Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. The plus side is we probably will never have more than around 12 billion people on earth at any time.
    96
  2. Hence why I advocate vertical farming with GMO crops (we currently have the tech for both) for our future needs. At least until we can get replicators and nanomachine sorted out , that is.
    48
  3.  @crazytosh1  We will be using less land if we stop going organic. There is no tangible benefit to go organic at all.
    46
  4.  @MrIcaru5  Vertical farming with GMO crops is the future of farming. Unless we can fabricate any food with in a factory with nanotech , that is.
    41
  5. Speak for yourself. This one gave me existential crisis just the same.
    33
  6.  @21satspleb  Or skip organic farming entirely. It doesn't seem to have any much benefit to begin with.
    15
  7. Yes.
    12
  8.  @MrIcaru5  Seriously? Gene leak? Hence that why vertical farming still haven't taken off, it is still far cheaper to farm on one flat land (open of greehouse ) despite vertical farming potentially producing tens or even hundred times more output on the same plot of land. As for GMO, most of the criticism of it are either overblown ,minor one that can easily be rectified or just straight up bullshit (GMO cause cancer and autism eg) . There is no justification for anti-GMO sentiment
    8
  9. That would be next to impossible. The phages would only attack certain bacteria and won't even bother with other bacteria with slightly different profile. The difference between prokaryotes (bacteria) and eukaryotes ( humanss eg) cells are too big to overcome. That is like expecting human to suddenly be capable of photosynthesis on their skin.
    8
  10. That would be next to impossible. The phages would only attack certain bacteria and won't even bother with other bacteria with slightly different profile. The difference between prokaryotes (bacteria) and eukaryotes ( humanss eg) cells are too big to overcome. That is like expecting human to suddenly be capable of photosynthesis on their skin.
    8
  11.  @MrIcaru5  Explain to me why it is a legitimate concern rather than a seriously overblown possibility.
    5
  12.  @tagair211  I see them more like Imperial Guards or Tyranids with their overwhelming number strategy.
    5
  13. Nice to see some of the misinformation spread by blind distrust of GMO being dispelled here.
    5
  14. Short answer: Yes.
    4
  15.  @fumanchu4785  Congratulation, you just won the dumbest comment of the day award.
    4
  16.  @MrIcaru5  Firstly, the only way a weed or pest can adapt the genes in a GMO crop is if they're very closely related to the species and and even then there is no guarantee that it would be beneficial to the pest/weed species let alone be harmful to humans. Secondly, there are farming methods for open farm that can mitigate (or even eliminate) the risk of that happening. For close system like vertical farming, the risk for unintended cross species gene transfer is literally almost zero. Finally, non or this are really a concern for GMO provided adequate measure are implemented hence the risk is at best overblown.
    3
  17.  @crazytosh1  Going organic will make that a lot ,lot worse.
    3
  18. HINT: The French test weren't conducted 10 KM below the sea.
    3
  19. +Jaba We still don't have the technology for that. The whole centrigue idea may (or may not) work with very small population of scientist but not on anything comparable to that of a very small town (or a large village) .
    3
  20. +Kenji Nakakura Most of those bans are rather based on politics and economic( the control of GM crop to multinational companies that are not based on those countries) rather than the scientific danger of GM crops. You can chose to not eat GM crops, but you have no scientific reasoning to do so.It's not that GM food id harmful to us in any way.
    2
  21. So what? There're 1.8 billion of us in the world. You're not unique kiddo.
    2
  22.  @revilorere  Sure, now we just need to bio-engineer ourselves to digest grass.
    2
  23.  @c2lredstone946  They also have more resource to contribute to the world than anyone else. Just look at Bill Gates (who is saving million of lives in his philanthropic endeavours ) or Musk who is furthering humanity with his projects.
    2
  24. What about them?
    2
  25.  @ishsaw1  This video is a direct response to a video (with 20 million views) with almost the exact same name by the Riddle youtube channel. That video erroneously claimed that detonating the Tsar Bomba in the Trench will have horrible catastrophic affects on Earth which includes tsunami, earthquakes and even a major shift to the Earth's orbit. I reality the worst case scenario is that any tropical storm that formed right after the bomb detonation would be more powerful due to the slight increase of the seas temperature caused by the detonation .
