Gracias amigo!

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This deserves a second chance, I'll *save it.

I think the emu video gave us the same idea, hehehe!

Fixed! Thanks for the save.


In reply to this comment by rembar:
Or, y'know, it could be *dead already. That too. *shakes fist at copyright lawyers*

Actually, my buddies and I DO shoot competitively. We also use targets that fall back, when hit. The splatter is not dangerous, it is not a richochet. And, splatter, as it is, is an exceedingly rare occurance. Out of THOUSANDS of rounds... splatter almost never happens. These same style of targets are used at other IPSC matches in the area.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Rifter, I don't want to be mean, but please reconsider your course of action. Softer bullets and lower power make shooting steel MORE dangerous, not less. You should also not have received splatter or ricochet more times than you can count on one hand, because that means your target is either poor quality/damaged, your target is set up improperly, or you're standing too close, or some combination of the three.

And besides, why the need to shoot steel, especially at close range, when you're not competing? I never understood the appeal.

Number One!

I don't even know if I remembered to vote for this one. Relocation . . .life out of balance.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Much obliged.

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.
Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.
I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public and the scientific and engineering communities. The Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine through the National Research Council Governing Board. The chairman of the National Research Council is Ralph J. Cicerone.


So are you are saying this site cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

Did he go to the same high school with you?

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Ahahahaha....unreal. Never thought I'd find myself upvoting an interview with one of my own friends. Actually, I think he comes across more eloquent here than he does in person!

You personally know the guy? Tell him I said "thanks" for giving Apple the ol' 'fuck you'

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Ahahahaha....unreal. Never thought I'd find myself upvoting an interview with one of my own friends. Actually, I think he comes across more eloquent here than he does in person!

invite pls? kthx!

In reply to your comment:
“ Sl666's comment was just pure idiocy, and I'm not in the habit of suffering idiots.”

Thing is rembar, i think you are the idiot - sorry for the delayed reply,

I would prefer none of them had to die, but i cannot sanction actions to shoot down a defenceless plane.. they could have just followed it until it landed and arrested them? they were absoloutely no threat.

Would you say the same if a policeman shot someone who was running away from them? no weapon?

You assume that everyone on that plane was some evil Columbian drug lord, that probably isn't the case, it was probably flown and crewed by people that work for a drug lord because it was the best job they could get.

Defend my country, no worries, defend my family, no worries, shoot down a civilian plane? f**k no, thats an act of terrorism.

Its people like you that voted for bush.

Hey, I don't know if you've seen this before or not, but when I saw this I immediately thought of you, seeing how you've used kittys in your avatars before!
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1106/1071485402_f25a1669d4.jpg

Would this vid be OK in your collective?
http://www.videosift.com/video/WaterFurnace-Geothermal-A-Convenient-Truth

i like science! hint hint

Slang your wang in a car door. Priceless

In reply to your comment:
“My very first attempt was a dupe, but it got out in time to get me off probationary status: Two hypnotists cut and run on their volunteers

My first sift that made it out of the queue is actually one of the oldest videos I can remember finding funny on the internets: Durex Ultra Mega Thin Condoms - "I Can Feel Everything!"”

You may or may not know I have created a playlist named "The uber save playlist compilation". It consists of videos from all VS "to be saved" playlists. If you would like any of your "to be saved" videos added to my list please add them to my playlist.

Thanks

http://www.videosift.com/playlist/eric3579/THE-UBER-SAVE-PLAYLIST-COMPILATION