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.
Why have testosterone levels been rising over time?
The testosterone levels of American men are up compared to what they used to be, but no one has a good explanation.
Let's look through some possibilitiesđź§µ
Is it perhaps because of a racial composition change?
No.
Different races tend to have similar testosterone levels and trends within groups are similar.
Is it perhaps because of age composition change?
No.
The decline by age is much more graceful than people tend to suspect, and within each age group, levels are up without survey weighting, and in nearly all with it, they're still up.
In my latest article, I documented that the only RCT for functional medicine methods appears fraudulentđź§µ
Before getting into it, what's functional medicine?
It's a pseudoscience used to bilk patients by getting them on an unending cycle of tests, supplements, and more tests.
Functional medicine's practitioners claim that they can reveal and treat so-called "root causes" of people's health problems
These are proposed to be things like gut health, toxin burdens, and various chemical and hormonal imbalances
They find these things with unproven tests
If you run enough tests, you will be able to find something that looks 'off' about a patient, and if you're a functional medicine doctor, that's your 'A-ha!' moment, even if—as is usually the case—the result is just a false-positive and treating it is unlikely to do anything.
If you want to add beds to a hospital, build facilities, purchase diagnostic scanners, but you live somewhere with CON laws, then you have to prove you're not creating competition for other medical facilities in the area, which is often the whole state.
No. Competition. Allowed.
The idea behind these laws is that people will spend excessively on healthcare, so to combat that, we'll have people report if there's more spending needed before approving it.
Nutrition science is the area of science that's suffered the most in the replication crisis. It is a graveyard of theories and pseudoscientific bullshit.
Now:
The HHS is going to make doctors to sit through 40 hours of classes where they'll have to take that bullshit seriously.
This reads like a list of the things that fared the worst in all of nutrition science and stuff with NO EVIDENCE.
When I read through this, my mouth was agape.
Whoever wrote this trash needs fired for incompetence. Mentally retarded people should not hold keep government posts.
'What did you learn in your mandatory nutrition misinformation class?'
'Well, if a patient comes in with a migraine, I'm supposed to sell them a WHOOP bracelet or an Oura ring so I can help them figure out their health age.'
Strength training is a highly effective way to improve your flexibility, and I've made a graphic to put this into understandable terms:
This is from a meta-analysis of strength training trials.
What makes that so useful is that there's major publication bias for strength outcomes (pictured).
But, since authors weren't looking at it, there's no publication bias for flexibility outcomes.
Studies made their way into this meta-analysis because they had a flexibility outcome, but they made their way into the literature because they showed positive strength results.
This could indirectly biased the flexibility results because of selection on a correlated outcome.