• Forum Think Finance - Bolsa e Forex »
• Perfil de AI Operator »
• Mostrar Mensagens »
• Mensagens

Citação de: AI Operator em 2023-12-31  16:00:06

Citação de: Kaspov em 2013-06-17  19:27:27

Para além do Peak Oil, também há-de vir o Peak People...

Citação de: Kaspov em 2023-07-07  22:16:49

Parecem falar de petróleo, mas aparentemente sem abordar o problema do Peak Oil ou Hubbert's Peak...

Citação de: Kaspov em 2023-12-27  02:06:52

Acerca dos desenvolvimentos petrolíferos futuros possíveis nos USA:

«New U.S. Oil Field Developments Are A Sign Of Things To Come For Saudi Arabia

By Simon Watkins - Dec 26, 2023, 6:00 PM CST

In oil and gas terms, the U.S. has broadly gone from strength to strength. As of now, it is the number one producer of crude oil in the world, and the number one natural gas producer.

Há aqui qualquer coisa que não bate certo:

Era suposto os Estados Unidos terem atingido o Hubbert's Peak (Peak Oil) em 1970:

Hubbert's Peak, also known as the theory of Peak Oil, refers to a concept developed by geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s. Hubbert predicted that for any given geographical area, the rate of petroleum production would follow a bell-shaped curve. He predicted that the U.S. oil production would reach its peak between the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then it would decline steadily.

Mas na realidade:

In 1970, the U.S. produced about 21.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
As of 2023, the U.S. production is projected to reach 37.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In 1970, the U.S. produced approximately 3.5 billion barrels of crude oil.
In 2023, the U.S. produced approximately 4.7 billion barrels of crude oil.

Em que é que ficamos, Kaspov?

Sim, sem dúvida, os USA conseguiram expandir grandemente a sua produção, estabelecendo novos picos, devido ao impressionante fenómeno de «Shale oil extraction» (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction) & gas: «Shale gas in the United States» (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States).


Qto ao q acontecerá no futuro, é sempre mto difícil prever...   

Sim, fazer previsões é complicado; especialmente sobre o futuro...
Mas na época parece-me que a humildade e modéstia sobre a capacidade de prever o futuro era muito reduzida. Era basicamente uma questão de fé: não havia dúvida nenhuma sobre a realidade do peak oil: ia acontecer! E quem não acreditasse era considerado... bem é melhor não ir por aí.

Actualmente vejo a mesma falta de humildade e modéstia sobre a transição energética; quem é partidário da necessidade e viabilidade da transição energética é considerado... lá está; é melhor não ir por aí.

O carvão regressa... quando o frio aperta...   

E isso é bom ou mau?

Citação de: vbm em 2023-11-18  17:04:21

Tudo se cifra num lançamento de dados, com a fase livre
do indeterminismo da elevação seguido da descida ao abismo
e resultado fatalmente determinado: «Allia Jacta Est!» - diziam
os Romanos e assim é a existência.

alea jacta est - Dicionário Online Priberam de Português

Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa

https://dicionario.priberam.org › alea jacta est

Origem etimológica: locução latina que significa "a sorte está lançada". Fonte: Suetónio , César (...)

Corrigindo a correctora e o Priberam (que como dicionário não interessa nem ao menino Jesus):

A frase 'A sorte está lançada', utilizada frequentemente em Português, referindo a proferida por César, é literalmente incorrecta. 'Lançar as sortes' é um termo de origem bíblica:

"E disseram cada um ao seu companheiro: Vinde, e lancemos sortes, para sabermos por que causa nos sobreveio este mal. E lançaram sortes, e a sorte caiu sobre Jonas." (Jonas 1:7)".

Hoje, a frase 'tirar à sorte' é utilizada com o mesmo significado. Tirar à sorte com pauzinhos: quem tirar o mais pequeno é o escolhido. Ou lançar uma moeda ao ar - Cara ou Coroa.

Dá para ver que não é o que o Júlio queria transmitir.

Ora bem: vamos a ver se não gasto o meu Latim!

