>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love it when you talk about bonding, fap fap fap.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^deathcow:
> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.

Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.

When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").
Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.
Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.



Sorry for leaving you in an excited state... I understand it raises the potential for sudden discharge. ;-)

I love it when you talk about bonding, fap fap fap.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^deathcow:
> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.

Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.

When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").
Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.
Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.

>> ^deathcow:

> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.


Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.


When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").

Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.

Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.

She's a satirist first, no doubt, and the target this time was hysteria generated by the drive-by media over threats--both real and imagined--posed by radiation.


>> ^longde:

QM, there is a division of physics, called "health physics" that deals with using different types of radiation to treat disease, and the effects of different types of radiation on the human body.
So, technically speaking, what Ann is saying is true. Exposure to radiation can be helpful as well as harmful.
The flaw in her reasoning (and I don't for a second think she is making a sincere argument) is that "radiation" can be a million different things, across the EM spectrum, and also the emissions of ions and atoms. "Helpful" radiation only describes very specific types, used at very specific intensity, used for very specific durations, etc.
Bill O's geriatric, uneducated audience can't grasp that nuance, and will undoubtedly think that standing in front of Chernobyl will get rid of arthritis.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From the actual column: "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Not exactly announcing THE DEBATE IS OVER like the hoaxers pushing man-made global warming hysteria.

But standing in front of Chernobyl WOULD cure arthritis, along with all other pain... forever and ever and ever. >> ^longde:

QM, there is a division of physics, called "health physics" that deals with using different types of radiation to treat disease, and the effects of different types of radiation on the human body.
So, technically speaking, what Ann is saying is true. Exposure to radiation can be helpful as well as harmful.
The flaw in her reasoning (and I don't for a second think she is making a sincere argument) is that "radiation" can be a million different things, across the EM spectrum, and also the emissions of ions and atoms. "Helpful" radiation only describes very specific types, used at very specific intensity, used for very specific durations, etc.
Bill O's geriatric, uneducated audience can't grasp that nuance, and will undoubtedly think that standing in front of Chernobyl will get rid of arthritis.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From the actual column: "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Not exactly announcing THE DEBATE IS OVER like the hoaxers pushing man-made global warming hysteria.

QM, there is a division of physics, called "health physics" that deals with using different types of radiation to treat disease, and the effects of different types of radiation on the human body.

So, technically speaking, what Ann is saying is true. Exposure to radiation can be helpful as well as harmful.

The flaw in her reasoning (and I don't for a second think she is making a sincere argument) is that "radiation" can be a million different things, across the EM spectrum, and also the emissions of ions and atoms. "Helpful" radiation only describes very specific types, used at very specific intensity, used for very specific durations, etc.

Bill O's geriatric, uneducated audience can't grasp that nuance, and will undoubtedly think that standing in front of Chernobyl will get rid of arthritis.


>> ^quantumushroom:

From the actual column: "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Not exactly announcing THE DEBATE IS OVER like the hoaxers pushing man-made global warming hysteria.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

A fair statement, and I understand and tend to agree with where you're coming from.. I chose to challenge you only because I am familiar with the work that IONS (the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded based, partly, on this original seminal experience), and the research they do on the paraliminal levels of consciousness and the expanded ranges of human potential. I'm quite familiar with the scientific rigor with which they approach such research and the basis upon which they rely on multiple ways of "knowing," that does not simply base all knowledge on logic and reason, but also on phenomenal experience, qualitative understanding, and intuitive inquiry. There are multiple approaches to epistemology that include and extend beyond mere logic and reason -- and the scientific wisdom it yields just as valid, reliable, and valuable to attained human knowledge.

Personally, I understand Mitchell's quote as a form of "received" wisdom, not unlike Rene Descarte's vision of the "Angel of Truth" which ultimately gave rise to the cogito ergo sum, Archimedes' moment of Eureka which served as the basis fo displacement as a measurement of density, or Sir Isaac Newton's revelation of mathematics as encapsulating the laws of universal physics.


>> ^WKB:

>> ^Trancecoach:
And on which form of epistemology do you base that statement?
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
I think Mitchell's use of the term, "divinity" refers to the force or power inherent in humanity's reason and capacities to acquire knowledge, rather than in the "magic" of one's faith in a deity.
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
My sense is that a lot of our international issues can be resolved after a critical mass of people make it out of Earth's gravity and are able to look down on its fragile state from above...
Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell said about the experience of spaceflight, "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly."

