You’re missing the point, which is that we don’t normally measure reserves in centuries. We prospect as needed, and there is no reason to think that we would be unable to locate new deposits as necessary. All this and more is covered in the source you linked.
Will get back to you once I’ve had a chance to read through them, but I have no reason to think you’re mistaken.
I did not make any claim. As I said in my first comment, I have no idea what the environmental impact of uranium mining is. My point in the previous comment is merely that using an example from the 1950s is useless as we can find similar environmental disasters for any mineral we were mining in that era.
You did not show any such thing in your other link, rather the exact opposite.
By your logic about environmental impact, we should then stop ALL mining and processing activities because they caused pollution a century ago. That’s obviously not realistic, practical, nor even helpful. It should be based on the technology and environmental impact of today.
You appear to be severely misunderstanding the source. You may want to take the time to read through it again.
Also, did you think we checked each and every resource we industrialised to make sure we had a few millenia worth before we started using them? Last I heard, our known lithium resources are only sufficient for a decade or two at current rates, never mind the increasing usage.
The early and mid 20th century was the era of thousands of Superfund sites. This particular incident doesn’t seem any worse than average. We’re still dealing with the toxic aftermath of mining and processing all sorts of minerals with no regard for the environment during that time. Is uranium actually any worse than any other mineral in that sense?
Dude. Read the rest of your source.
Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data, as well as current geological knowledge, are likely to prove extremely conservative
In recent years there has been persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the abundance of mineral resources, with the assertion that the world is in danger of actually running out of many mineral resources. While congenial to common sense if the scale of the Earth’s crust is ignored, it lacks empirical support in the trend of practically all mineral commodity prices and published resource figures over the long term. In recent years some have promoted the view that limited supplies of natural uranium are the Achilles heel of nuclear power as the sector contemplates a larger contribution to future clean energy, notwithstanding the small amount of it required to provide very large amounts of energy.
Of course the resources of the earth are indeed finite, but three observations need to be made: first, the limits of the supply of resources are so far away that the truism has no practical meaning. Second, many of the resources concerned are either renewable or recyclable (energy minerals and zinc are the main exceptions, though the recycling potential of many materials is limited in practice by the energy and other costs involved). Third, available reserves of ‘non-renewable’ resources are constantly being renewed, mostly faster than they are used.
Literally half the page you linked discusses how we’re not going to run out of resources anytime soon.
Known reserves are sufficient for 90 years because nobody wants to bother with further prospecting when supply hugely exceeds demand.
fissile material is still a finite resource
We have reserves that will last centuries, and it can literally be extracted from seawater just like lithium if the economics allow for it. Can’t comment on the mining impact, though. Is it any worse than rare earth metals?
Give it some time, it’ll get bigger I promise.
It’s not ‘now’, it’s at the time that he was first elected.
Here’s the thing. This technology is unequivocally one of the things AI would be very useful for. It can potentially do a lot of good. Yes, MBAs could screw it up like they screw anything else up in society. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be happy that we’ve created this new tech.
From wikipedia:
In principle there is very little difference between a low-performance ICBM and a high-performance IRBM, because decreasing payload mass can increase the range over the ICBM threshold.
Sounds like different militaries just classifying things differently
“detect new or previously unreported CSAM and child sexual exploitation behavior (CSE), generating a risk score to make human decisions easier and faster.”
False positives don’t matter if they stick to the stated intended purpose of making it easier to detect CSAM manually.
Lets start with an English homework diving into WHY the passive voice is so bad in this particular case, that you felt the need to call it out in particular? There is nothing grammatically wrong with the passive voice, and it can be a valid stylistic choice. In this case, it was used because I as the author chose to emphasise the subject (English) as opposed to the responsible party (the world). The usual reasons to avoid passive voice do not seem to apply here. Would you care to explain why you decided to be a nitpicky asshole?
Doesn’t matter if America is the past. English is the language the world has settled on as the lingua franca. Yes, there are advantages to dealing with China if you speak Mandarin, but good luck trying to raise your voice while dragging out every syllable and getting yourself understood anywhere outside of China.
Well yes we do, ICBMs are generally associated with nukes because their sheer cost normally makes them impractical for standard explosive payloads.
You appear to have confused crime with homicide. You called them DEADLY, not high crime. Their homicide rate per 100k pop is about 8, barely above the US. For comparison, Jamaica is rated as the world’s highest homicide rate at 53 per 100k, and all the top 10 are above 25 per 100k. Laos is barely above average.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
Maybe cure your own ignorance before projecting it onto others?
PS: Do you think you’re the only person on lemmy raised in the 3rd world?
Deadliest? What junk media have you been consuming?
It’s not like there’s a single standard way to spell it
Doesn’t apply in this case, it’s about a decision that is still pending