Changes eh... So does that mean the Batman logo gets the boot?

(note: I have done no scientific research as to wither or not Batman has anything to do with science.)

Rembar = "Trust us, We're experts"

"You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early 1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A cancer researcher received $20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and the Wall Street Journal. The scientists didn't even have to write the letters themselves. Two tobacco-industry law firms were available to do the actual drafting and editing."

But perhaps you are unaware of that aspect of influence on "science" which you seem blissfully unaware of, but yet fail to consider when making your bold claims and assertions about what is and is not science.

Biggest change to come: Science channel becomes Scientology channel

Qruel: "TRUST ME, I CAN COPY AND PASTE STUFF BECAUSE I HAVE NO ORIGINAL THOUGHTS LOL PLEASE LOVE ME"

We already established your title of ignoramus copypasticus. Do us all a favor and keep quiet while you sit in the corner with your dunce hat on like a good boy.

OMG *quality Independence day parody.

JAPR cannot award a quality point for this Sift Talk post because JAPR does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by JAPR.

I'll be back, sifty...I'll be back.

while I'm sure you support many "valid" science claims and positions, it seems your arrogance blinds you to an aspect of influence on the outcome of scientific claims. So, go ahead and support your tobbacco science, your lead science (scientists said it was safe!), and your fluoride science

without acknowledging (or even realizing) that science has been and is influenced by industry, government and market forces you will be ignoring history and fall victim to being mislead.

please keep attacking the messenger of this truth with your belittling comments.

You two (Q & R) have a funny dynamic here, should get together and pitch a sitcom. 'Best thing since Myth Busters.'

If I were you, R, I'd try to get someone to put up a health channel (not unlike the NSF and the NIH divide), and aim these posts in that direction.

Qruel, cry about it on your LJ, please.

Bamdrew, I would like to see a health channel put up, as well as a tech channel, since a lot of videos that fall into science aren't actually totally science. Then again, Qruel's posts would still be unworthy of the health channel, but the idea of the channel is nice.

^LJ?
no crying involved, I'm just bringing up a very pertinent, overlooked aspect of influences on science in general. I like bamdrews idea for a tv show, would he get residuals for the idea?

Qruel: I'm amazed that everything has to have a conspiracy behind it. Quite frankly I think it blinds you so much that you fail to look at evidence that contradicts your claims. And honestly, the copy-paste that you do from googled articles gets old. Have an original thought about your conspiracy laden agenda that's what I'd like to hear. You can use Joe Scientist to support a claim but pasting what he said is lazy and shows lack of thought on your part.

Rembar: I can see where this would start to bug you but the repeated and pointed attacks are becoming a bit tiresome. Yes there isn't much science to it, but it's the best category qruel can find till someone makes a 'conspiracys' or 'health' channel.

Gorgonheap: You don't need to get involved in this squabble. Why don't you just take a jump of the longest pier with some concrete shoes.

Rocky: Adrian isn't that good looking but eventually she'll leave you. after she leaves you she'll settle down with Jack Nicholas in a remote winter lodge where her husband will write a book titled "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy". It will never be published.

^nice way to twist my words. I've not implied that everything is a conspiracy.
I've only stated that the "scientists" here on the sift have not taken into account the other influences upon science.

Perhaps since you live in Lithuania you are unaware of the history of things like "tobacco science" and the stranglehold it had on americans perceptions of smoking in our country back in the 40's-present. Hell, perhaps most of you are too young to remember ads stating that 4 out of 5 doctors recommend brand X of cigarettes , for scientifically proven health reasons or how this "science" was touted in medical journals That's not conspiracy son, it's fact. Not acknowledging or understanding the forces behind what enables science to be skewed by industry is choosing to remain ignorant.

It looks like you've turned into a sheep yourself by quoting rembars line(lie) about implying I don't have a thought of my own and only "googlefoo" as he puts it. Hmm let's see, I've been reading and researching the subjects that I choose to comment on and bookmark them for future reference. If I just stated things without attribution then you would question where the information came from, so I present the evidence and aspects that are overlooked when considering issues.

the examples I gave about tobbacco, lead, fluoride are accurate and represent no conspiracy theory on my part as they are backed up by historical records. {edit: updated hyperlink}

^hey gorgo, seems like you've turned to the dark side :-)
It would be interesting to hear what changed your mind after you seemed to agree with my assertions in this thread.
Gorgo, you mentioned the hazzards of fertilizer in your youth, do you realize that the fluoride in fluoridation is a byproduct of the fertilizer industry?

I never took a side on that thread I was stating what I'd learned about Fluoride. I never said it was slowly killing millions. I was making a point that ANYTHING in excess is harmful. I was in no way on an all out campaign against the use of it.

And the fertilizer thing. Did you even read my comments? And I have talked to my father about fertilizer. (Mind you he's been in the agricultural research business for over 20 years, and holds a Ph D.) When fertilizer is used properly. I want you to note that I use the word PROPERLY, not irresponsibly, or that everyone who uses it is irresponsible. But when used properly it provides nourishment for the plants we grow and eat.

