I think maybe I should have been more specific with what "our economic issues" are. There's a lot here about addressing our national debt, or deficit spending. That's not the issue.

The issue is that our economy is crashing. Companies' sales numbers drop, they lay off people, fewer people have money to buy stuff, and companies sales numbers drop more, leading to more layoffs...and around and around it goes.

Add to that the credit freeze, that's preventing even people with good credit, or proven business models, from getting loans to make large purchases or expand their businesses. Mostly this is because the banks themselves are in financial limbo because 90% of their balance sheet is tied up in assets that no one can accurately value anymore.

So, the deficit and national debt aren't our main issue. It's something to keep an eye on, but right now it's not a big enough to make our creditors stop lending to us. There's a danger that they might do that if it gets too high, but "too high" is a lot higher than we are now.

Also, since so many people are having their hours cut and getting laid off, and businesses are losing money instead of making it, the government is raking in a lot less money, running up our debt.

Conservatives with an ideological agenda say "Great, government was too big anyways, so cut everything in sight!"

Economists with an ideological agenda say "The market will fix itself, don't try to do anything except maybe cut taxes".

Economists who see the world as I do say "Spend a lot now to restart the economy, then once it's growing pay down the debt by raising taxes and cutting spending".

I don't know who's right, but I know that conservative politicians don't know anything about anything, those economists who say the market will fix itself base their entire school on the premise that people are expert investors with complete and accurate information about the market (which seems more than a little far fetched to me), and the last group tries to model things with the assumption that people won't always act "rationally" with their money, and that the level of information people have is varied, etc.

So, given that, here are my feelings on some of the specifics that people have put forward:

1. Cut military spending. I would normally agree to this wholeheartedly. When the recovery is underway, I think this is one of the places we should cut spending first, but not right now. I don't want more layoffs due to spending cuts right now.

2. Legalize drugs, regulate drugs, and tax drugs. Wholehearted agreement. Part of what was done to try to pull out of the Great Depression was to repeal prohibition, because prohibition was killing state budgets. Let's end our modern-day prohibition, and reap the benefits of both legal business opportunities, and the tax revenue it generates. We should do this immediately.

3. Tax cuts, or write checks to all taxpayers. Moderate agreement. Most people would save this money -- I know I would. Only the people at the lowest end of the income spectrum would spend this immediately, and that's what we need right now. So, give a small ($500-$1,000) rebate check again, focused mostly on the low to lower-middle income brackets. Including people who only pay payroll taxes and sales taxes (or as Republicans say it "people who don't pay taxes"). This is in Obama's stimulus plan already.

4. Investigate the crimes committed, and prosecute the offenders, and possibly execute them. Totally agree, though this won't directly help stimulate the economy, I think it might do a lot to restore confidence if we publicly executed the people who're using TARP funds to pay out big bonuses to the top level management of bailed out firms (John Thain, I'm looking at you). Failing that, these asshats should at least be getting fired -- so far there has been slim amounts of turnover at the executive level of these banks, which sure as hell doesn't make me feel very confident that they know WTF is going on, or have any sense that they're responsible for it..

5. Genocide. Not really going to help the economy much, and it's unethical too. Go take a ride in your blimp, eat some corn-based snakes, and chill. At least turn us into Soylent Green and sell it to the Naderites.

6. Reform healthcare. Agree, though I vehemently disagree with the idea of "reform" meaning that we eliminate government spending on it. I'd rather aim for single payer healthcare, or at least vastly overhaul the regulatory body for health insurance so there's better profit incentives in helping people, and less murder by spreadsheet. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid seems like a senseless attack on the poor and elderly, if it's the only change made. Why not go after the VA too? Afraid they'd fight back?

7. End farm subsidies. I'm undecided on this one. Probably a good idea, but I'm not sure it'd stimulate the economy in the short or long term, just reshape it.

Really, my litmus test for ideas boils down to this:

If it creates jobs, do it
If it would result in layoffs, don't do it
If it leaves behind something of lasting use, that's gravy
If it just rearranges things to be more "fair" (which means different things to different ideologies), let it go for the moment

Hence my moon mission to clean up the Earth. It'll create jobs, and leave behind something of lasting value, so our kids can screw it up in their own unique and innovative ways.

It's been 18 months since the last one - seems like there's been complete turnover in the sifters likely to attend since, eh?

Great idea. This playlist must have the quickest turnover of any on the sift!

a deep thought on the nature of power. The top levels of power have a slower turnover than the lower levels of power, and a corruption at the top is a much bigger problem because of the greater stability at the top.

