is-the-'is-the-post-reliable'-post-reliable

This blog exists to try and check the sources of 'is this post reliable'.

[reliable-post-meta]

This blog tries to fact check 'is the post reliable', with their consent.

(Warning: this pin is gonna be a long one; I believe in laying out my positions and thought processes openly and clearly to prevent misinformation; I ask in return that if you have any comments, queries, questions or concerns, that you do the same. Preventing misinformation cannot be done by summary sentences and exploring the nuances takes time.)

Where appropriate or requested, I will attempt to find out the background of the sources used, to try and identify and disclose any bias, controversy, conflict of interest, or untrustworthy or manipulative content.

I will try to act in good faith, and I will always assume that a point made by is-the-post-reliable, an OP, a source listed, or someone interacting with me is made in good faith until proven beyond reasonable doubt. I also ask that if you interact with me, that you do the same

I will myself try to be transparent, accurate, and honest, and will not knowingly mislead with my posts. However, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of what I post. I am after all, only human. In the event that I am wrong, I welcome corrections (provided they are in a constructive manner).

I will summarise each check with a 'meta-rating'. The aim of this is not to further add to an opinion on the post one way or the other, but to shed light on how sure you can be that is-the-post-reliable's conclusions are reliable themselves.

The ratings are as follows, from best to worst:

RELIABLE

The information and points expressed by is-the-post-reliable can themselves be relied on; they are well-cited and sourced and are relatively free of bias, misinformation, and conflicts of interest. The points can to a reasonable (but not legal) position be held as true.

PARTIALLY RELIABLE

The sources used by is-the-post-reliable can be relied on somewhat. They may not be adequately sourced, or may be sourced in parts and infer from undetermined sources other parts. They may have some bias towards the subject, may have limited conflicts of interest, but are still in good faith and are not attempting to mislead, deceive, or otherwise misrepresent the truth. Whilst some of the facts may be true, others may require further investigation to sufficiently prove their trustworthiness.

UNABLE TO VERIFY INTEGRITY

I have been unable to find enough information concerning the origin of the sources used to determine whether the sources are suitably free from bias, conflicts of interest etc. I still assume that they have been made in good faith, but I cannot tell one way or the other whether these should be relied upon. Most of the facts expressed are only partially reliable, and whilst the facts are not downright untrue, there is little to no proof that any of the facts are reasonably true.

UNRELIABLE

The sources used by is-the-post-reliable are likely biased, may have undisclosed conflicts of interest, may be misrepresenting the truth, or may be involved in downright manipulation of the facts in an effort to mislead others.

They may be relying on false assumptions, commit multiple logical fallacies, overly extend logic, or simply not cover the original points being discussed.

The majority of the sources are probably not acting in good faith, or do not properly or logically cite anything which may lead a reasonable person to believe that they are true.

The majority of the sources fail to establish relevant facts beyond reasonable doubt, and do not sufficiently and truthfully cover the conclusions drawn from them. Whilst there are likely elements of truth buried deep down, they are hidden behind so many layers of false premises that they are either completely distorted, do not apply to the situation, or could be found more logically elsewhere.

The sources should not be trusted and other sources should be looked upon to determine the truth of the original point.

If there's a specific post you'd like me to research the source background of, you're welcome to send me an ask. I will respond when I am able.

[is-the-post-reliable]

in trying to fact check a post and one of the only sources i can find about the exact issue is an article from reuters, which i don’t know a lot about. is that a reliable source in your opinion?

hi! reuters is generally considered one of the most reliable news sources, and I would personally say I consider it reliable as news outlets go. It is rated Most Factual my MBFC

[reliable-post-meta]

The only thing I'd add if you're struggling to find any other information is whether it's a Press Release. Press Releases are tricky because some newswires may just accept them and distribute them, especially if it's an important company.

Without knowing the context it's hard to give a precise answer.

[reliable-post-meta]

So I recently found out that Wikipedia considers MBFC an unreliable source (within their strict definition of reliability). This is due to what they say as there being little editorial oversight.

Whilst I won't necessarily retract the assessments I've previously made (I generally agree with the assessments of MBFC), I will no longer be using MBFC to assess sources.

I also unfortunately no longer have the time to assess the sources due to changes in my personal life. If someone wishes to take up the reins, please get in touch!

[is-the-post-reliable]

hey man you're pretty cool

funny coincidence, because you are ALSO pretty cool

[themichaelvan]

RATING: RELIABLE

Source: '👍'

[is-the-post-reliable]

complimenting me? using my own post formatting? i'm

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

Although the original post cites no sources, the fact check's source of '👍' is highly reliable.

[reliable-post-meta]

I'm Back!

Hi everyone,

Apologies for being gone for so long. Life got in the way. I can't promise I'll be able to fact check every one of itpr's posts, so what I'd really appreciate is if y'all submit some asks for me so I know which posts people would be most interested in getting a second opinion from.

I'd personally rate ITPR as Highly Reliable as I've rarely seen a post that rang alarm bells, and whenever I've contacted them regarding a concern over reliability they've been pretty spot-on in issuing a correction or better sources.

I probably won't go through the backlog of posts I've missed, but again, if there's one that you're desperate to see then I'll of course do a check. I'd also say that you shouldn't trust me fully, nor should you trust itpr blindly. We're only human, we're all fallible, and a dose of (healthy! Don't fall down the conspiracy rabbit hole!) skepticism is something I'd recommend everyone to have.

[micro-usb-deactivated20230625]

[wreckitremy]

Calling them lab grown really just reinforces the fakeness.

We should call them cruelty free gems

[foldingfittedsheets]

Sounds catchy, but they’re not. There are pros and cons to everything and there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. Lab grown gems use up enormous amounts of power and energy. (Note that this source is possibly biased but still contains good info) So much so that they’ve been warned by the FTC for claiming their gems are eco friendly when they have a larger carbon footprint than mined gems. There’s also the misleading idea that there’s no abuse happening. The companies producing lab grown gems often center operations in poor countries where power is cheap and buy up so much energy (generally fossil fuel) that they drive up the price of power. So essentially they moved abuses from a place where public attention could have shifted things in favor of worker conditions to new venues with new problems that haven’t been brought to public attention yet.

Essentially, gem sellers reputation took a hit when Blood Diamond came out and the public lost a lot of trust in the industry. When in actuality the movie came late- many of the issues addressed in the film had already been ratified into new laws and protections for tracking gem origins and legitimately profiting the source country. So now the communities who benefit from selling gems are the ones being harmed from lack of sales.

This isn’t to sway you one way or another on the topic of which is better- both industries have a ton of issues. However the catchy marketing of labgrown gems is exactly that. Marketing. They aren’t inherently better than mined gems and come with their own cruelties.

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: PARTIALLY RELIABLE

It is true that both mined and lab diamonds can cause potential environmental harm. Some of the examples given, such as the energy uses and the loss of income to mining communities, are legitimate concerns regarding lab diamonds. However, the conclusion that lab gemstones ‘aren’t inherently better than mined gems’ does not seem to match the conclusions of most research on the topic, and the sources given above may not be reliable.

The first source, as noted by @foldingfittedsheets, is potentially biased due to being commissioned by the DPA, which represents diamond miners, and has been disputed by others in the industry.

Source: ‘Some experts are pushing back on the DPA’s conclusions. “I think their estimates on greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage are very questionable,” says Saleem Ali, professor of energy and the environment at the University of Delaware and an occasional adviser to diamond makers. “To claim that their carbon and energy footprint is less than synthetic… defies common sense.”’

The second source, the FTC, did indeed warn against making unsubstantiated claims about being eco friendly, although not against all advertising regarding environmental benefits.

