While searching around on YouTube today, I found a rather interesting BBC radio broadcast which briefly discussed the religious controversies over embryonic stem cell research in response to President Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research. The two sides of the argument were represented by Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Omar Sultan Haque, a Muslim philosopher.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.
I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.
Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.
Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
I AM ANGRY!!!!!!! PART 2
The other day I was once again on the Internet, that seems to happen allot, when I once again stumbled upon A VIDEO THAT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!!!!!! It was video on Youtube that showed clips from a certain news station. Any guesses??? It can't be that hard......... it's FOX! The news clip was trying to be used as proof that vaccines cause autism, and on first inspection they are right, but Fox News is NEVER right. I had to look into it more, and I knew the way to do this was by watching the rest of the video, Fox has the habit of debunking their lunatical tirades at the same time they are making them. It did not take them long either. They brought in a medical expert, who revealed something very important. The girl who had gotten autism from the vaccines, HAD ALREADY HAD AUTISM PRIOR TO GETTING THE VACCINE!!!! I surely hope that you can understand the significance of this. Vaccines do not cause healthy people to get autism, they only rarely bring autism out in people who already autistic. I can see how people might think that that is a bad thing, and arguably it is. But autism always surfaces after a time, if you are born autistic, than you will have symptoms of autism. Taking the risk of not having an autistic child vaccinated because you want them to enjoy a few years of un autistic life just long enough for them to miss it when the symptoms set in. This akin to being born blind, or going blind at the age of 5. If the later happens than you are devastated because you will miss seeing, but if you are born blind than arguably you do not loose anything, which helps the transition become easier. But I digress I am delving into a very controversial ethics issue. The bottom line is this, the girl mentioned in the video would have gotten autism regardless if she had not taken the vaccine. It is helpful to no that vaccines might cause autism to surface, but as a result of this coming from Fox, vast quantities of people will be too scared to get vaccines for a reason that is not worth dieing for. One must also keep in mind that autistism can be triggered by any number of things, I have personally witnessed someone who had autism brought out by a head injury suffered in football. Following that logic, vaccines, football and any activity that carries the risk of a head injury should be illegal. Not to mention any numbers of other factors can trigger autism to emerge, stress trauma, sickness, time, or anything that effects the brain. Vaccines are just one more thing to be added to that list. ANYTHING can trigger autism, their is no point in blaming it on one measly thing.
By: Anti Väinämöinen
By: Anti Väinämöinen
The Big Brane?
Sense the 1920s the commonly excepted scientific theory for the creation of the universe has been the Big Bang Theory. A theory for which a singularity of infinite mass exploded to release the cosmos we know today. I was recently poking around on sciencenews.org when I found an article about a whole different theory that connects the big bang theory with string theory to offers a new theory of how the big bang happened, why scientists think it will happen many more times in the future, and why there could be different universes each with different properties.
In 1981 a scientist names Alan Guth proposed the idea that the universe underwent a short period of faster than light expansion known as inflation. Scientists now think that this period of inflation could have happened many times before and will happen many more times in the future, each time sprouting a new bubble of universes. These universes could have completely different states of matter, different laws of physics, and even different state s of time. But the question is, why?
In a new model produced Dr. Steinhardt at Stanford University the multitudes of universes could be attributed to the constant expansion and contraction of three-dimensional sheets of space know as branes, minute distances away from each other which travel along an extra dimension of space. When they are separated the branes are wrinkle free which represents a universe that is completely devoid of matter or a time when the universe has expanded to the point where matter is so spread out that it barely exists. When the branes are close together they develop wrinkles that represent seeds of galaxies and other massive cosmological masses, this would represent time when the universe has a massive amount of condensed matter. When the branes finally collide they release a massive amount of energy and trigger the emergence of a new universe and the cycle of the branes slowly moving apart repeats’. To an observer, this collision would be a “big bang” or a “big bounce.” In this model there are unlimited universes that have been created or have yet to be created and all universes have an effect on each other due to the wrinkles left of the branes of space. The only way scientist know to test this theory is to continue the search for massive gravity waves that have left their mark on the very fabric of space time with each “big bounce.” The European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft is on it way to look for these massive waves effect on the cosmic background radiation, although scientists predict that the waves to could be so spread apart it could take a millennia to even start to recognize patterns in the radiation, they have to start somewhere.
Source Article:
Other Scources
Vaccines do not cause autism, plain and simple.
I recently read an article written by a contributor to Discovery: Fit and Health that intelligently summarizes and debunks the deadly myth that vaccines can cause autism. The article was written by a woman named Katie Lambert, who holds an English degree from the University of Georgia. Far from the person you would expect to be contributing to a medical column, but this just proves that all it takes to effectively analyze a subject is smart research and the effective use of true critical thinking.
Originally people thought that increased rates of autism and the link to vaccines could be attributed to a preservative used in most vaccines called Thimerosal, which is known to have trace amounts of toxic mercury. There is much wrong with this argument, as the author points out. Thimerosal contains less than 1 microgram (or one millionth of a gram) of mercury. So little it would have no impact on the human body. Secondly, Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is not the same as the methylmercury, the kind of mercury that can bioaccumulate and cause poisoning. Furthermore, Thimerosal was removed from all vaccines other than the flu vaccine after re-evaluation of the chemical and upon further request you can receive a flu vaccine without Thimerosal. Even with the removal of Thimerosal, autism rates continued to rise. Yet people still make the argument that Thimerosal is the cause of rising autism rates.
One of the main catalysts that accelerated the growing alarm that vaccines can cause autism was a study conducted in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The study concluded that soon after receiving the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) some children developed advanced autism. Lambert’s article explained how, not only was Wakefield’s study conducted on just 12 children, but after an investigation, it was found that Dr. Wakefield “altered and falsified” his data. The only reason that the study has such a profound effect on the public was because it was an easy study for people to understand, due to its simple nature. It was also published in one of the most prestigious medical science journals.
Finally, Lambert’s article explains the dangers of not being vaccinated. Vaccines are arguably one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Due to vaccinations, deadly diseases such as polio, smallpox, pertussis, and diphtheria, have been practically eliminated. What people don’t realize is that not so long ago, it was not uncommon to know someone on your block who died or was disabled from one such sickness. Because of this the misleading fear that vaccines cause autism, parents are no longer vaccinating their children, subsequently herd immunity is dropping and these deadly diseases are on the rise.
Source Article:
Link to further sources:
People who preach that vaccines are bad should be imprisoned.
Growing up in one of the most well educated communities in the country one could assume people to have the knowledge not to believe the absurd rumors about the danger of vaccines. However for one reason or another, the population in the city of Boulder tends to believe that vaccines are bad and do not have their children vaccinated. Because of this lack of vaccinations, Boulder Colorado’s herd immunity has dropped significantly, leaving the vaccinated portion of the community susceptible to diseases brought on by the non-vaccinated populous in the community.