    2
  26. @Arakaneï Vertical farming is far more productive than permaculture is and ever will be. The only current downside to vertical farming is cost .
    2
  27. Nothing.
    2
  28. Yep, not like that stupid video from Riddle youtube channel.
    2
  29. Science , kid.
    2
  30. Going to outer space do help solve some of those problems.
    2
  31. Fukushima Daiichi is nothing in terms of effects . People who are ignorant of the scale of the disaster loves to blow the incident out of proportion.
    2
  32. Compared to Chernobyl or the Kyshtym disaster (don't know why you would bring Hiroshima) , it is nothing. Zero people died due to the disaster and while the entire area closest to the reactor is had to be evacuated ,the extent of the effect were merely localised and didn't really affect the other region and countries. Fukushima had as much impact as Three Miles Island at worst .
    2
  33.  @DamianQualshy  The radiation simply got diluted over by the incredible volume of water. Furthemore water is an amazing radiation shield( you can literally swim at the surface a pool/pond which housed nuclear waste eg) so the level of radiation would dropped quickly the further away from the source.
    2
  34. False. The Trench is 10.8 km deep which is equivalent to 6 and 3/4 miles.
    2
  35. Surprisingly, Venus is a much more attainable goal for colonisation than both The Moon or Mars (as long as you don't go to the surface) . It doesn't have much of the drawback of both location (including gravity) . Too bad most this escapes most people's attention, including Elon Musk..
    2
  36. +K.D.P. Ross As I said in my opening post, that's a problem only if you go to the surface . Floating colonies like what was proposed in HAVOC would never need to touch the surface.
    2
  37. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable You got to admit that there is a lot of blind distrust of GMO due to lack of information and understanding of GM in general (the same can be said on nuclear energy, but that's another topic) . Some of these stem from the ridiculous notion of what is "natural" and fear of potential threats without scientific backing (GM food as health risk eg). As said in this video, most of the actual legitimate concern over GMO is more of a critique of modern framing practice and corporate policies rather than problem with GM technology itself.
    2
  38. So Weyland Yutani is in cahoots with rebel scums to colonise the moon now? UNACCEPTABLE !!
    2
  39. +xXTheWingXx I think internal combustion vehicles is a far more relevant analogy rather than guns in term of positive impact ( which guns have almost none) to the the planet and society vs the risk they posses.
    1
  40. What solution? Do you even bother watching this video in the first place?
    1
  41. I'm surprised not many people noticed this. I guess his audience don't watch much anime.
    1
  42. You got that backwards. The moon is actually receding from Earth at a rate of s couple of centimetres every year. Yes, that means the moon used to be closer to us.
    1
  43. I take it you already knows the effects before watching this video.
    1
  44.  @DethCompany  Well, this video is basically a response video to one with the (almost) same name by the Riddle channel an it debunks everything in that video . That video have tons of inaccuracies including claiming that it will cause tsunamis, earthquake and even shifting the Earth's orbit.
    1
  45. Nuclear waste gets less dangerous as time passed by, not the opposite.
    1
  46. The problem is in some countries like the US, the war on marijuana have caused billion dollars of damages and cost countless lives of people who were incarcerated or worse for the crime of possession. Heck, in some countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, yiu can be sentenced to death for possessing certain amounts of marijuana. Whether you like it or not , the topic of marijuana criminalisation is a very pertinent discussion indeed.
    1
  47. Firstly ,why would people be prohibited ( at the threat of serious criminal persecution) from doing something that is relatively harmless ? Shouldn't by the same logic worse drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and thus they should also be banned? Secondly, I suggest you research the effect of the "War On Drugs" really had in the US. It is one of the most destructive self defeating policy ever rectified .
    1
  48. I'm actually for the death penalty for certain crimes and if the process be done thoroughly to ensure that the person who is executed truly deserve it. The problem is many crimes that are deemed punishable by death in many places shouldn't be so in the first place. PS: I'm also pro life and fully support strict gun laws unlike the ridiculously lax one in the US ( the US' second amendment in an obsolete joke) . Of course neither is related to this thread.