Source: ‘However, some lab diamond companies have been warned by the Federal Trade Commission in the US to be careful when presenting themselves as “eco-friendly” without evidence to substantiate these claims. Companies including Ada Diamonds and the Leonardo DiCaprio backed Diamond Foundry in the US were among them. However, the latter says that it is certified as carbon neutral by the third party Natural Capital Partners and uses only renewable energy.’

The final source is from The Guardian, which the MBFC rates as ‘Mixed’ in terms of factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. It is true that new regulations and a UN mandate came into effect in 2003, which did help reduce the flow of ‘conflict diamonds’ - this is called The Kimberley Process. However, reports since then, such as this 2010 article, as well as the 2020 article I have already cited, suggest that the reform has not been totally effective. A Human Rights Watch report in 2020 found that ‘Major jewelry companies are improving their sourcing of gold and diamonds, but most cannot assure consumers that their jewelry is untainted by human rights abuses’.

In terms of the data around carbon emissions, the statistics do vary significantly, but the majority find that mining creates more carbon than lab grown diamonds. However, it is difficult to find reliable, independent information on carbon emissions, so please be skeptical of the statistics on this subject.

Source: ‘Figures published by Diamond Foundry suggest that the total environmental footprint of mined diamonds is much higher than lab diamonds. “It takes an entire factor more energy to extract an underground diamond from Earth than it takes to create one above ground… On top of this, the energy used in mining is generally dirty diesel versus renewable energy in our above-the-ground production,” says a blog post on their website.

An estimated 250 tonnes of earth is shifted for every single carat of diamond. For context, 148 million carats were mined in 2018. Indeed, some mines are now so huge they can be seen from space using Nasa’s Terra satellite. A 2014 report by consulting firm Frost & Sullivan also showed that mined diamonds require twice as much energy per carat than those grown in a lab. It estimated that 57kg of carbon are released into the atmosphere for every single carat mined, but claimed lab grown diamonds release barely more than a few grams, but this assumes renewable energy is used and some in the industry have cast doubt on the reliability of the report.’

Carbon emissions are only one factor in the sustainability and ethics of mining vs lab diamonds. The BBC article above goes on to detail other factors, such as:

‘Diamond mining has been linked to pollution of water sources used by local people due to acid mine drainage.‘

‘Mining has also caused the destruction of habitats in Canada and beyond. In 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that De Beers had killed over 18,000 fish draining a Canadian lake for diamond mining. In India, diamond mines have been blamed for placing highly endangered tiger populations under further pressure.‘

‘ Some diamond mines employ miners on low wages in unsafe conditions. Even diamonds extracted in accordance with the Kimberley Process, established in the early 2000s to reduce the trade in conflict diamonds, can have obscured origins.‘

‘But there is also concern that the demand for lab diamonds could take away jobs from resource-rich developing countries.‘

The conclusion the article comes to is: ‘So, while neither lab diamond nor mined diamond industries are perfect, the wider environmental price from the latter can be higher. Indeed, the former Tiffany chief executive Michael J. Kowalski wrote in a 2015 New York Times opinion piece, “few industries in the world have a larger environmental and social footprint than mining”’

A 2022 report from Imperial London entitled ‘Environmental Impacts of Mined Diamonds’ summarised that ‘Mineral resource exploitation causes irreversible damage to the natural environment shown through negative impacts on water resources, air quality, wildlife, soil quality, and climate change consideration’. 

Meanwhile, lab grown diamonds vary in sustainability.

Source: ‘Diamond mining has been linked to violence and industry foul play, but the lab-grown diamond industry is lacking in transparency. According to Bain & Company’s 2020-2021 global diamond report, 50-60 per cent are produced in China using high-pressure, high-temperature technology, rather than the cleaner chemical vapour deposition technique favoured in the US and India. Many lab-grown diamond brands still do not share their factories or origins.’

If you are looking for sustainable, ethical diamonds, WD Lab Grown Diamonds became the first in 2021 to achieve the SCS Sustainable Diamonds Certification.

Source: ‘WD Lab Grown Diamonds (“WD” or the “Company”), a leading laboratory grown diamond producer in the U.S., today announced that it is the first company to be certified under the provisional Certification Standard for Sustainable Diamonds (“SCS 007”). This achievement grants WD third-party authorization to use the claims of ‘Certified Sustainable’ and 'Certified Climate Neutral’ on their high-quality, As Grown diamonds. The climate neutral designation is an exemplary achievement, representing a level of accountability beyond standard Carbon Neutrality by also measuring, mitigating and offsetting the entire spectrum of greenhouse gases, climate pollutants and legacy emissions.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

The first source featured by itpr is from Vogue Business. They are unfortunately unlisted by MBFC, so I'm going a bit alone on this one. Vogue Business is a spin-off of Vogue, with a separate editorial team aimed at producing primarily fashion-related business news. Vogue itself is owned by multinational Condé Nast, a subsidiary of Advance Publications. Looking at the immediate family of Vogue (within CN), they all seem to be generally highly-rated factually, left-of-centre publications, with an apparent philosophy of editorial freedom, so I'd (precariously) assume that Vogue falls into a similar vein. Vogue has been criticised in the past, but not necessarily over factual inaccuracies. The parent of CN, Advance Publications, has such a wide portfolio it would be inappropriate for me to comment on their reliability. Ultimately, because I have no concrete basis for my evaluation, even though I believe the content of this particular article is probably ok, the best rating I can give Vogue Business is Partially Reliable leaning to Reliable.

There are two sources here given by The BBC, the british national broadcaster. The BBC is likely one of the most reliable and transparent sources for news, and whilst they have been criticised in the past for not sufficiently challenging the status quo (Which they are sometimes beholden to as the state broadcaster), they do attempt a balance of opinion. MBFC rates them as left of center towards least biased. I would suggest that the credibility of articles is generally very high unless the article is directly political, in which case the bias of the writer and editor can contribute a little. Broadly speaking though they're Reliable.

The other source quoted above is from the PR-newswire, a newswire rated as least biased, highly factual, and highly credible according to MBFC. Whilst they don't always vet press releases from organisations, they will publish them without alteration and don't select for bias in their publishing. I'd rate them as Reliable, but i would also advise checking the credibility of the organisations publishing the original press releases.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE

The above is from this article from The Guardian.  The images are from MYA Network. The caption on their website reads:

Source: ‘When a sperm and egg get together, the body creates tissue in order to support the developing pregnancy.  Here are photos of that tissue from 5-9 week pregnancies.  This is called the gestational sac, and it’s like the “house” for the pregnancy. Inside this sac there are cells that have the potential to become a fetus but there is no visible embryo at this stage. We rinsed off the blood and menstrual lining (decidua) for these photographs.’

The published images sparked a lot of debate, leading to the story being picked up by other news outlets. For example:

Source: ‘Last week, the Guardian published images of pregnancy tissue after abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The small size and appearance of the tissue were shocking to many. We have all absorbed, knowingly and unknowingly, the pervasive anti-abortion narrative that a pregnancy resembles a tiny baby starting in the earliest weeks. Though an early embryo can be seen under the magnification of ultrasound, it can take months for it to be perceptible to the naked eye.’

Source: ‘People have responded in disbelief, citing the (magnified) images they’ve seen on ultrasounds. […] ”Think of the illustrations on pregnancy and medical websites. The Mayo Clinic, one of the preeminent medical organizations in the country, shows week-by-week illustrations of embryonic and fetal development without any context of scale, like the rulers in the MYA photos.’

As stated in the article, whilst people talk about a ‘heartbeat’ at 6 weeks, there is no heart developed at this stage - only a group of cells that will become part of the heart.

Source: ‘But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a “fetal heartbeat” at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case. Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect “a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby,” said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future “pacemaker” of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said.’