Chogster,
I didn't have time to watch it either, but I did anyway. This is a tough one. I'll try to keep it brief, but that may be hard.

On vitamins and minerals;
If you eat a healthy balanced diet (raise hands please)you get all the vitamins and minerals you need. That's SO not the case in many undeveloped countries, as they rarely eat balanced diets. Taking extra water soluble vitamins, i.e. Vit C, will not hurt you, but it will give you expensive urine. Taking extra fat soluble vitamins can be outright dangerous. Vit A is hepatotoxic in high doses. I recall seeing a patient with end stage liver cirrhosis from chronic cod-liver oil (rich in Vit A) ingestion (how someone can get addicted to that is beyond me.)

There is little credible evidence to prove "extra" amounts of vitamins, above what your body really needs, is of any benefit to your health. Selenium supplementation has been associated with decreased prostate cancer. (So has rapid turnover of spermatozoa and it's more fun than taking selenium.)

The problem with "natural supplements" is several fold. (1) They are still chemicals and, therefore, are not easily differentiated from standard pharmaceuticals, many of which come from plants as well. (2) There is VERY lax quality control in the production of many of these drugs. Assays on potency have shown up to a 100 fold difference between brands that supposedly have the same amount of drug in one pill. (3)Taken in excess, drugs like ephedra are dangerous. It's amphetamine. It will give you a boost in energy, but it also may give you a hypertensive crisis or a fatal arrhythmia.

Medicine is science, and like any scientific endeavor, the proof is in the pudding. There are very few credible studies that demonstrate much benefit to "natural supplements." One speaker in the video, Jim Turner, laments that some of these drugs fall victim to "systematic cause and effect mentality" of the pharmaceutical companies and their "huge, expensive studies." That statement is intellectually bankrupt and I don't think I have to point that out. It takes huge expensive studies to achieve the power of analysis necessary to detect a benefit a drug might have on a relatively rare condition. Say for instance, a drug reduces by 50% the incidence of a complication that happens only once in a thousand patients. You will need to enroll thousands and thousands of patients to reach a power of analysis that will approach statistical significance. It takes, on average, almost a billion dollars to get a typical pharmaceutical drug from synthesis to the US market and that's, in part, due to the rigorous process the FDA requires.

On antidepressants;
Eating right, getting enough sleep, regular exercise and playing in the sunshine are as effective as marketed antidepressants. The side effect of "activation" of SSRIs has been understated. Patients with bipolar illness, rather than typical depression, can experience mania or hypomania, with increased anxiety, racing thoughts and insomnia. That's not what a depressed person needs. While not proven, my personal opinion is that this heightened sense of anxiety may play a possible role in the risk of suicide. Please remember, mentally ill people can hide their illness well. Unforeseen suicides are not uncommon and it's easy to pin the blame on a new medicine, or some other unrelated factor.

I told you it would be difficult for me to be brief. I've practiced for 25 years now.
(1) The FDA is NOT suppressing effective therapies.
(2) All drugs, natural supplements included, should undergo systematic randomized prospective studies to assess their efficacy before being labeled as effective (sadly, that's not always the case)
(3) The drug companies are shamelessly pandering to the public and downplaying side-effects. They have been successful in creating a herd mentality in the U.S. of "I don't feel right, I need a drug." Direct advertising to the public should be BANNED.

>> ^dag:
The reason that the top 15 is cool- is because a video does stay around for a while and gets more attention. It becomes a focal point for the community with an interesting comment thread evolving around it.

If you shorten the time that a video gets to live in the top 15, you'll have higher turnover of videos, sure- but overall it will be less interesting as an achievement.


I think most everyone here agrees that the Top 15 is cool, but what precisely makes it cool? Does a 4 day period make it cooler than a 3 day period? I don't think so. With a 3 day period that starts from the published date every video will still have a chance to rack up major votes, and yet they won't monopolize the Top 15 quite as long. This will give other videos that are equally deserving a better shot at the big time, and it will also make the list fresher and more interesting. That, to me, is what's cool.

Right now as I'm writing this, the laughing Haitian weatherman has 176 votes, and yet it STILL has almost 16 hours before it will drop off the top. I like it; I gave it my upvote (as did many other people); but it will be in the Top 15 for almost half a week before it bids us adieu. Talk about wearing out your welcome. I wouldn't let that dude stay at my house more than three days, tops.

