To answer your question in the description, the waste water contains phosphogypsum which is a radioactive byproduct from the production of phosphate (sulphuric acid is reacted with phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid used for fertilizer production).

The radioactivity comes from naturally occurring uranium and radium in the phosphate ore. Central Florida phosphogypsum averages 26 pCi/g radium, and the EPA prohibites its use, but further north in Florida the phosphogypsum has an average concentration of less than 10 pCi/g radium which can be used as an agricultural amendment, but for no other use.

Also, the European news that I saw reported 980 million litres of contaminated water which is only slightly higher than the 225 million u.s. gallons reported elsewhere.

I remember Neal Stephenson touching on this in his Baroque Cycle trilogy. In the book, they boiled urine to make phosphorous, and then used it as molotov cocktails if memory serves.

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

It's probably not as economical and convenient as white phosphorous.

My father was a physicist, and he told me a story (mind you, a great deal of his stories were apocryphal and he died before they could be sorted out--which is why I feel justified in claiming my great grandmother was Irish royalty and my great grandfather was an armless gypsy horse acrobat... but I digress). Anyways, he claimed that for a time in Spain there was a company marketing cigarette lighters that used white phosphorous so that you could merely flip the lid open, exposing a small amount to the air igniting it, and very suavely light a ladies cigarette for her. Unfortunately, sometimes the seals would fail while in a man's trouser pocket, which is where the slang "willy peter" comes from.

Right, fine, and some metal (phosphorous for example) burn really well.

I misspoke, but a gun barrel does not "burst into flames" under any conditions.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

The right answer is noninterventionism, in my opinion. And sanctions aren't diplomatic solutions. They are acts of war on a sovereign country, which usually results in starving its people, which creates resentment.

Here's some reasons why noninterventionism is so important. First, bombing campaigns usually create collateral damage, and the funny thing about people, they tend to hate you when you kill their moms or sons or wives or friends. For reference, please refer to 9/11 in the U.S.

Secondly, Syria is having a civil war. How'd the U.S. like it if Britain supported the Confederacy during its civil war?

Thirdly, supporting the rebels is essentially being al-Qaeda's air force. Yeah, remember those guys? The guys who flew planes into our buildings? I don't think we should support them.

Fourth, our sudden pious indignation is misplaced, and worse, selective. I didn't hear one person in the U.S. calling to bomb Israel when they used white phosphorous on Palestinian women and children.

Fifth, you know exactly what is really fueling the march into Syria. It's not a humanitarian intervention, it's about oil. Syria doesn't want to trade their oil in U.S. dollars. Neither does Iran. If we allow the U.S. to bomb Syria, we will soon be marching into Tehran.

Sixth, who made us world police?

Lastly, it's not like we couldn't be spending that money at home fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our people. I think feeding the homeless here is way more important than making people homeless in other countries from bomb campaigns.

I'm wondering how much their cobalt, phosphorous, oxygen, nickel, molybdenum, and zinc cost.
What does he mean "light harvesting infrastructure"? It seemed the whole idea was it removes the need for infrastructure and allows a small setup to make enough power for a small home.
The obvious issue seems to be the cost of a fuel cell that can power a home which probably means it will not ever be cost effective over solar cells/turbine/micro-hydro and batteries/flywheel/hydro storage.
Neat though.

you sure its not the phosphoric acid in the soda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid#In_soft_drinks

http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/06/30/11-quick-facts-about-phosphoric-acid-yes-that-chemical-in-coca-cola/

Ugh.. "Quantum Physics", theres that buzzword used where it has no place again. you could just as well have said "this is Advanced plumbing come to life", as you clearly have no idea what quantum mechanics is.

Look, its not like scientists just ignore consciousness or the brain, we actually know quite a bit about it in general. We know, for instance that our brains are built with the same carbon, hydrogen, phosphorous,oxygen and other elements that make up the other parts of our bodies, and every other living thing on earth. And we know that these elements adhere to the laws of physics, an there is no reason to expect them to be able to break those laws of physics just because they are put together to form a brain.

