BoredomIncarnate t1_j9klg9l wrote

There are a few casting subreddits, including /r/metalcasting. /r/silversmithing might be able to point you in the right direction.

Be aware there are different methods that work substantially differently and require different tools. Lost-wax casting (including lost-PLA and lost-resin) is probably the most common, but has the highest entry costs. The exact tools depend on whether you do centrifuge or vacuum casting. Sand casting is a smaller barrier to entry, but is more limited in the complexity you can achieve. Cuttlefish casting is also quite low, though is also limited (but you get an awesome texture on your casts). Which of those two is better depends on how easily you can get cuttlefish bones (I have heard some people get them from restaurants) and whether you want to carve or cast existing objects.

There are probably other techniques, but those are the ones I know. I mention the difference because you will probably want to focus on one at first. Be aware that certain techniques can be dangerous, especially centrifuge casting (metal that is almost 2000 degrees tends to do that), so if you can find formal instruction, I would recommend that.


BoredomIncarnate t1_j4wmmdk wrote

I didn’t say less stress. I am perfectly aware that is not the case. I said fewer life-or-death stressors, like a person not knowing if they will be able to afford essentials (e.g. food or shelter), as well as the possibility that an unexpected cost or illness might cause their finances (and their well-being) to crumble.

There are lots of kinds/sources of stress, and each person handles stress differently, but not knowing when you can next eat or if you can pay your rent fall into a special category, IMO.


BoredomIncarnate t1_j4rlc5m wrote

At least in this context, defining quality as ecological healthy with high biodiversity seems like the right choice.

While we are obviously talking averages/in general, I would guess that for every rural community with healthy lakes and streams, there are twice as many with monoculture farms with heavy herbicide and pesticide usage, which might not confer as much benefit if I am understanding correctly (which I might not be). I can’t back up those numbers, but maybe someone has the relevant data.

I would also like to note that I said “better access”, which doesn’t necessarily mean that other people don’t have access. Furthermore, I was simply trying to explain why wealth could be a confounding factor, not necessarily suggesting that there couldn’t be people seeing the same benefit without being wealthy.

I think that the bottom line is that more studies looking at how benefits vary depending on which kind of green space is available would be potentially helpful.


BoredomIncarnate t1_j4qy9k7 wrote

First, in many countries people with more money have better access to green spaces. Also, people with more money could be healthier on average for a variety of reasons (e.g. access to healthier food, more leisure time and time to exercise, fewer life-or-death stressors), and healthier people would presumably produce higher quality breast milk.

Socio-economic status is a huge and obvious confounder, so bringing it up makes sense. In this case, however, the full article said they controlled for that and saw similar results.