Radiant Energy Group recently published a massive international survey of opinions on nuclear energy.
It's full of some things you might already know, but it also contains some surprisesđź§µ
For example, did you know French and German nuclear support isn't that different?
Nuclear does have less support than other green technologies, but in most places, it still receives net support.
This apparently low level of support looks higher when survey participants are asked about their ranked supported for different energy sources.
This support increases further if you subset to people who are techno-optimists or tech-neutral when it comes to fighting against climate change.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware about nuclear is exceptionally clean. Even larger numbers think nuclear waste is a major point of worry.
The Simpsons has done incredible damage to the reputation of our best energy source.
Onto the demographics!
In some countries, the old are the most supportive of nuclear. In others, it's the young.
If you've seen other surveys on the demographics of nuclear support this one won't surprise you: men are universally more supportive of nuclear.
If you've seen other surveys on the relationship between science knowledge and nuclear support, this won't surprise you either: the most knowledgeable are (almost) universally the most supportive of nuclear.
Despite being the current best option for providing reliable, low-cost, and clean energy, being concerned about the climate generally predicts less support for nuclear.
When climate concern is represented by nonprofit membership, there's a similar result.
Despite the nuclear industry being aligned with numerous (typically) left-wing goals from protecting the environment to supporting labor unionization and high employee safety standards, it's the economically right wing that's more supportive of nuclear.
There's more in the report, but I'll end this thread on a happy note: globally, there's more support for additional nuclear builds than for additional nuclear shutdowns.
Using data from almost 14 million young people in England, they found that COVID—but not COVID vaccination—was broadly associated with heart problems.
The myocarditis bump (which is milder than real myocarditis) was also small.
This study also provides more to differentiate viral myocarditis from vaccine """myocarditis""", which again, is mild, resolves quickly, etc., unlike real myocarditis.
To see what it is, first look at this plot, showing COVID infection risks by time since diagnosis:
Now look at risks since injection.
See the difference?
The risks related to infection hold up for a year or more. The risks related to injection, by contrast, are short-term.
This analysis falls flat when you look into these people or think about how so many other "vons" were not as brilliant.
Von Neumann's brilliance preceded formal education and any tutoring. His advanced math tutor noted that he was smarter than him from their first meeting!
First thing's first: Most studies agree that rent controlled units have lower rents, but also the supply of rentable units goes down and un-controlled units see their rents increase.
Uh-oh!
Rent control also means that fewer homes get built, and it means that housing quality drops.
After all, if you can't raise the rent, what incentive do you have to make everything sparkly and neat?
Rent control lowers residential mobility, meaning people stay put longer
That's not good because it causes misallocation
Consider an elderly family whose kids left the nest. They should move to a smaller place, but rent control keeps them in place, so new families can't move in
I have actually had people thank me for getting them on this stuff precisely because they had inflammation issues that these drugs *immediately* solved for them.
Here's an example I've posted before: this man's back pain was cured!