It should also be noted that the images show an embryo, not a fetus, until the 9th week.

Source: ‘In human pregnancies, a baby-to-be isn’t considered a fetus until the 9th week after conception, or week 11 after your last menstrual period (LMP).’

The co-founders of the MYA Network responded in a New York Times article.

Source: ‘Many people, even those who support abortion rights, did not believe the photos were accurate. Some insisted we had deliberately removed the embryos before taking the photos. The images weren’t consistent with those often seen in embryological textbooks, magnified on ultrasounds or used in anti-abortion propaganda; these enlarged images are not what you see with the naked eye after an abortion. A Stanford gynecologic pathologist has validated our photos, but many people could not believe the pictures were presented unaltered.

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: Partially Reliable

The first, and primary source given, is from The Guardian. MBFA rates the guardian as Left of Center; whilst they do use emotive language and strong headlines at times, they are generally pretty good when it comes to facts. They do have multiple failed fact checks however and therefore have only a Medium factual rating and a Medium Credibility score. Whilst they're generally factual, I would certainly advocate for a closer look at what they write plus an examination of any sources presented. Partially reliable. MBFA rates Slate, the second source here, as a Left bias, with mostly factual but highly credible ratings. This means they could potentially use over-emotive or loaded sentences, or omit key pieces of information providing a broader context. They do however cite from generally reliable sources. I do note that Slate has previously failed a fact check regarding Georgia abortion law, so I would advise some caution and treat their writing with a slight pinch of salt. Live Science, the source talking about the fetal heartbeat, is rated as Pro-Science according to MBFA; they follow the scientific method, publish reputable information from credible journals and citations, and score 'High' on their factual reporting. It's likely that the one thing keeping them from a 'Very High' rating factually is that they do occasionally take political jibes at those who don't subscribe to the scientific concensus. MBFC calls them a 'credible news source' so that's enough for me.

Healthline is another source featured, and MBFC rates them pro-science, however with only a 'Mostly factual' rating, thanks to their articles promoting non-evidence-based/alternative medicines. On topics considered to be conventional science, they're likely highly credible, I'd just be cautious if an article starts talking too much about alternative medicines or ideas that aren't supported by the majority of medicine.

I've spoken about the New York Times before, and they're a left-centre biased news source. Whilst they're guilty of occasionally using slightly sensationalist/loaded headlines and sentences, and have a few failed fact checks (mainly in op-ed segments), they're still Highly Factual and a generally reliable news source.

[reliable-post-meta]

Blog Update:

I'd like to apologise to everyone that I haven't been checking as frequently as I would normally; I've had a busy few weeks at work, and the energy to fact check lots of articles can be hard to find.

With that in mind, hopefully over the next week or so I'll be able to catch up on all the checks I've missed.

[catchymemes]

[ms-hells-bells]

this isn’t reserved to china, though china suffers the worst from it due to being the same location as the investors. multiple countries are having to make buying property and land illegal for people who do not have at least permanent residency/do not live in our countries for a certain amount of days a year, because billionaire chinese investors and investment companies buy properties and land en masse for appreciation purposes, and in doing so, the act forces the prices to go up. and you have massive amounts of empty houses and unused land that just sit there, collecting capital gains. this was big in new zealand until we made it illegal (but unfortunately rich nzers and companies caught onto the practice and now do it themselves here, the scale has properly tipped).

i know other countries also have this problem from the rich and investors in their own nations, but yeah, i grew up in such a town where only 2000 people lived there, but there were around 5,000-10,000 empty, expensive houses in the area just bought up by real estate companies to sell and trade and collectively bring the prices up to make profit.

[female-malice]

This is what every west coast US city is like. West coast real estate companies only rent out about half the housing units they purchase or develop. The rest sit empty. They’re the driving force behind a debilitating housing crisis. And the cities bend over backwards to accommodate this practice. There’s been no regulation here.

[female-malice]

Los Angeles: 93,000 empty units with a homeless population of 69,000

San Francisco: 44,500 empty units with a homeless population of 20,000

Seattle: 22,600 empty units with a homeless population of 12,000

San Jose: 14,000 empty units with a homeless population of 7,000

Oakland: 10,000 empty units with a homeless population of 10,000

The state of California has a total 1.2 million empty units with a homeless population of 116,600. If every homeless person in California was housed, there’d still be 1.1 million empty units.

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by @the-axiom-of-choice

RATING: PARTIALLY RELIABLE

The video is generally reliable. There is some less accurate information later in the post. For example, It is not just billionaires buying up property in China, but middle class people ; it is not accurate to say that there’s been no regulation on the West Coast of the US; and some of the statistics given don’t match what I have found.

China’s ‘Ghost Cities’ are a real phenomenon. 

Source: ‘One-fifth of the homes in China — at least 65 million units — are empty. That amount of empty real estate is enough to house the population of France. The ghost cities are a testament to China’s reliance on real estate as a driver of economic growth.’

It is not just billionaires buying up property in China. A 2013 report from CBS suggested that the middle class were investing their savings in the housing market, leading to a bubble.

Source: ‘Owned by people in China’s emerging middle class, who now have enough money to invest but few ways to do it. They’re not allowed to invest abroad, banks offer paltry returns, and the stock market is a rollercoaster. But 16 years ago, the government changed its policy and allowed people to buy their own homes and the flood gates opened.

[…] Actually, property values have doubled and tripled and more – so people in the middle class have sunk every last penny into buying five, even 10 apartments, fueling a building bonanza unprecedented in human history. No nation has ever built so much so fast.’

The Chinese government had attempted to limit this in 2011.

Source: ‘Since 2011, China has had what amounts to a one apartment policy, where it’s very hard to buy more than one apartment in major cities. […] Meanwhile, people who can afford it are still buying as much real estate as they can. They’re even finding ways around the one apartment restriction in big cities. Can’t buy in Beijing? Just cross the city line and the boom is in full swing.’

In 2016, it was reported that Chinese investment in overseas real estate had increased significantly.

Source: ‘Chinese invested $16.1 billion in overseas real estate in the first half of the year, more than double the amount in the same period last year, real estate consultancy CBRE said on Thursday. The United States remained the most popular global property market for Chinese investors, while hotels and offices were the most sought after types of real estate, CBRE said in a statement. Half of the investment came from Chinese insurance companies, with conglomerates and property developers also actively investing overseas, representing 23 percent and 10 percent respectively, of the total figure. “Concerns over the market slowdown in their home market have led Chinese investors to seek a safer investment environment which offer higher potential returns,” said Ada Choi, senior director of research at CBRE Asia Pacific.’

New Zealand did ban foreigners from buying property in 2018.

Source: ‘New Zealand’s parliament has banned many foreigners from buying existing homes in the country - a move aimed at making properties more affordable.’

It is not accurate to say that there’s been no regulation on the West Coast of the US. For example, Oakland have implemented a vacant property tax.

Vacancy and homelessness statistics:

I would note that these are all estimations, and accurate data is difficult to collect, particularly in recent years due to the pandemic. My data differs from the post in some places, and is similar in others.

The notable differences between the data I have found and that from the post are San Francisco’s homeless people estimate, Seattle’s vacancy estimate, Oakland’s homeless population estimate, and the State of California’s homeless population estimate.

Los Angeles:  85,000 to 100,000 empty units (2020), and an estimated 69,144 people were experiencing homelessness (2022).

San Francisco: 40,458 vacant units (2019), and 7,754 people were experiencing homelessness (2022).

Seattle:  33,100 vacant homes, and 12,000 people experiencing homelessness (2021).

San Jose:  13,769 vacant homes, and 6,650 persons experiencing homelessness (2022)

Oakland:  10,560 empty units (2020), 5,055 people experiencing homelessness (2022)

State of California: 1.2 million empty units (2022),  and 161, 548 people experiencing homelessness (2020).  If every homeless person in California was housed, there’d still be 1.04 million empty units.

