It seems most of the penis is actually an internal organ. Guess that allows the whole shrinkage thing in cold weather to be effective. In my case, rely effective

From a brief look around, there would seem to be only one case of soft tissue from a dinosaur being found http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Some soft tissue from inside the leg bone of a T-Rex. Which is pretty frigging amazing in my mind, they re-hydrated the stuff and could get out flexible, transparent material... stunning... stunning stuff to find from 65 odd million years ago.

But I was talking of a whole body like these Mammoths, being preserved... it'll never happen, and the things in La Brea tarpits are much more recent aren't they? Mammoth age and the like, Sabre Tooth tigers and the like, the age of man, not the age of Dinosaurs.

Still, amazing stuff... I guess since seeing Jurassic Park I've actually wanted to see it actually happen... minus the maiming and killing of course.

In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
And also, you see that large one in the diarama they show near the end... that's a friggen real stuffed adult Mammoth.

Makes me wish there was a T-Rex or Brontosaurus frozen in permafrost somewhere than can be found... imagine actually finding a dinosaur with skin, organs etc... it'd be incredible.

There are actually quite a few dino fossils that have preserved tissue other than bone. There are some at the AMNH that have skin and partial internal organs intact; and I believe the La Brea tarpits in LA are home to some extremely well preserved tissues as well.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
And also, you see that large one in the diarama they show near the end... that's a friggen real stuffed adult Mammoth.

Makes me wish there was a T-Rex or Brontosaurus frozen in permafrost somewhere than can be found... imagine actually finding a dinosaur with skin, organs etc... it'd be incredible.

There are actually quite a few dino fossils that have preserved tissue other than bone. There are some at the AMNH that have skin and partial internal organs intact; and I believe the La Brea tarpits in LA are home to some extremely well preserved tissues as well.

[edit]: Seems I was wrong. La Brea houses fossils only as old as OIS 2 (the last ice age--about 11,000 years ago). The articles about other preserved dino tissues can be found here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Thanks to spoco for the correction and the second link.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
And also, you see that large one in the diarama they show near the end... that's a friggen real stuffed adult Mammoth.

Makes me wish there was a T-Rex or Brontosaurus frozen in permafrost somewhere than can be found... imagine actually finding a dinosaur with skin, organs etc... it'd be incredible.

There are actually quite a few dino fossils that have preserved tissue other than bone. There are some at the AMNH that have skin and partial internal organs intact; and I believe the La Brea tarpits in LA are home to some extremely well preserved tissues as well.

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

Yes, way too fast for something without much motor skills and putrified ichor for internal organs. WTG Mr Zombie.

I can has internal organs?

1. Some parents don't talk about sex. Ever. Not even things that are remotely related to it. e.g, my parents.
2. In some elementary schools, students are punished for expressing curiosity about sex, and not allowed access to relevant information or pictures. I recall being punished for drawing an anatomically correct male human in Kindergarten, and punished again in first grade for asking why the genitals were omitted from a scientific display of preserved human internal organs. For some, the personal inhibition produced by the "public stigma against letting children know anything about sex" stays present well into adulthood. For others, it multiplies curiosity.

I blame religion for this absurdity of hiding the truth about sex from children.

eric - did you say that you were taking low doses of paxil given to you by a friend?! if the answer is that yes you are taking unprescribed paxil, you MUST see a psychiatrist and take the medication with proper monitoring. SSRIs, and all the rest (beloved lithium) are NOT recreational drugs. you heard it, the affects can be seriously toxic to your system, in addition you need to have blood drawn regularly to make sure that your internal organs are not shutting down. the bottom line is NEVER EVER EVER take this stuff unless its prescribed for you (after you have a full work up and diagnosis). Never miss a psychiatry appointment, never miss an appointment for blood to be drawn, and take the medication as part of a routine. these drugs are serious business in addition to being big business. be careful and listen to your gut. meditation and yoga are medicinally recognized as being healing both mentally and physically. so if you are seriously distrustful of "pusher" type of doctor, or are lucky enough to live in the US without insurance give yoga and meditation a serious chance. the end.

As someone with both a pacemaker and formally an ICD (now a wearable defibrillator) I doubt that the taser would do much damage to the heart judging merely by the position of the probes which are rarely more than skin deep and therefore nowhere near any of the internal organs. Now how electricity behaves in the body (presumably merely going between the probes) is another question, as I have heard of many tales of ICD's delivering shocks to other people who are in contact with the "shockee".

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'parasite, squiggly, ewww, endoscope' to 'parasite, squiggly, ewww, endoscope, worms, stomach, internal organs' - edited by lucky760

If your house is burning, and you call 911, government-paid firemen will come and put out the fire, for free, immediately. They don't ask to see insurance paperwork first. But if your internal organs are "burning", and you call 911, whichever hospital is closest gets to extort an arbitrary sum of money from you if you're uninsured, because there is no such thing as shopping around for emergency rooms. It's "Pay whatever we want you to pay, or we'll let you suffer". It's absolutely unconscionable.

Canada, England, and France have great universal healthcare systems. Every reason for employing firemen by the government also applies analogously to employing doctors by the government.

"Now we Transformers, don't have internal organic organs"

Saucy. Also, hooray internet, breeding ground of fethises.

Her poor internal organs..

As far as global warming, who was burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago to cause that warming?

How about 18,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene? Lots of fossil fuel burning going on then?

Climate is a described by coupled sets of non-linear relationships whose actual variables haven't even been convincingly identified.

Those pointing to computer models are either frauds or incompetent; as the models are worthless. Every single line of that code needs to be held up to the light of day; the fudge factors, approximated physics, poor math, and then the whole sections where they have no idea but just wing it.

Global warming is just a tool to empower bureaucrats and unaccountable international organizations who want to control you. With communism and socialism disreputable, it's the new vehicle.

Known causes of climate change:

(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.