About five years ago, I received my scheduled TDaP (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis) booster vaccine. Unfortunately about a year later I found myself diagnosed with Pertussis, a sickness more commonly know as whooping cough. Due to the poor decisions of the people who decided not to vaccinate their children, but are immune to decease through herd immunity, I ended up in the hospital and under legal quarantine for a week (For those who don’t know what that is, if you leave your house and they catch you, you go to prison) despite receiving my vaccination. My immune system was down all of the following year leading to more sickness. Due to the damage I received over the month or so of continuous coughing, I was then diagnosed with permanent asthma. I just wanted to put into perspective how serious and real the danger of not receiving a vaccination can be. People should not have to suffer due to the unbelievably irrational community that buys into claims that are based on literally non-existent science. Vaccines are one of the most brilliant advancements in science. Lets not reverse the progress they have made.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Recent Article: Anti-Vaccination
"The correlation between 38 vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has not been studied." -- Mary Tocco
-
This entire article is composed of exactly the same argument--that we live in the age of information and scientific evaluation, and yet "The United States has one of the worst Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) rates in the modern world."
For one thing, the U.S. does not, in any stretch of the imagination, have one of the highest infant mortality rates. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a "5.98 deaths/1,000 live birth" rate. Other countries, such as Zambia (total: 64.61 deaths/1,000 live births) or Mongolia (36 deaths/1,000 live births) have a much higher rate of infant deaths--to mention only a few countries at random. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has an average (perhaps even below average) infant mortality rate. Perhaps Tocco's version of the "modern world" only consists of North America.
For another, the correlation between vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has, in fact, been studied. There are multiple scientific journals and studies that have reported on the subject over the past 20 years, each saying precisely the same thing: vaccines do not cause autism. In fact, vaccines can't cause autism because of the properties associated with the autism spectrum such as the fact that it occurs in the brain and is present since birth (though it is generally dormant for upwards of 5-10 years).
This article makes me genuinely begin to question the integrity of some researchers and reporters in the U.S.--how educated are they? Can we trust them to accurately report any unbiased, unsheltered facts?
-
This entire article is composed of exactly the same argument--that we live in the age of information and scientific evaluation, and yet "The United States has one of the worst Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) rates in the modern world."
For one thing, the U.S. does not, in any stretch of the imagination, have one of the highest infant mortality rates. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a "5.98 deaths/1,000 live birth" rate. Other countries, such as Zambia (total: 64.61 deaths/1,000 live births) or Mongolia (36 deaths/1,000 live births) have a much higher rate of infant deaths--to mention only a few countries at random. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has an average (perhaps even below average) infant mortality rate. Perhaps Tocco's version of the "modern world" only consists of North America.
For another, the correlation between vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has, in fact, been studied. There are multiple scientific journals and studies that have reported on the subject over the past 20 years, each saying precisely the same thing: vaccines do not cause autism. In fact, vaccines can't cause autism because of the properties associated with the autism spectrum such as the fact that it occurs in the brain and is present since birth (though it is generally dormant for upwards of 5-10 years).
This article makes me genuinely begin to question the integrity of some researchers and reporters in the U.S.--how educated are they? Can we trust them to accurately report any unbiased, unsheltered facts?
Monday, February 27, 2012
What HAARP actually is
I'm sure this has already been covered on this blog, but I am going to post this anyway. Mostly because I don't want to go through the whole blog looking for it.
I just read a very nice post about why HAARP is surrounded by conspracy theories, but I realized that I don't know what HAARP's actual purpose is. My solution to this problem? I read the Wikipedia page. Its primary purpose is to analyze the ionosphere. Using this analyses, we could create enhancements in the ionosphere that would lead to technological advancements in radio communications and surveillance. The frequencies emitted by HAARP that are so attractive to conspiracy theorists are used to test "basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction, and how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals." HAARP is where most of our knowledge on the ionosphere comes from. It is a very difficult region of the atmosphere to study because it is too high for balloons to reach, but satellites can not be used there because the air is to thick.
After all this though, I still was not sure what exactly HAARP is. In short, it's just a bitchin radio tower.
I just read a very nice post about why HAARP is surrounded by conspracy theories, but I realized that I don't know what HAARP's actual purpose is. My solution to this problem? I read the Wikipedia page. Its primary purpose is to analyze the ionosphere. Using this analyses, we could create enhancements in the ionosphere that would lead to technological advancements in radio communications and surveillance. The frequencies emitted by HAARP that are so attractive to conspiracy theorists are used to test "basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction, and how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals." HAARP is where most of our knowledge on the ionosphere comes from. It is a very difficult region of the atmosphere to study because it is too high for balloons to reach, but satellites can not be used there because the air is to thick.
After all this though, I still was not sure what exactly HAARP is. In short, it's just a bitchin radio tower.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Curious
In this video, the reporters detail the newest genetic research being conducted in Iran--documenting pieces of a conference about stem cell research. This seems normal enough, but it makes me wonder a bit--nowhere in the video do they mention any sort of controversy over this study. I know that here in the U.S., we've made a big stink about stem cell research in terms of the values of human life and even stretching into the debates over abortion--but is that problem just as prevalent in other countries, such as Iran? Our government and press have always been nagged about stem cell research, to the point where, in 2009, president Obama made a public announcement about the research ban. If we are making such a huge deal over this potentially life-saving research here, what about other countries with other religions and creeds?
-
On many other videos about stem cell research, there have been comments that openly bash all religion as a rule--claiming that, if we didn't have religion, then we could move forward in science. While this may or may not be true on some level, I have to question if religion is really the source of the madness. Perhaps we should look at other, outside sources for examples before we become so quick to accuse.
-
On many other videos about stem cell research, there have been comments that openly bash all religion as a rule--claiming that, if we didn't have religion, then we could move forward in science. While this may or may not be true on some level, I have to question if religion is really the source of the madness. Perhaps we should look at other, outside sources for examples before we become so quick to accuse.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
The Mayan Calendar, Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjKUqQ2uSzg&feature=plcp&context=C331a118UDOEgsToPDskILmxdmAU3wmeSR1aybOsWc
That link up there is an excellent Youtube video made by a guy named Hank Green, who is awesome for many reasons, but - in the case of this class - because he understands the workings of the Mayan calendar.
So, as I'm sure has been re-iterated tirelessly on this blog, the idea behind the 2012 apocalypse dwells in the supposed end of the Mayan Calendar on December 21st, 2012.
But...the Mayan Calender doesn't end then.