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

The first source given is that of Business Insider, a business news site rated as High credibility with a Left-center bias according to MBFC. Whilst they have failed some fact checks, and have been found by MBFC to lean strongly left and use highly emotive phrases, the level of content is generally pretty factual and well sourced.

The second and third source linked is CBS News. CBS, according to MBFC, leans left of center like Business Insider, and has used emotive words in the past. They do not have any failed fact checks in the past 5 years however, and have a largely liberal/mixed audience (consituting 79% of their audience according to a survey in 2014). A 2021 Reuters survey listed CBS as the number 1 most trusted news source in the USA.

The fourth source is from Reuters themselves, a least-biased and Very High rated news agency (again according to MBFC. If you'd like me to switch up my bias checking then please let me know). They do not use emotive words in headlines, and stick to highly factual reporting, with pulitzer-winning articles.

The fifth source is from the BBC, a source I have written about numerous times as a reliable source of information.

The majority of the statistics quoted by itpr are from the original datasets by each city/county, and so I would have to have a deep understanding of both the statistics and methodology used by each source in order to verify or disprove their authenticity. I can't rate them as such (given how data collection like this is a tricky thing to keep unbiased but it's the best way we can collect information), but lean towards reliability as they're official statistics from a generally trustworthy country.

[subsystems]

Is there scientific evidence of DID beyond self-reported symptoms? Yes! There’s a lot, actually! Let’s go over the most exciting ones.

DID has biomarkers in the brain! This means that DID changes the brain structure and this has been observed through neuroimaging [1].

These structural changes and neural networks in the brain are very similar but also distinguishable from PTSD [2]! This supports the leading theory that DID is on a continuum with PTSD.

An algorithm was able to spot the difference between healthy brains and brains with DID with up to 73% accuracy (which is significantly higher than what was expected) [3].

Alters have also been observed through neuroimaging! When a DID system switches, different alters activate different neural networks. Even in studies where multiple brain scans were done months apart, the same alters still activated the same neural networks [4].

We have scanned the brains of both people with DID and healthy people instructed to “roleplay” DID and found that the healthy people do not show the same neural networks when roleplaying alters [5].

What this all means: DID is real. I don’t think anyone following my blog doubts that, but having this info is important in spreading awareness and combatting stigma (especially the stigma in the psychiatric field). DID is not something that people are just reporting to experience, it has an observable and distinct impact in the brain.

Keep reading

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE*

*There is a small part of this which may be misinterpreted. The section that reads ‘which is significantly higher than what was expected’ may have been a misunderstanding of the quote ‘which was significantly higher than the accuracy expected by chance’, which only means that the accuracy is higher than would be expected if the differences were random.

A review of current studies on the neuroanatomical brain changes in people with DID did find differences in the brain structure associated with DID symptoms, as linked in the post.

Source: When compared to the brains of normal controls, DID patients show smaller cortical and subcortical volumes in the hippocampus, amygdala, parietal structures involved in perception and personal awareness, and frontal structures involved in movement execution and fear learning. DID patients also show larger white matter tracts that are responsible for information communication between somatosensory association areas, basal ganglia, and the precuneus. 

Structural brain differences in DID patients are distinguishable from PTSD patients. I did not find evidence for this in citation 2 (although I may have just missed it reading through). However, citation 1 does discuss this point.

Source:

Many researchers and psychiatrists regard DID as the most severe form of a childhood onset Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) because it is virtually impossible to find a DID patient without a history of PTSD (Chalavi, 2013, Ehling et al., 2007, Vermetten et al., 2006, Weniger et al., 2008). 

Chalavi et al. (2015b) have documented the extensive differences in the neuroanatomy of DID patient brains compared to PTSD patients and healthy controls.

Weinger et al. (2008) did not find significant differences in TE between PTSD/DID patients and HC. Chalavi et al. (2015a) found that the cortical volume (CV) of total gray matter (TG) (p = 0.003), left hemisphere gray matter (LG) (p = 0.001), and right hemisphere gray matter (RG) (p = 0.009) were significantly smaller than healthy controls.

A study was able to discriminate between DID and healthy groups with an overall accurate of 73% (72.84%). 

I suspect that the ‘which is significantly higher than what was expected’ part may have been a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘which was significantly higher than the accuracy expected by chance’, which only means that the accuracy is higher than would be expected if the differences were random, not that the results are more accurate than the researchers anticipated.

Source: ‘Using the imaging data, the classifier discriminated between the DID and healthy control groups with high sensitivity (71.88%) and specificity (73.81%), yielding an overall balanced accuracy of 72.84%, which was significantly higher than the accuracy expected by chance.’

Switches have been observed whilst undergoing an MRI.  

Source: ‘Data are from two imaging sessions, conducted months apart, each showing the same activated areas during switches between these personalities.’

A study found people with DID and healthy people instructed to “roleplay” DID had different neural activation.

Source:  Differences in psychophysiological and neural activation patterns were found between the DID patients and both high and low fantasy prone controls. That is, the identity states in DID were not convincingly enacted by DID simulating controls.

Evidence of DID as a real and distinct condition is growing.

Source: ‘This review is the first to compile the neuroanatomical changes associated with DID. While the field of inquiry is still in its infancy, evidence for a distinct and real disorder, as indicated by numerous differences in the brains of patients diagnosed with DID versus HC, is accumulating.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-ANALYSIS: RELIABLE

The four sources cited in the post (the first and last are one and the same) are all papers published in reputable psychology/neuranatomy journals. I'm no expert in the field so I cannot vouch for the explicit correctness in what is said, but I am inclined to trust in their findings.

That is to say that what is written above is factual, but as with many controversial posts I urge caution and a review of the other side prior to making a full judgement on the situation.

[is-the-post-reliable]

how do you fact check stuff?

what do can I do to fact check stuff myself?

hi, good question!

A Quick Guide To Fact Checking

Finding information:

How I go about fact checking varies slightly depending on what I'm fact checking. If the post has provided a source, I usually start by assessing the credibility of the source; if there's no source, I might start by doing a preliminary search using a search engine (I use DuckDuckGo).

If the topic is a popular one, it might be worth checking whether it's already been fact checked. Check out Snopes, Reuters Fact Check, FactCheck.org or Politifact.

If it's a complex topic, it is sometimes worth checking out Wikipedia, not to use as a source, but to get some general background on the topic. Fact checking is harder when you don't have context. I then do a more specific search, and start reading a few articles from reputable sources.

There are certain subjects that I sometime used a different approach for. For example, if it's a medical topic, I might start by searching PubMed.

A good resource to check the reliability of media sources is Media Bias/Fact Check. You can type in your source, and they will rate their political bias and score their factual reporting.

You can find more tools that help fight disinformation here.

I would also recommend checking out @rovermcfly 's Media Literacy Masterpost.

[reliable-post-meta]

Rebloggimg especially for MBFC.

There's a load of fact-checking websites out there that do a great job of checking claims.

If they haven't checked exactly what you're after, then I also suggest cross-referencing the information from known reliable sources (cross referencing a bunch of websites all saying the same thing is exactly how misinformation spreads.)

A great tool is examining whether the source has anything to benefit from the information, as well as if it uses emotional language (sometimes thinly-veiled, like 'it's an outrage that xyz').

If you can find the original data, and that backs up the analysis of a secondary source, then that's usually a good sign. However, it's very easy to misinterpret technical information (especially statistics, which can be twisted to say any story), so I usually recommend trying to find at least semi-independent sources that have already done the analysis.

[auressea]

awesome tools! thanks for the recs.

