@one-golden-eye / one-golden-eye.tumblr.com
HELLO HI HELLO COMMISSIONS ARE OPEN AGAIN!! Extra characters are +50% of the base cost! Paypal only!
HEY SO LITTLE THING
I got kicked out of my parent's home, I just got approved for an apartment but I'm about 150~ off from what I need to lock it in, commissions will be done ASAP according to when I have time, but I am offering 5 dollars off any commission more than 15 usd, I have 5 days to do so (until March 2nd) any help is greatly appreciated
It is where I live, and itβs a big city.
we need to be loud about this, have an environmental protest. something, anything. weβre ruining our planet. i want to do something but i donβt know where to start
everyone saying βyou can just filter it :)β can wild animals filter it?
YOU CANNOT FILTER IT YOU CANNOT FILTER IT YOU CANNOT FILTER IT
This is the process a person near where an old PFA factory has to do (12:22)
The ways to specifically filter PFAs that work reliably are prohibitively expensive.
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE
According to Scientific American, a new method of breaking down PFAs has just been discovered!
Itβs not for every kind of PFA but holy shit itβs a start. Normally these bastards have to be roasted at ~1,000 C/1832 F to even begin to fall apart and even then they leak into the environment, and burying them only - you guessed it! Leaks into the environment.
The new method can break them down at a mere ~100 C/212 F using inexpensive reagents. To quote the article:
βPFASs owe their durability to a series of carbon-fluorine bonds, which are among natureβs strongest chemical bonds. Instead of trying to break this stable bond, Trang and her colleagues targeted a chemical group containing oxygen atoms at one end of the molecule. By heating the compounds in a solvent called DMSO and a common reagent found in cleaners and soaps, the researchers successfully knocked off the oxygen-containing group. This triggered a cascade of reactions that ultimately broke the compounds down into harmless products.β
There are about 12,000 PFAs known to science right now, and the team was able to break down ten of them - including a particularly nasty kind of one called PFOA - and were able to break them down three carbon atoms at a time instead of the presumed one. HOLY SHIT. They recognize using DMSO in wastewater treatment probably isnβt practical on a large scale - right now, anyway - but as John Oliver points out in his video, having a huge filtration system in your home and a guy check it every two weeks sure isnβt going to do much either except mitigate further damage to the owner. The team is also plenty aware this is no final solution, and yet
GUYS WE CAN DO IT. It might be decades, even a century before we fix the rain cycle and get them out of our bloodstreams, but HOLY SHIT WE CAN DO IT
ALT
see this is exactly what iβm afraid of posting responses like this.
YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED. YOU SHOULD BE MAD. YOU SHOULD BE SO APPALLED BY THIS YOU ARE READY TO KILL AND EAT THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE.
science isnβt some magical benevolant force that will fix the worldβs problems. science is not free from capitalism, itβs deeply entangled with it. thatβs how we got undrinkable rainwater in the first place. all of the worldβs problems are easily fixable. that isnβt the issue. none of them will be so long as capitalism prevails. we canβt sit back and wait for someone else to fix things, we have to force the change we want to see.
requested by @dancinglifeboat
Source: βNew research shows that rainwater in most locations on Earth contains levels of chemicals that βgreatly exceedβ safety levels. [β¦]Β Such is their prevalence now that scientists say there is no safe space on Earth to avoid them.β
Source:Β βChemists have identified how to destroy βforever chemicalsβ in a low-cost way for the first time, new research says. [β¦]Β New research, from scientists at Northwestern University, US claims to have done the βseemingly impossibleβ and destroyed PFAS using low temperature and cheap products. This could be very useful in helping communities suffering from high-level contamination, according to Prof Sunderland, who is not part of the research team.
The team of scientists hope that with further research PFAS could be filtered from drinking water and this new method applied to destroy the contaminants.
However, treatment of high concentrations of PFAS is only one part of the solution.
With PFAS remaining in production it can continue to build up at low levels in fish and other wildlife as it cannot be broken down naturally very easily.
This new method was applied to the 10 most prominent types of PFAS, but the US Environment Protection Agency has identified more than 12,000.β
Source (Original Research Article):Β βPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been referred to as βforever chemicalsβ because of their resistance to most biological and chemical degradation mechanisms. Most current methods use very harsh conditions to decompose these compounds. Trang et al. found that there is a potential weak spot in carboxylic acidβcontaining PFAS: Decarboxylation in polar, non-protic solvents yields a carbanion that rapidly decomposesβ
The first two sources listed are from the BBC, a state-owned yet publicly funded (itβs too complex an issue to go into here) highly reliable source of information. Whilst occasionally they are guilty of jumping on the βshiny scienceβ bandwagon, their editorial guidelines temper it down more than some science infotainment media. They can be biased towards the establishment in more directly political matters (environmental science is indirectly political due to the debate on climate change etc*), but this is not a directly political matter and so their bias is likely to be towards established science rather than alternative theories.
