Taking the fuel out of the wings and thinning them makes sense. You couldn't make this fly in 1959; but I'm willing to bet that you can now with computer control. We should all be ashamed for not having thought of it, I suppose.
For that to happen, it can't be gravity that keeps a single molecule near long enough for that to happen - dipole forces at a fairly large distance in vacuum over enough time... maybe... at enough distance from the sun. Maybe. Maybe.
Static electrical field from the asteroid, stoked by the sun?
FWIW, other research shows that without soluble fiber, we can't absorb choline; we need a bacteria in the gut to transform it into a bioavailable form, apparently.
Choline is getting a lot more attention recently, from researchers.
Notoriously, MS is a disease of the last couple centuries, so far as we can tell, it simply didn't exist before that.
It is different - not metaphysically or entirely, but... echolocation for humans is rather long-wave (although it's experienced as vision.) You can't - I couldn't - see a door edge wise so I could walk into doors pointed right at me. But bats want it for insect location, I'm betting. Much more precise, much higher frequency.
Sure, bats echolocation is more precise, basically due to the shorter wavelength, which is quite obvious if you think about it. However, what I was trying to hint at is that the function is likely equivalent, while the implementation is definitely more sophisticated when it comes to bats. The function is to build an internal representation of the external world.
I've done this. Re Occam's Razor when that principle was sacrosanct. Wouldn't do it again, I think. Those willing to reword what I wrote more strongly, got the credit, for one thing.
In the end if any one view got me kicked out of Philosophy, it was prematurely defending String Theory - just as a possibility. Politics and my being drugged and assaulted by a Professor were larger factors, though.
Both views are true, his first philosophical book got no traction. Then his Histories made him very famous, and a rewrite of his philosophical views was much better received.
These days the topic falls under "Secure attachment" as part of "Attachment theory." The phrase "unconditional love" proved thorny and IMHO ill-judged, misleading.
My experience raising children is that you're golden if the child knows you're on their side, putting their interests above your own. Helping them learn, not putting any moral puzzles in front of them that they can't easily solve, together with lots of misbehavior play so they can learn boundaries without actually misbehaving.
All organic solvents are a cancer risk for the same reason: they imitate water (an inorganic solvent) inside our cells, but they're not water. Therefore, every single chemical reaction inside the cell is a bit different. Whether inhibited or triggered, or slowed, or sped up. So more reactions are likely to go wrong; perhaps creating free radicals that can rip up any molecule they touch, including DNA.
We are immensely better than other mammals at coping with alcohol (which yeast uses to poison other organisms and so preserve its food sources such as fruit.) Our livers prioritize neutralizing and excreting alcohol; letting other chemicals pile up meanwhile. Hence, just about any medication becomes more toxic if you drink alcohol at the same time.
We like the brain effects, but in truth every chemical reaction in the body is affected.
Speculating, however: some of the cancer risk from modern alcohol sources, however, may come from very long storage. Wine put down for more than the three years nec to sediment out lousy-tasting tannins continues to form Frankenstein flavor molecules (flavinoids) that have unusual tastes because they're random, they don't occur in nature. While flavinoids promote health, the Frankenstein versions of them likely don't and may be a potent extra source of cancer risk, even though we highly value those rare, weird flavors. Evolution hasn't necessarily shaped us to cope with these novel molecules, since we wouldn't have encountered them.
Of course, wine retains many of the very significant health-enhancing virtues of grape juice so it may often not do net harm (esp if the wine hasn't been put down for too long) but you can also buy grape juice.
It's a very recent trait evolutionarily but seems to predate deliberate alcohol production for the most part. It's been thought that when the human population became very small during an ice age, the ability to eat old fruit under snow might have been very important. But you're right, populations used to deliberate fermentation for thousands of years, such as in China seem to be much better protected.
Whereas, middle and South America did have a tradition of alcohol in Pre-Columbian times. However, alcohol was often exclusively reserved for those who had attained extreme old age.
Survivor accounts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki make it clear that people who saw the blast and quickly shielded themselves by getting behind a wall and under a mattress did well; the blast wave/shock wave was the greatest danger if you weren't very close to ground zero. However before reading this article I had thought that protecting yourself from heat was the necessary idea, not air pressure/wind acceleration.