I want to add a couple of additional sources/resources for checking media bias.. I'm not suggesting any one is more/less reliable, or better/worse in any way.

I just like to use multiple sources to gather my opinions about who's reliable and trustworthy

Interactive Chart | Ad Fontes Media

Interactive Media Bias Chart® Discover our Interactive Media Bias Chart to see where your favorite news sources fall on the reliability and

US centric:

Media Bias

Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides makes media bias transparent, hel

[reliable-post-meta]

Absolutely agree!

I wholeheartedly recommend combining multiple fact check sources. Generally you should be ok, because fact check sources (at least reputable ones) place an emphasis on disclosing their own bias and transparency (and any fact checking source that doesn't disclose bias, or doesn't source their arguments could be attempting to misinform).

I recommend giving the author of an article/paper a search, see if anything turns up. You can often find academic profiles for researchers either on the website of their institutions, or on somewhere like researchgate.

Authors and editors may have their own websites (be cautious however as these are likely biased sources).

Generally, the more information and context, the better. Just don't go overboard and start seeing connections where there mightn't be ones; that starts leading towards conspiracy and excessive mistrust. There's a balance to be struck between complete trust and complete mistrust; a healthy skepticism is somewhere in the middle.

[orgyporgy]

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE*

I would note that some of the post is speculative, particularly in terms of Musk’s motivations. I have fact checked the objective information given, and found it to be reliable.

Source: ‘The shareholders claim Musk allegedly delayed telling the market he had taken a stake in Twitter beyond a legal threshold.’

“By delaying the publication of the amount of his stake in Twitter, Musk manipulated the market and bought shares at an artificially low price,” the investors’ lawyers, led by William Heresniak, claim.

Musk’s actions in the build-up to his attempted takeover of Twitter has sent the price of the company’s stock shooting up and down, often just from the content of one of his tweets.

When Musk announced he had bought 9.2 per cent of Twitter’s stocks, on April 4, Twitter’s stock had the biggest surge since the company went public, rising by as much as 27 per cent.

Following that, Twitter invited Musk to join the board. If he had joined, he would have been prohibited from buying more than 14.9 per cent of the company’s stocks and would not have been able to publicly criticise the company as freely.

Instead of joining the board, Musk tweeted that he planned to make a private offer to buy Twitter outright.’

Source: ‘A 2018 post about Tesla stock led to an investigation from the Securities and Exchange Commission which ended with an agreement requiring the firm’s lawyers to pre-approve certain tweets. It is unclear if that actually happens.’

Source: ‘May 13: Musk declares his plan to buy Twitter “temporarily on hold.” Musk says he needs to pinpoint the number of spam and fake accounts on the social media platform. Shares of Twitter tumble, while those of Tesla rebound sharply.

June 6: Musk threatens to end his $44 billion agreement to buy Twitter, accusing the company of refusing to give him information he requested about its spam bot accounts.

July 8: Musk says he will abandon his offer to buy Twitter after the company failed to provide enough information about the number of fake accounts.

July 12: Twitter sues Musk to force him to complete the deal. Musk soon countersues.

Source: ‘In taking the company private in his $44 billion purchase of Twitter, Musk cashed in some of his Tesla stock and also saddled the social platform with $13 billion in debt, which is a massive obligation for a company the size of Twitter. For context, the debt equals about seven times the company’s projected earnings for 2022. It’s essentially a huge credit card, and the annual payment is $1 billion. And that’s a problem for Twitter, considering that its cash flow last year to pay for things like debt payments was just $632 million.

[…] "The saying ,‘if you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem, but if you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem’ might apply here,“ said Wu, explaining that the investors and other lenders could take over the company if Twitter went through a bankruptcy proceeding, with Musk still serving as its chief executive. “Bankruptcy would also allow Musk to refinance the debt, which would make the company more financially stable.” Since Musk closed the deal to buy Twitter, financial analysts have pointed out that he vastly overpaid. Musk’s attempts to wriggle out of the deal shows that he had misgivings about the $44 billion price.’

[is-the-post-reliable]

@bisexualshakespeare thank you for reminding me to add an image description!

[ID: A reddit post in the subreddit r/antiwork from user Gary_October. It reads, ‘There has to be more going on. It’s hard to believe someone would overpay for a company only to immediately set it ablaze through a comedy of errors.’

A reply from user Redd_October says, ‘There indeed is more going on. Musk had said some stupid things to the tune of buying Twitter at meme stock prices, but didn’t disclose that he already owned a 9% stake in the company. When his statements lead to the stock price rising considerably, suddenly that’s blatant market manipulation, and he was already on thin ice with the SEC for similar behavior. So, his choices were to either say he totally meant it, and try to buy Twitter, or try very very hard (and probably fail) to not go to prison. Elon would not do well in Prison, so he opted to say he actually meant it when he said he would buy Twitter. 

What followed was him trying very hard to get out of it, such as saying that Twitter had provided him false or incomplete information, which they hadn’t. When his attempts to back out of the contract failed, and Twitter sued him to enforce the deal, he WAS in fact forced to go through with buying the company.

As a result, Twitter was worth less than when he started to run his mouth, he bought it for a LOT more than it was worth even before he was talking a big game, he now owes a TON of money on the deal, but he’s also not trying to settle for months, instead of years in prison.

The next step will be Elon driving Twitter into the ground, then pointing at the smoldering crater and shouting Bankruptcy unto the heavens and hoping that it frees him from the mountain of debt he has taken on.

Elon Musk is going to lose billions of dollars and destroy a massive company just because he doesn’t know when to shut the fuck up, and has an ego that won’t allow him to ever admit defeat.’ End ID]

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

I reiterate itpr's point concerning distinguishing fact from intent. I can only vouch for the reliability of the facts presented by itpr. I cannot, and expressely do not, merit discussion of intent as reliable; to suggest someone's future intent is inherently unreliable as it cannot truly be proven without literal psychic powers.

The first source given is Euronews, rated by MBFC as High, albeit with a centre-left bias. The bias is more present in EU political (ie brexit) or former-POTUS editorial content, whilst factual reporting tends to skew more central, albeit with a left bias towards reporting. Nothing especially questionable about this.

The second source is from the BBC. I have reviewed the BBC multiple times on this blog and find nothing especially biased or misrepresented there.

The third source is from the Associated Press, a newswire/media organisation rated High and centre-left by MBFC, albeit with a high credibility rating. It does use loaded words and phrases to influence opinion, but has a strong fact-checking record (ie no judgements against), including extensive fact-checking of conservative viewpoints. MBFC also remarks that their articles are usually well sourced.

The fourth source is NPR, a left-centre biased organisation with similar ratings to AP. They have come under fire before for alleged bias towards or against certain groups, and have been known to use emotionally-loaded articles when reporting on domestic (USA) politics. They are reasonably well trusted and favour a mostly liberal audience.

[capnsoapy]

fun fact if your breasts¹ are somewhere between a 36C-36D² then they weight³ about the same as your brain⁴

if you’re above a D-cup⁵ you’ve probably got more boob than brain⁶

1. Both breasts combined. 2. UK and US bras are the same at this cup size. 3. Sourced from this blog post; a different source was found but excluded as it didn’t account for band size. If you have a better referenced source let me know. 4. An adult human brain weighs ~1.3kg (2.8lb). 5. A 36D cup, or sister size (40B, 38C, 34E, 32F, etc) 6. Both breasts combined. A single 36G/H cup breast is about brain-sized.

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE*

*I would caution that due to individual variation, this is a rough estimate. However, as an approximation, this is correct.

According to the source used by OP, a 36D is 1.5lb per breast, so 3lb or 1.36kg combined. This is the same for US and UK sizing.  1.3kg is a fair estimation for average brain size, although it does vary by sex and age. Therefore, using the above source for the weight of the breast, the maths is correct.

