more asbestos! more asbestos! more asbestos!

This is not as impressive as old archive video of bridges being built. Early on, they used rivets instead of bolts, and rivets have to be glowing hot when they are inserted, then as they cool it holds the beam together.

Well, they couldn't bring the oven up to the work area (too heavy), so they would heat the rivets on the ground, then throw them up to the point where they are working. The rivet pitcher pulled one rivet out of the oven with metal tongs and tossed it up to the catcher, wearing some kind of heat shielding gloves (likely asbestos) who would then place it in the hole, and a 3rd guy with a sledgehammer would pound it in, usually 1 swing. This whole process took about 1 second. Was pretty amazing to watch, and to think how many rivets went into a whole bridge...(my guess is several hundred thousand rivets)

I couldn't find a similar video on youtube, I saw it on PBS a few years back.

(oh, for those that haven't seen an iron/steel bridge up close... these are big heavy rivets, probably 1" diameter and several inches long.)

^
If the question posed was not "how should we deal with trolls" and instead was "how should we cope with ice buildup on aircraft wings at high altitude?" do you think intelligence has a role in that argument? How about if the question was "how should we route the plumbing in this house" would knowledge be important there? This is a clear example of Parkinson's Law of Triviality, which has become one of my favorite laws, and is something I had not heard of before this site and only learned through reading dgandhi's comments. Here is the explanation from wiki:

"Parkinson dramatizes his Law of Triviality with a committee's deliberations on a nuclear power plant, compared to deliberation on a bicycle shed. While discussing the bikeshed, debate emerges over whether the best choice of roofing is aluminium, asbestos or galvanised iron, then over whether the shed is a good idea or not. The committee then moves on to coffee purchasing, a discussion that results in the biggest waste of time and the most acrimony.

A nuclear reactor is so vastly expensive and complicated that people cannot understand it, so they assume that those working on it understand it. Even those with strong opinions might withhold them for fear of being shown to be insufficiently informed. On the other hand, everyone understands a bicycle shed (or thinks he does), so building one can result in endless discussions: everyone involved wants to add his touch and show that he is there."

You think that intellect or knowledge is irrelevant in discussion yet you would not say this is true for the building of a nuclear power plant, so how can you justify it for seemingly mundane discussions such as the creation of regulatory policy to inhibit trolling? Or any other topic that is discussed.

It is quite frustrating for people to consider intelligence as some kind of taboo like religion, that intelligence is somehow different than artistic or athletic ability. Do you think michael jordan is a snob because he is better than everyone at basketball? Do you think mozart was a snob because he is gifted with a piano? If you lined up jordan with joe six-pack and stated that one was good and one was bad at basketball would that make you a snob? How about if you stated that 85% of people are average or worse at basketball, while only 2% or less are NBA caliber?

You have perverted the usage of the word snob; being a snob is essentially being prejudiced. Its riding around on a high horse thinking you are better than others because you are better at a particular quality--it is not merely thinking that you are better than others at that quality. Subtle? Yes. Going around claiming you are smarter than others is not snobbery (its confidence or lunacy), going around claiming you are better than others because you are smarter than others is snobbery.

If you think that pointing out an inequality is snobbery, then it is your prejudice that is showing. Nobody should apologize for their intelligence just as nobody should apologize for their lack of intelligence. If you think that intelligence is somehow more important than musical talent, athletic ability, comedic presence, or any other human quality you have an inherent bias or prejudice towards others. Are you upset that other people can hula hoop 1000 times longer than you, if not, why are you upset that other people are smarter than you? How is a nuclear engineer any more gifted than a master carpenter, unless you value one quality over the other?

How do you feel about racial prejudice? Then you understand how I feel about all prejudice, including prejudice against intellect. What motivates people to force other races to drink from separate water fountains is the same thing which motivates people to force other people to a certain salary. You don't limit an artist or NBA player to a salary, so why do you think it is okay to limit a CEO to such? The principle is the same when holding contempt for someone because of a quality, such as intelligence.

