Northrop Grumman? Why do we need a military contractor landing on the moon? There can be only one answer; the first lunar war is coming. I can only assume that NASA has discovered life on the surface. I, for one, would gladly serve in the 1st hopping infantry in our glorious struggle against the moon beasts.

seems like a very reasonable expectation of acceleration effects and the three stage rocket involved is pretty impressive for forty years before man landed on the moon.

Where is the news crawler at the bottom of the screen, making sure that while you're watching a man land on the moon you can also check your stocks, learn what prescription medication is killing you and find out that tornados are destroying homes in Tornado Alley yet again?

Soooooooooo landing on the moon is JUST LIKE obama being elected... ok.

We're slowly becoming a multi-planets species. Yes, landing on the moon was a big deal.

I was thinking about the subject of national achievements the other day. One hundred years ago, people were for the most part not using internal combustion for transportation. In the fifty years hence, amazing advances took place. However, it seems at first glance to have tapered off since the late 60s.

My two cents: First off, we can thank the Cold War for the space race and our landing on the Moon. Second, Mars rovers anyone? That was a pretty fucking amazing feat! Third, IMO, most national (and global) achievements haven't been as outwardly observable as past achievements. For example: the internet. Personal computing. Nanotechnology. Miniaturization of every conceivable electronic device. They are all amazing achievements, but they aren't as sensational as a trip to the moon.

>> ^MINK:
if economics was a science it would fucking work better.


Well I'll agree with you there, what is currently being practiced as economics in the US is not science.

It would, however, be incorrect to state that economics is not a science. There are many useful economic hypotheses which make very accurate predictions. By in large, we just don't utilize them in the US; we warp them with philosophy and politics for personal gain, turning them into little more than conjecture. Why should you blame science when people implement untested conjecture with disastrous results?

We didn't land on the moon with philosophy, politics, or untested conjecture, we got there with Newtonian mechanics. Imagine if, for whatever philosophical or political reasons, people were against Newtonian mechanics and instead chose astrology to guide the space program. How disastrous would that have been? Conjecture is not useful for human endeavors, whats useful is the knowledge we gain from science. You are correct that the philosophical question must be first asked: "should we go to the moon?" But once that is answered, philosophy needs to step aside and let science solve the question of "how?"

You can see how science, philosophy, and politics have been mixed into one great perversion simply by observing questions like "should we bailout large corporations in order to correct the recession?"

“should we bailout large corporations?” is a philosophical question
“a bailout of large corporations can correct a recession” is a scientific hypothesis.

Mixing the two is nonsense.

To put it in perspective, imagine NASA asking "should we use Newtonian mechanics to land on the moon?" or "should we use astrology to calculate our lunar orbits?"

Science does not pose philosophical questions. The proper question for NASA is "does Newtonian mechanics make accurate enough predictions to enable us to land on the moon?"

^ That's true, even though I found it interesting, you can't escape the fact that the presentation is all "we did not land on the moon" type of video.

Why the in your face conspiracy nuts attitude? Speaking for myself, most of the time when I've meet people who believe these conspiracies they have acted as though I'm the biggest most gullible moron on the planet for thinking we landed on the moon. And when I present claims counter to points they are making, suddenly I've been drinking "The man's" koolaid. I've actually lost a friend because of that.

So I guess to put it another way my experiences with moon conspiracy theorists, has never been one about healthy skepticism, its been about taking the skeptical evidence and stretching it around their massive egos so they can feel smarter than everyone else.

Wait... Are you telling me we really DID land on the moon?

>> ^Duckman33:
I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures


You want to check those pictures again professor, on pictures 2 and 4 you can clearly see the scorch marks under the lander. The engine at approach was not powerful enough to create any big crater in the surface of tightly packed regolith, neither is it expected to.

badastronomy.com sums it up rather nicely:

"Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."

rembar you have constructed quite the strawman out of my arguements.go back to the thread we are talking about and you'll see that you ducked out of any real debate long before you got on your high horse. Our original disagreement has always been whether or not posts on the detrimental effects of fluoride should be posted in the science channel. You say "no" for a number of reasons (your comments below have reiterated this over and over.)

but perhaps you have a short memory, so here's the timeline.

rembar removes a video from the science channel before watching all of it.