    1
  49. That meteor is a lot, lot more powerful than the most powerful nuclear bomb that we have.
    1
  50. Considering that there is a video (that video have more than 20 million views) with almost the exact same name made by the Riddle channel that spreads misinformation about this "What If" scenario, this video is very necessary.
    1
  51. Only if they're too stoned or stupid to not watch the video.
    1
  52.  @c2lredstone946  What' this irrational hate for rich people come from?
    1
  53.  @revilorere  We're already doing that.
    1
  54.  @revilorere  Wow, you actually miss reply to someone (I don't remember making ant of the points you're "rebutting" ) and then throw a hissy fit and leave. You do realise that it paint you as an irrational guy that posted ridiculous comments (without anything to back it up) , right?
    1
  55.  @c2lredstone946  Ironic that you accuse me of cherry picking when you're doing exactly the same. Have Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (I know for fact that she at least manage to get a few people to receive Presidential Pardon eg) ever contributed to charity or for any good cause? If yes than they have contributed positively to humanity and the world . "when compared to the majority of rich people." Majority of people? Unless you known most if not all rich people in the world then you don't have the authority or statistics to back this up. I'm willing to bet that the majority of rich people have contributed more to charitable cause than you ever will in your entire lifetime .
    1
  56.  @c2lredstone946  Noted, I would like to remind you again that the amount of resource they consume would still seem minuscule compared to the good they can do with their wealth and power , hence why they are a net positive.
    1
  57.  @mdg140  No it is not.
    1
  58.  @GunkTheUnk  That's bulshit. No projection came to that conclusion .
    1
  59.  @thebob2751  There is also no studies that show any health risk either So anti GMO don't really have anything to pint to. BTW, your example is false. It took only 30 years from the first studies of lung cancer (1920s) to its conclusion that smoking is indeed factor for lung cancer.
    1
  60.  @FAQUERETERMAX  Poison flavour?
    1
  61.  @GunkTheUnk  The good thing is we wouldn't be getting to 13 billion. All the estimates/projection indicates that the Earth's population will plateau at around 12 billion and we won't rise more than that.
    1
  62.  @GunkTheUnk  No, pretty much everyone expected the 7 billionth human to be born in the 21st century even decades in last century ( I remember having such conversation way back then) so it was a surprise to no one . Except of course to the Erclichian/Malthusian believers who think that we would surpass that number even before the end of the 20th century and that the world would be plunged in chaos due to the "population bomb ( a famously debunked idea) . The people who make that projection (that humanity would stabilise at 12 billion) also took into effect China and Africa. The thing is , as the quality of life improves the population growth would taper off. This have been observed in every single country on Earth be it in South East Asia , South America and even the Middle East. China already have population growth curve that is similar to developed nation to the point that the main concern for the Chinese government (The Communist party) is that they will have a huge population drop in the future . Sure your projection of around 20 billion if possible in the worst case scenario where Africa and the rest of developing nation failed to raise their country's human development index ,but worst case scenario isn't exactly realistic or plausible. Anyway our planet is more than capable of supporting 20 billion people (that is still afr from this planet's full carrying capacity). I mean we currently (2018) produced more than enough food to feed 10 billion people, all thanks to conventional farming.
    1
  63. Not sure if you're trolling or stupid.
    1
  64.  @phoenixashes1371  Maybe if you explain to me why you dislike the video without even watching it would explain the rationale(or lack of) of you action.
    1
  65. The only silly one here is you. Humanity are doing considerable damage to the planet (causing extinction even and climate change eg), it's just that blowing up a nuclear weapon in the deepest trenches won't do much in term of global impact.
    1
  66. In what way is this video stupid?
    1
  67. The Tsar Bomba that the Soviets detonated was a severely weakened version of the bomb. The Soviets were worried about the effects of testing a full powered weapon of that magnitude.
    1
  68. Sources ,please?
    1
  69. The force generated is enough to cause tsunamis. At best there will be a wave several cm high.
    1
  70. How productive are agroecology and permaculture compared to conventional farming? I already seeing the potential problems with such methods, especially for urban dweller.