Quick explanation: The Maya had a really good sense of time in the long term, and thus they made many, many calendars. The particular calendar put into question by the 2012 apocalypse theory is, roughly translated, called The Long Count Calendar. The Maya created this calendar specifically for the purpose of measuring really long periods of time and the dates on the calendar are denoted in a format created by the Maya, it looks like this:
One day - K'in
20 days - Winal
360 days - Tun
20 years - K'atun
144,000 days, or about 394.26 years - B'ak'tun
*Note: The Maya used this to mark the days from what they called "The Last Creation" into the indefinite future. The Maya believed that they lived in the fourth "Creation" and marked time from the beginning of said creation - which has been calculated to August 11th, 3,114 B.C.
So, the Maya mark time like this:
# of B'ak'tun. # of K'atun. # of Tun. # of Winal. # of K'in.
So, here is what July 4th, 1776 looks like: 12.8.0.1.13
Now, December 21st, 2012 looks like this: 13.0.0.0.0
That is, legitimately, the only special thing about December 21st, 2012. It's the first day of a new B'ak'tun. The last time that the calendar clicked over to a new B'ak'tun was September 18th, 1618 - a day known for being notoriously uninteresting and certainly not apocalyptic.
To be fair, the Maya did predict that "The Last Creation" would last for 13 B'ak'tun, but nowhere in Maya lore does that indicate there will be acid-rain, plagues of frogs or murders of firstborn sons.
So, it looks as though there aren't going to be any imminent threats.
That link up there is an excellent Youtube video made by a guy named Hank Green, who is awesome for many reasons, but - in the case of this class - because he understands the workings of the Mayan calendar.
So, as I'm sure has been re-iterated tirelessly on this blog, the idea behind the 2012 apocalypse dwells in the supposed end of the Mayan Calendar on December 21st, 2012.
But...the Mayan Calender doesn't end then.
Quick explanation: The Maya had a really good sense of time in the long term, and thus they made many, many calendars. The particular calendar put into question by the 2012 apocalypse theory is, roughly translated, called The Long Count Calendar. The Maya created this calendar specifically for the purpose of measuring really long periods of time and the dates on the calendar are denoted in a format created by the Maya, it looks like this:
One day - K'in
20 days - Winal
360 days - Tun
20 years - K'atun
144,000 days, or about 394.26 years - B'ak'tun
*Note: The Maya used this to mark the days from what they called "The Last Creation" into the indefinite future. The Maya believed that they lived in the fourth "Creation" and marked time from the beginning of said creation - which has been calculated to August 11th, 3,114 B.C.
So, the Maya mark time like this:
# of B'ak'tun. # of K'atun. # of Tun. # of Winal. # of K'in.
So, here is what July 4th, 1776 looks like: 12.8.0.1.13
Now, December 21st, 2012 looks like this: 13.0.0.0.0
That is, legitimately, the only special thing about December 21st, 2012. It's the first day of a new B'ak'tun. The last time that the calendar clicked over to a new B'ak'tun was September 18th, 1618 - a day known for being notoriously uninteresting and certainly not apocalyptic.
To be fair, the Maya did predict that "The Last Creation" would last for 13 B'ak'tun, but nowhere in Maya lore does that indicate there will be acid-rain, plagues of frogs or murders of firstborn sons.
So, it looks as though there aren't going to be any imminent threats.
HAARP: Scientists’ Funding Ploys
HAARP has a full catastrophe of conspiracy theories associated with it, including that it is being developed to control weather, cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and even to control minds. However, the history behind HAARP reveals that the true conspiracies revolve more around politics and funding for scientific endeavors than these far-fetched creations of an over-active imagination. Wired Magazine published this article, “Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere, Fans Conspiracy,” on 07/20/09, which mostly details the history of the HAARP project. Turns out, the project’s funding history was only slightly less bizarre, but in a less apocalyptic way, as the conspiracy theories it spawned. The author of this article, Noah Shachtman, comments: “Bringing HAARP to fruition was, well, complicated. A group of scientists had to cozy up to a US senator, cut deals with an oil company, and convince the Pentagon that the project might revolutionize war. Oh, and along the way they sparked enough conspiracy theories to make the place sound like an arctic Area 51.”
Most of the conspiracy theories were invented by the scientists just trying to get funding for an experiment that was essentially to super charge that ionosphere and see what happens. But that’s not what they told the oil company (Arco) whose land and gas rights they wanted to use for this project. An Arco scientist, Bernard Eastland, told Arco that it “could fry Soviet missiles in midflight or maybe even nudge cyclones and other extreme weather toward enemies. That's right: weaponized hurricanes.” From Arco this idea was transferred along a line of political contacts up to the Pentagon’s advanced research arm, DARPA. The project even had a code name: Jason. All along this line, the claims for its military abilities were exaggerated and expanded, until it could brainwash people, provide x-ray visions of subterranean earth bunkers, etc.. Oh, and Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who built the $233 million “Bridge to Nowhere,” wrote the seed funding of $10 million dollars for HAARP as a pork barrel addition to a federal budget.
So, most of the conspiracy theories were grounded in what scientists had exaggerated about the project to get funding. Then along comes Nick Begich, who writes a book called “Angels Don’t Play this HAARP,” giving the conspiracy theories easy access and an enthusiastic leader. The interesting thing about Begich: his father was an Alaskan Congressional Representative who died in a plane crash in 1972 when Nick was only 13. The plane was never actually found, however, and Nick was obsessed with conspiracy theories and mysteries.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Across the Multiverse
Physicist Alejandro Jenkins is asking the question, is there life in other universes? Published is Scientific American, Jenkins poses a controversial hypothesis known as the anthropic principle, which states that the
existence of intelligent life
imposes constraints on the possible form of the laws of physics. "Our lives here on Earth -- in fact, everything we see and know about
the universe around us -- depend on a precise set of conditions that
makes us possible," Jenkins said. "For example, if the fundamental
forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly,
it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element
carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know
it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists?
Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm
of physics." However, when one considers the concept of the multiverse, it is possible that we could occupy the universe where conditions are right for organic evolution. He and colleague Gilad Perez have concluded that it is possible for life to exist in other universes. This life could look unlike anything we could imagine. Jenkins said, "this actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic
principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think
more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain."
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Ye Gods! (but not the ones that are causing the apocalypse)
Someone's already written my post for me. This guy writes in 20-point font and uses 5th grade science (plate tectonics) to prove conspiracy theorists wrong about the earthquakes in China. That means a fifth grader could see the flaws in a conspiracy theory.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
HAARP: A New World Order Plot to Destabilize the Planet? HAARP: A New World Order Plot to Destabilize the Planet? HAARP: A New World Order Plot to Destabilize the Planet?