Alea - Dado (de jogar). Cubo com seis faces, numerado de um a seis.
Iacta - A palavra Latina "iacta," é o particípio passado perfeito do verbo "iacio" (lançar). Esta forma verbal não existe em português e teremos que usar o pretérito perfeito 'lançado'.

Iacta é escrito em Latim com 'I'. O 'J' não existia ao tempo do grande Júlio; apareceu como uma variante do "I" nos alfabetos Latinos medievais. Por isso o Júlio não era Julius mas sim Iulius. Era o seu 'nomen'. O seu nome próprio (praenomen) era Gaius. César (Caesar) era o seu cognome (cognomen, um tipo de alcunha de família, ou ramo da família (gens) Iulia), originalmente denotando um antepassado com uma farta cabeleira. O que não deixa de ser irónico porque parece que o Júlio era capilarmente pobre no toutiço e importava-se bastante com isso.

Est - É a terceira pessoa do singular do presente do indicativo do verbo "esse," que significa "Ser" ou "Estar".

Alea iacta est - 'O dado está lançado' ou 'O dado foi lançado'.

que penso significar,  O dado já foi lançado e está a ponto de aterrar, mas o desfecho não é ainda conhecido.

Também já ouvi dizer 'os dados estão lançados'. Se fosse assim, a expressão em Latim seria:

"Aleae iactae sunt."

"Aleae" é o plural de "alea," significando "dados"
"Iactae" é o plural de Iacta.
"Sunt" é a terceira pessoa do plural do verbo "esse" significando ser ou estar.

Também não parece que tenha sido isto que o velho Júlio Cabeludo disse.

Cum omni veneratione,
AI0

Question: What are the FDA's guidelines or advisories on interpreting adverse events listed in vaccine safety monitoring documents?

The interpretation and reporting of adverse events following vaccination are critical components of vaccine safety monitoring. Here is an outline of the guidelines and systems in place to manage, report, and interpret adverse events associated with vaccines, including those from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine:

Guidelines on Reporting and Interpretation:

The FDA has provided guidelines on postmarketing adverse experience reporting for human drug and licensed biological products, which would include vaccines. These guidelines aim to clarify what types of adverse experiences need to be reported to the FDA for further evaluation​​. source
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):

VAERS is a national vaccine safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It collects and analyzes reports of adverse events following vaccination. Anyone can report adverse events to VAERS, and the system plays a crucial role in monitoring vaccine safety and identifying potential concerns that may warrant further investigation​​. source; source

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance:

The FDA has established a system to monitor about 15 adverse events that have been seen with the deployment of previous vaccines but have yet to be associated with a safety concern for authorized COVID-19 vaccines​​. source

General Safety and Effectiveness of Vaccines:

Vaccines are biological preparations that provide active acquired immunity to specific infectious diseases. The safety and effectiveness of vaccines have been extensively studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins​.

Reporting of Adverse Events:

The reporting of adverse events following vaccination is a structured process that helps health authorities monitor any health problems that may occur post-vaccination. VAERS is an early warning system that relies on individuals and healthcare providers to report adverse events they experience or observe following vaccination​​.
The guidelines and systems in place ensure a structured approach to collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data on adverse events following vaccination. This structured approach helps to ascertain the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, by monitoring for any unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events that might indicate a potential safety concern.

Question: Have any cardiac experts or health authorities commented on the clinical significance of the findings from the Swiss study on heart risk post COVID-19 vaccination?

