*discard

Dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Superman-Leaves-Physics-140-Class-at-University-of-Michigan

*science

*science

This topic needs to get more exposure, and this belongs in Science, as it's related specifically to anti-science BS. No rembar-boot here.

>> ^charliem:
Can you remove this from the science channel please ?
Its an insult to scientists everywhere.


Duly removed.

Done and done. Thanks for the flag.

In reply to this comment by charliem:
Can you remove this from the science channel please ?
Its an insult to scientists everywhere.

Who the hell is this guy? ...yeah, whatever, congrats I guess.

*engineering

*engineering

TERRIFIC!!! Finally, a much-needed addition. Congrats on the new channel, Ox.

That's a great video, you should submit it to the Science channel!

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
Another good video is the same man, Ken Miller, discussing the Bacterial Flagellum, which is a favourite for Intelligent Designers to prove that irreducible complexity is infallible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

Could you link me or direct me to the paper in which the clinical trial demonstrating the 1 ppm effect on rats is detailed? The video you commented on is teetering towards the edge of getting the boot from the Science channel, and I thought it might be fun to see if it could be rescued before it flails its way into the abyss.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
TV news is so reminiscent of http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-The-Argument-Clinic-Full-Version

They don't actually go into the details of the placebo-controlled clinical trial that shows 1ppm of fluoride ion in drinking water causes a pattern of behavioral deficits in rats, or the studies of the biochemical mechanisms of its neurotoxicity. Dental Fluorosis is the most benign of the problems excess fluoride can cause. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

CaptWillard, first of all, just to be clear, I was not speaking specifically to you, I was addressing my issues with the video. I'm not making a personal attack on you.

Now, if you'll read my comments a little more carefully, you'll notice that I specifically did NOT dispute the idea that small quantities of pharmaceuticals can be found in drinking water. In fact, I noted that they are a danger in a very specific way, if you look over what I wrote. (And no, the danger doesn't come from the idea of "I drink water and get a few particles of a drug per trillion particles of water and therefore I'm going to change from a man into a woman". There happens to be a deeper issue here that the AP and the other posters on this thread didn't even notice let alone mention). Just because Irishman starts going all "OMG BIG SCIANCE HALP CONSPARACY" doesn't mean I'm disputing the data. In fact, just to be more specific, what data set are we specifically talking about, anyways? The claim about pharmaceuticals in drinking water was a compilation of claims and results, so which data set were you talking about?

Now, as to your claims:
"Just data that was extracted by real scientists."
Which scientists? Who? Where were the results published? Where are they available for review? And if you're talking about the US Geological Survey when you say that, please note that the AP report was not simply presenting the survey's results. Oh, and for the record, science isn't just about pure data.

"But the fact remains that there's stuff in our drinking water that no one has disclosed before."
Really? You think pharmaceuticals haven't been detected in our drinking water before? You think this is the first time somebody thought to test for the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water? Really? You think the AP is presenting groundbreaking research? You think the AP didn't just drudge up a bunch of studies that have been accumulated over decades of research and represented them to the lowest common denominator of viewer hoping (and being justified in that hope, clearly) that these viewers will assume this is a new discovery?

"I've seen videos in the "Science" channel before that include theories still rejected by the majority of scientists in their field. Does that make them unworthy of the Science channel too?"
Why do you assume that I'm rejecting this video because it reports on fringe theories? Because I'm not. I never said anything to suggest that idea, either.

In fact, that claim no longer has any legitimacy to me. You say, "I'm not talking about a hypothesis, research, and conclusion. Just data that was extracted by real scientists," as though that were an excuse. This AP report did not present just the data, and even then it wouldn't be science. Hypotheses, research, and conclusions are all distinctive and irreplacable components of the scientific method. If you understand that you should also understand why this video got kicked out of the Science channel.

"Rigorous study"? Hm, wait. What study are you talking about here?

...oh, right. *rolls eyes*.

From the actual article:
"To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose."

Contaminants, including pharmaceuticals, in our water is a danger, but this report is a crock of crap regardless because 1. effects on organisms occur at many factors higher dosages than the AP reported, 2. the AP is misinterpreting focused studies like the feminization of male fish to fit its narrative, and 3. the AP clearly doesn't understand why concentrations measured by ppt are idiotic and why biomagnification is important.

Now, let's discuss why the AP isn't a scientific publication and how newspapers profit off fearmongering at the expense of public health policy that should be guided by scientific results.