    1
  71. @Arakaneï Ironically that is false. Vertical farming actually have less impact than permaculture and alot more environmentally friendlier. Vertical farming have less impact on on the environment (especially with "green" electricity ) than any other farming methods while being far more productive . It is calculated that vertical farming can literally produce tens or even hundreds of times more output on a single plot of land than conventinal farming (let alone permaculture ) . Furthermore because the "farm" are self contained the need for pesticide , herbicides and other type of "cides" are far lower (can even go to zero if the "farm is properly contained).Because you don't rely on land for nutrients, you can set up you "farm" anywhere on earth with poor soil (desert) , any climate ( tundra eg) or state of land (heavily irradiated toxic landscape). Heck you don't even need to put it on land (in seas or underground) as you don't need the sun at all (LED lighting with GM crops that are optimised for photosynthesis ). We currently do have the tehcnoogy to do all that I wrote in the above paragraph.The only current problem with vertical farming is it is still too expensive and farming on land (be it open field or greenhouse) is a lot cheaper .
    1
  72. They kinda did. Over course nuclear power for energy generation is very good while weaponized nuclear power is kinda bad.
    1
  73. Not really.
    1
  74. Not at 10 km deep beneath the ocean.
    1
  75. Not really. This is actually a response the the very obvious and scientifically inaccurate video by the Riddle youtube channel. This video dispels the missiformaton that Riddle put out.
    1
  76. Not all seas life , only the ones in the close vicinity of the Trench.
    1
  77. Nice joke.
    1
  78. You entire statement is false. Did you not even watch the video before posting?
    1
  79. Not all ocean, just the part where the detonated the bomb.
    1
  80. Dumbest comment i've read today. Climate scientist would agree with everything in this video.
    1
  81.  @danglenut1729  WTF is an extrmos ? .Unlike the acidification of the ocean (due to rising carbon level, a side effect of climate change) ) or the microplastic problem which affect all the oceans in the world, detonating a nuke in the Trench won't have much of an impact beyond the surrounding area of the Trench.
    1
  82.  @danglenut1729  Prepare me for the answer, then . WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  83.  @danglenut1729  Again: WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  84.  @danglenut1729  There is literally no page for "extrmos " on Wikipedia , you troll . Again: WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  85.  @danglenut1729  In other words it is just a term that you made up and then you expect everyone else to be familiar with it. Again: WTF is extrmos and how do it fit in the context that you used in this thread?
    1
  86.  @danglenut1729  Still trolling , I see. Again: WTF is extrmos and how do it fit in the context that you used in this thread?
    1
  87. Nuclear fallout tainted rain=/= acid rains.
    1
  88.  @erejnion  That's more subjective rather than an objective fact.
    1
  89. In what way?
    1
  90. Sources please.
    1
  91. The only organic that is worth buying is organic , non-GMO table salt.
    1
  92. Fusion bombs are still rightfully nuclear bombs.
    1
  93. Yes, this video debunked the horrid science in that Riddle video.
    1
  94. "What If You Detonated a Nuclear Bomb In The Marianas Trench? (Science not Fantasy) " is the title . Does that read as Deutsch to you?
    1
  95. Instead we got some great animation and scientific explanation on why nothing will happen.
    1
  96. More like debunking ridddl's stupid and baseless claims.
    1
  97. Not when they're 10 KM underwater.
    1
  98. Only the ones close to the trench . Everywhere else would be fine.
    1
  99.  @DamianQualshy  Did you read that on XKCD ? That was where I first read about it.
    1
  100. I guess you didn't watch the video at all before posting your comment , huh? More like a complete debunk of the erroneously incorrect science used by the Ridlle's imbecilic clickbait and misinformation .
    1
  101. You on the other hand are severely underestimating (or just plain ignorant) the amount of pressure 10KM of water would exert. This was the exact same conclusion point XKCD made when he ran the numbers.
    1
  102. +Ethercosmos Yeah, the acidic atmosphere is a huge problem but not something unsolvable. The outer lining of the the floating colonies need to be immune or at least extremely resistant to it. +purushoath nadar Less than half of Earth's .
