hospitalised.
...
A number of criminal prosecutions were conducted by the Chinese government. Two people were executed...​

Here in America, I don't think business people get executed for such crimes. So that kind of made me admire the Chinese government.

Only time will show what kind of chemicals we consume every day and put on our skin in cosmetics.
When I first started reading about these things I was very concerned and tried to avoid everything. But soon I saw that everything is contaminated to some degree, even bio vegetables cannot be 100% clean so I decided to just forget about most of these dangers and live a normal life. Otherwise I would be either dead or end up in a mental hospital :-)

It's been my experience, that incidental toxic/deadly "things", in reasonable quantities, can safely be ignored.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I am allergic to my dog saliva. I've applied it to different skin areas on my body and found I get itchy most around my thighs once it gets soaked or contracted into my skin. Other areas on my wrists, hands, or feet etc shows no specific symptoms. My dog is not let run free outside of my house. I don't know how to discover what bacteria there are in its saliva that might cause the itching and I don't think it is capnocytophaga animorsus though because I have my dog injected once in every 2-3 months.

 

[gjonesy]

Today I learn that if you can put up a compelling argument if it contradicts someone's preconceived notions and beliefs if they have power they will abuse that power no matter how factual your information is.

 

[wolram]

Today i learned a unquadragintilliard is 10^250, that is a lot. try saying it when you have had a few,

 

[Hornbein]

Today I learn that if you can put up a compelling argument if it contradicts someone's preconceived notions and beliefs if they have power they will abuse that power no matter how factual your information is.

Me: "Thusly I have conclusively proved that 1+1=2."

Them: "Oh yeah?" <Repeatedly taps palm with baseball bat.>

Me: "Oh dear, I seem to have overlooked a vital factor..."