Seriously, this is about videos not becoming stale. Also from a business standpoint, I think more people would be inclined to visit a video site if they knew every day there would be several new and interesting videos to watch in the Top 15.

We're not talking about up-ending a time honored tradition here, just fine tuning it to make it a little better. I realize that whatever the membership decides here is not binding in any way, but I think if enough experienced sifters vote in favor of either my original proposal or Zifnab's proposal, you should give it serious consideration.
_______________________________

And on a more serious note, if either rottenseed's or Sarzy's comments about changing my avatar back to balloon animal Jesus receives 15 votes or more, I'll change it back. Because I believe in America.

>> ^dag:
The reason that the top 15 is cool- is because a video does stay around for a while and gets more attention. It becomes a focal point for the community with an interesting comment thread evolving around it.

If you shorten the time that a video gets to live in the top 15, you'll have higher turnover of videos, sure- but overall it will be less interesting as an achievement.


True enough, but videos only last a day or three at most on there now because the timer starts counting at queue date. I think change to 3days from publish time. Vids will still hang out for a while on there, but more vids will have a chance to make it.

This discussion reminds me of an idea that was mentioned before. What if videos that made top15 had a little medal designating their top15 status? This system of special achievement awards works very well on Newgrounds. Why not here?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The reason that the top 15 is cool- is because a video does stay around for a while and gets more attention. It becomes a focal point for the community with an interesting comment thread evolving around it.


If you shorten the time that a video gets to live in the top 15, you'll have higher turnover of videos, sure- but overall it will be less interesting as an achievement.

They did greatest hits in Dec '05. Rarely a good sign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_(band)

.... looks like they essentially broke up in all but name, or 50% turnover, if you will.

Perhaps we were designed/have evolved to die because we are also so skilled at wreaking havoc on the natural world...

I know you are just joking, but it brings up a fault that many who don't believe in evolution have...

They tend to class humans as the be all and end all of everything (probably because they are taught we're made in God's image), and so if anything else has evolved to do or have something that we would like to be able to do/to have they figure that's proof that evolution isn't real because otherwise we'd have these cool things.

We never 'evolved to die', our evolution path, along with 99.9999999(a lot of 9s) of the rest of the creatures on this earth never came up with this handy little trait.

These worms, being that they're very simple, and when not regenerating, probably had very short lifespans, meant that they quickly ran through many iterations of mutations and the like. Now, for something like them, who are pretty low on the food chain, the ability to recover from having part of you eaten or torn off, would be a huge boon, so those that developed the trait would have passed that along to many more, and they would have lived longer, so passed it on to more and more and more... as a trait that stops you dying, you can see how it would easily become the dominant, and then the only trait in your species.

Our turnover of generations is much slower than theirs, we are spread out a lot more than them, we are much more complicated than them...

for those reading this thread, please do not be mislead by rembars assertion that there is no scientific evidence of fluoride being harmful. I only have to prove there is scientists and scientific evidence that says fluoride is harmful. I don't personally have to prove it.

one would assume that if the EPA was to look at the subject they would be studying and comparing scientific studies. So here are Excerpts from: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (National Research Council, 2006)

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:

“On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” p187

“A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” p6

“histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF.” p178

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” p186

“More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.” p186

“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory.” p187

“Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility.” p187

“Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed.” p. 187

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:

“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.” p223

“Some of these [endocrine] effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.” p7

“Further effort is necessary to characterize the direct and indirect mechanisms of fluoride’s action on the endocrine system and the factors that determine the response, if any, in a given individual.” p223

“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.” p224

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

“several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” p197

“it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.” p197

“Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..” p218

“In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.” p218

“The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States (CDC 2002d; Larsen et al. 2002) could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.” p218

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:

“The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity (Table 8-1). Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease.” p221-22

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:

“The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant.” p. 217

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:

“Nevertheless, patients who live in either an artificially fluoridated community or a community where the drinking water naturally contains fluoride at 4 mg/L have all accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potentially have very high fluoride concentrations in their bones. The bone marrow is where immune cells develop and that could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.” p249

“There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water.” p250

“bone concentrates fluoride and the blood-borne progenitors could be exposed to exceptionally high fluoride concentrations. Thus, more research needs to be carried out before one can state that drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L has no effect on the immune system.” p250

“it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients). When bone turnover occurs, the potential exists for immune system cells and stem cells to be exposed to concentrations of fluoride in the interstitial fluids of bone that are higher than would be found in serum. From an immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.” p 258

