There are multiple reasons for that. We don’t know the decay channels of already discovered particles precisely. So there might be very rare processes, that contribute to already known particles. It is all a statistical process. While you can give statements on a large number of events, it is nearly impossible to do it for one event. Most of the particles are very short-lived and won’t be visible themselves in a detector (especially neutral particles). Some will not interact with anything at all (neutrinos). Then your detectors are not 100% efficient, so you can’t detect all the energy, that was released in the interaction or the decay of a particle. The calorimeters, that are designed to completely stop any hadrons (particles consisting of quarks) have a layer of a very dense material, to force interactions, followed by a detector material. All the energy lost in the dense material is lost for the analysis. In the end you still know, how much energy was not detected, because you know the initial energy, but everything else gets calculated by models, that are based on known physics. A neutral weakly interacting particle would just be attributed as a neutrino.

These things are really special interest. They developed small scale particle detectors, that are nowadays used in medical physics for example (PET scanners and so on). Then their electronics need to be very insensitive to radiation damage, that is also important for everything space related. There is probably some R&D on superconducting magnets as well, that can be adapted to other purposes, but I am not too up to date in this field and I am not sure, if Cern is a major player there.

The thing is, that you can’t predict, what fundamental science will lead to. In the case of the LHC the tangible returns are technologies, that can be adapted to other fields, like detectors. There are enough other arguments, why a bigger accelerator is a bad idea, where you do not need to trash fundamental research as a whole.

Yeah, but you could also fund a lot of other research with this budget. The point is, physicists just don’t know, if there are more particles existing. There is no theoretical theory there predicting particles at a certain mass with certain decay channels. They won’t know what to look for. That’s actually already a problem for the LHC. They have this huge amount of data, but when you don’t know, what kind of exotic particles you are looking for and how they behave, you can’t post-process the data accordingly. They are hidden under a massive amounts of particles, that are known already.

I am trying, but it is just not well backed by data. The author goes on about diets all the time, grossly generalizing and totally ignoring, that it is also important how much you consume. They cite an example of France in the 1800s and say, that they ate more bread and butter (the link to the source not working). Okay, sure. And then they say, that they could still maintain their health easily, followed by the statement, that they exercised more, but this minor difference is not enough to explain it. Like, what are they going on about? In 1800 about two thirds of the population were working on farms, that’s not just “a bit more exercise”. And no word about food scarcity. People just couldn’t afford gluttony. Often enough they were just one bad harvest away from a famine. It’s ridiculous to assume, that they got to the same calorie intake on their bread, butter and dairy diet, that we have today with the amounts of sugar we eat and the affordability of food.

And while they probably exercised more on average than we do, the minor difference in exercise isn’t enough to explain the enormous difference in weight.

That statement is just plain wrong. Let’s say a minor difference in exercise is 50kcal a day. That’s about 6min running at 10km/h. This adds up to 18250kcal a year, which translates to over 2kg of body weight in ONE year. Multiply that by multiple years and it adds up quite fast. Keep that in mind for the following statement:

Many of them were farmers or laborers, of course, but plenty of people in 1900 had cushy desk jobs, and those people weren’t obese either.

Well, how did people get to these cushy desk jobs? By not available cars? How did they get their groceries? How did they clean their clothes? That’s all stuff, that takes a minimum of exercise nowadays. What did they do on their free time? It probably wasn’t sitting in front of the screen with minimal movement.

That’s just the first of these “mysteries” and the whole thing is written in this style. They take an observation and then give an explanation for it, that fits their narrative. Alternative explanations are either not acknowledged or ruled out on flimsy evidence.

Here, from the CICO part:

Sources have a surprisingly hard time agreeing on just how much more we eat than our grandparents did, but all of them agree that it’s not much. Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010. The USDA Economic Research Service estimates that calorie intake in the US increased from 2,016 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,390 calories per day in 2014. Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases.

How are these not giant increases in calorie intake? This metric is per DAY. It adds up fast over years. We are speaking about 16kg worth of body weight in calories per year. Okay, they addressed this in the interlude:

Studies show that people with obesity eat and expend more calories than lean people. From this study, for example, consider this sentence: “TDEE was 2404±95 kcal per day in lean and 3244±48 kcal per day in Class III obese individuals.” From this perspective, the average daily consumption per Pew being 2,481 calories per day doesn’t seem like much — that’s about what lean people expend daily.

