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

  1. 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
  2. +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
  3. +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
  4. +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
  5. +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
  6. +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
  7. +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
  8. +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
  9. +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
  10. +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
  11. +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
  12. "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
  13. Who are you talking to?
    1
  14. The core would melt or just sink into the magma(assuming there are magma , of course) .
    1
  15. A small wave several cm tall at best , maybe.
    1
  16. Not all deep sea animals, only the ones closest to the trench. Of course they would also be dead by then.
    1
  17. There are far better ways to deflect an asteroid.
    1
  18. No ,they are not. Only complete ignoramus would believe that GMO are bad.
    1
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. Riddle made an a horribly scientific incorrect video about this same subject a while back. This video debunked everything in that video.
    1
  22. Not if you put the bomb within a submersible like the Trieste.
    1
  23. What won't happen?
    1
  24.  @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
  25. Explain yourself.
    1
  26. 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
  27. Not by much, increase of ambient radiation will not be noticeable.
    1
  28. You do realise that those vaporised water would eventually condense back to liquid , right?
    1
  29. 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
  30.  @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
  31. We can make a religion out of this.
    1
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34. 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
  35. It means the shock travelled the Earth 3 times before it finally dissipated.
    1
  36. 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
  37. Fukushima disaster was overblown (pun intended). Zero people died from that disaster.
    1
  38. What gives you that incorrect impression?
    1
  39. Not at 10 km beneath the surface.
    1
  40.  @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
  41. Why do the video disgust you?
    1
  42. We never built anything more powerful (for good reasons) since then, though.
    1
  43. This video doesn't discuss nuclear war , at all.
    1
  44. Hydrogen bombs started by detonating a smaller fission bomb to create the conditions needed for the atoms to fuse.
    1
  45. I don't get it.
    1
  46. What about it?
    1
  47. Check the argument used for The Prohibition.
    1
  48. Unless you put in into a bathyscaphe or a bathysphere.
    1
  49. No, this video is the correct and realistic scenario if you detonate that bomb in the trench.
    1
  50. Explain in what way this video is wrong?
    1