A. R. Brown
When analyzing an article it is impervious that you judge the piece by the content in the piece and validity of the sources rather than simply trusting the caliber of the author. While browsing the internet, I uncovered a very interesting article about HAARP written by Michel Chossudovsky a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa. Chossudovsky holds a PhD in economics from the University of North Carolina, has written multiple books, and has served as a governmental advisor for developing countries. Judging only by his accreditations one could assume that he is a man who has the knowledge to easily analyze and debunk conspiracy theories as wacky as the New World Order and HAARP.
However Chossudovsky’s article claims that HAARP is a plot designed by the military in cooperation with the New World Order to destabilize the world’s economies through weather warfare and mind control. He also claims that HAARP was build with to work with the space station in a way that could cause a massive beam of laser energy to vaporize selected parts of the globe. The article also goes so far as to claim that HAARP is causing global warming and could cause a shift in plate tectonics.
You would think that a man with so much education wouldn’t overlook even basic scientific principals when making claims that could conceivably put his job at risk. Fortunately for us his article holds almost no scientific backing. The claim the HAARP is a secret weapon devised by the military is preposterous. In reality HAARP is a publicly funded research installation designed by the University of Alaska to study the atmosphere directly above the station by exiting electrons in the ionosphere. They are most definitely not a secret organization either. All of their findings are publicly disclosed on their website and independent organizations such as universities can rent the facility.
On top of that, the claim that HAARP can change weather patterns around the world holds no valid science. First of all the ionosphere is hundreds of miles above where all of our weather happens. Second even if HAARP could aim its waves at where our weather takes place, the high frequency waves would have no effect on weather. Furthermore even if the wave could affect the weather, they pale in comparison to the natural radioactive energy that hits the earth’s atmosphere everyday.
Another claim that holds no scientific backing is the fast that HAARP can change the climate all over the planet. First of all, the station can only emit waves directly above the station and even if it could bounce high frequency wave off the ionosphere to target various places in the globe, the surrounding mountains would stop the waves. The claims do, to the contrary, assert that the facility could emit ultra low frequency waves as low as .5 Hz, which could travel through the planet but would have no affect on the climate and if used for military communication transmit information at an extremely low data rate. Overall, Chossudovsky’s claims are a perfect example of why you should not trust information simply because it’s from a “credible” source.
Primary Article:
Other Sources:
Scientific Proof for 2012?
Apparently, there is scientific evidence for 2012. "Scientists" claim that there is a solar event that happens every 25,800 years. This extreme solar activity would involve the sun, earth, and center of the milky way aligning perfectly, which would cause the earth's poles to shift about 45 degrees. Also, the position of Jupiter and Saturn on December 21, 2012 would be ideal for solar activity. These two planets have a pulling effect on the sun which could have an extreme effect on its alignment with the earth and the center of the milky way. There are some non believers though, and this writer believes that if nothing happens, solar flares from the sun would at least knock out "satellites and disrupt communication, transportation, power grids, the
internet, and ATM machines. Also, violent weather disturbances,
earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions may increase." That would be the best case scenario. This may sound ridiculous, but the writer believes that Einstein would fully support him. He would have believed in the pole shift, and, even if it happened slowly, extreme climate changes would occur. The writer is very convinced that there will be a 2012 catastrophe. It is scary how firmly some people believe in 2012.
Stem Cell Research: the Science that We Cannot Ignore
Stem Cell research has potential benefits that cannot be disputed. Stem cells have the power to lead us to cures and effective treatments for diseases and injuries that are currently life threatening. The controversy stems (Ha!) from the method of retrieving/making stem cells. Stem cells are essential for the growth of organisms, and as such they are far more potent and common in fetuses than in adults. Aborted fetuses and placentas are often used as sources of stem cells. Many religious groups and politicians oppose this, seeing it as playing god, or destroying life.
What a waste.
Would those who oppose stem cell research prefer that aborted fetuses are simply disposed of? Is that any more ethical? Why, I ask, would anyone oppose making use of an undoubtedly tragic thing for the greater good? This is knowledge that it would suit us not to ignore. Imagine a world where life threatening diseases claim no more lives, and an injury to your spine is not to be confined to a wheelchair. Can it be argued that this is bad? I say no. Our government should fund this revolutionary research, as opposed to being afraid of it.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html
I AM ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The other day I was surfing the wide world of sports, when I came over a sudden desire to do my homework . I found an evil irritating video from fox THAT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!!! I AM ANGRY!!!!! In the video Fox was bitching and whining over the supposed government cover up of autism causing vaccines. They brought on an overly irritating women who showed no signs of intelligence, AND TREATED HERE SENSELESS WHINING LIKE SCIENCE!!!!!!! ARRRGGGHHH! The video claims that their is insufficient evidence supporting the claim that vaccines don't cause autism. Then they start whining that the government wants the thousands of (insert nasty adjective here) people who believe that their children's autism was caused by vaccines to find medical evidence to support their claims! They even go as far as to say it is nearly impossible for people to do that. WELL DUH!!! IF THEIR IS NO BLOODY EVIDENCE THAN YOU CAN NOT FIND A MEDICAL EXPERT TO SUPPORT IT!!!!!!!! The show than turns to their own medical expert who says that that the government did tests which could not find any link between autism and vaccines. Incredible, FOX is actually telling part of the truth! But, the expert than goes on to claim that the court that oversaw the tests was bad. She never critisizes the actuall science, just the government, how FOX!!! This program not only makes me mad, but they are spreading hurtful lies that are not BASED ON SCIENCE!!! When the millions of gullable people that infest this world see this, they will stop taking their vaccines and ALL DIE!!!! The show then concludes by trying to console the dummpy lady they brought on and managed to put in a few parting shots to the government over this. They are spewing lies that could potentially kill people just to push their own political agenda!
F**&^B %$#@ *&^%%&*(*!!!! *&%^$@@ #%#%%#$&&****#&&#&% ##@#!!!!!!! $$#@@%%$ sh#ht bloody all got %%$$##$#@!!!@@#$ bahhggg %%%^**gggggghggggGGHHHFD%%%^^&* %%(GO%%%$&T) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Anti Väinämöinen
F**&^B %$#@ *&^%%&*(*!!!! *&%^$@@ #%#%%#$&&****#&&#&% ##@#!!!!!!! $$#@@%%$ sh#ht bloody all got %%$$##$#@!!!@@#$ bahhggg %%%^**gggggghggggGGHHHFD%%%^^&* %%(GO%%%$&T) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Anti Väinämöinen
Monday, February 20, 2012
Topic Combos
I wasn't in the mood to write a proper blog post today, so I decided to see what idiocy/brilliance I could dig up if I cross-referenced 2 or more topics via Google.
Stem Cells + Vaccines Cause Autism
- Nice layout. >:(
- Correlation = causation, evidently.
- Surprisingly nothing related to science. Someone needs to teach those yoo-hoos in pop culture what a multiverse actually is.
