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.
This analysis has several advantages compared to earlier ones.
The most obvious is the whole-genome data combined with a large sample size. All earlier whole-genome heritability estimates have been made using smaller samples, and thus had far greater uncertainty.
The next big thing is that the SNP and pedigree heritability estimates came from the same sample.
This can matter a lot.
If one sample has a heritability of 0.5 for a trait and another has a heritability of 0.4, it'd be a mistake to chalk the difference up to the method.
The original source for the Medline p-values explicitly compared the distributions in the abstracts and full-texts.
They found that there was a kink such that positive results had excess lower-bounds above 1 and negative results had excess upper-bounds below 1.
They then explicitly compared the distributional kinkiness from Medline to the distributions from an earlier paper that was similar to a specification curve analysis.
That meant comparing Medline to a result that was definitely not subject to p-hacking or publication bias.
I got blocked for this meager bit of pushback on an obviously wrong idea lol.
Seriously:
Anyone claiming that von Neumann was tutored into being a genius is high on crack. He could recite the lines from any page of any book he ever read. That's not education!
'So, what's your theory on how von Neumann could tell you the exact weights and dimensions of objects without measuring tape or a scale?'
'Ah, it was the education that was provided to him, much like the education provided to his brothers and cousins.'
'How could his teachers have set him up to connect totally disparate fields in unique ways, especially given that every teacher who ever talked about him noted that he was much smarter than them and they found it hard to teach him?'
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.