Try using ascorbic acid as a preservative instead of cumulative human toxins like murcury and aluminum.

Toxins and diseases are often readily absorbed through the skin. You can't get clean by washing with dirty water. I hope this doesn't get swept under the rug with their illogical refutations.

Sorry? Would it be all better if the duct tape was renamed "Chemical Anti-Intrusory Sealant"?

As much as i hate to admit it, MarineGunrock is totally right. Think about any situation involving low pressure gas.

Want to commit suicide? Well, sit in your car in the garage, turn the engine on, but first make the car's interior air-tight using duct tape. You'll die because your body will use up all the breathable air, not because of car fumes. There won't be a single car-created toxin inside at all. Then you could take a deep breath, open the car and exit via the door. There's a reason people put a hose-pipe from the exhaust through the window. You could live off the oxygen in a car even if there was mustard gas outside in your garage.

You could climb inside a human balloon like a crazed german fetishist and live quite comfortably for as long as the oxygen in that balloon held out for you in a room full of nerve gas.

Submarines too, in fact. If you had the tape strong enough and sticky enough, you could TAPE two metal skips together and submerge yourself in safety.

What's this guy saying? The only negative thing about duct tape is that you're sealing yourself in an air tight container with a limited supply of air. But then you can conserve the air by doing things such as sleeping, and make the entire air supply in your house last you for a few days, and by that time maybe it'll be safe enough to go out, or you'll be rescued by people with portable air supplies.

Or, you know, don't make your house air tight, and die in a dissolving pool of your own lungs, bowels and feces.

(I don't find him funny anyway, but i hope people aren't upvoting for this (lack of) observation!)

Cherry Darling's machine-gun leg in "Planet Terror" was pretty cool....
The vials of vampire toxin in "Blade"...
The frikkin' hovering stainless-steel death ball from "Phantasm" still makes me wet the trousers.....
oh, the laser, death-grid from Resident Evil
OH! that crappy film with Emilio Estevez about the global warming aliens??....that damn house-wrecking vortex ball from that POS movie.....

and my personal fav, Savini's vigilante Mariachi crotch-revolver in, "From Dusk Till Dawn."

Its a shame about the bio-accumulation of toxins and climate change and all that.


Man humans are such dicks.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

And the point of giving these laptops to third world countries is what? So they can learn how to scam people over the internet? Quite honestly it is a huge marketing ploy by big corporations so they can send their advertising over the internet to these people that would otherwise not be exposed to it.

Why send all these laptops to kids who don't have a large computer workforce in their country...unless companies want to teach these kids to take over the customer service jobs that we are exporting anyway.

I'm being realistic, ask yourself WHY someone (and who) would send these laptops to third world countries.

If you wanted to help everyone, send the third world countries our old computers that are filling the landfills of our country. They get computers that we dont want anyway, they are already made so its free to manufacture, and we don't fill our landfills with toxins.

UmberGryphon, just because he's pro-western doesn't mean this is right. Who gives a f*ck about what Bush does because he represents only a small percent of the narrowminded people in this country. This is OFFENSIVE to western culture!!! I don't care if he's pro-Russia or pro-Guam, suppression of the voice of the people by any means is just wrong. If Bush could actually do the right thing, it would be to put a stop to THIS.

Be thankful while you can, that the internet is still here. Despite Comedy Central's ban on foreign counties, China's excessive filtering and arresting of dissenting bloggers, North Korea's total blockade of anything foreign (hell, they praised their God-like leader when he FINALLY allowed an eye surgeon to come in and fix something that us Westerners don't even know about because we've almost entirely fixed the problem) and American capitalist dictorial corporations selling out for a few dollars despite the know consequences of their toxin filled toys, bio-pirated foodstuff, and slave labor to name a few.

To all you Americans, please, don't ever let this happen in our country. And to our leaders . . . Jesus Christ, do something right for once!

So sad and so frightening. With something like 4x the population of the US and a drive to at least equal the US in wealth, China is an amazing country going through unbelievable growth. But the amount of environmental damage that the people are willing to accept boggles the mind. I can understand how they might not be worried about carbon emissions, but the garbage and other toxins have an immediate effect on the quality of life. I wonder how bad it will get before the people demand a change in the way things are done.

some more info for ya

#661 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 1, July 29, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1534.pdf

#662 - Precaution and PVC in Medicine, Pt. 2, August 05, 1999
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1543.pdf

By Charlie Cray
Rachel's Democracy & Health News

.. . A careful examination of alternatives is precisely what the chlorine industry seeks to avoid. Their primary strategy has been to bog down the debate in interpretations of the toxicological evidence -- the "dueling risk assessments" strategy invented long ago by the tobacco industry.

