Regist

I have a hard time buying into this.

What's the lifespan of an solar farm with equal output to a nuclear plant? We're about to approve nukes for 80 year life spans.

Nuclear has super low operating cost and a long lifespan. The only real economic downside is how flipping expense they are to build and a major reason for that is we don't have much experience building them (because they've lasted so many decades).

You're also assuming that solar/wind will be faster when we don't have any real solutions for using those sources as a baseload. Storage and distribution is nowhere near being able to handle such demand. The cost of revamping our grid once those technologies do reach maturity is going to be staggering aswell.

Solar and wind are promising but they are still a __long__ way from being proven enough to gamble an entire energy plan on.

WSL and now Tex. Some real embracing happening as of late.

You're right my comment was a bit brusque. By "worse than worthless" I meant actively detrimental to the public's knowledge.

Personaly I'm just getting a bit tired of sloppy journalism causing me to waste time with these bait pieces. IMO journalists are the ones who are supposed to be wading through the crap to find me the valuable information instead of shoveling the crap onto me.

That really doesn't mean much.

Let group S be sugar eaters.

Let group A be all people w/o mental disorders.

Let group B be all people w/ mental disorders.

We have the main correlation between sugar and mental disorder:

p[A/S] <= p[B/S]

Using bayes rule:

p[A]p[S/A] <= p[B]p[S/B]

We also have "men and women with mental disorders were not more likely to consume more sugar":

p[S/A] >= p[S/B]

Comparing the inequalities gives us:

p[A] <= p[B]

So you're more likely to have a mental dissorder than not according to this study???

Seems like a pretty worthless study that indicates almost nothing. Lazy journalists, who are honestly worse than worthless, pick these lame correlation studies up and propegate weird misconceptions about increasing "risk factors". It's intellectually dishonest to even call the correlation increased "risk" when the cause of the link cannot be feasibly confirmed.

The sane assumption from this study is that depression or addiction prone people are more likely to look for satisfaction in glutany. Unfortunately that doesn't generate as much fear/ad rev.