The first half of your statement I agree with in absolute completeness. Understanding our vulnerable situation is indeed reason to work together to ensure the survival of us all.
While I am no astronaut, I could not disagree more with the second half. I think that contemplating the fragile nature of life on this planet and the amazing accomplishments our species has accumulated is a reason to celebrate our knowledge, not our faith. Reason, evidence, and knowledge is what has allowed us to even contemplate this issue. Faith has done nothing to solve the problems of leaving the atmosphere, surviving the vacuum, achieving a stable orbit, or reentering the world safely. To suddenly take the amazement of life as we now understand it, thanks to science, and chalk it all up to some divine magic seems insulting to the knowledge, reason, and human intellect that has gotten us here.


I really doubt that based on the context of the statement. "Life wasn't an accident based on random processes," "the knowledge came to me directly,"... sounds like magic talk to me.


I had to look that word up to make sure I knew what the heck it means. I'm not sure where the nature of knowledge comes into it. I am simply pointing out that it seems to me that the ideas Mitchell brings up in the very sentence in which he uses the word divinity are evidence to support the idea that he is talking about a divine creator. (Which is what I meant by, 'magic,' no offense intended.) I see no evidence that he is using the word divinity to celebrate humanity's reason and capacity to acquire knowledge based on the provided quote. I have great admiration for Edgar Mitchel, and anyone who risks their life to help expand human understanding of the universe as he did, but that particular quote of his seemed to me to ring hollow.

Fisheries policy, like the agricultural policy, is all about individual countries trying to protect the jobs of their people. Too many short term politicians pandering to their electorate result in too many short term decisions against the long term sustainability of our fisheries, which we're really going to need come 2050 when the world population hits 9 billion.

Fishermen are still behaving like hunters roaming further and further afield when they can't find fish locally, instead of acting like responsible farmers who have to protect their land if they want it to continue producing food. Except that irresponsible farmers are over-using fertilizers and herb/pesticides which are washing off into the ocean, some of which act like fish hormones decreasing their ability to reproduce, and others create oxygen depleted algal blooms in which fish can't live.

Sometimes I wish I had an orbital ion cannon and a C&C interface to the world. Then we'd see who makes stupid decisions on my watch...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by AdrianBlack.

I've always thought that the drugs we use to treat ADD and ADHD are some of the main factors in the increasing number of ADD and ADHD patients. As it turns out the parents of these children really don't want anything other than their children, who are simply acting like children, to calm down. Those parents think that ADD/ADHD medicat...ions do that, so they demand those medications from their physicians.

The problem is, as most of the comments so far seem to understand, that ADD/ADHD medications are stimulants. Children who actually have sensation receptor problems seem hyperactive because they must speak loudly, and slap things instead of touching them, just to receive the same sensation that a child without ADD/ADHD does. Stimulate the child that actually has ADD/ADHD and the treatment is successful in a high percentage of cases, but stimulate the child who actually does not have ADD/ADHD then you have only increased the supposed hyperactivity of that child.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think whether or not "progress" automatically implies positive goals is irrelevant. Let's substitute "change". Can we agree that "change" is an emotionally-neutral equivalent?
He's saying it's inaccurate to say blacks have changed because, again, it implies that they were doing something wrong in the past and now, because they've changed, we treat them as equals.
They haven't changed, whites have. Blacks have not stopped doing things wrong, whites have.
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement
Context be damned!
His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.
>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


The words that you put into his mouth reach the point he was failing to make very well. I actually think YOU are missing the context of the definition. The advancement means "advancement" towards a goal. The "development" is development towards a goal. (see my original comment) I'm still not buying this emotional connotation that "progress" means "moving away from something we consider bad".
You know cancer progresses, right? This is an emotional connotation that he is affixing and then attacking. If he's referring to people who consider "progress" to mean something different to its actual definition as he describes it, then at least he could say that's who he's addressing?



The problem i have here is that he's NOT saying "change". You are, and you're right, and i agree with what you're saying, but chris rock did not say that.

I think whether or not "progress" automatically implies positive goals is irrelevant. Let's substitute "change". Can we agree that "change" is an emotionally-neutral equivalent?

He's saying it's inaccurate to say blacks have changed because, again, it implies that they were doing something wrong in the past and now, because they've changed, we treat them as equals.

They haven't changed, whites have. Blacks have not stopped doing things wrong, whites have.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement
Context be damned!
His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.
>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


The words that you put into his mouth reach the point he was failing to make very well. I actually think YOU are missing the context of the definition. The advancement means "advancement" towards a goal. The "development" is development towards a goal. (see my original comment) I'm still not buying this emotional connotation that "progress" means "moving away from something we consider bad".
You know cancer progresses, right? This is an emotional connotation that he is affixing and then attacking. If he's referring to people who consider "progress" to mean something different to its actual definition as he describes it, then at least he could say that's who he's addressing?