The main front group for this strategy has been Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH receives 76% of its funding from industry sources, including Exxon, the largest phthalate manufacturer in the world.[1]

ACSH hired Dr. C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, to spearhead ACSH's "blue ribbon" panel of 17 "experts," most of whom have ties to the chemical industry, examining PVC safety. Koop and ACSH concluded that vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful.

In its extensive critique of Koop's study, Health Care Without Harm pointed out that ACSH only weighed the risks and benefits of medical products made flexible with DEHP (a toxic phthalate --see REHW #661), while ignoring the available alternatives --cost-competitive nonPVC products that are perfectly good substitutes. For instance, Koop said, "removing the phthalate [from the PVC product] would actually pose a significant health risk to individuals who depend on these devices [IV bags]." Koop ignored the fact that an FDA-approved phthalate-free IV bag produced by McGaw already has about 20% of the IV bag market.[2]

[1] Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991). See also: "Public-Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. For an excellent review of ASCH's ties to the chemical industry and Koop, see: "The Junkyard Dogs of Science," and "Flying the Koop: A Surgeon General's Reputation On the Line," PR WATCH Vol.5, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pgs. 1-6. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html .

In reply to this comment by finch451:
Damn, I never knew PVC was actually toxic at a stand still, but it makes sense.

I'm not gonna let this video change my opinion on PVC at the moment, but I will say that it's gonna get me to do some research and see what these 'toxins' are all about.

Good find.

Damn, I never knew PVC was actually toxic at a stand still, but it makes sense.

I'm not gonna let this video change my opinion on PVC at the moment, but I will say that it's gonna get me to do some research and see what these 'toxins' are all about.

Good find.

In reply to this comment by twiddles:
I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


Twiddles, never fear that I will be shy. :-D In any case, since I only get one video at a time right now I went ahead and put a new one up that I think better illustrates my personal views. Check it out in the unsifted (http://www.videosift.com/video/Another-good-days-fishing) and let me know what you think.

About the CO2, you again start from the assumption that CO2 causes global warming and state it as a fact "but it is known that CO2 does cause a warming effect." CO2 is correlated with warming, but is not proven to be causitive. The John Stossel video actually points out that CO2 level rises and dips historically tend to lag behind rises and dips in temperature rather than the reverse. Correlated does not necessarily mean causitive. I am not questioning your personal convictions here. I am simply pointing out that your calls to action inherently assume that CO2 causes global warming. For those who do not agree with your assumptions, your call to action falls upon deaf ears. I advocate addressing problems where we use undeniable facts (as in the video mentioned above, global populations of fish are dwindling and adults are getting smaller at maturity) with realistic solutions (Marine Protected Areas to allow safe havens for breeding fish).

As to species extinction, I think that is an issue which needs discussing. Personally, I haven't seen any species that its extinction has been linked to climate change but I have seen reports of hundreds which have been directly caused by mankind. I just did a quick search on the golden toad and while I found suggestions that its extinction might have been due to global climate change, I also found other suggestions that seem just as plausible. It does seem that other than climate change, some of the other most likely possibilities are clearly anthropogenic. Does man have a role in the disappearance of the golden toad? Most likely. Are we steadily poisoning our groundwater with industrial chemicals? Absolutely. I say fix the one we know for sure we are causing and is a problem first.

I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


In reply to this comment by rugar:
Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

Dag, personally I agree with you. The problems I see lie in the toxins, not in the CO2. I support anything that stops the steady poisoning of the planet. That being said, I wonder if we are doing more harm than good supporting "refutable" data such as that behind global warming rather than advocating reductions in mercury, PCBs, pesticides, etc. Science irrefutably supports the harm these are doing and instead we focus our energies arguing about a very, very refutable "problem". Toxins in our food supply have a much more immediate and devastating impact than potential CO2 problems... why can't we focus on this instead?

Dystopian... We can argue the merits of the peer-review process ad nauseum but I don't think that will accomplish anything. Instead I think it is germane to focus on replicated, irrefutable experiments. The trick is to focus on those and ignore "pop" science on EITHER side of the debate.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cheers.asp

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]