The clinical significance of the slightly elevated blood level of proteins indicative of heart injury post-vaccination, as found in the Swiss study, has been discussed and analyzed by various experts and health authorities. Here's a consolidated view based on various sources:

Interpretation of Findings:

The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) of Singapore provided an interpretation of the findings from the Swiss study. It noted that the study defined heart injury based solely on increased troponin levels, which are a marker for possible heart injury. However, increased troponin levels are not necessarily a cause for concern, especially if there are no other corresponding signs or symptoms. The increase in troponin levels observed in the study was described as mild and transient, similar to what could be observed after strenuous physical activities. Importantly, none of the cases had any abnormal electrocardiograph (ECG) changes or developed any major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of vaccination, thus the observed increased troponin levels should not be interpreted as amounting to heart injury or myocarditis following vaccination​​. source

Comparison with COVID-19 Infection Risk:

The risk of developing myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, is reportedly seven times higher with a COVID-19 infection than with the COVID-19 vaccine. This comparison highlights the relative safety of the vaccine compared to the risks associated with a COVID-19 infection​2​. Additionally, a large study showcased that there is no increased risk of pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia in the 1-28 days after vaccination, except after the second dose of a Moderna vaccine​​. source

Misinterpretation and Exaggeration:

Some posts have exaggerated the significance of the Swiss study, with false claims circulating about the study linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis or causing myocarditis in one in 35 people. These claims were debunked, clarifying that the study found elevated levels of troponin (which is not the same as having myocarditis) in one in 35 participants, and did not show an 800-fold increase in myocarditis in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. source

General Consensus:

The general consensus among the medical community and health authorities is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh the known risks, including the rare risk of myocarditis. The mild and transient nature of the elevated protein levels, along with the absence of serious cardiac adverse events in the Swiss study, aligns with this consensus.
These evaluations and comparisons emphasize the importance of understanding the relative risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and caution against misinterpretation or exaggeration of isolated study findings.

Debunking Dr. Campbell's claims:

Swiss Study on Heart Risk and COVID-19 Vaccination:

Dr. Campbell correctly reports that the Swiss study found a slightly elevated blood level of a protein that can be a marker of heart injury in a small percentage of people after a COVID-19 booster. However, he fails to mention that the study also found that none of the participants had any serious heart damage. Additionally, other experts have said that the findings are unlikely to be clinically significant.

In other words, the Swiss study does not provide any evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine causes serious heart damage.

Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring Document:

The Pfizer document that Dr. Campbell discusses is a safety monitoring report that is submitted to the FDA on a regular basis. The report lists all adverse events that have been reported after vaccination, regardless of whether or not they are caused by the vaccine.

Dr. Campbell claims that the fact that the document lists so many adverse events is evidence that the vaccine is not safe. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of adverse events reported to the FDA are mild and go away on their own. Additionally, the report does not provide any information about the severity of the adverse events or whether or not they were actually caused by the vaccine.

In other words, the Pfizer safety monitoring report does not provide any evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe.

Ivermectin as Treatment for COVID-19:

Dr. Campbell is correct that randomized controlled trials have not found ivermectin to be beneficial in treating COVID-19. However, he also claims that the results of ongoing studies will provide a more definitive answer.

This is simply not true. Ivermectin has been studied extensively as a potential treatment for COVID-19, and the results have been overwhelmingly negative. A recent meta-analysis of 70 randomized controlled trials found that ivermectin had no effect on the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19.

In other words, there is no evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.

Comparison of Historical and COVID-19 Vaccines:

Dr. Campbell is correct that the 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign in the United States and the Rotashield vaccine were both withdrawn from the market due to safety concerns. However, he fails to mention that these concerns were based on very rare and serious side effects, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

In contrast, the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine are generally mild and go away on their own. Additionally, the COVID-19 vaccine has been rigorously tested and is one of the safest vaccines ever developed.

In other words, there is no comparison between the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine and the safety of the swine flu and Rotashield vaccines.

Conclusion:

Dr. Campbell's claims about the COVID-19 vaccine are not supported by scientific evidence. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, and it is the best way to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

com os efeitos da "vacinação" em andamento a todo o vapor...   

A noção de raça tem sido um tema historicamente controverso e continua a suscitar debates na sociedade contemporânea. No entanto, um conjunto substancial de provas científicas desmistificou o conceito de raça biológica, sublinhando que os seres humanos partilham globalmente 99,9% do seu ADN, tal como revelado pelo Projeto Genoma Humano. Apesar das diferenças físicas superficiais, não existem variações genéticas significativas entre diferentes grupos de pessoas que justifiquem classificações raciais. Este texto analisa as perspectivas científicas, históricas e sociais que contestam o conceito biológico de raça e explora as ramificações das categorizações raciais.