“Within 250 ?m of a site of resorption, it is possible to encounter progenitor cells that give rise to bone, blood, and fat. Thus, one must assume that these cells would be exposed to high concentrations of fluoride. At this time, it is not possible to predict what effect this exposure would have on the functioning of skeletal elements, hematopoiesis, and adipose formation.” p115

“It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells.” p 259

“In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water.” p259

FLUORIDE’S INTERACTIVE/SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS (w/ IODINE, ALUMINUM, ETC):

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

“Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies investigating potential effects. Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the following: collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes.” p72

“Available information now indicates a role for aluminum in the interaction of fluoride on the second messenger system; thus, differences in aluminum exposure might explain some of the differences in response to fluoride exposures among individuals and populations.” p222

“With the increasing prevalence of acid rain, metal ions such as aluminum become more soluble and enter our day-to-day environment; the opportunity for bioactive forms of AlF to exist has increased in the past 100 years. Human exposure to aluminofluorides can occur when a person ingests both a fluoride source (e.g., fluoride in drinking water) and an aluminum source; sources of human exposure to aluminum include drinking water, tea, food residues, infant formula, aluminum-containing antacids or medications, deodorants, cosmetics, and glassware.” p42

“Further research should include characterization of both the exposure conditions and the physiological conditions (for fluoride and for aluminum or beryllium) under which aluminofluoride and beryllofluoride complexes can be expected to occur in humans as well as the biological effects that could result.” p42

“Another possible explanation for increased blood lead concentrations which has not been examined is the effect of fluoride intake on calcium metabolism; a review by Goyer (1995) indicates that higher blood and tissue concentrations of lead occur when the diet is low in calcium. Increased fluoride exposure appears to increase the dietary requirement for calcium (see Chapter ; in addition, the substitution of tap-water based beverages (e.g., soft drinks or reconstituted juices) for dairy products would result in both increased fluoride intake and decreased calcium intake.” p43

“[G]iven the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft drinks. Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH < 5, SiF6 2- would be present, so it seems reasonable to expect that some SiF6 2- would be present in acidic beverages but not in the tap water used to prepare the beverages. Consumption rates of these beverages are high for many people, and therefore the possibility of biological effects of SiF62-, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined.” p44
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM:

“A few human studies suggested that high concentrations of fluoride exposure might be associated with alterations in reproductive hormones, effects on fertility, and developmental outcomes, but design limitations make those studies insufficient for risk evaluation.” p6

“the relationship between fertility and fluoride requires additional study.” p161

FLUORIDE & DOWNS SYNDROME:

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” p170

“A reanalysis of data on Down’s syndrome and fluoride by Takahashi (1998) suggested a possible association in children born to young mothers. A case-control study of the incidence of Down’s syndrome in young women and fluoride exposure would be useful for addressing that issue. However, it may be particularly difficult to study the incidence of Down’s syndrome today given increased fetal genetic testing and concerns with confidentiality.” 172

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:

“The numerous fluoridation studies in the past failed to rigorously test for changes in GI symptoms and there are no studies on drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L in which GI symptoms were carefully documented.” p230

“GI effects appear to have been rarely evaluated in the fluoride supplement studies that followed the early ones in the 1950s and 1960s.” p231

“The table suggests that fluoride at 4 mg/L in the drinking water results in approximately 1% of the population experiencing GI symptoms.” p231

“Whether fluoride activates G proteins in the gut epithelium at very low doses (e.g., from fluoridated water at 4.0 mg/L) and has significant effects on the gut cell chemistry must be examined in biochemical studies.” p236

“There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L. Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity. However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.” p. 250

“Studies are needed to evaluate gastric responses to fluoride from natural sources at concentrations up to 4 mg/L and from artificial sources.” p. 258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE LIVER:

“It is possible that a lifetime ingestion of 5-10 mg/day from drinking water containing 4 mg/L might turn out to have long-term effects on the liver, and this should be investigated in future epidemiologic studies.” p248

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

“Human kidneys... concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues.” p236

“Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” p236

“future studies should be directed toward determining whether kidney stone formation is the most sensitive end point on which to base the MCLG.” p247

“On the basis of studies carried out on people living in regions where there is endemic fluorosis, ingestion of fluoride at 12 mg per day would increase the risk for some people to develop adverse renal effects.” p247

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE & CANCER:

“Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.“ p. 286

“Because fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation, there is a theoretical risk that it might induce a malignant change in the expanding cell population. This has raised concerns that fluoride exposure might be an independent risk factor for new osteosarcomas.” p109

“Osteosarcoma presents the greatest a priori plausibility as a potential cancer target site because of fluoride’s deposition in bone, the NTP animal study findings of borderline increased osteosarcomas in male rats, and the known mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells in culture (see Chapter 5). Principles of cell biology indicate that stimuli for rapid cell division increase the risks for some of the dividing cells to become malignant, either by inducing random transforming events or by unmasking malignant cells that previously were in nondividing states.” p275

“Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.” p288

Same, I think it was deaded. Seriously, the turnover rate for some of these sifts is just ridiculous.