Source: ‘The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr. With increasing age, brain weight decreases by 2.7 gr in males, and by 2.2 gr in females per year.’

The weight of certain breast sizes does vary significantly due to differences in density, and there are few reliable sources for estimates.

Source: ‘Some breasts are far more “dense” than others, presenting a known issue for matters such as mammography.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

The first source is a paper published in the German journal 'Pathologe', a german-language reputable pathology journal. I am not au fait with german medical journals so my ability to fully examine the reliabilty is limited, however I am inclined to trust the information presented purely as a journal-published article (notwithstanding flawed medical practices (which by and large are a very small minority)) is generally a more reliable source. The second source is a fact-checking website which itself is rated as very high on factual by MBFC. Their article is well sourced with little to no emotive words or attempts to influence the viewer.

[theconcealedweapon]

[queeranarchism]

& that 1% regret rate is almost entirely “Yes I’m still trans but the surgery was bad, or the transphobia i encounter is so much worse than anticipated, or I was pushed towards a specific treatment by my binary-oriented doctor when I wanted a non-binary transition” etc.

Actual ‘whoops, I don’t identify as trans anymore” cases are closer to 0,02%.

[earhartsease]

people absolutely get to detransition and retransition and whatever (I personally know about six people who “detransitioned” from being binary trans people, and then transitioned again later as nonbinary people, for example) but the idea that a small number of people going “oops got this wrong” somehow justifies gatekeeping everyone else is criminal, and mostly a deliberate ploy to block us from getting what we need

[is-the-post-reliable]

[ID: A tweet responding to V @ Arcless Arc @EVeracite. The tweet reads, ‘I like how in the context of trans affirming care, successful treatment in 99% of cases is treated as dangerous, whereas in all other areas of healthcare a 99% success rate would be treated as an absolute miracle.’.

The reply from Aster @aster_disaster_ reads, ‘Having a child has a 7% regret rate. A knee replacement has anywhere between 6-30% regret. Across all types of surgery, the regret rate is 14%. Transition and trans related surgeries have a 1% regret rate.’ End ID]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE

The statistics given are generally reliable, although of course different studies do give varying results.

The regret rate for having children in the US has been estimated at 7%. A survey in the UK found the regret rate to be at 8%.

The reported regret rate for total knee replacement varies. I have linked to two studies, one finding 17.1% of patients reported moderate or severe decision regret, the other finding a dissatisfaction rate of 8%.

Source:  ‘TKA patients reported moderate or severe (Mod/Sev) DR [17.1% (56/328)]’ 

Source: ‘In an analysis of dissatisfaction after primary total knee replacement, 8% of the sample were dissatisfied at a mean follow-up of 37 months.’

The regret rate for surgery in general is 14.4%

Source: ‘Self-reported patient regret was relatively uncommon with an average prevalence across studies of 14.4%’

The regret rate of trans related surgery is found to be around 1%. The most common reason for regret was lack of social acceptance.

Source: ‘A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1%

[…] Overall, the most common reason for regret was psychosocial circumstances, particularly due to difficulties generated by return to society with the new gender in both social and family enviroments.23,29,32,33,36,44 In fact, some patients opted to reverse their gender role to achieve social acceptance, receive better salaries, and preserve relatives and friends relationships.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-ANALYSIS: RELIABLE

The first two sources are opinion polls by Gallup and Yougov respectively. Both organisations are well-reknowned polling/survey organisations which ask opinions on a variety of matters, from political and cultural views to market research and advertising. I would be very surprised if the statistics they present are anything but reliable.

The third source is a paper from the Journal of Orthopaedic Science, the official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Ass'n. The principle author is Rosyln S Cassidy, an orthopaedic specialist with multiple papers published and cited. This is highly likely to be reliable. The fourth source is similarly a study performed by an Orthopaedic organisation, this time the Sydney Orthpaedic Research Institute, and will be similarly reliable.

The fifth source is an article from the World Journal of Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Surgery. I would also be surprised if this was not reliable considering the widespread (among surgeons) reknown of this peer-reviewed journal.

The final source is a meta-analysis of regret studies by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, published in their international open-access journal. Whilst the study has been updated (and thus the exact numbers presented in this source are not strictly accurate), the updated study discloses that there were no major changes to the results and so the original study is reliable enough in my opinion for the same conclusions to be drawn.

I invite @is-the-post-reliable to edit or reblog this post with a source to the updated paper, as well as any comments they wish to make.

[polysentimental-geometry-deacti]

[nyansense-the-nyanbinary]

Alrighty, I was trawling through the reblogs to see if anyone bothered tracking down a citeable source and couldn’t find one and I had the energy to look myself, so I did

and boy am I glad I did because YEAH THIS IS ACCURATE and fucking damning, also, here’s the full study and an assortment of citations

https://academics.lmu.edu/studyla/studies/policeandcommunityrelationssurvey/

That’s the general study–the part in the post above is from the Data Brief, page 124 (found here)

There are also various graphics and presentations that are worth a look, though I think the data brief might be more interesting overall–spend some time control+F ing to search around it and see what you can find…

[anarchistmemedistro]

just google “cops 40%” to find out more

[sunshine-gremlin]

@is-the-post-reliable

[is-the-post-reliable]

[ID: A screenshot of a tweet from Stop LAPD Spying Coalition @/stoplapdspying. The tweet reads ‘LAPD is mad because this survey shows half of households who have to live with an LAPD officer want to defund the police, and 52.4% want to DISMANTLE THE POLICE:

Below the tweet is a table of data, showing responses from two groups: ‘police force member in household’ and ‘no police force member in household’. The survey asks whether the participant agrees with three statements: ‘proposals to defund the police’, ‘proposals to dismantle the police’, and ‘proposals to redirect money from LAPS budget’. The data is in the form of percentages. End ID]

requested by @sunshine-gremlin​​

RATING: MOSTLY RELIABLE

The study, as kindly linked above, is StudyLA’s 2022 Police and Community Relations Survey. 

The only inconsistency in the data above is in the tweet, which states 52.4% of people with a police force member in their household want to dismantle the police. The data shows that 21.3% responded ‘strongly support’, and 30.9% responded ‘somewhat support’. This adds together to 52.2%, not 52.4%

I would take caution in applying this study more broadly, as the sample size for people who live with a member of the police force is relatively small (132).

[ID: a table of data, with the titles ‘is someone in your household a member of a local, state, or federal police force?’ The data shows that 132 participants responded ‘yes’, whilst 1621 responded ‘no’. End ID]

[reliable-post-meta]

META-ANALYSIS: RELIABLE

The study was performed by Loyola Marymount University; a private catholic university in LA.

I cannot dispute that itpr's post is anything but reliable, as they have directly quoted the original datasource from the study.

I agree wholeheartedly that the sample size of 132 respondents having a member of the police force in their household is too small to make a suitable inference, especially when the population for the alternative response is more than ten times the size. A wider study is needed to produce a more reliable conclusion.

[tilthat]

TIL Nuclear power is actually better environmentally than coal.

via ift.tt

[rainy-days-will-never-end-deact]

Atomophobia is a big oil plot tbh

[the-furry-butler]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[bigwordsandsharpedges]

Newer designs are even better. For example, a molten salt reactor can be designed so that it physically can’t go into core meltdown. Because the radioactive fuel is dissolved in a molten salt compound, an overheating reactor can simply melt through a barrier, pour into a shielded chamber, and solidify back into a solid form. 

The best example uses liquid fluoride salt and radioactive thorium, which is cheaper, more plentiful, and less suited to weapons than uranium. 