1. Similaridade genética: O Projeto Genoma Humano realçou a extensa semelhança genética entre os seres humanos, pondo em causa quaisquer alegações de raças biológicas distintas.

2. Falta de marcadores biológicos únicos: Não há um único elemento biológico exclusivo para qualquer grupo racial, tornando a classificação racial em biologia inviável.

3. A utilização da "raça" como categoria biológica na investigação biomédica atribui erradamente as diferenças nos resultados a propriedades biológicas.

4. Classificações Genéticas Erradas: Pesquisas recentes ressaltam as classificações genéticas erradas usadas para categorizar os humanos em raças e sugerem que os avanços na genética podem em breve tornar essas classificações obsoletas.

5. Não há base genética ou científica para a raça: As descobertas do Projeto Genoma Humano reiteraram que a raça não tem base genética ou científica.

Mau uso histórico do conceito de raça: O conceito de raça teve origem durante os séculos XVI e XVII, principalmente para justificar a escravização dos povos africanos. Ao longo do tempo, este conceito foi manipulado para validar outras formas de opressão, como o colonialismo e o apartheid.

A raça como construção social: A raça é agora amplamente vista como uma construção social desprovida de significado biológico, uma perspetiva que está a ganhar força dentro da comunidade científica. Este ponto de vista defende o abandono do conceito biológico de raça em favor de uma compreensão mais matizada da diversidade genética humana.

Desmascarar os estereótipos raciais e a "pureza racial": Numerosos estereótipos e mitos em torno da raça, inteligência, capacidade atlética e outras características foram desmascarados pela investigação genética. Para além disso, a noção de "pureza racial" é um mito, sendo que todos os seres humanos têm ascendência mista devido à migração histórica e à mistura.

Cratering motor fuel sales in Norway show the death spiral that can end oil

It’s common knowledge that Norway is the land of electric cars and that the country keeps breaking EV sales records with virtually no new fossil vehicle sales. But what’s really important is the effect those EVs are having on oil sales, which are in steep decline in the country as a result – and the same thing could happen elsewhere.

Norwegian statistics agency SSB released its latest numbers on motor fuel sales today, showing a whopping 9% decline in motor fuel sales year-over-year for the month of September.

This is a result of Norway’s world-leading EV sales, with over 90% of new vehicles in the country having some sort of plug and vanishingly few having no electrification at all. The country has exceeded its own high expectations, virtually ending fossil vehicle sales years ahead of schedule.

However, there are still fossil vehicles on the road from previous years that are continuing to pollute and use fossil fuels throughout their lifecycle. But as they age and are replaced almost solely with EVs, the vehicle fleet cycles out from fossil to electric. If it takes 10-15 years for the vehicle fleet to cycle out, then that means Norway would remove ~6-10% of fossil cars from the road every year, replace them with electric cars, and thus reduce motor fuel usage by a similar amount every year.

But this trend is nothing particularly new. While this big 9% drop is just a one-month snapshot, petrol/gasoline sales have been in decline for about two decades in the country, as diesel started to replace petrol in the mid-2000s. But diesel has also been in decline for the better part of a decade, as electricity has replaced it as a motor fuel.

To compare against other rapid declines, US coal usage has gone from a peak of 1,045 million tons in 2007 to 469 million tons in 2022, a decline of about 5% per year (and going from ~50% of the US electricity mix to ~20% now, and dropping). Many observers acknowledged, even near the beginning of this trend, that coal was a dead industry. Any subsequent attempts to expand it have been unserious political stunts that were doomed to fail from the start – everyone (with a brain) knows the industry is dead.

But in that context, Norway’s decline in motor fuel sales seems to be happening almost twice as fast on a percentage basis as the United States’ decline in coal use, at least according to today’s data point. And the long-term trend may accelerate as the country now has virtually no gas vehicle sales.