(to James Roe:)

What someone sees on their first visit to the site is 10 videos, no matter what the queue length or escape vote setting is. The only question is how quickly those 10 videos are going to cycle through. New visitors likely won't even notice how quick the turnover is -- since they've just arrived, they see whatever the 10 videos are when they get there.

Possibly the objection could be made that a lower queue escape will lead to those 10 videos on the front page being of lower quality. Of course, they will be less popular. But the less popular videos here (as long as they're still reasonably popular) are often very, very good, while the super-popular stuff is often (not always) quite predictable.

Have there been any complaints from newer users that the front page is too low-quality, or being updated too often? The complaints about turnover published on SiftTalk seem to be mostly from longtime users who are used to being able to keep up with the site in its entirety.

As the userbase grows, that's going to be impossible, unless the Sifting ratio (videos submitted : videos posted) gets higher and higher. If the target is a daily publish rate of 30-40 (for example), as the daily submission rate tops 100, or 200, or 300 -- it's going to be very difficult to get anything except the most popular stuff published. And that means the more unusual (or just less immediate) stuff will be choked out.

Even then, you could argue that the collectives and playlists will let experienced users find what they want. But most users (I think) don't bother posting things they think are likely to die in the queue (choggie and rickegee are exceptions, there may be a few others). So you lose that content right upfront -- eventually, you may lose that user entirely.

The argument isn't really about 12 versus 10, but what the motivation is for the change. "Too many videos a day for one person to watch" is a bad reason, because no one person should expect to be able to keep up with the aggregate interests of hundreds or thousands of others.

I understand that there are clearly a lot of various complicated issues in this decision, and I would like to cleanly express why I support raising the queue escape level.

1. VideoSift will suffer from a reduction in quality due to obscure videos being overlooked or unposted in the frantic drive towards "star power," or ranking.

I think the collectives help devalue this claim, in the past when we have increased the queue escape level or the top 15 system we have caught similar flak, but currently the top 15 includes such titans as

"1. Polite Distances For Holding Open A Door

2. What is it with Kitties & Laser Pointers??

3. Incredible Shoot-out Goal (Voted best of 05-06 season)
[From YouTube: this is a video that was created by Karl Fisch, and modified by Scott McLeod. Ther]

4. Eye-Opening Stats: The Global Economy and Computers"

To me it is clear that this increase has not reduced our niche value; this is to say that I am interested in preserving the vibrant community that is at the heart of videosift, but I think we need to look at how we are going to grow.

I guess what I am trying to say is that essentially the front page is the life blood of videosift, long term members know how to find collectives, and playlists, but what about the first time visitor. When they come to the site I like to think that they see a representative of the sift ecology that we have all come to know and love. Currently I think the video turn over rate is too high, and in fact in contrast to promoting awesome videos, I think it suppresses them. If we promote 60 videos a day how can we expect the 59th one, a documentary about post Castro violence in Cuba, to receive the light of day it deserves.

Clearly this is an allusion to a false possibility, but what I am saying is that I have faith in the sift to promote these videos, regardless of the queue escape level to a point where more people might see them. In all honesty I think raising the bar to entry to such video goldmines is an ethical misstep, and would like to make sure that our community maintains its power to draw attention to such things. If we continue to allow queue turnover at this rate we risk driving attention from important issues to ones that merely garner x percentage of a niche support, and for me this is why we created collectives. Not everyone here agrees what should be on the sift, but if it dies an ignominious death the video shall live on in the collective. However, a video that should be seen by all might perish in the waste bucket that is continuous community creation. We owe it to our new users, and those who might not care to think, to provide bleeding edge access to all that is visually important, and I don't see how we can continue with our current queue escape.

This is not to say that I would not listen to suggestions, I merely ask those that are long term users to balance their desires for community growth, with what someone sees on their first visit to the site.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

In a 24 hour period we're getting over 40 published posts, or 4 complete front page refreshes. We're thinking that's a little too quick of a turnover.