search results matching tag: poisoning

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (283)     Sift Talk (16)     Blogs (17)     Comments (1000)   

Dr Drew's Horrific Coronavirus Advice Compilation

Bernie Sanders: I thought this question might come up

HenningKO says...

"Truth is truth"... (in response to an attempted well-poisoning fallacy) i had no idea until now how much I've been wanting to hear someone say that...

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Trump Impeached

newtboy says...

Please don't misconstrue my abhorrence of today's republican party as an endorsement of the democratic party....but there's no question which is worse imo. I've said for decades that I would vote republican if only they would. I didn't leave the republican party, it left me.

'They weren't the only ones sticking it to democrats' isn't an argument, defense, or excuse...it's a dodge imo. Americans are allowed to participate in political propaganda (if they do it legally), other nations aren't. Russian intelligence hacked democrats at Trump's public request to help him. Period.

As for who is G2, "Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-slipped-up-and-revealed-he-was-a-russian-intelligence-officer?ref=scroll

https://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hacker-guccifer-confirmed-as-russian-agent-after-forgetting-to-conceal-identity-2018-3

I totally agree citizens United (i mean the court ruling bearing that name) put a poison pill in all of our political cups. I would support any candidate who I believed would make a constitutional amendment fixing that priority one, for any and every office high to low. Sadly i don't know of one from any party.
Selling our political system to corporations and billionaires can only end in it's demise.

geo321 said:

it wasn't the Russians that leaked to Wikileaks that the Clinton campaign rigged the election campaign, it was an internal staffer that was pissed in 2016. The second so called hack of Podesta's emails by fishing by G2 we dont know the origin yet. but we do know the first leak in the election to wikileaks came from a staffer in the DNC to report on rigging.

Pallbearer Snub Mitch McConnell At Elijah Cummings' Memorial

newtboy says...

Some info about why....

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, was intentionally snubbed by a pallbearer, Bobby Rankin, at the late congressman Elijah Cummings' memorial service at the Capitol on Thursday. The pallbearer walked down the line of attendees and shook hands with the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, before walking past McConnell to hug the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
Mr Rankin explained that his brother, who died exactly one year before the memorial service, like numerous servicemen contracted multiple cancers directly linked to drinking (well documented) contaminated water while he was stationed at camp Lejeune, and was denied his military benefits thanks in large part to McConnell personally blocking legislation Cummings had produced with bipartisan support that would have given those poisoned by the military's negligence during their military service the benefits they earned and were promised, and he could not shake hands with a "person" (and I use that term loosely) who would throw injured servicemen into a ditch after stealing their benefits.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

newtboy says...

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

harlequinn said:

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

Safest...of those we discussed, maybe. It's certainly not safer than well designed solar, wind, micro hydro, wave/tidal, etc.

Some in Fukushima have seriously elevated risk for cancers, but no one died of radiation poisoning that I've heard of (but many still can't go home). Not true in Chernobyl. I've not seen claims of thousands dead since the very early days, but a short investigation shows estimates vary widely, from 4000-60000 early deaths from radiation related cancers, and even the lowest estimates are unacceptable. Direct radiation related deaths seem to be around 100 there.

It does seem that today the evacuations cause more deaths, likely because of safety measures required after Chernobyl and the fact that most are only exposed for extremely short times because they evacuated and are not allowed to return until exposure levels are low.

There are real, honest health concerns involved, including indirect impact caused by evacuations or shelter in place stress. That said, there's plenty of exaggerated fear mongering too.

Spacedog79 said:

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

bcglorf said:

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Diatoms: Tiny Factories You Can See From Space

newtboy says...

Diatoms, and other phytoplankton, are incredibly sensitive to ocean PH and CO2 levels. This can be another feedback loop already in action.
As fewer diatoms photosynthesize, more CO2 goes unused, raising the concentration, lowering the numbers and health of phytoplankton, allowing more CO2 to go unused, raising the concentration, .....
Every molecule of CO2 added to ocean systems removes one molecule of carbonate, which is necessary for the uptake of iron among other processes. By 2100, surface carbonate is expected to decrease by up to 50%. That may well be below the levels diatoms can tolerate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/key-biological-mechanism-disrupted-ocean-acidification

If phytoplankton goes, so does the food web. They are the base. If the ocean food web collapses, eventually the bacteria that eat dead sea life will create huge clouds of hydrogen sulfide that cover the land, poisoning any still living organisms there. This has happened before, but on a much longer timescale, with near life ending results for earth.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction. ... "During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species (and >98% of all biomass) on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the KT when the dinosaurs disappeared,"

A better title might be "diatoms, the tiny glass shards that support all life on earth, are struggling".

What Happens To Good Cops?

newtboy says...

So, you think, with no training, no equipment, no pay, and no oversight, I should become an armed vigilante, a punisher, and that somehow addresses police corruption? What?
Edit: I already do that when reasonable....when I see something I DO something. Where I live we have highway patrol and that's it. They don't show up when people are reported detonating huge explosives or shooting their guns rapid fire in the neighborhood, so I and others must investigate ourselves.

Police don't do those kinds of studies, why should I? They don't address corruption a bit.

Why?

Not a bit motivated to do meaningless busy work at your whim.
You do a study, it has nothing to do with solving police corruption and abuse, why would I?