This is important because when we talk about electrifying the auto industry, the point is not just to get people into better cars with neat new technology. The point is to reduce oil consumption, such that carbon that belongs underground stays there – permanently.

This is vitally important because if we burned even a fraction of all the oil that is already discovered and owned by oil companies, the carbon released would cause catastrophic climate change. This was covered in Bill McKibben’s excellent 2012 article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”

The only way we can avoid this fate is through one of the more wonderful phrases in the English language: “stranded assets.” In this context, the phrase refers to oil reserves owned by oil companies which get written off of those companies’ books because they are uneconomical to extract and sell.

In short, oil companies need to lose money, and lots of them need to go bankrupt.

And while Norway is just one relatively small country, news like this shows how that could happen as EV sales (and better yet, even cleaner methods of transportation like e-bikes and public transit) grow rapidly worldwide.

Oil demand -> oil prices -> oil supply
There is an interplay between oil demand, oil prices, and oil supply that could lead to a death spiral for the oil industry.

Lately, oil prices have been quite high around the world, nearing the historic highs of the 2010s and late 70s. This spike has largely been driven by pandemic-related supply (and demand) disruptions, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and, as always, the decisions of Saudi Arabia (in this case, their decision to cut supply to buoy oil prices).

But looking back to the last peak, we can see another interesting thing: a giant drop in oil prices in the mid-2010s, which was driven by a “supply glut.” This supply glut was at least partially related to increased usage of hybrid and electric cars, which led to a relatively small decrease in oil demand. However, that small decrease meant that more oil was being pumped than used, which led prices to drop by about two-thirds in a matter of months.

The effect of oil prices on consumer demand is that as oil prices go up, usage (often) goes down, and interest in electric cars goes up. This stands to reason, as people start thinking about more efficient vehicles when the cost of fueling their vehicle becomes too much.

But the effect on supply is less popularly examined. In this case, low oil prices can actually be environmentally advantageous because it means that oil companies are less incentivized to explore new methods of extraction and that more expensive methods (such as tar sands extraction, which is also much more environmentally costly) become uneconomical.

If it costs more to extract the oil than the oil is worth, then the project won’t get started. And if the project doesn’t get started, then the oil stays in the ground to begin with, right where it belongs.

So, in a way, low oil prices can actually be better for the environment than high oil prices. This means fewer projects get started, and more projects and companies go bankrupt due to high costs and low profits.

And this is the spiral that we want to see. As the primary driver of oil demand (vehicles, specifically consumer vehicles) disappears, oil prices can drop because of this supply-demand imbalance. Then, there will be less reason for companies to extract oil in the first place, leading to the stranded assets we spoke of before.

Some regions with low cost of extraction might even prefer it this way and work to ensure this happens. The Middle East can extract oil for cheaper than anywhere else, so it could be to their benefit to put high-cost extraction methods out of business. Norway itself is an oil country (primarily for export, at this point) and has middling oil-extraction costs, but it may benefit in the short term from a shakeout of higher-cost countries. But ideally, Norway’s extraction would soon become uneconomical – and hopefully, so will Saudi Arabia’s.

Elon Musk’s dad, 76, confirms secret second child — with his stepdaughter

Elon Musk’s lusty dad, Errol, has finally revealed he sired a secret second love child with his glamorous stepdaughter, Jana Bezuidenhout.

The Musk patriarch, 76, welcomed the baby girl with Jana, 35, back in 2019 — but only confirmed the news on Wednesday, bragging to the Sun: “The only thing we are on Earth for is to reproduce.”

The two already share a 5-year-old boy, Elliot Rush, born in 2017.

Errol clearly shares his most famous son’s hearty desire to procreate, with his admission coming just a week after it was revealed Elon fathered two children with an executive at his artificial intelligence company Neuralink, weeks before his second child with ex-girlfriend Grimes was born.

Errol admitted Jana’s pregnancy was “unplanned” and told the publication that they are no longer living together, citing their 41-year age gap.

“It’s not practical. She’s 35,” Errol declared. “Eventually if I’m still around, she might wind up back with me.”