TDEE includes exercise. Class 3 obese is a BMI of 40, so for a 1.8m tall male, that is 130kg, lean is probably at the lower end of normal, so 65kg. Then you can calculate the basal metabolic rate for both cases, leading to 1655kcal/day for the lean and 2300kcal/day for the obese. The difference is exercise. So lean people burn ~800kcal worth of exercise while obese people burn ~900kcal, but at double the weight. Since calorie burning during exercise goes linear with weight, you can conclude, that lean people workout more than obese people. So their argument does not work.

I never said, that it would be easy to lose weight. It definitely is hard. Your body is adapted to your lifestyle and breaking out of your habits and completely changing your lifestyle can be extremely hard. However, blaming some mysterious contaminant will not help people lose weight. Especially, when things like liquid calories tend to add a lot to your calorie intake, but your body does not really register them. Our body has evolved to control its body weight over thousands of years to a different type of diet. I do really not know, why the authors think, that subjecting it to the modern day achievements of high calorie foods and liquid calories will not affect this balance.

The body can influence how much energy to absorb and burn, within limits.

Yes and with that you have an upper limit of how much energy food can give to your body. If your body does take less than this energy, you will lose weight even faster. It can’t take more energy than is provided by the food. Raise your exercise level above your maximum intake and you will lose weight. It’s thermodynamics.

Nah, sorry, I was out, when they stated, that more exercise and eating less does not help (and then using an arbitrary time span of 12 months). If you violate the laws of physics in your analysis, it is definitely wrong.

I do not have time right now to read the whole thing, but what strikes me as odd, is that the author blames everything on contaminants, when a change in lifestyle could also be an option. They write about indigenous people moving to western societies and becoming fat, blaming it on industrial food contaminants, but ignore, that western people do not exercise enough. At least mention it and give a reason why you think, that this does not factor into it.

Then they also generalize about people in the western world getting obese at the same rate, which is not true at all. People in the US are more obese than in the Netherlands, for example. Japan has one of the lowest average BMIs in the world. It just doesn’t add up. Furthermore, there is a lot of talking about causation, when they only prove correlation.

The “switch” is most likely highly processed food and added sugar in everything you buy.

But that is only because of the current market landscape. Healthy food can also be packaged microwave ready and still be cheap. Most of the companies doing that just market it as healthy and charge a higher price for it (because people will still pay it).

There is no such thing as illegal immigration. To get asylum, which is considered a human right in the EU, you HAVE to cross the borders somehow and there is no legal way to do it. Framing it illegal is just playing into the far-right agenda.

He speaks of higher violent crime rates and you counter with highest crime rates. How is this relevant?

I think there are some naturally evolved bacteria, that digest plastics. Pretty sure I’ve read an article mentioning something like that.

Here it is: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230123083443.htm

Sorry, that was imprecise. The correct German term would be Energiewirtschaft, that can be translated to energy industry. That’s not only electricity, but also production of biogas, district heating, refining of fossil fuels and so on. The struggling departments from worst to slightly struggling are: -transportation: widespread use of fossil fuels -building: heating with fossil fuels and emissions from concrete -industry: high use of energy and no alternative to fossil fuels in some cases

You could actually use nuclear for stabilizing the grid. The reason no one does so is that you need to run nuclear power plants at reduced power, rendering them even less economical.

It’s not just the FDP though, Scholz is at least complicit with their bullshit. It is beyond me, how the SPD supports whatever Wissing does in the transportation department.

Hey, the FDP has the most ambitious climate policies of all parties! At least so they said.

The end goal was always renewables with smart net, storage and hydrogen plants to offset spikes. Gas prices are dropping again, so it will be used as a bridging solution. Energy production in Germany is actually on track of its climate goals compared to transportation.

The goal is complete decarbonization until 2045 and a lot of sectors in Germany are already on track with that goal, energy being one of them. That with a minister of finance, that does not want to spend money and a minister of transportation, that is more a puppet of the automobile industry and does not care about decarbonization. Imagine the US without the huge subsidies into clean energy. That’s what Germany is trying to do under their current minister of finance.

@[email protected] You are misinformed there. The energy sector reaches its goal and offshore wind farms and solar panels are actually over-performing, meaning more are built than was planned for this year. The sectors largely missing their goals are the transport and the building sector.