I’m a big fan of selfies. The other day, I went to the zoo and thought it’d be cool to make a selfie with a lion and upload it on Facebook without realizing how dangerous it could be to have a lion so close. I bring this retablo to Saint Anthony the Great because thank to my phone’s flash the giant cat got scared and didn’t do anything to me. I promise to be more responsible while making photos.
The boat with me and my dog was carried away by the storm. I lost my oars, so we were left drifting. I almost lost the hope of surviving when Saint Barbara appeared as a giant wave. She threw us to the shore, and we arrived safely. I thank for that.
Along the southern Virginia riverbank, piles of discarded contents from bullets, chemical makings from bombs, and raw explosives — all used or left over from the manufacture and testing of weapons ingredients at Radford — are doused with fuel and lit on fire, igniting infernos that can be seen more than a half a mile away. The burning waste is rich in lead, mercury, chromium and compounds like nitroglycerin and perchlorate, all known health hazards. The residue from the burning piles rises in a spindle of hazardous smoke, twists into the wind and, depending on the weather, sweeps toward the tens of thousands of residents in the surrounding towns.
Nearby, Belview Elementary School has been ranked by researchers as facing some of the most dangerous air-quality hazards in the country. The rate of thyroid diseases in three of the surrounding counties is among the highest in the state, provoking town residents to worry that emissions from the Radford plant could be to blame. Government authorities have never studied whether Radford’s air pollution could be making people sick, but some of their hypothetical models estimate that the local population faces health risks exponentially greater than people in the rest of the region.
More than three decades ago, Congress banned American industries and localities from disposing of hazardous waste in these sorts of “open burns,” concluding that such uncontrolled processes created potentially unacceptable health and environmental hazards. Companies that had openly burned waste for generations were required to install incinerators with smokestacks and filters and to adhere to strict limits on what was released into the air. Lawmakers granted the Pentagon and its contractors a temporary reprieve from those rules to give engineers time to address the unique aspects of destroying explosive military waste.
This is one of the snarkiest peer-review articles I’ve seen published. The authors “undertook a systematic review of randomised controlled trials [RCTs] of parachutes” to determine an academic consensus on whether parachutes prevent injuries for people falling out of the sky and reported that exactly 0 trials had been undertaken. Mocking the strictest advocates of “evidence-based medicine” in the research community who demand that the efficacy of medicine be determined by data collected by RCTs rather than just observational data, they then argue that this must mean there is no reliable evidence that parachutes save lives.
They conclude by issuing “A call to (broken) arms” to those researchers where they basically say: either you are wrong and some facts can rely on common sense, or y’all should conduct an RCT where you all jump out of a plane- some with and some without parachutes- and prove that parachutes do in fact prevent injury and death:
Only two options exist. The first is that we accept that, under exceptional circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks and benefits of interventions. The second is that we continue our quest for the holy grail of exclusively evidence based interventions and preclude parachute use outside the context of a properly conducted trial. The dependency [on parachutes] we have created in our population may make recruitment of the unenlightened masses to such a trial difficult. If so, we feel assured that those who advocate evidence based medicine and criticise use of interventions that lack an evidence base will not hesitate to demonstrate their commitment by volunteering for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial.
Playing anything after playing assassin’s creed for a month: why the fUCK can’t I climb this
assassin’s creed was the first video game I ever played, and I finished the first game in a weekend more or less without pause. then I went to work on Monday and, being totally unfamiliar with the Tetris effect, was extremely taken aback by the immediate impulse to reach my teller station by vaulting over the counter. I mean, I didn’t even question it at first. I made it maybe two long purposeful steps forward before my brain caught up and I spent the rest of the day doubting my own actions.
One time I played so much Bioshock at the weekend that on my walk to uni the next day I saw a vaguely rectangular bit of trash out the corner of my eye and automatically thought “better pick up that first aid kit”
When fallout 4 came out, I played so much of it that when I saw a pile of wood near my house, I tried to scrap it and was perplexed as to why it wasn’t selectable.
after playing the sims i mistakenly thought i was alive and had feelings
You must be logged in to post a comment.