Because I am white and nerdy: Did you know that Donny Osmond has a condition known as Situs Inversus? It means his internal organs are flipped left to right compared to most people.
[url redacted]

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

Shit! Didn't even notice where the second guy was/had come from!

Second viewing - FUUUUUUUUUUUUU

That crushed some internal organs. I think he is running away because of the shock, because he shouldn't be running at all.

Our bodies are best at responding to pathogens that enter our system normally - over mucus membranes, through skin contact, and via ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.

Directly injecting pathogens (and a whole host of other known toxins) straight into the bloodstream puts their bioavailability at 100%, instantly. These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain, and all other internal organs, giving the body's almost no chance whatsoever to deal with the invading harmful elements. You can expect to see symptoms manifest in minutes, hours, or days - and this is exactly what you do see in vaccine related injuries.

Aluminum, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other elements we do eat, and are harmless when found embeded in their naturally occurring places. Injecting those refined elements (mixed together with all kinds of other poisons) directly into the bloodstream is no where close to eating un-refind foods that have the same elements bonded to other molecules which render them intert or beneficial.

What is the bioavailability of aluminum found in a banana when eaten?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when the banana is pulverized and injected into the bloodstream?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when it's refined, and no part of the banana except the aluminum is injected directly into the bloodstream?

Their description of the actual affect of the aluminum in particular is incomplete. Aluminum is a known neural disruptor. If it reaches the brain directly (remember, bioavailability is at 100%) the aluminum will disrupt neurons. This may result in some cases in a neural disruption. Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?

I'm guessing purely from a forces standpoint that if you were stood up, you'd be a lot more likely to survive than if you were lying down, like the video says. Mainly because your internal organs and brain are about to be decelerating, and you want to minimise the deceleration as much as possible. Your extremities might get pulverised, but without the organs they're not much use anyway.

There's some historic example about a 1945 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building, severing the ropes and inducing free-fall, but the lift's ropes coiled up and cushioned the occupant's fall and they lived. I just looked it up, and apparently only several times has free fall ever happened, only killing one person. But apparently people die from falling in the shafts, mechanics caught in machinery and strangulation from scarves caught in doors.

...but you wouldn't be able to stack anything in a falling elevator.

Also, forget internal organs. Well, not completely, but having them mostly intact isn't going to help you much if your the fall has driven your femur up through your pelvis and made a proper mess of some rather important arteries. My procedure for nightmare-falling-in-elevator-scenario is a) protect head with arms - adopt the brace position b) Lie as flat as possible to avoid aforementioned projectile leg bones c) get as close to the floor of the lift as possible.

but yeah, you're probably fucked.

"These internal organs behave strangely..."

I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

Ouch. Either that gut is pure six-pack or he's going to rupture some internal organs.

Those are his liquefied internal organs.

This video confirms what I already suspected.

Back in high school me and a bunch of other students who got high enough PSAT scores got invited to go down to the Naval Academy in Annapolis to experience a weekend orientation of the academy. I bunked with a guy from Texas who was a black belt in karate. At the time I was really into Tae Kwon Do and we got to talking about martial arts in general. One of the other guys in our room asked us how to deal with an attacker with a knife and the karate guy without pause answers, "Run."

Everyone laughed until he lifted up his shirt and showed us this ugly red scar that goes from one side of his belly to the other. Apparently, some guy had talked trash to him out on the street one day and instead of walking away he faced off against the guy. The knife came out so fast he said he never saw it coming. He got hella lucky in that the slash wasn't deep enough to hit his internal organs and that the other dude just took off running after getting the one hit in, but he was still bleeding everywhere. Some other people nearby called an ambulance and got the kid to the hospital.

Years later, my brother and I got into mixed-martial arts and used to practice defending against knife attacks. We'd wear cheap white clothing and used red markers to simulate the knife. What we learned really quickly is that even if you successfully disarmed the simulated attacker, when you looked down you had probably been cut in at least 3 different places during the attempt.

So I agree with everything in this video. Someone comes at you with a knife, you're not necessarily fucked but you need to accept that in all likelihood you're going to get cut... and that even if you succeed in incapacitating the attacker there's still a good chance you'll bleed out from the cuts you took in the process before medical attention arrives.

Tires that size are expensive as hell.

Now the owner of said tire has a video to track them all down and extract his money in internal organs.

A guy once backed into my car and drove off. It's always annoying when people try to avoid justice like that, but they get scared and shocked and then they don't think. I found out who it was and sneaked up on him in the dead of night and injected him with sodium thiopental to knock him out. When he woke up, I had wrapped his car up in plastic wrap and tied him to the hood of the car. After showing him a picture of my beat up Geo, I proceeded to make a few incisions into his neck and bleed him dry. Once he slipped out of consciousness, I sawed off his feet right at the middle of the shin, then middle of the thigh. Luckily, there wasn't really much blood, since it was all drained out through his severed carotid artery. From there it was a easy task splitting the body into small parts that could fit in the nice garbage bag. The torso was the most difficult, since it's unwieldy, but you can essentially chop it into four cubes and then it's easy to deal with, just be careful not to spill guts or internal organs anywhere. The north sea has some nice currents that dragged the sunken bags out into the ocean really well. Good times.
I also started watching Dexter lately.

The doctors tried everything, but the prescribed treatment RLIO* was still in it's infancy.




*[reverse-liquification of internal organs]

Wow, that's... erm... yeah, that's freaky.

Look, she's not hurting anyone but herself, she seems to enjoy it, but man, certainly seems extreme and dangerous. Moving your internal organs around can't be good.

I like the look of a corset, but there's a point at which it becomes a caricature, a gross simplification and exaggeration of the female form, rather than just a simple 'heightening' of it. And this is very, very far into that category.

Again, if they're happy then great for them, but she can hardly cry foul if she ends up with serious issues from it.