*The debate between anthropogenic climate change, natural climate change, and outright climate change denial is ultimately a political one, even if the vast majority of science agrees with the stance that it is mostly anthropogenic. I must refer to it as a political debate due to its use as a political tool. For me to suggest it should not be so would be to inject my own opinion and would introduce a source of bias.
The second two sources are from the EPA, the US government department for the environment. Whilst any government department is ultimately biased towards justifying its own existence, their requirement to publicly publish research and statistics regardless of whether they support the governmentβs/departmentβs agenda means they are at least decently reliable; to accuse government departments of bias is far beyond the scope of this post and can start to lead into governmental mistrust and conspiracy, which I will not cover here.
The final source given is the original paper. The principal author is Shira Joudan PhD, who has been publishing on environmental toxicology/chemistry since 2015 and has attended conferences on environmental toxicology etc since 2012. She has multiple publications which have been cited many times, multiple awards and scholarships, and has worked with multiple universities. As far as I can tell there are no conflicts of interest and I am satisfied that the paper itself is highly reliable.
I am not an environmental scientist nor chemist, and so if you have more experience in the field and can offer further information, please do.
This blog is a trial of a meta-analysis of βis-the-post-reliableβ, to ensure tha tthe sources that the blog cites are at least partially reliable, and to disclose where there may be biases, controversies, or conflicts of interest.
he is in preschool do you love him
whats he studying?
toys and playtime
oh iβm sure he is a pleasure to have in class!
She's getting cooked on twitter but she's entirely correct
idk dude the Jack Daniel's logo is bigger than the Coca-Cola logo, I think this is a case of if you idiot-proof something nature makes a bigger idiot
Cannabis alcohol and caffeine are all regulated with labels on the packaging, and so long as they take a second to read instead of guzzling at random like a wild animal they should be fine.
people literally died because of a beverage that did not prominently display its (absurdly, dangerously high) caffeine content, and that's just the most recent example. OP is correct and saying "lol consumers are just dum-dums" feels like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit all over again.
Also maybe not everyone knows Jack Daniel's is an alcoholic company.
Plus the eye may be drawn to the pop of Red coloring (The Coca-Cola Logo) on this Monochrome Black and White Can first
It would literally be so easy to standardise this from a design perspective. All you need to do is add a coloured band around the can, for example cyan for alcohol, yellow for caffeine, magenta for CBD or THC (with lettering telling you which is which). Badly drawn with finger on phone vision below:
The bands could state the dose too.
The eye is naturally attracted to color against a monochrome black & white background. In this case, they saw Coca Cola instead of the Jack Daniel's logo. Coke Zero has an entirely too similar design, making this easier to mistake for it.
It's a design failure based on aesthetics rather than logic. All that visual noise becomes static with that little bit of color standing out because of it.
Finding the caffeine and dosage on a drink is difficult because it's rarely bolded, and it's often the same size as the rest of the information. Not all drinks even I clude the dosage. I can manage up to 40mg, any higher results in Problems, like seizures. I shouldn't have to search online for the dosage nor eto even find out if it contains caffeine.
The strips of color at the top of a can or bottle is perfect, but must include the dosage for caffeine, CBD, and THC. Alcohol percentage is always at the bottom and should have a bright strip of color as well. These are a simple solution and will save lives. Especially for those with poor eyesight, folks with allergies to these specific ingredients (I know several people allergic to cannabis and hemp) or sensitivity (me and caffeine), and/or using meds that don't play well with these additions.
Also I know this is controversial with many many people but people who you consider idiots for not reading the label more carefully also donβt deserve to go into diabetic shock / have an intolerance reaction / have a dangerous blood pressure drop / be drunk or high if they donβt want to be. Like idk if people just arenβt catching this part but the person in the original screenshot was looking for coke ZERO, got a big swallow of sugar and alcohol, and almost called 911. They are very clearly diabetic and this is an extremely serious mistake to make.
I dunno how many times we have to have the βshould I care about disabled people even tho their problems donβt affect MEβ conversation but itβs getting real old. If your solution is ever βjust be smarterβ, there is someone vulnerable that you are forsaking.
Spectrum of overwhelm, now in triangle form due to popular demand
that beautiful tall dommy ukrainian cosplayer lady who's big with the chinese lesbians is so awesome because she probably drowned her abusive husband in the indonesian ocean and no one cares
its So Much
Actual faith vs performative religion.
To shave your beard is a huge sacrifice for a devout Sikh. It is a sacrifice for the greater good, that many people will scoff at without understanding the amount of love it took, to give up part of your faith to serve the greater purpose of that faith. Bless them all.
patience
