andres

In my experience, this is because they conduct yearly x-ray examinations to detect tuberculosis and other lung diseases. Shirts and bras interfere with the image, so they ask students to bring a plain shirt to wear during the examination. However, if there’s no other option, they may ask them to do the examination bare-chested. In my case, there was gender separation (not only in location but also in the time frame), but I can’t say the same for all schools or age groups. Japanese schools are known for having students change into sports clothing in the classroom without gender separation up to 3rd or 4th grade, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there are schools that don’t separate genders for medical examinations.

One of the rationales of sane people regarding alternative energy sources is the cost of using “more expensive” energy sources when cheap (at least for the time being), albeit more polluting, alternatives like coal and natural gas are readily available.

The argument is that if Country A switches to full renewables, in the time it takes for the prices to become low enough to be competitive against coal, Country B, which is unscrupulous in its development and continues using coal as its main energy source, would gain a significant advantage over Country A.

You could even argue that for Country B, switching to alternative energy sources would be unfair, considering that Country A enjoyed decades of rapid growth and development using cheap coal, whereas Country B would not. Since Country A won’t fully switch to alternative energy sources to maintain its supremacy, and Country B won’t change for the sake of its development, we’re effectively in a deadlock.

Personally, I think all countries should work together and switch to renewable energy sources to reduce the impact of climate change. Unfortunately, the world is not so simple, and the conflict is more nuanced than simply “keeping profits vs. creating a better world.”

I get where you’re coming from, skepticism is healthy and, honestly, necessary when it comes to big promises about tech solutions for climate change. But I think it’s worth taking a second look at carbon capture technology. It’s not about being gullible; it’s about exploring all our options to tackle a massive issue. Sure, it’s had its share of ups and downs, and, yes, it requires substantial investment and development to be viable on a large scale. However, it’s far from a scam.

I worked as a researcher in advanced materials for carbon capture, an alternative to the traditional carbon capture that uses amines for “capturing carbon” (a better term would be “carbon separation and storage”, BTW). The TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of amine-based carbon separation is 7, meaning that it has been implemented in large-scale facilities in operating conditions (specifically, at the Petra Nova Power Plant, which unfortunately closed down due to the low oil price during COVID). The rest of the carbon separation technologies (adsorption media, membrane, cryogenics, etc.) have not yet passed TRL 4 or 5, but they are expected to continue to find niche uses. Bottom line is that all of the methods WORK technically, but decrease power generation efficiency, so they may or may not work economically. Regulations and quotas could lift this obstacle.

Dismissing it outright as a ‘scam’ might be overlooking the potential benefits it offers in reducing CO2 emissions. It’s definitely not the sole solution, and we need a broad strategy that includes renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation. In fact, the main obstacle that “carbon capture” technologies face is in terms of public opinion, with companies branding the technology as a “silver bullet” that magically makes all previous and present emissions go away, sometimes without even investing in the research and development necessary to make it work, like ExxonMobil did. Or they imply that since they are doing “carbon capture,” the other strategies are obsolete, which is definitely not the case.

However, writing off carbon capture entirely could mean missing out on a valuable tool in our fight against climate change. Let’s keep the conversation open and critically assess all possible solutions, including this one. What do you think?"

That’s the case for very specific places, but in general, tabearuki is considered 行儀の悪いこと, meaning bad manners, basically.

Take a look at this article, for example. Or this anectode. Or info from a language school. Or this quora answer. They all discuss how eating while walking is bad manners and can bring nuisance to the people around you, even in non crowded places. Of course this is not every Japanese person’s opinion! I’ve even seen people advocating for it.

I think it’s not such bad manner that you would be scolded by a stranger, perhaps by a Japanese partner or close friend, but it’s definetly not seen in good eyes in general.

Great response! Just a comment, 食べ歩き (eating while walking) is definitely not seen with good eyes in many places in Japan. Some very touristic streets even have signs to forbid it.

Ok, that was exactly my point earlier. I thought that since some countries experience annual cicadas, the U.S. experiencing both periodical cycles simultaneously would be similar to what other countries experience every year. However, I was wrong. It turns out that the numbers for periodical cicadas are much, much greater than those for the annual types. So, indeed, just their sheer numbers will make them a spectacular event. Sorry for the misunderstanding. TIL

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The Japanese is really bad :(