Am I saying I'm smart? No, I never made that claim. All I pointed out was that burdtugler wasn't following a clear line of reasoning. Why am I chastised for pointing out the flaws in others arguments, especially if they are making a direct attack against me? Why am I chastised for asserting that others claims are false or bad, if they are not chastised for asserting that they are true or good? If joe big-mac calls nasa and suggest they duct tape blow dryers to the side of the space shuttle to clear wing ice, what would their reply be? There may not be stupid questions, but there are stupid answers. Remember stupid is a relative term. Monkeys are stupid when compared to humans, but smart when compared to slugs. Humans are only stupid in comparison to other humans. If there are 10 suggestions on how to deal with trolls, some of them have to be stupid(er) unless they are all the same idea.

If you deny the existence of inequality, you are living with either your eyes or mind shut. If everyone was equal, this life would be so boring you'd have to stand in line to jump off the nearest bridge.

This is the movie clip and not the music video, which I only discovered after I fixed the embed. But since there's likely not a huge demand to see this music video and since this sift is 18 months old and bnrz never followed up on it...then you have my full permission to sue me.

Oh, and Siftbot was made in China with lead paint and asbestos.

Hey, it's what I heard.

>> ^MINK:
>> ^jwray:
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.

people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.


The problem with your angry stance is that is ANYONE tried to run for office and go straight for the 'stop eating meat', do you think they'd get into office?

Hmm?

Do you?

No, of course they bloody wouldn't, so what would be the friggen point of running with that? What's the point of running with 'Stop eating meat', that will instantly put off a huge number of people (including myself, I'm very, very pro environment, wish the government would start spending some big bloody money on it, don't care if it hurts us financially at the moment, because it'll be a win in the long run)? All that'd do is not get said person elected.

Brilliant plan.

I'd MUCH prefer someone who takes the steps they can get away with, slowly ramping up the scale of changes as people get used to them. You start off small, or start off with big things that don't directly affect people's way of life, and then slowly introduce those things that require people to change their behaviour. It's the only way you're going to be able to be in power and do ANYTHING.

So stop with the 'Well, if he isn't prepared to ban all cars, make everyone vegans and insist that people only breath out on alternating days, then I won't vote for him'. It's insane logic.

And it just smacks of you trying to be a smartass and saying 'look, I think I know something you don't, meat production causes lots of environmental impact'. If you think it's so damn important, you run for office with that as your lead policy and see how far you get.

>> ^jwray:
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.


people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.

Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.

so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.

gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.

Those guys are fools for breathing in that debris. There's tons of chemicals and possibly asbestos in that smoke.

“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.

“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.

-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001


Analysis of dust samples
heavy Metals
Murcury
Asbestos
the cocktail was extremely alkaline +/-15)


The government (EPA) assured no health risks-(falsehoods, lies)
The NIST ruled out controlled demo as a possibility and DID NOT INVESTIGAT based on this premise....

7 yrs later, and nobody gives a fiddlers fuck enough to re-open the case and leave it to public scrutiny??? Even if we could, too late to prove anything based on evidence, which has all nut been conveniently destroyed.

People are still dying from the toxins they breathed in that day.

returned to this post to see hwo chime in-
As always, JAPR showing the ass.....

MG, Eric found http://www.videosift.com/video/Fluoride-Deception-Toxic-like-asbestos-and-lead#comment-242764 considered it awesome, and reproduced it in a maner making it clear that he is not the author, adn also, which provided those of us like me who are VS link nerds with the way to find said original source.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^critttter:
Mighty satisfying! I wonder what's in that dust?


50% Asbestos / 50% Legionaire's disease.

You're a girl after my own heart, laura. Asbestos dildos: Now those were pleasuring devices that you could count on. They just don't make them like they used to.

I will not rest until I find vintage footage of the manufacturing processes of cock rings and butt plugs.

*clap clap clap*

By the way, I loved your "Anesthetist's Hymn" sift. I was watching it, then looked at your username, then looked at the sift, then looked at your name, and said, "OHHHHHHH...."

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

"...so easy even your brain dead, lead-poisoned, asbestos breathing children can make it."

[Krupo puts on asbestos suit]
How is abortion a human right? You must have the right to kill babies now? Wild.

There are much cheaper methods of birth control, some actually sanctioned by the Church, you know.
[/asbestos suit]

Looris, I appreciate your insights into the Italian situation, but the Catholic church is but one of many voices in pluralistic countries like Canada, and is hardly the same here.