    1
  103. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable "Scroll up by 10 posts or so, link to Genetic Literacy Project summary of 197 peer-reviewed studies." Either that post is hidden form me or I somehow missed it. Can you re-post the link ? Yes there is blind distrust for the technology (as opposed to more healthy skepticism) spread by actual misinformation (the infamous cancer link eg). Considering that we've been using unlabelled modified food (GM is just an acceleration of such process) for literally millennias ,I don't see the necessity behind strictly labelling GM food (unless there is proven link that substance contained in those food may cause harm). If the food already pass the strict hoops and hurdles needed to get on the shelf ten it is rather moot, don't you think?
    1
  104. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable So basically you'res saying that most studies concluded that GM food is not more harmful than non-GM food. That basically proves my point.
    1
  105. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable I guess you youtube handle/name accurately reflects your attitude . As for that paper ( "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" by Sheldon Krimsky ), I going to need some time to check on that.
    1
  106. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable BTW, I should link this too: Almost, but not entirely, Krimsky’s ‘Illusory Consensus’ is itself illusory https://foodscienceinstitute.com/2015/08/27/krimskys-illusory-consensus-is-itself-illusory/
    1
  107. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable "What does your nick say about you? " It says "it was the most random name I quickly used for youtube account when youtube started years ago and I never felt the need to make a new account or change it at all." " Let's assume you own a car. Imagine if a new gasoline became available, same price, same performance, yet 16% of mechanics said " yeah, that's not so good for your engine / we're not sure that its good for your engine. The manufacturer said: Perfectly good for all engines. Oh, btw, its umarked so you WILL be using it either way. That make you happy?" Umm, the reason they switched to the news product is because it offered added benefit so your " same price, same performance, " thing is already false.Considering that it 84% agrees that it is good/not worse for my engine and it passed the strict testing needed for it to be marketable, .. The answer is obvious. "Nah, that's an opinion piece from a journo, if he had proper grounds, then he should convince Professor Krimsky to withdraw the paper. " Considering that we had literal climate change deniers who still refuse to withdraw their papers, I will say that it is easier said that done. "the Prof seriously outranks." Seriously ?An argument from authority ploy? Again, there are many "high ranked scientist " that disagrees with general consensus (some even concerning Climate change and vaccine effects). This guys seems to be a vocal the outlier in the field. The point is many of the papers he cited to support his thesis are already debunked and were withdrawn as they were heavily flawed. This is something you should focus on. "So the 600 page USA NAS 2016 report is 'worthless ', they also considered Seralini? http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/" Well, considering that paper is hidden behind a paywall... I can't really say much. Need to dig up what other scientist says about the report.
    1
  108. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable Strange, it keep getting me to "buy this book page". I think I need to cahnge a few things ...Give me a few minutes.
    1
  109. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable That very same paragraph also said "This does not mean that such increases will not be realized in the future or that current GE traits are not beneficial to farmers." From this chapter:said "GE traits for pest management have an indirect effect on yield by reducing or facilitating the reduction of crop losses" and "That report found that the yields of HR crops had not increased because of the HR trait and that the yields of IR crops had increased in areas that suffered substantial damage from insects that were susceptible to Bt toxins." . It seems the GM crop did do what it was supposed to do. That report also stated the reduced use of pesticides/herbicide in GM crops and increased yield due to reduced loss from pest. Again what those GM crops are supposed to do. "Not sure what you mean? Journalist with no credentials opinion to debunk a Prof, via one article? " That is exactly the definition of argument from authority. Having a higher prominence makes the data somehow more valid despite its flaws? What you need to understand is the article attacked some of the sources (Seralini eg) uses by Prof Krimsky as those sources have been debunked thus undermining the strength of his data. Level of academic prominence is irrelevant to this . "Please understand I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just querying the "FACT' as presented in this video that the Science is 'done'. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1" More links and papers for me to peruse... {sigh} goodie.
