dmitrij

We could also leave fake images aside, go outside and try to watch the birds ourselves. Maybe even let the camera inside, just looking with our own eyes. Real nature. No intermediate.

Vegetables and fruits. Less meat, especially red meat. Less fat. Especially reduce saturated fat. No refined sugar. Reduce salt. And: Exercise. Cardio sport . Increase muscle mass. And reduce stress. But most important: go to the cardiologist, take your meds, adhere to their advice.

Warhol, Haring, Pollock – after the NFT art market of contemporary artworks failed, they now go for the safe old modernists?

Don't underestimate the art market. A lot of money in it (still), high expectations, willing artists and owners, and valuations are dependent on the expertise of a rather closed circle of few who are in constant contact with collectors, artists, galleries and other insiders. If they see a chance of making NFTs profitable, they will realise it.

Sometimes when the boss is away the team works better. At least, that is the case with my team. I don't really know why. Because I really think I am not a bad boss. But apparently either I am or they just don't need one and I am in the end a distraction.

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that!

Already prepared grand space for industrial use with energy, water and public transport; 100% carbon neutral wind energy and very soon also water-neutrality were a few of the reasons given.

It's nice when science confirms personal experience.

Early 2020 I started to change my life. Exercise, healthier food, weight control. My conclusions: I got stronger, had less back pain and less fat, felt calmer. Weight went down significantly.

After restaurants opened, I started again eating more fat and drinking more wine while continuing exercising and eating healthy at home. Strength and calm stayed, weight got up.

My conclusion: exercise is good in any aspect, but weight control also needs control of calories intake.

It's 4 guys. Former heads of nuclear regulation US, UK, Germany, France.

" Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, former Head of the Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany Dr. Bernard Laponche, former Director General, French Agency for Energy Management, former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety Dr. Paul Dorfman, former Secretary UK Govt. Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters "

Reasons:

    Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production
    More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables rollout.
    Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.
    Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.
    Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.
    Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of  nuclear weapons proliferation.
    Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard, resulting in international economic impacts.
    Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
    Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.
    Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.

This is the start of a horror novel.

I am not sure about the insignificance of 5%. In Germany, hospitals loose personnell, because after 3 big waves people simply can't cope with the stress any more. Every health system in countries which play fast and loose this winter will have a really bad time.

I would like to argue that point by saying these 100,000 are not separated in 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated, but I am not sure.

Anyway: in Germany the numbers are: 4 times more probable for the unvaccinated. I all depends on how people protect themselves, and that is the reason for vaccination passes: less infections, much less symptoms, much much less hospitalisations, almost no deaths in otherwise healthy people under 80 = no lockdowns.