That origination cost is added to the cost of harvest, transportation, refrigeration, distribution etc. Is it then so significant? That's the interesting question.
Because its one cost in a whole column of costs, reducing that entry is what makes it 'marginal'. Meaning, one part of a large total.
> I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets saying they were constantly hungry.
This is the inherent problem of journalism - they need sensational results, otherwise the majority of folks wouldn't be bothered to read their journalism.
My 2 cents on this topic: I'm 10+ years vegan and everything is good, it's just no clickbait-worthy story...
Oh, I'm not saying you can't live as a vegan. But the criticism of these diets is they prescribe X grams of this, Y grams of that, and use those numbers to compute a global environmental impact. If the X and Y are both underestimates compared to what an adult needs, then so is the impact.
> Another thing that is too easily forgotten, is the energy use of the infrastructure that supports many technologies; most notably the mobile phone network and the internet (which consists of server farms, routers, switches, optical equipment and the like)
While I agree with you, it's worth noting that the server farms of our tech giants are already powered by renewable energy (Google 100%, AWS 50%, Microsoft 50%, ...).
Fruit juice contains high amounts of sugar. There's not much difference between the sugars in fruit juice and the sugars in cola. Fruit juice is not a healthy drink. This myth causes harm. Parents give their children fruit juice because they think it's healthy, and this causes toot decay.
> Like fizzy drinks, fruit juice and squash can be high in sugar, which can cause tooth decay. Because sugary drinks can be high in energy (calories), having these drinks too often can also lead to weight gain and obesity.
> Unsweetened 100% fruit juice, vegetable juice and smoothies can only ever count as a maximum of 1 portion of your recommended 5 daily portions of fruit and vegetables.
> For example, if you have 2 glasses of fruit juice and a smoothie in 1 day, that still only counts as 1 portion.
> That's because fruit juice and smoothies don't contain the fibre found in whole fruits and vegetables. Have other types of fruit and vegetables for the other 4 (or more) portions.
> Fruit juice and smoothies also contains sugar that can damage teeth. It's best to drink them with a meal because this can help protect your teeth.
Dietary sugar—sugar that’s bound up along with fiber in its natural setting like fruits & vegetables—is a very different thing from non-dietary sugar. The former is fine; the latter is a chronic hepatotoxin that leads to metabolic disease, including lethargy, irritability, fat gain (sp. interstitial), and diabetes.
Maybe more the opposite: in the long enough term radioactive materials are just ugly rocks. It's more the short term storage in the here and now that is the concern for most people, because they are understandably afraid of DNA damage and cancer.
If you're smart, and careful and plan well and don't try to cut corners, you'll be safe.
Chernobyl was hampered by design flaws [1] that can be pretty well avoided these days, and it's not like light water reactors are the only / best option, either.
Right or wrong, people aren't worried about design flaws that are known about, it's the design flaws that aren't anticipated. There's plenty of safely operated nuclear energy facilities, but the prospect of one contaminating either a large urban area or a large agricultural area is pretty horrific. I suspect most people aren't worried that the theory and design of new plants is safe, but that the practice wouldn't result in at least one plant with corners cut.
I'm personally comfortable with the idea of nuclear power, but I don't really begrudge people who aren't too much. It's all moot anyway; for providing base load, natural gas is going to be the hands down winner for awhile. I could be mistaken on this point, but I'm under the impression that they're both cheaper and faster to get going, and easier to decommission.
Isn't hindsight great? I suspect the people who designed Chernobyl thought they were being smart and careful at the time.
You can be as smart and careful as you like, and still get bitten by something you had no idea was a possibility. If you're building a wind turbine, there's likely to be a reasonable limit to how catastrophic that totally unanticipated problem might be. If you're building a nuclear plant, the stakes are a lot higher.
> If Apple soldering memory to the motherboard is more reliable than using a socket is that better or worse for the life of the product.
But it's most definitely not. The SO DIMM socket is a well proven design, I have never in my life seen or read about one failing. But failing memory is a pretty ordinary thing to happen - rendering the entire computer useless in Apple's case...
> requiring 5x agricultural land and fertiliser
can certainly not be paraphrased as:
> marginally more expensive, ecologically