    1
  110. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable Your rebuttal is exactly why argument from authority is considered to be a very bad logical fallacy. So by your logic if suddenly a highly respected professor in Economics suddenly said that The Earth is flat while presenting very flawed data, a simple housewife cannot possibly show how ridiculous his notion and point out how weak his arguments are just because she doesn't hold a high position at a university?
    1
  111. +Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable What about climate change and Vaccine deniers,then ? Both had highly respected researchers in their field( which often have nothing to do with climate science or medical science) producing "peer reviewed " papers (some had to be withdrawn, same as here) that balks at scientific consensus. I'm sure it would be much fairer that you champion them too, considering that they are swimming upstream as well and lacking evidence ( Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all) As Nymn have pointed out. Those " peer reviewed articles" you chose to cite were heavily criticised for having poor methodology and flawed data ( a few were even forced to be withdrawn), as such they tends appears in less reputed publications.Yet , somehow you tends to focus on them rather than the majority or data and articles that disputed your views.A simple google search would do a lot to enlighten you on why Seralini study was flawed (to the point that it was withdrawn).Perchance you tried leaving your confirmation bias at the door next time you do some fact checking?
    1
  112. "AND THEN RE-PUBLISHED" With the same flaws. Again , erroneosu scientific papers that "Find the logical/scientific errors in the excerpted paragraph above," There is one logical error that you missed. The studies found no correlation or any supporting evidence of adverse effects of GM food. Yet they still maintain that the GM food are bad despite the lack of evidence.That is a huge logical/scientific error in itself. "Should be easy, even a 'housewife' can do it!" You're right.It is easy. "make me a believer" You already are a believer. You believed that the 16% studies (most have been debunbked) somehow is more valid than the 84% that you conveniently ignored. That took some level of faith. "Then I can leave my 'confirmation bias' behind entirely on this topic. You will have a convert!" Read the 84% of studies that you previously ignored. If that can'tr"convert you", nothing will. "Don't deflect with climate change & vaccinations, stay on point: GMO is the topic" My comment of those two matters are relevant. It shows why "your argument from authority" mode is bunkus.
    1
  113. Who are you talking to?
    1
  114. The core would melt or just sink into the magma(assuming there are magma , of course) .
    1
  115. A small wave several cm tall at best , maybe.
    1
  116. Not all deep sea animals, only the ones closest to the trench. Of course they would also be dead by then.
    1
  117. There are far better ways to deflect an asteroid.
    1
  118. No ,they are not. Only complete ignoramus would believe that GMO are bad.
    1
  119.  @blackdaan  I suggest you read history before lecturing me on it: Science have proven that cigarettes are bad for you. Likewise science have also proven that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment. The same can't be said about GMOs, We have been making GMOs for millenias ( check what the ancestors of modern animal and crops originally look like) with no horrible effects and science have shown how safe and effective GMOs are. As I said only those who are ignorant of science and history think GMOs are bad.
    1
  120.  @blackdaan  ' "wonder why Europe banned it?" Populist move based on sentiment rather than facts . Nice cherry picking btw, you are against government approving GMO and yet quick to call upon their authority this time. Nice hypocrisy. " Wonder why people protest against it." Ignorance. People protested again vaccination too, remember? These anti GMO people are no better than flat earthers and conspiracy nutjobs "do your own research" I suggest you follow your own advice instead of blind following the scientifically illiterate.
    1
  121. Riddle made an a horribly scientific incorrect video about this same subject a while back. This video debunked everything in that video.
    1
  122. Not if you put the bomb within a submersible like the Trieste.
    1
  123. What won't happen?
    1
  124.  @martinilopez1  Actually there are plenty of radiation emitted by a thermonuclear explosion. H bombs produced tremendous amount of ionizing radiation on detonation (mostly neutrons). Furthermore, pretty much all H bombs (including the Tsar Bomba) will first detonate a fission bomb (which produced lots of radioactive residue) to jumpstart the fusion process and thus the their radioactive after effect would still be traceable. Sure an H bomb produced less radiative reside compared to fission device of the same yield, but it is still there.
    1
  125. Explain yourself.
    1
  126. Actually, incidence similar to the mitochondria symbiosis happened two other times. One of the is the inclusion of the chlorophyll organelle into the cellular structure.