[simplyahole]

Have ANY of you played fallout?? No thanks

[thepleasuregoblin]

What an absolute galaxy brain take

[constanzeofficial]

[vonisv]

[noxtheox]

[drowned-princess]

“I know this is a nuclear power plant that can’t go into meltdown, but have you not played the game about nuclear weapons destroying the world?”

[biggaybunny]

afhfdssfgds the plot of fallout is that a fossil fuel shortage LED to nuclear war so this is even more of a galaxy brain take.

[einherjar1312]

Has anyone of you heard about Nuclear wastes? They take centuries to degrade. Sure, USA and Russia don’t have to think about it, they can just dump them into siberia or the Nevada desert, but countries like France, UK, Germany, etc.. we have no space for nuclear waste to properly store it for the amount of centuries that it takes for it to become less harmful and who knows if the barrels that store them are not leaking? Nuclear energy is a short term solution to coal. Heck, central and east europe got hit by the nuclear disaster that was fucking chernobyl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

[bigwordsandsharpedges]

France already gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. I think they store the waste in a very deep mine, in rural Finland, far away from people.

Nuclear waste only takes a long time to degrade if it comes from uranium. It’s very inefficient, and 90% of a “spent” fuel rod is still enriched uranium.

Uranium was only used because the government wanted a “dual use” technology that could also be used for nuclear weapons. Thorium is very bad for building bombs, but it’s very efficient in reactors.

Almost all of the thorium is consumed, leaving a small amount of weakly radioactive waste which is easy to contain. It only lasts for 200-300 years.

Some thorium reactors are designed as “waste burners”, which can consume uranium waste and transmute it into weaker elements that last for centuries, not millennia.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

We’re also figuring out how to turn uranium waste into electric diamond batteries. So you know, there’s that.

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by @raven-harlot and @pokegeek151

As there is a lot of conflicting information in this post, with varying levels of reliability, I will not be giving this an overall rating.

Nuclear power is considered more environmentally friendly than coal and other fossil fuels.

Source: ‘Nuclear power has a lot going for it. Its carbon footprint is equivalent to wind, less than solar, and orders of magnitude less than coal. Nuclear power plants take up far less space on the landscape than solar or wind farms, and they produce power even at night or on calm days.’

Source: ‘The paper demonstrates that without nuclear power, it will be even harder to mitigate human-caused climate change and air pollution. This is fundamentally because historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied almost certainly would have been supplied by fossil fuels instead (overwhelmingly coal), which cause much higher air pollution-related mortality and GHG emissions per unit energy produced (ref. 2).’

Newer nuclear power designs may be safer.

Source: ‘Nuclear proponents are now banking on next-generation designs, like small, modular versions of conventional light-water reactors, or advanced reactors designed to be safer, cheaper, and more flexible.’

Source: ‘Molten salt reactors have numerous operational and safety advantages over solid fuel designs. […] Fluid nature of the fuel means meltdown is an irrelevant term and allows the fuel salt to be automatically drained to passively cooled, critically safe dump tanks.’

(Fallout is indeed set in a world where oil depletion resulted in international turmoil, eventually leading to a nuclear exchange between the US and China. I don’t think this needs further exploration, so I’m just going to link to the Wikipedia page and leave it at that.)

Nuclear waste disposable is a factor to consider, as it does pose some risks, but this risk is generally lower than the public perceives it to be.

Source: ‘In the absence of reprocessing, spent fuel is considered to be waste and must be prepared for permanent disposal in a separate facility. In addition, the waste stream from spent-fuel reprocessing must also be disposed of. Many nuclear countries, from the United States to China to Finland, have researched the technologies and geologic locations for disposal sites, but no permanent disposal site is in use anywhere in the world. Pending approval and construction of disposal sites, all spent fuel and processed waste are being kept either in cooling pools or in aboveground storage casks.’

When a holistic view is taken of the nuclear waste-disposal process, the risks seem extremely small, yet among the general public, these risks are one of the most-feared aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.’

France gets around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, not 80%. They have been storing their waste in France, not Finland, and they are currently building their first permanent underground facility. (Finland was the first to begin building an underground repository, which may be where the confusion came from.)

Source: ‘Since France’s first nuclear power plant opened in 1956, the country has housed its high-level toxic waste in four short-term national surface facilities at La Hague in Normandy, Marcoule and Cadarache in the south and Valduc, north of Dijon.’

Source: ‘The world’s first geological tomb for nuclear waste is rapidly taking shape more than 400 metres below the forests of Finland.’

From what I can tell, uranium does have a particularly long half life compared to other components of nuclear fuel. 95% of the energy in fuel rods is still present in nuclear waste.

Source: ‘The majority of the material in spent nuclear fuel is a relatively stable form of uranium called uranium 238 (U-238). It has a half life of over four billion years, so it will be around for a long time. The next largest fraction of material is unspent uranium 235 (U-235) and plutonium fuel with half lives of 700 million years and 24 thousand years respectively.’

Source: ‘as much as 95 percent of the energy in fissile uranium remains in the waste’

It does not seem that uranium was chosen over other materials specifically for dual usage in bombs. Its advantages were that it was one of few fissile materials, and the only one that occurs in usable amounts in nature.

Source: ‘All heavy nuclides have the ability to fission when in an excited state, but only a few fission readily and consistently when struck by slow (low-energy) neutrons. Such species of atoms are called fissile. The most prominently utilized fissile nuclides in the nuclear industry are uranium-233 (233U), uranium-235 (235U), plutonium-239 (239Pu), and plutonium-241 (241Pu). Of these, only uranium-235 occurs in a usable amount in nature—though its presence in natural uranium is only some 0.7204 percent by weight, necessitating a lengthy and expensive enrichment process to generate a usable reactor fuel’

Thorium waste may be more difficult to refine into bombs, although this is disputed somewhat.

Source: ‘When thorium is used, the nuclear reactions are altered so that the reactor produces much less plutonium, and the radioactive waste it does create is more difficult to refine for use in bombs.’

Source: ‘Contrary to that which many proponents of thorium claim, U-233 should be regarded as posing a definite proliferation risk. For a thorium fuel cycle which falls short of a breeding cycle, uranium fuel would always be needed to supplement the fissile material and there will always be significant (though reduced) plutonium production.’

Thorium would produce less waste, and this waste would likely be dangerous for shorter periods of time.

Source: ‘The thorium fuel cycle generates much less waste, of far less long-term toxicity, which has to be stored for just three centuries or so.’

Source: ‘Claims that thorium fuels give a reduction in radiotoxicity are justified. However, caution is required because many such claims cite studies based on a self-sustaining thorium cycle in equilibrium. More realistic studies which take account of the effect of U-235 or Pu-239 seed fuels required to breed the U-233 suggest the benefits are more modest.’

In 2016, researchers did find a way to convert nuclear waste into a diamond battery.

Source: ‘New technology has been developed that uses nuclear waste to generate electricity in a nuclear-powered battery. A team of physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have grown a man-made diamond that, when placed in a radioactive field, is able to generate a small electrical current.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-ANALYSIS: RELIABLE

You can be fairly sure that the majority of what itpr said regarding the topic of nuclear power is true and relatively free of bias and undisclosed conflicts of interests.

I will be adding individual reliability assessments to each of the topics covered, since there is so much information to discuss here.

Nuclear power is considered more environmentally friendly than coal and other fossil fuels. - RELIABLE

The first source given is from National Geographic. Media Bias Fact Check gives them a pro-science, 'high' reliability rating, and a 'least biased' left/right rating. I am not aware of any conflicts of interest that may be present.

The second source is a NASA Science Brief. MBFC rates them pro science, and notes particularly that they are an excellent science resource with a website dedicated to evidence based climate change information.

Newer nuclear power designs may be safer. - RELIABLE*

The first source for this portion is the same National Geographic article.

