We don't really stockpile flu vaccines because influenza changes and so older versions would not be very helpful. Instead we stockpile the raw materials and production capabilities for the vaccines. The traditional flu vaccine is made using chicken eggs infected with the virus so many countries have their own emergency supplies of chickens/eggs for this purpose.

Now that we also havecell based flu vaccines that don't require chicken eggs as well as future mRNA based flu vaccines that can be rapidly mass produced there will likely be a variety of of options for stockpiling/emergency preparation.

There are a lot of signals controlling inflammation and fever. But one of the simplest explanations is cortisol. Fevers tend to spike at night when cortisol levels are low but subside in the morning when cortisol levels are highest.

With the caveat that some fermentation processes will yield too much methanol and then the subsequent distillate will be too toxic to drink.

Training to liberate the space junk and bring democracy to LEO

In addition to this bananas have thick skin ideal for shipping without damage and its easy to stop ripening with cold temperatures and then speed it up with ethylene. Apples have a similar advantage, and are generally treated with 1-MCP to stop ripening and extend shelf life for months.

Nuclear fusion wont be viable for commercial use until the 2050’s if not later, and thats assuming the timeline goes as planned (ITER-> DEMO -> building out fusion infrastructure). Renewables will be very much established by then and so if it does outcompete them it will still be several more decades before they are gone.

Taking a step back, your body makes insulin to signal to cells to take in glucose from the blood. The cells will move a glucose transporter to their membrane allowing glucose to move into the cells from the blood. This is a great way to deliver energy to them and it is part of regulating blood glucose levels. From an evolutionary standpoint higher blood glucose is better than lower, if your sugar goes too low you cant outrun that lion chasing you and in extreme cases your heart can even stop. Meanwhile high blood sugar wont kill you (at least not for many years), even really high blood sugar wont instantly kill you (though it is very dangerous), so its better to go up than down. From this perspective insulin resistance makes some sense.

It has been theorized that insulin resistance historically was protective against low blood sugar during periods of fasting (between hunting meals/gathering food), the last thing you’d want is to eat a few berries after fasting for a few days and drop dead from low blood sugar as all your tissues try to take in more sugar than is available. However today that is not the problem and the insulin resistance we see now is beyond what is “normal”.

As insulin resistance develops your pancreas responds by producing more insulin, the result of this compensation is normal blood sugar. But as insulin resistance gets worse the additional insulin is no longer enough and so blood sugar rises. Foods that would not cause spikes in blood glucose for healthy people now cause spikes. And it doesn’t take much sugar, there are only a few grams of sugar circulating in your blood, going up by even 1 gram is very significant as its a tightly regulated system and over time it will lead to vascular problems which lead to other problems increasing the risk of mortality.

Diet and exercise (or lack of it) are the cause of many of these problems in the first place but they can reverse them too. Eating less simple carbs and more fiber (among other changes) exposes the body to less sugar spread out over more time which allows for the now impaired glucose delivery system to keep blood glucose levels normal.

Exercise increases the energy demand of muscles. When before they were told to take in sugar by another part of the body by insulin, now they do it themselves including through different mechanisms which improve their overall ability to take in sugar and lower blood sugar (even when not exercising). Aerobic exercise like running/walking will increase the amount of mitochondria in muscle cells which means they can use more energy (among other metabolic changes) allowing them to take in more sugar. Strength training exercises make muscle cells bigger, improve their ability to burn glucose anaerobically and increase their total energy needs (even at rest). More lean mass/muscle burns more calories and acts like a glucose sink.

In short you lower the amount of glucose your body has to deal with at any given time and you increase your body’s ability to move it out of the blood with diet and exercise. Not to mention there are health benefits to diet and exercise beyond type II diabetes management, pick a disease and odds are diet and exercise lower the risk of developing it and dying from it.

>“This makes sense but my question is that the molecules outside the mitochondria don't "know" that the concentration within the matrix is lower.”

They don’t need to “know”. They are randomly bouncing around, if there are more bouncing around on one side of a wall odds are more will pass through the gate to the side with less bouncing around than the other way around. And so they flow with the concentration gradient.

>”They also do copyediting, and gatekeeping to keep the cranks out. I agree that there is a lot of profiteering involved, but if the journals were pointless then everyone would just publish on sites like arxiv.”

Most of that is done by unpaid peer reviewers. The publishing companies that own journals don’t really add any value they are true middlemen.