Since it's your field, how about you do a study on how often police are given a pass on felonies that would put anyone else in prison. Then do another showing how often they get away with crimes that would cost anyone else their net worth. Then do one examining what happens to cops that turn in criminal cops. Then do a study about what happens to cops that threaten other cops off the force. Have your studies verified, repeated, and published, then if you aren't in prison on trumped up charges I'll give you that atta boy you didn't offer me before explaining what a waste of time that was.

Not a bit sure what your point could be. Cops do some needed work, so give all their crimes and abuses a pass?
What are you saying? Nothing rational or helpful that I discern.

Sounds like ' You need farmers to feed us all, so let them use deadly poisons and sell deadly, contaminated, even fake food without repercussions, or consider the implications of having no farmers.' Deep.....to a gnat.

Sniper007 said:

Well newtboy, how about this? Start promoting the concept of taking action on your own behalf and on behalf of your fellow man in situations that most would normally delegate to the police force.

Start first with listing every situation that would cause someone to call the cops. Be comprehensive. It might take several days or weeks. You may even want to interview subject matter experts to help with this ideation phase.

Then, come up with 3-5 alternative courses of action for each situation that don't involve a police force.

How motivated are you? I organize these types of research projects for a living. Heck, even without you I might undertake this project. I have many others higher on my list though.

Once you are done, it's a matter of publishing and promoting your research. I do all that as well.

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

shinyblurry says...

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

newtboy said:

I believe in a guy named Jesus, he could walk on water when it freezes, and turn water into wine using his vineyard, but his mom was no virgin and his dad was a human being. Am I good?

Sesame Street: Respect is Coming

newtboy says...

Well...I tried to like it, and watched the first 4 episodes this winter....one kid pushed off a building was the extent of the violence I recall. After Vikings, I was expecting more.
I told my wife to find me an episode with action, not just drama...she tried starting at season 7, which started well with a mass poisoning (quickly ruined for me with a Mission Impossible style mask removal...WHAT?!), but nothing else. Maybe she just chose poorly, but I still wasn't impressed. I want some blood eagles or better with a minimum of two protracted gruesome deaths or a medium to enormous bloody battle per episode to feel I've gotten satisfactory ultra violence, I wasn't overly impressed with the few sex scenes I've seen either.

I never watched House Of Cards, just wasn't interested in a political drama, I see far more of that than I ever wanted in real life now.
So yeah, I don't think it's for me....that's fine, most popular shows aren't. What I've seen so far was fantasy soap opera more than action. If basic cable can give me semi-historical brutal live organ removals, hundreds of bloody deaths, and three ways, I expect the same or better from premium cable.

ChaosEngine said:

So I’ll grant you the fantasy monsters and soft core porn, but the violence is definitely a hard R.

Besides, there’s a lot more to the show than that. GoT at its best is medieval House of Cards. It has great characters and a pretty intricate plot.

It’s not perfect, and of course, you don’t have to like it, but dismissing it as tits and dragons just isn’t fair.

David Attenborough on how to save the planet

cosmovitelli says...

Yes agreed, extreme poverty is equally damaging when combined with industry, but bear in mind its been the giant corporations dropping poison on poor villages not the villagers themselves.. and the basic rules for much of the world are decided ultimately by US senators who are for sale to business for embarassingly low cost.

vil said:

Dont blame "capitalism", blame humans, civilisation. Some countries, communities, families are able to create institutions and rules that span generations and centuries without destroying their livelihoods. Call it capitalism if you must, but the only way for humans to survive it is if they are allowed to make meaningful decisions and shoulder the responsibility for those decisions.

I lived in a "communist" country and I can inform you that shit was removed from rivers, sulfur from power station smoke and lead from car exhaust gasses only after it reverted to a form of constitutional democratic individualistic "capitalism".

All it takes is some basic rules about shit and rivers and a will either free, or imposed by institutions, to abide.

Some big rich countries have good rules and institutions, some dont. Most poor countries dont and that is a real problem. If you cant afford to put shit anywhere else it has to go in the river.

David Attenborough on how to save the planet

newtboy says...

"In the next few decades"?! More like "a few decades ago".
Perhaps if we had started population control in the 80's with the goal of cutting global population in half by 2000 AND did the rest of what he suggests we might have a chance...we did not.

By the time we understood there was a problem there were less than a few decades left to solve it...that was around 40 years ago, and we've done everything possible to accelerate the damage we do on every front since then.

Ocean acidification is happening today, it's getting worse, it's slow to react to change so will continue to get worse even if humans disappeared tomorrow, it has built in feedback loops that have been triggered like melting methanehydrates and sequestered CO2 that are being released faster every single day, and we are increasing the man made causes every year. There is a point where it reaches critical acidification, the point where diatoms can't form their skeletons, and then the entire ocean system dies. That's far worse than the apocalypse it sounds like, not just because 50-60% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, but also because the rotting biomass creates huge amounts of not just more methane, compounding the greenhouse problem and further acidifying the oceans, but also immense amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which spread as huge poisonous clouds around the globe.
We are on our way to a man made Permian extinction, when >95% of all species went extinct and near 99% of all biomass was lost. We will not survive it as a species....and we don't deserve to.

Why You Should Care About the Plastic in Your Poop

newtboy says...

*doublepromote *quality info, even if it barely scratches the surface of this food web destroyer.
This seems like our backup Armageddon. If the effects of climate change don't wipe us out, the survivors get to die slowly of petroleum poisoning.
I hope those disposable forks were worth it.

I was surprised he didn't mention all the plastics we eat intentionally, like any toothpaste with sparkles for instance....that's just bits of plastic we are fed on purpose.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon