I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, I just think that if the technology is good enough, people will adopt it anyway so it's not needed, and bans can be bad like idk if you support banning drugs but it can create unintended harms (maybe there is a legit use for the old bulbs in some places, and by no means have people used up the supply we already have)
someone else mentioned carbon fiber bikes, I thought I've read they can break - obviously in your case it held up a while, I think steel is most durable though
another commenter ITT (edit: in other thread) raised concern with carbon as well. I think it's mostly like when it gets damaged, it can't be repaired as much, whereas with steel it can just be bent back or rewelded?
heard good things about red wing I think for boots, might get a pair myself eventually
hey community linker bot, not sure if a human will get this but this may be an upstream problem with the lemmy code itself, as when I typed "!" + the community, it autocompleted mostly to the link that I used (or for any humans reading)
maybe that's "optimal" but it's probably just morning in general for "anchoring" the circadian rhythm in knowing when morning is?
I've seen other possible benefits of morning sunlight, like the UV levels may be less intense so people can get sunlight on bare skin with less damage and the ability to form vitamin D, possibly?
I mean they were a fruitarian (consumed fruit more exclusively), not really representative of all the raw foodists with more varied diets (I'm also not one myself)
a prevailing view is that aliens are demons and "UFOs" are a kind of fakery to distract people
flat earth
many people have become skeptical about the shape of the earth due to proven fakes about space and unanswered questions about space-related topics, for example popular pictures of the earth were not "real" pictures but composites:
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews.
Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing. While IR directly damages DNA, NIR interferes with the oxidative repair mechanisms resulting in oxidative stress, damage to cellular components including DNA, and damage to cellular processes leading to cancer. Furthermore, free-radical damage explains the increased cancer risks associated with mobile phone use, occupational exposure to NIR (ELF EMF and RFR), and residential exposure to power lines and RF transmitters including mobile phones, cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and radar installations.
back to comment
Microwave ovens do not expose tissues to microwaves
I guess there would be concern that they could if they leaked (microwave harm reduction as a related topic)
Microwaving food does not affect its nutritional value negatively
I think it's accepted that it does, along with cooking, but this was thought to be a trade off for killing possible diseases.
can preserve some nutrients better than other cooking methods, such as boiling or frying, because it reduces the exposure to heat and water
That would be true all else equal, but it's argued microwaves possibly create unique damage
This is not unique to microwaving
Raw food advocates would argue against microwaves and other non-microwave cooking methods though
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which issued a press release in 1992 stating that Hertel’s study was not scientifically valid and that there was no evidence that microwaved food was harmful to health
it's possible they could be correct but also possible this is a fallacy of appealing to authority
spez took a gamble