Autism; the Facts
"Autism is a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life and affects a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others." Autism Society of America
- The Center for Disease Control issued an Autism prevalence report in 2009, stating that the numbers had risen to 1 in every 110 births, almost 1 in 70 for boys.
- 1.5 million Americans are currently on the Autism Spectrum.
- There are five classifications of the Autism Spectrum as follows;
- Autism
- Characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, repetitive and restricted behavior before the child is 3yrs old.
- Asperger Syndrome
- Characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development.
- Childhood Disintregrative Disorder
- Characterized by developmental delays in language, social function, and motor skills.
- Rett Syndrome
- Almost exclusively affects females, limited to no verbal skills. Rett Syndrome is the nerodevelopmental disorder of the grey matter of the brain.
- PDD-NOS
- Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified; Two main characterizations of PDD-NOS are difficulties with social interaction skills and communication. As the child ages, they will have trouble with non-verbal communication, sarcasm and figurative speech.
- Autism affects information processing in the brain. The way the nerve cells and synapse in the brain are organized and connected are different in the Autistic than they are in developmentally functional brains, and the shapes and sizes of the brains can by seen on brain scans. (See Upper Right)
- About 30% of Autistic children engage in self harming actions.
- Autism is the fastest growing developmental disability, 1,148% growth rate.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ridiculous argument against stem cells
So I was lurking around on the internet when I had found a link to this blog. I couldn't believe what I had read at first because of how ridiculous this post was. Basically what it says is German scientist have found a cure for aids using stem cells. This obviously isn't true or there would've been more news about it, but anyways it says that the scientists are trying to hurt america by saving people (focusing on they gay community) from this deadly disease. Because of course saving thousands of people using stem cells is just pure evil. Then they take the crazy a bit further by saying,
Germany, as we all know, is where the Naziscame from, so it should come as no surprise that they have teamed up with something so librul as stem cells to figure out something so evil as curing a disease that has killed so manySo because Germany is where Nazis came from, they're evil? seriously, this is what made my jaw drop, that's like saying all Americans are evil because of our bloodied past. Yes, what we did was wrong, but that is in the past. And because Aids had first appeared in the gay community makes it okay for us to allow the deaths of so many people. I just though all the people of this blog would find this article interesting, if not absolutely absurd.peoplegay people.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Vengeful God is Vengeful?
Hey, so check it out. There are a simply enormous number of theories about how our lovely little blue planet is going to end in about ten months; some say we'll be struck down by an Old-Testament God, some say Jupiter will be impacted by a giant invisible super-planet hiding behind the sun (Nibiru), some say the economy will just... collapse. However people say things will end, the general consensus is that the Mayan Calendar (along with other predictive entities like the I Ching and Nostradamus) predicted an end or a radical change.
This article suggests something novel- that God's period of allowing man to rule himself will come to an end in 2012 (and the Seven Trumpets of the Seventh Seal will be blown). The first four trumpets will destroy the United States (the first of which signifies COMPLETE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and has already been blown), the fifth will plunge the world into WWIII, and the article fails to specify the exact effect of the final two (I assume it is something approximating "bad"). WWIII will destroy the world and end the reign of man, returning Earth to God's caring hands.
Or something. For starters, it looks like God just cares to specifically target the United States with four (out of seven) of his incredibly valuable trumpets; that's about 57% of the available trumpet-power being used to destroy one nation- leaving approximately 43% of the power for the rest of the world (14% of which is being used to start WWIII). That means that overall, the destruction of the world (news flash: the entire world does not consist solely of America and the not-yet America tumor shaped kind of like some "Canada" place on top of Chicago) has to be accomplished with 29% of the total available trumpet power- also, if 57% of the power is required to demolish a single country and its affiliates, then how is God going to deal with the European Union? Russia is twice the size of the US if it's a square mile, so that would require at least 114% of the total trumpet-power (going off what the US needed). The math just doesn't work out- also, the idea of God destroying us all for being sinful is kind of ridiculous- I mean, everyone knows that planet Nibiru is going to turn Jupiter into a Red Dwarf and we'll be pulled apart by a dual-sun system. I'm kidding.
This article suggests something novel- that God's period of allowing man to rule himself will come to an end in 2012 (and the Seven Trumpets of the Seventh Seal will be blown). The first four trumpets will destroy the United States (the first of which signifies COMPLETE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and has already been blown), the fifth will plunge the world into WWIII, and the article fails to specify the exact effect of the final two (I assume it is something approximating "bad"). WWIII will destroy the world and end the reign of man, returning Earth to God's caring hands.
Or something. For starters, it looks like God just cares to specifically target the United States with four (out of seven) of his incredibly valuable trumpets; that's about 57% of the available trumpet-power being used to destroy one nation- leaving approximately 43% of the power for the rest of the world (14% of which is being used to start WWIII). That means that overall, the destruction of the world (news flash: the entire world does not consist solely of America and the not-yet America tumor shaped kind of like some "Canada" place on top of Chicago) has to be accomplished with 29% of the total available trumpet power- also, if 57% of the power is required to demolish a single country and its affiliates, then how is God going to deal with the European Union? Russia is twice the size of the US if it's a square mile, so that would require at least 114% of the total trumpet-power (going off what the US needed). The math just doesn't work out- also, the idea of God destroying us all for being sinful is kind of ridiculous- I mean, everyone knows that planet Nibiru is going to turn Jupiter into a Red Dwarf and we'll be pulled apart by a dual-sun system. I'm kidding.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
HAARP To Blame?
Apparently, when a phenomenon occurs that no one can currently explain, people turn their blame to unprecedented sources. Recently in Malaysia, the towns people have discovered strange noises coming from the sky that resemble the sound of someone snoring. Because they have nothing else to blame, the people have started looking towards HAARP as a possible cause of this noise. I personally see this almost as an attack on HAARP--it is vulnerable as an endeavor because of all the controversy surrounding it. While it is possible that HAARP may be responsible (either directly or otherwise) for this strange noise, it should not be the first culprit. There have been multiple natural anomalies in the past few years, and this is just another to add to the list. These accusations only push opinions of HAARP further to either side of the spectrum; one side thinks that HAARP is a powerful cataclyst, and the other believes that society has just gone mad.
If you want to hear the strange noise, the original article can be found here.
If you want to hear the strange noise, the original article can be found here.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Vaccines: Not So Risky a Business After All
Let's start with the basics- you're all (hopefully) familiar with the name Andrew Wakefield by now- best known for collaborating on an article in the Lancet in 1998 condemning the MMR vaccine for causing autism.
