Just because a sovereign nation has the right to do something doesn't make it less stupid.

Safety is relative. There is no line. There's also no lead-free. That's why "no safe amount" is a useless statement.

That's why limits get established. They're actually useful.

>If you're still struggling don't bother responding, I can't help you if that was too far above your head lol

Irony thick enough to swim in

>There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.

Do you see how that's a difference sentence from what you said?

Do you see how how every country on earth allows a small but non-zero amount of lead in good because zero is impossible?

>containing one to several million flowers

I absolutely do not believe it has ever been just one flower without human intervention

>The threshold that is safe for human consumption when it comes to lead is zero.

Source? And definition of safe?

I'm not saying that the level of Hershey's chocolate is unacceptable, because I don't know, but clearly absolute zero is not possible.

Thank you for your sacrifice in making this comment

And invertebrates get labelled "harmless reptile" by sellers because employees will treat them better

They're called helicopters

If you just want one copy, that was by far the easiest method at the time.

Plus now the ascent stage has to use its engine twice unless I'm missing something. I'm really not seeing the benefit compared to Apollo-style.

>Imagine how much solar/wind/battery tech could have been built and improved with all those billions and the last 6 years.

Looking at the subsidies, I'd say less than what happened in our timeline.

A paintbrush or camera cannot create original work

Professional photoshoppers devastated

Not a ton, but apparently these have gone unnoticed before.

A good anount of RF traffic

This is now a live-fire exercise the pilot doesn't need

That was before the safety regulations were put in place for rivers of molten chocolate

I suspect it's already illegal

Do you appreciate the irony of this comment?

Fossil fuel propaganda would be accusing everyone who asks questions about hydrogen generation compared to other carbon-neutral technologies of being shills regardless of whether they're suggesting that it's probably great for certain applications in other contexts and were doing so before you made your accusation.

Yes, carbon capture is on the list of things I didn't say.

The other carbon-neutral options are what I was talking about you reactionary hero

They use real concerns in their propaganda because it's effective

But you'll note that I only mentioned carbon-neutral alternative technologies here, which terrifies the fossil fuel industry. Or maybe not. My hopes aren't high.

I could make up far worse lies about you but it would only make me look like more of a moron than you and I'd probably get banned for it.

Maybe if you pull you head out of your ass you'll figure out that deserts are real places with real environmental impact and while they're certainly not bad places for solar installation care must be taken to avoid erosion problems due to construction and lack of plants.

I don't need a lecture from someone who can't even keep track of what I'm talking about trading.