4 ms·
Where did I say that? The top-of-thread claim was that > This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remot
by vosper 3y ago
Where did I say that? The top-of-thread claim was that
> This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much.
I was just trying to find out what astrophysics has contributed to life on earth lately (50 years seems like a generous window) because I’m inclined to agree with the claim but would like to know if I’m wrong.
- nazgul17 3y agoA quick search returned this article which contains a decent list which includes recent works: https://www.iau.org/public/themes/astronomy_in_everyday_life/ https://www.iau.org/public/themes/astronomy_in_everyday_life... I picked one entry because it has the word "tumor" in it: > Radio astronomers developed a method that is now used as a non-invasive way to detect tumours. By combining this with other traditional methods, there is a true-positive detection rate of 96% in breast cancer patients (Barret et al., 1978). This article also seems to contain a decent analysis: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1635/chapter/14#313 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1635/chapter/14#313 Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles.