11.4% take anti depressants and between 40-65% experience some degree of sexual dysfunction so even using the highest numbers and assuming that the sexual dysfunction completely eliminates interest in sex (it doesn’t) that would only be 7.41%

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db528.htm

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6007725/#%3A~%3Atext=Given+that+SSRIs+may+cause%2Ca+barrier+to+medication+adherence.

It’s a pop science article… they usually don’t cover things like life cycle analysis. It is however a first of its kind plant that makes its net effects less important as it kind of works as a proof of concept. It’s a relatively small scale plant that if it does work, great, lets build more of them; if it doesn’t work, that sucks, can we modify them in any way to make them work.

It is taking two ingredients that usually have to take extra energy to be able to dispose of them and combining them together to make electricity. That is really cool, and there is no reason to be overly negative about it because it might be bad based on info that you don’t have

Nuclear reactions do involve neutrinos and antineutrinos but they aren’t super important for fission so I am assuming the decade long detector would be for something else

If you want useful public transit then it needs to connect population centers where people are. People are lazy and don’t want to walk more than 1/2 mile to a bus stop so if you have a population density of 1000/ sq mi that means any one bus stop is only going to be able to provide adequate coverage to 250 people. With so few people per stop it needs to make a lot of stops to be useful which then makes it slow which further lowers use. At that density it also doesn’t make logical sense to have designated bus lanes so they are stuck going slow in traffic as well. So now you have an expensive system that nobody uses because it sucks

If you have higher density then you can justify more lines which makes them actually useful and can add things like light rails which really make a difference

Bike transit is usually easier in those lower density areas but due to the low density getting between places is usually a bit further away so there are usually higher speed limit roads that aren’t as good for cyclists so more expensive barriers need to be constructed or they have to follow less direct paths which causes cycling to be slow

That’s amazing you guys have actual transit infrastructure, near me you can find that in towns and cities but as soon as you get to the cookie cutter suburban developments you need to take 45mph roads with little to no shoulder to get to any stores

The American style suburbs where you have just single family homes and the closest stores are 5 miles away?

The suburban sprawl makes building transit a lot harder but to fix that we need to increase density but then it’s hard to increase density when you need space for cars because you have no usable transit