This Scientific American blog post by David Ropeik (Harvard Extension School instructor, author of several risk-studies books and consultant on risk perception) looks at how Wakefield's "work" (referred to in quotation marks because of its obvious illegitimacy) has affected the perceived risk of vaccines. He talks about how humans perceive risk, and states the overall lesson of the article as: "sometimes what we do to protect ourselves feels safe, but makes things worse"- an example of which being the reluctance to ride a roller coaster for the first time. Until one can accurately assess the actual risk in a situation, one operates off of a mental model of perceived risk, which can cause an individual to act in what seems to be a less rational way in a situation so long as their perceived risk is higher than actual risk.
So, how does perceived risk come to exist as higher than actual risk? For starters, Ropeik mentions several factors that help determine risk:
"•We know that human-made risks are scarier than those that are natural. Vaccines are human-made.
• We know that a risk will seem more threatening if it comes with little benefit, and vaccines protect us from diseases that are mostly gone (thanks to the vaccines), so their benefits are perceived as minimal (even though the risk remains).
• We know that a risk imposed on us feels scarier than one we choose to take on our own, and vaccination is imposed by government (though one can opt out).
• We are more afraid if we don’t trust the people in charge of our health and safety, and many people don’t trust vaccine makers or the government health agencies overseeing vaccine programs.
• Finally, we know that any risk to kids evokes more fear than the same risk to adults, and the whole fear of vaccines movement got started, and still largely focuses on, autistic children."
Essentially what he's saying is that all the vaccine controversy needed to get itself started was Wakefield's ridiculous allegations; however, once that spark occurred, it snowballed into something much bigger. The problem currently being faced is, as you know, that herd immunity is decreasing and the diseases certain vaccines prevent are coming back; thus, the action based on perceived risk for children is causing a far worse situation to develop (although not much is worse than a few kids being Autistic. I'm kidding).
So, how does the perceived risk level decrease? I would say that it doesn't need to decrease at all; however, there needs to be a shift in what sort of risk is being perceived. If the Concerned Public was more worried about their child's increasing chance of catching Polio (rather than their child's incredibly low chance of being Autistic, which arguably isn't that bad), more voluntary vaccinations would take place and as a result our herd immunity would begin to return. After the perceived-risk-shift, too, there would be much less resistance to the scientific studies that disprove the vaccine—autism link (i.e, all of them) and that nasty little Wakefield problem would go away; everyone wins. Except the Polio.
-Ian
This Scientific American blog post by David Ropeik (Harvard Extension School instructor, author of several risk-studies books and consultant on risk perception) looks at how Wakefield's "work" (referred to in quotation marks because of its obvious illegitimacy) has affected the perceived risk of vaccines. He talks about how humans perceive risk, and states the overall lesson of the article as: "sometimes what we do to protect ourselves feels safe, but makes things worse"- an example of which being the reluctance to ride a roller coaster for the first time. Until one can accurately assess the actual risk in a situation, one operates off of a mental model of perceived risk, which can cause an individual to act in what seems to be a less rational way in a situation so long as their perceived risk is higher than actual risk.
So, how does perceived risk come to exist as higher than actual risk? For starters, Ropeik mentions several factors that help determine risk:
"•We know that human-made risks are scarier than those that are natural. Vaccines are human-made.
• We know that a risk will seem more threatening if it comes with little benefit, and vaccines protect us from diseases that are mostly gone (thanks to the vaccines), so their benefits are perceived as minimal (even though the risk remains).
• We know that a risk imposed on us feels scarier than one we choose to take on our own, and vaccination is imposed by government (though one can opt out).
• We are more afraid if we don’t trust the people in charge of our health and safety, and many people don’t trust vaccine makers or the government health agencies overseeing vaccine programs.
• Finally, we know that any risk to kids evokes more fear than the same risk to adults, and the whole fear of vaccines movement got started, and still largely focuses on, autistic children."
Essentially what he's saying is that all the vaccine controversy needed to get itself started was Wakefield's ridiculous allegations; however, once that spark occurred, it snowballed into something much bigger. The problem currently being faced is, as you know, that herd immunity is decreasing and the diseases certain vaccines prevent are coming back; thus, the action based on perceived risk for children is causing a far worse situation to develop (although not much is worse than a few kids being Autistic. I'm kidding).
So, how does the perceived risk level decrease? I would say that it doesn't need to decrease at all; however, there needs to be a shift in what sort of risk is being perceived. If the Concerned Public was more worried about their child's increasing chance of catching Polio (rather than their child's incredibly low chance of being Autistic, which arguably isn't that bad), more voluntary vaccinations would take place and as a result our herd immunity would begin to return. After the perceived-risk-shift, too, there would be much less resistance to the scientific studies that disprove the vaccine—autism link (i.e, all of them) and that nasty little Wakefield problem would go away; everyone wins. Except the Polio.
-Ian
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Canon Sonique
As the Nazi party was taking off in Germany, a stubby little french man and his lab assistants were developing what could have been the most efficient and engenious way to commit mass murder.
This stubby little man was named Vladimir Gavreau, and he had just discovered the power of Extremely Low Frequency sound waves, or ELF waves. You see, dear reader, the human ear's perception of sound drops off at about 20 Hz, but it is possible to hear sounds of 12 Hz. Vladimir and his lab assistants were exposed to waves of about 7 to 6 Hz. The sound shook the window panes of his lab and caused disturbances to liquids. And,of course, it wrecked havoc on the human body.
It starts out as an ache accompanied by anxiety, a vague thrumming in the bones that inspires an unsettled feeling in those exposed. Then, the eyes begin to hum. Next come the skull splitting headaches caused by pressure exerted on the ear drums. One test subject related the pain to being electrocuted. And to make matters worse, the subject will then begin to vomit violently. All of these symptoms present themselves in a matter of seconds when exposed to waves of 12Hz. And if the subject is not quickly unexposed, they will die in a matter of minutes. And here is how that works. The sound waves apply pressure the cells in the human body, and via cavitation, cause little bubbles of gas to go floating about in your body; a place that supposed to be relatively gas free, digestive tract and lugs excluded.
Naturaly, Dr. Gavreau, being the Nazi-supporting nationalist that he was, thought it'd be just dandy if he could weaponize this discovery and then market it to his buds in the Nazi party. What a nice guy, right?
Anyway, Vladimir's "Canon Sonique" generates sounds of about 7Hz and focuses them through pips and then directs them through an array of emitters at the end of the pipes. At 7Hz, armor, common buildings and concrete walls cannot protect those inside from the devastating effects of Vladimir's canon.
Wanna know something really unsettling?
In 2006, the BBC reported that a mobile sonic device was being used to deter youth from loitering in certain places in both the town of Lancashire and in Grimsby. I'd say that's ageism in action. And in 2009 a sonic "deterrent" was used against protesters in Pittsburgh. Also, who said that was okay? Cause whoever that was is a great big...