This hippie pothead stuff about forgotten magical realms that can be reached through shamanism, if you believe that shit, well, go ahead. But it IS pseudoscience, and nonsense to most people who have an actual interest in actual science. Putting people like that on the same stage as actual scientists and thereby lending them the credibility of a platform that is known for presenting actual science, is not a good idea for that platform if they want to keep their status as promoters of science.

I have no problems with you believing this stuff shagen454, and you are clearly passionate about it. more power to you for it. However, you cannot demand I buy into this or "SHUT MY FUCKING MOUTH", Besides everything else, my only point in my first comment was to correct the idea that TED was "banning" this thing, and I only tried to explain that TED considered it unscientific, and why. Theres no need to get all worked up at me for it. Well, atleast you could have waited til after this comment, where I actually spoke my mind more directly.

(*#$&

I am getting a little annoyed at the science behind aquariums.

I know water quality via Ph and Parts per million in dissolved solids.

I put that aquarium salt in the water less than the instructions tell me, and my water shoots up to 850 ppm, which I know is "hard water" . so using this product I can only assume I have made my water hard.

I'll be joining another web based forum for aquariums, as this is blowing my fucking mind out.

It says to use it, but then it does that to my water.... I obviously do not understand tank dynamics fully.

Like hell I am going to be buying distilled water every couple days.

Edit- The PH down I use which is my old Phosphoric Acid, brings the PH down but also adds phosphates, phosphates are bad, Mmmm'Kay ?

My problems came from that I bet. the water hardness I am still figuring out. Very good to know though, I might have to invest in some Hydrochloric/ acid.

>> ^luxury_pie:

But nonetheless he IS drawing a very intimidating picture there. I for one never realized so clearly the "place" we as a human race have in the universe. Besides the fact that he uses outdated or non-accurate scientific references as it seems. Please keep in my mind that this man is a historian and as I see it he doesn't base his whole argument on the laws of thermodynamics rather then his own abstraction of complexity and development.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many if not all of the facts he mentions about the first "steps" of the universe currently accepted facts/ assumptions of astrophysics, if one could say so?
His train of thought seems pretty straight to the point and his conclusion is absolutely true. We are indeed destroying the "goldi-locks-conditions" that led to our existence.


I agree. Yet I wish he would also point out that in the last ten years we've found extreme life in places you'd NEVER expect. This might throw the "goldi-locks-conditions" partially out the window. This year we found life not based on carbon, but phosphorous (this is by rote memory, it may have been sulfur) and even arsenic! We may actually have quite a bit of extra-terrestrial life in our own solar system. Just not sentient (or lacking ways to create incredible machinations of the mind), yet.

What humans need to learn is that we will kill ourselves as WE need that, "goldi-locks-conditions", to live. Almost all current life except the kind I mentioned would be devastated by our actions. We WILL die, and be replaced for a good 4-5 billion years. If we get to one million I'd be surprised.

If you're talking grey-goo stuff though, then I'll give you that...as the most hilarious way to screw ourselves over... I'm just thinking of alien telescopes looking at our planet and wondering WTF is that!?!

/The last bit is my sarcastic bastard side showing through.

>> ^UmberGryphon:
So these people have a defective TV whose screen isn't correctly grounded, causing a buildup of electrons on the phosphor?


Precisely, my dear Watson!

So these people have a defective TV whose screen isn't correctly grounded, causing a buildup of electrons on the phosphor?

And yet they still managed to repeatedly hit predesignated UN sites and drop white phosphorous by accident. What utter nonsense. And there mere gall of suggesting Israel provided aid to Gaza when it had previously and now continues to impoverish and starve the region by imposing a blockade is simply astounding. Tell the 1400 or so Palestinians who died during the war that it was an unintentional accident.