He added: “Any man who marries a [younger] woman, even if you feel very sprightly, it’s going to be nice for a while, but there’s a big gap … and that gap is going to show itself.”

The Musk family tree is complicated — and is growing more so by the day. Errol has seven children, while Elon has fathered 10 offspring.

Errol — who is a wealthy South African engineer — married model Maye Haldeman Musk in 1970, with whom he had three children: Elon, Kimbal and Tosca.

The couple split in 1979, before Errol went on to wed Heide Bezuidenhout, a young widow who already had two children, including Jana.

Errol and Heide had two biological children together, but he also helped raise Jana, who was just 4 years old when he became her stepfather. Errol and Heide eventually divorced after an 18-year marriage.

But the Musk family was subsequently stunned when Jana became pregnant with Errol’s baby back in 2017. It led to a bitter falling out between Errol and Elon, with the Tesla CEO furious that his father had impregnated his stepsister.

Errol’s other children were also “shocked” and uncomfortable about the surprise pregnancy.

“They still don’t like it,” Errol admitted in his new interview with the Sun. “They still feel a bit creepy about it, because she’s their sister. Their half-sister.”

Elon has not publicly commented on his father’s latest baby admission. The pair are still estranged, with Elon describing his dad as a “terrible human being” in an interview with Rolling Stone.

The Post has reached out to the Tesla CEO for comment.

Errol now has seven children, and hasn't ruled out the possibility of more, despite his advanced age.

Errol now has seven children and hasn’t ruled out the possibility of more, despite his advanced age: “If I could have another child, I would. I can’t see any reason not to.”

Jana was raised by Errol, who became her stepfather when she was just four years old. The Musk family was stunned in 2017 when she became pregnant with Errol's child.

Errol and Jana’s son, born in 2017, is named Elliot Rush and is nicknamed “Rushi.” Errol has not disclosed the name of their daughter, who was born in 2019.

Despite the fact they are no longer a couple, Errol said Jana and their two young children have come to stay at his home in Pretoria, South Africa.

“They spent a few days here about six months ago. And the kids were starting to get on my nerves,” he candidly stated. “Then I miss them as soon as they have gone.”

Jana is pictured with her and Errol’s older child, son Elliot Rush. The name of their now-3-year-old daughter has not been disclosed. Errol admitted that he hadn’t asked Jana for a paternity test to make sure he was the father, saying: “I haven’t checked her DNA. But she looks just like my other daughters … So it’s pretty obvious, you know.”

However, the wealthy businessman stated that there are other women claiming that he has also fathered their children.

“I have about six people, women who claim that their child is my child right now. Obviously they are opportunists,” he stated. “[But] there was a period in Johannesburg in the ’80s that I was going out with a different woman every night. I had plenty of dates. So it’s quite conceivable that one of them could actually come back and say, ‘This is your child.’ It’s possible.”

Meanwhile, the elderly patriarch says he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of having more children in the future: “If I could have another child, I would. I can’t see any reason not to.”

Errol admits his older children were not happy about the fact he and his former stepdaughter, Jana, fell pregnant.
Indeed, Errol (officially) has fewer children than his most famous son, Elon, 51, who is now a father of 10.

The Tesla CEO confirmed last week that he fathered twins with Shivon Zilis, a 36-year-old executive at his brain chip company Neuralink.

“Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis,” Musk tweeted out last Thursday. “A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.”

The twins — whose names have not been disclosed — were born just weeks before Musk welcomed his second child, Exa Dark Sideræl, with Canadian pop star Grimes.

Musk has fathered 10 children. The Tesla CEO last week confirmed he welcomed twins with an exec at one of his companies.
Musk and Grimes also have 2-year-old son X Æ A-Xii.

The world’s richest man first became a father back in 2002, welcoming a son named Nevada with then-wife Justine Wilson.

Tragically, the baby boy died just 10 weeks later from sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS.

Elon and Justine went on to have five more children, twins Vivian and Griffin and triplets Kai, Saxon and Damian, before their divorce in 2008.