Your other points are true, open access journals deserve more attention and prestige, hopefully opinions change going forward, if legislation doesn’t do it first.

Because for profit publishers want more profits.

Some countries are now passing laws to make publicly funded research free, but for now if open access is not available use sci-hub, unpaywall, r/scholar or even email the author directly (many will respond with a pdf of their work). Your taxes have already paid for the research in many cases and the fees do not go to the researchers or the peer reviewers, they just go to publishing companies like Elsevier who add essentially no value.

They actually can protect your hearing, but only in certain situations, and not in others.

They work by producing sound waves that “cancel out” or destructively interfere with the sound from outside. This is very good for steady background noises like a lawnmower or airplane. But really bad for changing or sudden noises like a gunshot loud concert. In the later scenarios the sound generated to cancel out the outside noise is on a slight delay so it might be too late and it might not be able to fully cancel the outside sound.

That is usually the argument made by those that oppose narcan use but it has been debunked. Opioid users dont try to OD, but they will use the drugs with or without narcan available to them and doses are not standardized so ODs are inevitable.

There are some correlations like increased ER visits when narcan is used that are often pointed to as an argument against it however that is expected when people are found alive rather than long dead thanks to narcan. Kinda like how helmets increase head injuries, because they are actually preventing deaths.

I agree epinephrine is unlikely to be abused by most people, it would probably be fine as an OTC. My comment was mainly on narcan which should definitely be OTC and unfortunately that is more controversial.

Narcan is not something you’d abuse, it either does nothing or makes you come down from a high, either way it’s does the opposite of motivating you to use it again. Also availability depends on the state. Many places have politicians who intentionally limit access to narcan, even ban first responders from using it, despite clear evidence that it saves lives.

Maybe re-read your own question. And also google what racism means, you seem to be clueless.

>“The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?”

You asked why countries have not built any the answer is politics. It’s not a technical or economic challenge as China has proven.

>”Some shut down because they are old. Some shut down because of politics. Some still operating.”

They were all shut down for politics. The German government set the end of life for all their plants and then decided to phase them all out after Fukushima. The German NPPs “end of life” dates are based solely on politicians drawing an arbitrary line not the useable lifespan of the plants.

>”The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?”

Because of fear mongering and misinformation. China has been investing heavily in nuclear energy to replace their coal. They have hundreds of reactors planned or under construction and are on track to build more nuclear energy capacity than the entire US electric grid. Their plants are built within a decade and don’t run ridiculously over budget as they are beginning to achieve the economies of scale that make nuclear competitive.

Tell me about the clean coal Germany is using again?

France actually solved much of its emission problems 40 years ago and french energy remains a cleaner than Germany’s.

And then when it is used to improve the crops people will freak out because they think GMO is bad.

No one is talking about making electricity with H2, read.

Perhaps you should read my original comment again or even the section you originally quoted as I did not “ignore” the problem you refer to.

And it is clear from your follow up that you still don’t understand the situation.

>”If you then use the H2 to produce electricity, you're just wasting 20% of the electricity.”

This is about using H2 to produce heat, not electricity. There is a very big difference.

>”And solar and wind are very clearly not up to that task.”

Citation needed.

It certainly doesn’t seem like that, especially since I had already addressed it. There is a bit more nuance to it and I tried to mention all of the pros and cons.

You said you “need to get the H from natural gas” which just isn’t true. And I think I stated that hydrogen is not particularly efficient. Heat pumps are better but hydrogen still has the potential to be clean.

Its easier to move electricity than hydrogen. So hydrogen would have to make sense due to storage, for cars/transport it clearly does make sense. For heating idk, the low round trip efficiency of hydrogen would likely favor heat pumps running on electricity instead.

>”They do not work in freezing temperatures.”

They do work in freezing temperatures. In fact you have a heat pump working in your freezer right now. You seem to have just made up this false claim and are now claiming Nature is not a credible source ???

In order for heat pumps to beat current heating sources in terms of emissions they have to function and still be very efficient.

>”They didn't used to be, but what gets published in many journals lately is highly politicized. I'm certain they would not publish an equally valid study that says something different when accounting for more factors. It's a bit off topic but: everything is agenda driven in the world right now because that's where the money is and it's seriously affecting scientific honesty. If nobody gets published for a study discrediting a certain idea then nobody is going to do that study, and even if they did nobody would believe it and/or be aware of it because it wasn't published.”

Source? Sounds like you got lost on your way to r/conspiracy