Oh, yeah, and before I go, I'd just like to remind you that ELF waves are a BIG part of HAARP.
You do the math.
Luckily, we were able to turn it off quickly. All of us were sick for hours. Everything in us was vibrating: stomach, heart, lungs. All the people in the other laboratories were sick too. They were very angry with us. ~Vladimir Gavreau
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
2012; Does it really signify the end?
It has been established that the Mayan Calendar ends on December 21, 2012. the Dresden Codex, the most complete of four known Mayan Codeces suggests that on this date, the world will end in massive flooding. A History Channel special on the Mayan Calendar compares recent history with the Katun cycles associated with different parts of the Mayan Calendar. It also mentions the alignment of the sun with the center of the galaxy and the completion of one cycle of the Earth's axial wobble. The show does not take a specific view on whether or not the world will end on December 21, but the evidence presented throughout the show encourages the reader to believe that 2012 will be either a time of great change or the end of the world itself.
Video (this is only one of several in the series)
There are several problems with this video. First of all, it uses the same concept as the 23 enigma. All of the predictions are fairly vague and make it easy to find historical events which could correspond. For example: Katun 3 prophesizes homelessness, calamities, and war. However, all of these issues have existed constantly throughout history, so it is only a matter of finding a specific event during the particular time period that corresponds to the date of the Katun. Also, the video fails to explain how either solar alignment or axial wobble could possibly affect the earth on that day. For these reasons, I think it is safe to assume that this particular source does not fall within the realms of "good science."
Video (this is only one of several in the series)
There are several problems with this video. First of all, it uses the same concept as the 23 enigma. All of the predictions are fairly vague and make it easy to find historical events which could correspond. For example: Katun 3 prophesizes homelessness, calamities, and war. However, all of these issues have existed constantly throughout history, so it is only a matter of finding a specific event during the particular time period that corresponds to the date of the Katun. Also, the video fails to explain how either solar alignment or axial wobble could possibly affect the earth on that day. For these reasons, I think it is safe to assume that this particular source does not fall within the realms of "good science."
Eschatological Logic
The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Anything that old's probably going to stick around for a while longer, right?
Maybe not. You see, people have now been bleating for some time now that the world will end in 2012.
Whether by meteor, Niburu, epoch-ending Mayan calendar, or other means. Personally, I hope it's zombies. Zombies, I can deal with.
But, I hear you saying to your computer screen, aren't these people completely barmy?
The answer, quite simply, is YES. Utterly marble-deprived. Doesn't mean they're not right, though. Let's wait and see...
Maybe not. You see, people have now been bleating for some time now that the world will end in 2012.
Whether by meteor, Niburu, epoch-ending Mayan calendar, or other means. Personally, I hope it's zombies. Zombies, I can deal with.
But, I hear you saying to your computer screen, aren't these people completely barmy?
The answer, quite simply, is YES. Utterly marble-deprived. Doesn't mean they're not right, though. Let's wait and see...
The Diatribes of a Perceptually Peeved Student of Science in Regards to a Fear Mongered Rant on Vaccines
Today is a day like any other day, in that it started out at 12:00 am in the morning. However, this day is completely unique in the history of the known universe, in that FOR THE FIRST THE CALENDAR READS FEBRUARY 4, 2012. In this modern day and age I am absolutely astounded that our knowledge of common sense ranks below that of our good friends, the monkeys. I am in fact making reference to a particularly unsavory website I found with a carefully worded google search the other day. It was a website claiming that vaccines cause autism. Is the website correct. Who knows?
This website makes only one argument that has any bases in fact. That mercury causes autism. This is not proven, however, it is known that mercury does affect the brain. This is a possible source of autism causing ingredients. However, their is no evidence that supports the idea that Mercury causes autism, although it has been known to cause kidney disease, but that is another issue. One of the websites arguments is that autism has been rising in children over the past ten years. If you know anything about humanity and its fascination with deadly artifacts than you know the trend they have taken in terms of ofteness of use. For instance, in the 1940's we used to think that radioactivity was good for you and we even built radioactive spas. This all changed when people started dieing off of this. The same is true of Mercury, we used to use it as medicine, and know we no better and are facing it out of use. So this tells us, that the less often we use mercury, than the more often we get autism. Either, mercury was the only thing preventing autism in the past, which implies mercury prevents autism, or the rise in autism is purely coincidental. You take your pick. I personally believe that the rise in autism is caused by TV sets getting thinner. If you check the graph....... THE THINNER TV'S GET THAN THE MORE CASES OF AUTISM THEIR ARE!!!!!! HOLY SH*T!!! BY THOR'S BEARD!! THAT IS AMAZING!!! My point exactly, their must be a cause of the rise in autism, but statistically it is not mercury in vaccines. Go Gophers.
By: Anti Väinämöinen
This website makes only one argument that has any bases in fact. That mercury causes autism. This is not proven, however, it is known that mercury does affect the brain. This is a possible source of autism causing ingredients. However, their is no evidence that supports the idea that Mercury causes autism, although it has been known to cause kidney disease, but that is another issue. One of the websites arguments is that autism has been rising in children over the past ten years. If you know anything about humanity and its fascination with deadly artifacts than you know the trend they have taken in terms of ofteness of use. For instance, in the 1940's we used to think that radioactivity was good for you and we even built radioactive spas. This all changed when people started dieing off of this. The same is true of Mercury, we used to use it as medicine, and know we no better and are facing it out of use. So this tells us, that the less often we use mercury, than the more often we get autism. Either, mercury was the only thing preventing autism in the past, which implies mercury prevents autism, or the rise in autism is purely coincidental. You take your pick. I personally believe that the rise in autism is caused by TV sets getting thinner. If you check the graph....... THE THINNER TV'S GET THAN THE MORE CASES OF AUTISM THEIR ARE!!!!!! HOLY SH*T!!! BY THOR'S BEARD!! THAT IS AMAZING!!! My point exactly, their must be a cause of the rise in autism, but statistically it is not mercury in vaccines. Go Gophers.
By: Anti Väinämöinen
Stem Cell research has often been at the front of the minds of people. One person could think it's absolutely fantastic, another could think it makes for pointless destruction of human life. Luckily, this article gives relatively unbiased information on the subject.
First off, stem cells come from 3 main sources: adult bone marrow, an umbilical cord, or blastocysts (embryos). These cells can then be used and manipulated to fix a few problems in the human body. Osteroperosis (how do you even spell that?) would be an obvious one as the stem cells could replace the deterioration in the joints.