The second source is a paper by David LeBlanc PhD. He has an extensive portfolio of work with molten salt reactors, with many media engagements. I do disclose that he has a conflict of interest, with a senior position in a molten salt reactor company, and therefore his paper should be viewed from this angle, however it is not to say that this paper is misleading; I would tend to agree with the statements presented in the paper.

*However, I would note that molten salt reactors are just one of the numerous new designs being explored as the future of fission. I would ask that in order to more fairly justify the statement given, a more balanced look at the numerous designs be added post-script. Of course, the post being fact checked does specifically mention Molten Salt Reactors, however it is given as an example. To properly examine whether this is the case, in my opinion more sources with different designs should be compared and contrasted. This may be above the expertise of ITPR, so I invite anyone with a background in nuclear safety to comment regarding this.

Nuclear waste disposable is a factor to consider, as it does pose some risks, but this risk is generally lower than the public perceives it to be. - RELIABLE

The source given is Encyclopedia Brittanica. I have reviewed them many times and they are a reliable source. I invite readers to look at previous posts to find my thoughts.

France gets around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, not 80%. They have been storing their waste in France, not Finland, and they are currently building their first permanent underground facility. (Finland was the first to begin building an underground repository, which may be where the confusion came from.) - RELIABLE

The first source given is the Financial Times. MBFC rates them Least Biased with very high credibility so I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of what is said. However I do note that the tone of some parts of the article are a little alarmist.

Sky News UK is the second source here, and whilst previously owned by Rupert Murdoch, they are now owned by Comcast. They should not be confused with Sky News Australia, still owned by Murdoch and with a right-leaning bias according to MBFC. They (Sky UK) are in fact rated least biased with high reliability/credibility and have a decent fact check and op-ed track record.

From what I can tell, uranium does have a particularly long half life compared to other components of nuclear fuel. 95% of the energy in fuel rods is still present in nuclear waste. - RELIABLE

The first source given here is 'vision of earth'. I could not find any information on MBFC so I have drawn my own conclusions. In the 'about'/'mandate' page of their website, they set out an aim to share knowledge factually, well-referenced, and faithfully represented, as well as being logically sound. Having reviewed some of their articles on nuclear power, I am satisfied that they are reliable. They make efforts to distinguish between half-life, radioactivity, and 'danger'; so I am satisfied that they are not deliberately misleading. They make efforts to explain key terms in simple and understandable english, and I cannot note any significant conflicts of interest.

The second source given is Scientific American; a pro-science, left-center biased magazine. They are rated high credibility , and are owned by a series of mergers with the Springer group. I note that the first paragraph of this article feels a little alarmist, even though it is factually correct. I also note that there is a slight factual inaccuracy in the article; one sentence says 'glowing nuclear fuel rods'. In most contexts, fuel rods do not glow. The exception to this is when in water; a lengthy explanation is Cherenkov Radiation. Whether this is what is meant by the sentence above is not clear, although I must assume in good faith that it is. I also note that this article was written between 2008 and 2010, so some of the facts may be slightly out of date.

It does not seem that uranium was chosen over other materials specifically for dual usage in bombs. Its advantages were that it was one of few fissile materials, and the only one that occurs in usable amounts in nature. - RELIABLE

The source is Encycl. Brit. Happily reliable.

Thorium waste may be more difficult to refine into bombs, although this is disputed somewhat. - RELIABLE

The first source is an article by the New York Times; a newspaper with a left-center bias according to MBFC. They are noted as generally trustworthy with a 'High' fact rating. They are noted as suffering slightly when Op-Eds are written, but their factual reporting is considered highly reliable.

The second source is a paper by the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory. The NNL is a government owned and operated research centre, funded by users of its research. When the report was written (in 2010; so interpret this with the facts at the time), NNL was operated by a consortium from the University of Manchester (UK), Serco (a government contracting company), and Battelle (A scientific research nonprofit from the US). The NNL produces a significant amount of high quality nuclear research, so I do not dispute their factual accuracy. However, there may be undisclosed conflicts of interest as this is ultimately an industry-serving laboratory (It is currently wholly operated by the UK government however).

Thorium would produce less waste, and this waste would likely be dangerous for shorter periods of time. - RELIABLE

This first source is a paper from American Scientist, rated Very High factually and a Pro-Science source by MBFC; the information it contains is very likely scientifically correct. The ideas however, may be somewhat out of date considering it was written in 2010, and nuclear reactor science is constantly evolving.

The second source is again the NNL paper previously cited.

In 2016, researchers did find a way to convert nuclear waste into a diamond battery. - RELIABLE*

Whilst I have no qualms about the factual accuracy of this scientific paper, I do note that the 'headline' is a little misleading. The text offered below rectifies this, however the immediate impression in my mind is that nuclear waste was directly converted into the diamond; this is not the case, the waste is simply the energy source for the battery.

Overall the information presented here is reliable, albeit with a few clarifications here and there. My key concerns are around conflicts of interest, as is common with any specific industrial topic. However, the facts presented are very likely true, and there is little to no emotional manipulation or deception.

[macgyvermedical]

I truly hate to tell you all this, but the reason needle sizes are numbered that way (smaller numbers = bigger needles) is BECAUSE SOME ASSHOLE HAD A 1-INCH DIAMETER CYLINDER AND LABELED HIS NEEDLES’ SIZES BY HOW MANY NEEDLES HE COULD SHOVE IN THERE.

Like, 24 24-gauge needles can fit in a 1-inch cylinder. 18 18-gauge needles can fit in a 1-inch cylinder. Wrong and horrible. The worst possible way to measure a needle. Good night.

[cranquis]

[tinsnip]

this is how shotgun shells are made apparently and then needles got made that way too

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by @artblock-insomniac​​

RATING: UNRELIABLE

There is a lot of variation in gauge systems, but as a whole they originated in the wire-drawing industry. Metal was drawn through progressively smaller holes to produce thinner wire.

Shotgun shells are measured in gauges, but the gauge originally was a measure of the number of lead pellets of the barrel diameter would weigh one pound.

Source: ‘An iron plate was cut into strips, which were rolled and hammered into rods. The rod was drawn through a conical hole in a hardened draw-plate, die or gauge [6]. After intermediate annealing, the resulting wire could be drawn through the next, narrower, hole in the draw-plate to produce a thinner wire, and so on (Fig. 1). Each successive hole represented the utmost extension, and thereby reduction, of the wire diameter without breaking. Every manufacturer had his own draw-plate and gauge. This gauge represented the wire sizes he could deliver. Usually, he had a test wire gauge for his customers to check if the size was suitable for their purpose (Fig. 2). So, a wire gauge was not originally made to a measurement such as fractions of an inch, but was simply used to indicate the amount by which iron wire could be reduced by each draw or hole.’

[ID: A diagram of a wire gauge. It is a disc, with numbered holes around the perimeter. The holes get progressively smalller as the number gets larger. End ID]

Source: ‘The gauge of a shotgun, a measure of its bore, originally represented the number of lead pellets of the diameter of the barrel that would weigh one pound (0.45 kg); thus a 12-gauge shotgun has a larger bore than a 20-gauge.’

[reliable-post-meta]

META-RATING: RELIABLE

The first source is a pubmed listing of a paper written by J S Poll. The paper is well cited and the author appears to have a background in anaesthesiology (hence their apparent familiarity with needle gauges). I wasn't able to find much background information on the author, however the paper is quite unlike any of their previous work so I don't think there's any conflict of interest there.

The second source is Encyclopedia Britannica, one which I've checked many times in the past with a high track record of reliable information.

There's very little to be gained by misinforming on this subject; I imagine the most likely reason this is incorrectly given is that a comparison was made between different wire gauge sizes resulting in an assumption that this was how the sizing was defined.