"you're damn straight I didn't watch this documentary fully through. I only got about halfway through while eating my lunch before I knew I was going to remove it from the Science channel. Note how I didn't vote on the video - I will reserve doing that until or if I finish watching the video, as I typically do. My moderation of the Science channel sifts is separate from my voting."

you stated this about the scientist mentioned in the video

"I'm not disputing Dr. Mullinex's studies, methods, or results thereof. Yet. I haven't been able to dig up his(her) studies, so it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to refer to them in any argument that I would make."

while you say you don't know anything about her studies, you know enough to totally discount her work. (She is a scientist and yet you won't let a video about her in the science channel). And apparently without knowing anything of her study you were able to comment...

"IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL."

you have now made a claim against the scientist and her work mentioned in the video (yet, you've never rebuted any of her work), without actually knowing anything about the scientist or her situation. Here is the lady who you are denigrating.

DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training... In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.

when defending your action of removing it from the science channel, you quoted your own channel description

"In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Since the video was not parody you are implying that is was scientifically INACCURATE, but yet you provided no examples from the clip to back up that assertion. you also stated...

"Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL."

then you go in a different direction...

"I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals.".

this is bullshit as you've just admitted that you didn't kick the video out the content of the video itself. if we are discussing any details of scientific studies / works by accomplished and recognized scientists then the video should be in the science channel, not based on the outcome of me changing your already made up mind about the findings of such studies.

Your claim that I have not presented papers from scientific journals is demonstrably false as I've given you information from
FLUORIDE
Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
and
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
and while not a journal it is a review of the scientific studies that the EPA used to set their standards and which was reviewed by the NRC.
“Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (National Research Council, 2006)

then you got on your high, high horse by stating

Respond to the papers I have cited above and to my comments on them, and show their conclusions to be incorrect. I can't take you seriously until then.

I see, but I'm suppossed to take you seriously when you can't even present a cohesive arguement against the specific claims of the video. then you start with the insults... in response to cyberbeast saying that "The science (of fluoride) is controversial and not settled"

See, that's where they get you, and that's where you're wrong. Just like how all those creationist/intelligent design apologists say, "Oh, evolution is just a theory, there's still a lot of debate in the scientific community," and all the media latches onto that because they want a "balanced" story, not a fair one, and they can't comprehend a story wherein there is no scientifically accepted opposition as they believe it should be (i.e. support for creationism/intelligent design in the scientific community), there is overwhelming support for fluoride in water in the scientific community. Anybody who does work in medicine or public health could tell you that. That's why this video will not be put into the Science channel.

If you're already coming to tell me that "the science is controversial", this video has already done damage, because that is simply not true. I'm not going to lend any of the Science channel's legitimacy to this sift and make it that much worse.

and my three favorite end quotes from you highlighting the best of your character and ego...

"Oh, and yes, it is a pride issue: I take pride in holding the Science channel to a higher standard of scientific accuracy. The day that the Science channel goes the way of this sift is the day I bid adieu to VideoSift. Until then, I'm going to continue cleaning house in my channel and you can stop me when you pull the kick link from my cold, sifting fingers."

"Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist."

"I'm proud, I'm arrogant, and I'm also right. You have no scientific credentials nor any scientific reasoning nor critical thinking skills, which is why I don't take you seriously on this topic. I get paid for work on this, you don't. Guess how much I care about your opinion of me and my scientific thinking?"

_____________________

and you wonder why I won't engage your ego with a debate on the details of the scientific studies. That's not the issue at hand, your ever changing reasons to why you won't let any video about fluoride in your channel is. As your comments indicate, you have already made up your mind what you're going to believe, no matter what evidence is presented to you.

as a last aside. since I've been reading on this topic for the last few years, it's not googlefoo when one has already read the material and has it bookmarked for easy reference.

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

Nice, MG. Rougy, you sound no different than the people who claim we never landed on the moon or <insert other crazy conspiracy here>. You cherry pick details that support your assumptions on the surface, call everyone else blind, and scream from the hill tops about how you're the only one who gets it. Any evidence that contradicts your pre-drawn conclusion is written off as some kind of Bush propaganda to blind people to the "truth." From your comments I am forced to assume that you and sanity parted company a long time ago. I really wouldn't be surprised if your next argument involved aliens, time travel, and the hypno-toad. Don't forget to deliver all your tidbits of scattered information with ominous music, and strap on your tin-foil hat to stop Cheney from stealing your thoughts.

*EDIT* I thought it would also be worth mentioning that it's usually the deceitful that constantly suspect deception *EDIT*

I think it goes without saying that if you say we never landed on the moon, no one will listen to a word you say after that. That is just about the single most debunked conspiracy theories in history. Holding on to that one is like saying the earth is really flat.

Oh, and fyi, it was 2001 choggie, not 1999. Little typo.