For the first part, I suppose the answer is that the products made from mycelium (like insulations, packaging, furniture etc) they are dried beforehand, and the fungus dies. If it is not dried well, you get mushrooms. So, in a giy (grow it yourself) project, if the fungus used is an edible one, the failed projects gives you lunch. This is a process: Flower Pot from Mycelium and Cardboard

For the second part, about the rats, I really don’t know but I will keep an eye out for this topic.

Thank you so much for saying that :)

I tend to agree with several things you talk about, but I have the impression we see things differently. For example, on one hand I agree with you when you say that we cannot let the Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners to just produce even a single new piece of plastic, but on the other hand for me the root of the problem is that the extraction of oil worldwide is still expanding instead of phasing out. Meaning that, as long as this is the case, more and more plastic will be produced.

Apart from that, of course bacteria eating plastics sound like a great option, but they are not the only way to get rid of plastics. Some alternatives would be fungi that “eat” plastic, or mycelium that replace plastics. Here are some relevant articles.

I think it’s important to clarify that radiosynthesis is just an unproven theory for now, for some fungi. For this reason, I don’t understand how you can jump into conclusions about plants, since we don’t even know if it is the case for these specific fungi.

Dammit you are so correct! I thought this was in reference to the carrots, but it doesn’t make sense in reality. Anyways, instead of replacing the subtitle I used, with the actual title, I will remove it for another reason (specifically, promoting circular economy). Thank you anyways, I shouldn’t post before properly waking up…

Personnaly, I found it very funny to read this specific sentence. Thank you for reminding it to me!

like a sort of evil lemon

This article from The Convesation talks about the same topic and has some insight that tell a very different story. For example:

These risks are why importing and even moving plant pathogens within the U.S. is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or USDA-APHIS, through the Plant Protection Act of 2000.

A scientist who wants to move a plant pathogen, either within the U.S. or from outside the U.S., must go through a permitting process with USDA-APHIS that can take up to six months to complete.

Even with Fusarium graminearum, which has appeared on every continent but Antarctica, there is potential for introducing new genetic material into the environment that may exist in other countries but not the U.S. (…)

Archived link of the article

The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

- If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

• Having a potential solution in the works for nuclear waste is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

Edit: The strikethrough, because it looks like the decommissioning of nuclear power plants was not reliably assessed after all. To be more precise, this is the 2012 meta study that is used for the g CO2e/kWh from nuclear decommissioning, and that I had difficulty finding. It clearly states:

Decommissioning was not usually described in detail; when described, most seem to closely resemble only “immediate dismantling,” not full decommissioning (see the Downstream Processes section of the supporting information on the Web).

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear power station can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

Edit: I looked a bit more into decommissioning and found the following from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thought of sharing for easier visualisation

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

• France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point | Reuters
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia | Greenpeace

Thanks for this, it’s the first time I hear about this and it certainly sounds very interesting. I’m gonna look more into this as soon as I find the time. In the meantime, if you know more about them and feel like sharing about your experience using them, or anything actually, I’ll be glad to have your input.

May I also suggest something? Perhaps add in the post title something like anti-marketplace or anything like that, so that it is a bit clearer what they are for those of us who don’t know. (English is not my first language and just woke up, but still silly me, by reading the title I thought they were currency exchange apps. And now my coffee is ready!)

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (…) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built

It looks like we see this differently. I would share this blame if we shared the profits, not because I’d rather live under a roof. Apart from that, the consumers in this case are often other companies that demolish houses to make malls and other commercial stuff.

This pie chart was retrieved from eurostat.

It looks like it’s the latest one, and that the next one is planned for October 2026 (more here). In this link they clearly state that:

Several of the EU countries with particularly high levels of waste generated per inhabitant reported very high shares of waste from mining and quarrying, while elsewhere construction and demolition often contributed to the high shares.

So 100% of the waste regardless of the source, divided by the total number of people = tonnes of waste generated per EU inhabitant. So the blame of polluting the environment is statistically transposed from the relevant industries to all the people.

Thanks for this! I’m replacing the current article with the one you provided.

Maybe, I really don’t know. Do you perhaps have a relevant tutorial to share?

Fukushima Contaminated Water Risk Factor: Global Implications | February 12, 2025 | published by Environmental Science & Technology, Vol 59/Issue 7

Synopsis

The disposal of Fukushima’s contaminated water poses profound and potentially catastrophic risks to the environment, possibly exceeding initial expectations.

Abstract

The discharge of Fukushima radioactively contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean started in August 2023, posing comprehensive threats to marine ecosystems and human health globally. This study introduces the Fukushima Contaminated Water Risk Factor (FCWRF), which integrates three components─radionuclide diffusion, bioaccumulation, and global seafood trade─to evaluate the spatiotemporal distribution of risks based on actual discharge practices. Results suggest that comprehensive risks exceeding 2 orders of magnitude beyond the baseline will be transferred to six continents globally. Furthermore, the spread of such risks is projected to be six times faster than radionuclide diffusion. In the simulation, the results illustrated a small increase in radionuclide activity occurring in most regions of the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, the dimensionless FCWRF based on a novel integrated framework bridges the barriers among different fields in the risk assessment of radionuclides, thereby underpinning timely and effective responses from the global community.