It touches on the controversial issues of stem cells, too. Here, it begins to lean way over onto the supporting side of the research. The entire time, stem cells are put in a positive light pointing toward the use of stem cells for a more medically advanced future. I don't completely agree with this point of view, as I think that the issues should be brought to light and stem cells put under some skepticism just in case of a medical downfall that may or may not be caused by such an up-and-coming technique. It presents many pros, too, don't get me wrong. But I think that the article is much too focused on the pros.
First off, stem cells come from 3 main sources: adult bone marrow, an umbilical cord, or blastocysts (embryos). These cells can then be used and manipulated to fix a few problems in the human body. Osteroperosis (how do you even spell that?) would be an obvious one as the stem cells could replace the deterioration in the joints.
It touches on the controversial issues of stem cells, too. Here, it begins to lean way over onto the supporting side of the research. The entire time, stem cells are put in a positive light pointing toward the use of stem cells for a more medically advanced future. I don't completely agree with this point of view, as I think that the issues should be brought to light and stem cells put under some skepticism just in case of a medical downfall that may or may not be caused by such an up-and-coming technique. It presents many pros, too, don't get me wrong. But I think that the article is much too focused on the pros.
The End of the World
The idea of the "End" has been around since we first discovered time. We thought that nothing could possibly be infinite--human life ends, therefor the entire world as we know it must also come to an end. The discovery of the passage of time did not come without a price--with knowledge comes understanding. We first began to understand the idea of a "beginning" a very long time ago--we started wondering where it all started; when, where and how we were created. With this question comes another: when, where and how will we be destroyed? Nothing lasts forever.
There have been countless "end of the world" theories, from BCE to CE, we have always said that the world will end in the next ten years. Well, those ten years have passed, so it must be happening in this decade. When the world doesn't end, we simply predict the date again. In the past few years there has been an end of world prophecy nearly every month or so--but look! We're still here. For those who depend on sources such as the Bible and other (mostly fictitious) prophets, it is said that the world will end when we least expect it to--that man cannot predict the end of days, because that is a power that only God can hold. If this is true, then we can all be called sinners--those who will not ascend through the Rapture, should it come. If we take into consideration those who believe their theories, then we can disprove them easily on their own grounds--we can prove them wrong by bringing to light their own faults and mistakes.
To conclude, even if the world is going to end, we cannot predict it. We have tried hundreds of times, but it has never worked out. Whether you are determining this by prophets or by hard science, there is no logical way to determine the "end of days". We can only ask ourselves this: why do we want so badly for the world to end? Shouldn't we be exploring the world while we have it? It's an awfully pessimistic spiral that we've thrown ourselves into--perhaps it's about time we found our way out.
There have been countless "end of the world" theories, from BCE to CE, we have always said that the world will end in the next ten years. Well, those ten years have passed, so it must be happening in this decade. When the world doesn't end, we simply predict the date again. In the past few years there has been an end of world prophecy nearly every month or so--but look! We're still here. For those who depend on sources such as the Bible and other (mostly fictitious) prophets, it is said that the world will end when we least expect it to--that man cannot predict the end of days, because that is a power that only God can hold. If this is true, then we can all be called sinners--those who will not ascend through the Rapture, should it come. If we take into consideration those who believe their theories, then we can disprove them easily on their own grounds--we can prove them wrong by bringing to light their own faults and mistakes.
To conclude, even if the world is going to end, we cannot predict it. We have tried hundreds of times, but it has never worked out. Whether you are determining this by prophets or by hard science, there is no logical way to determine the "end of days". We can only ask ourselves this: why do we want so badly for the world to end? Shouldn't we be exploring the world while we have it? It's an awfully pessimistic spiral that we've thrown ourselves into--perhaps it's about time we found our way out.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
ESCs Are So Last Month
Just last week (January 29th), Newt Gingrich campaigned on a platform of anti-embryonic stem cell research: “Speaking at a Baptist church in Winter Park on Saturday, the former speaker received a standing ovation when he declared that embryonic stem-cell research amounts to ‘the use of science to desensitize society over the killing of babies.’” News flash, Newt: Embryonic Stem Cell research may not be the cutting-edge of stem cell research anyway.
According to Science Debate, “Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy At Risk? Geron Ends Clinical Trial,” the biotechnology company Geron recently cancelled its embryonic stem cell (ESC) clinical trial, the first in the U.S. on human subjects, due apparently to financial reasons. But, if the clinical trial had been showing even a little success, it seems unlikely that Geron would have cancelled its trials. According to Dr. Hans Keirstead, who had successfully conducted similar experiments on rats with human ESC in 2005, "This trial was approved only after rigorous safety testing and consultation of countless experts in the field. Any benefit to the patient, even an incremental one, would be a resounding victory." Further, Geron has announced that it has discontinued all ESC research. This is hugely significant, since Geron has been in this line of research since at least 1998. The clinical trial had been approved shortly after President Obama lifted the ban on ESC research in 2009, and the trial began in October, 2010, with at least four patients.
The good news is that another biotech company, Neuralstem Inc., has had some great success treating ALS with adult stem cells. According to the information from Neuralstem’s website, “Neuralstem is growing regionally specific cells that are already suited to the task prescribed to them once transplanted into the central nervous system. In spinal cord indications, for instance, the company will be using human spinal cord stem cells only." This treatment works better, because, unlike ESC, the adult stem cells are already programmed to become the correct cell type (in this case, nerve cells). Some of the problems with ESC come from the fact that ESCs can become virtually any type of cell in the body, and there has been some difficulty in getting them to grow into the correct tissue needed. You seriously don’t want to grow a foot in your brain (has happened).
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Infinities of Infinities
Her Majesty's Astronomer, Sir Martin Rees, wrote this article (link), “In the Matrix,” in May of 2003. However, the “matrix” Rees is talking about makes the Matrix of Neo-fame seem, well, rather simplistic. He says that the equations which are the best candidates to explain the laws of our universe now appear to have more than one solution; in fact, they might have an infinite number of solutions – an infinite number of universes. And, each of those universes are likely to be infinite themselves – an infinity of infinities. Further, you could add more levels of infinities (called Transfinite Numbers): “Indeed, there’s perhaps even a higher hierarchy of infinities: in addition to our universe being infinite, and there being an infinite number of possible laws of nature, we may want to incorporate the so-called many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.” (p. 2)
The quote that best describes the implications of infinity is the one about the monkeys writing Shakespeare (this one from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy): “There’s an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out." Well, this theory about a transfinite number of universes produces this similar but more startling result: since there so many universes, then other universes would, by sheer statistics, have advanced life and those life-forms in some place in one of those infinitely infinite universes would be vastly more technologically advanced than we are, so they could have super-computers capable of creating infinite simulations of universes (i.e., infinity spawns infinity), and our universe, and us in it, could be one of these simulations. Rees states this idea: “…some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity… in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don’t know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over.” (p. 3) It’s like Matrix, but infinitely more complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)