    1
  127. Not by much, increase of ambient radiation will not be noticeable.
    1
  128. You do realise that those vaporised water would eventually condense back to liquid , right?
    1
  129. Not really. There are a lot of myth and misinformation that exaggerate the effect of nuclear weapon and nuclear disasters, take Fukushima for example. It's good that videos like this dispels those myths and misinformation.
    1
  130.  @eppeep42  This video dispels the myth that blowing up a Tsar Bomba equivalent at the bottom of The Mariana Trench would have massive impact on the world. I don't know what myth you believe about Fukushima but one two prevailing myth that arose from that tragedy ar : 1) This proves how unsafe nuclear power generation is and 2) The Fukushima disaster would completely wreck the entire Pacific. Both are false.
    1
  131. We can make a religion out of this.
    1
  132. It is designed to be a 100 Mt bomb, however the Soviets have some consternation about detonating a bomb of that magnitude and thus reduced their test weapon to only 50 Mt..
    1
  133.  @aboyplays7278  Umm ..Dude this is from the very wikipedia page: "The bomb had a yield of 50 megatons of TNT (210 PJ). In theory, it would have had a maximum yield of 100 megatons of TNT if it had included a uranium-238 tamper, but because only one bomb was built, this was never demonstrated. " As I said,it was designed to have a yield of 100 megatons but the the one they built only had the yield of 50 megatons.
    1
  134. Wrong, everything he said is true and detonating the most powerful nuclear bomb ever created 10km beneath the seas isn't really as devastating to the planet as whole as some more ridiculous channel (Riddle eg) claimed.
    1
  135. It means the shock travelled the Earth 3 times before it finally dissipated.
    1
  136. That would be next to impossible. The phages would only attack certain bacteria and won't even bother with other bacteria with slightly different profile. The difference between prokaryotes (bacteria) and eukaryotes ( humanss eg) cells are too big to overcome. That is like expecting human to suddenly be capable of photosynthesis on their skin.
    1
  137. Fukushima disaster was overblown (pun intended). Zero people died from that disaster.
    1
  138. What gives you that incorrect impression?
    1
  139. Not at 10 km beneath the surface.
    1
  140.  @dirkbruere  The shockwave would lose energy faster in water too. By the time it reach the surface most of its energy would have dissipated .
    1
  141. Why do the video disgust you?
    1
  142. We never built anything more powerful (for good reasons) since then, though.
    1
  143. This video doesn't discuss nuclear war , at all.
    1
  144. Hydrogen bombs started by detonating a smaller fission bomb to create the conditions needed for the atoms to fuse.
    1
  145. I don't get it.
    1
  146. What about it?
    1
  147. Check the argument used for The Prohibition.
    1
  148. Unless you put in into a bathyscaphe or a bathysphere.
    1
  149. No, this video is the correct and realistic scenario if you detonate that bomb in the trench.
    1
  150. Explain in what way this video is wrong?
    1
  151. No, the people who think we can't fix the climate if we worked together are fools. We have done it before with the acid rain problem and hole in the ozone layer .
    1
  152. +Álvaro Araújo Jorge And it have shown to have very limited success in maintaining both muscles and bone mass (especially bone mass).
    1
  153. Absolutely nothing. There are no island right above the trench. Island are mountain tops , not floating rocks.
    1
  154. The one that detonated was. It theoretical maximum yield was twice of that.
    1
  155. No, Tripophobia is an irrational psychological condition.Most of the images you 'll get would be fake. Try googling for things like Tungiasis intead.
    1
  156. Depends how deep you detonate it. An explosion several hundred meters or even a a kilometer or two belows the sea surface would be more devastating than simply detonating it on solid ground.
    1
  157. You don't even need soil with vertical farming. On top of that its productivity is magnitude ( estimated to be tens or even hundred of times ) higher than conventional farming .
    1
  158. The nuclear fallout would be negligible.
    1
  159.  @miyuden4118  Only the sea life in the trench itself would be severely affected( if any of them survive ,that is) the effect on the surrounding sea would be minimal at worst and would not even be noticeable at all for the ocean.
    1