By the way organic farms tend to use more fertilizer then those who spray herbicides and pesticides. (Which also will breakdown completely when used as directed.)

So let me reiterate. I have not moved to any 'dark side'. My stance has not changed. If you had read my comments you would see that my points are not "it's evil and killing our kids" or "It's wonderful and life is amazing". My stance is that ANYTHING IN EXCESS IS HARMFUL. The question is who's using too much?

(EDIT): See Qruel, that's what I want from you, your opinion in your words. Not the copy + paste that you seem very fond of. Research, it's great, but use it to support you point not to be your words.

^I've never stated that fluoride is "evil and killing our kids"(nor have I implied that you've said that), you made a great overreaction though, oscar worthy actually. I've also not issued an all out campaign against the use of fluoride as I've stated and reiterated two of the findings of the CDC & NRC, that fluorides predominant benefits are post-eruptive and topical (not systemic). I do take issue with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid being added to my water supply for many, many reasons (which I've laid out in detail)

thank you for helping to make my point. You stated "anything in excess is harmful". The CDC gives a minimum of how much fluoride is beneficial and I've pointed out that they do not take into consideration the many, many things we consume that add to that intake of fluoride, neither do they look at varying doses depending on who's consuming it...babies, old people, people with kidney problems, etc...

I have a hard time understanding why people are so vocal about supporting a one size fits all solution when there are serious questions that arise from the efficacy and safety when overuse of the product in question occurs.

Seriously who's the real qruel? It's like you have bi-polar disorder. you accuse me of changing 'sides', living in Lithuania, and becoming a sheep. Then you praise me for an Oscar performance, and supporting your point, while stating that your not overly bias in your research.

Your are one of the most one sided persons I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. You can use evidence to support your own assertions and throw out any thing that runs contrary to that.

Do you know what happens when people cite sources contrary to your viewpoint? You accuse that source of being bias and not credible. Suddenly I'm 'against' you and on 'the dark side' when I point out that you ignore opposing paradigms. But at the same time I'm 'making your point'. Sometimes I think you have no clue what your own argument is much less the topic. Are you really have such tunnel vision that you can't see where your own prejudices lie?

^As of now I will retire any attempt at humor from here on out. In retrospect my comments about the "dark side" and "oscar worthy" came off as snide, not funny and have been taken out of the context I intended for them. I seriously thought you lived in Lithuania, but now that you say you don't, I realized it was MINK that moved from Europe to Lithuania, so apologies there as that was not an attempt to be funny but was an association with the wrong avatar. my mistake.

Contrary to what you might think, I have not thrown out others assertions. I've acknowledged them and the inherent conflictory evidence they present (on both sides). sure fluoridation proponents want to tout that's it's one of the top 10 medical achievments of the 20th century and opponents want to claim it is seriously harmful to humans(at times exaggerating those claims). There seems to me quite a disparity between the two viewpoints. The proponents leave out so many aspects that it raises a lot of issues, specially in light of fluoridations tainted history. It is that history that I've tried to share and to point out that it is not exculsive to fluoride.

Yeah it's too bad sarcasm doesn't translate well in cyberspace.

^much less bad sarcasm, again, my apologies.

so...is fluoride in the water bad or what? Fluorine is an element with chemical and physical properties that are explained qualitatively and quantitatively through a branch of science called "general chemistry". Though fluorine it's not studied much anymore, as we pretty much know it. One thing that isn't too certain (at least to me) is the affects it has on a human's body when ingested. I would assume that this could go under science as there is no "health" channel. Some of these video and talk posts I suppose could go under "lies" as well.

If, however, any of these posts can fall somewhere within the cycle of the scientific method, I contend that it should be appropriate to put in the "science" channel. Any reputable findings, reports, hypotheses or experiments should be allowed. Whether you agree with them or not, science isn't about what you agree with. That would fall into "beliefs". If you disagree based on something you know or you've seen, submit that. There, now you've just entered into a mostly-passive scientific cycle.

so qruel: there should be empirical evidence available in the submitted findings.

rembar: just because it doesn't agree with what you know, doesn't make it not an important topic for scientific discussion, but it should behoove you to submit your counter evidence.

Nobody has to name call or be offended/offensive. If that happens, you've jumped off the science wheel and into the cat box.

The wheel of science

Schrödinger's cat box

rembar: just because it doesn't agree with what you know, doesn't make it not an important topic for scientific discussion, but it should behoove you to submit your counter evidence.

I already did, don't assume I didn't. And no, it doesn't behoove me at all. I moderate the Science channel, I don't need to disprove intelligent design to kick it the hell out of my channel, and the same applies for all similar stupidity. And when exactly did I say I would be throwing stuff out of the Science channel that I don't agree with? There's plenty of stuff I don't agree with in my channel that I let in, that's not at all why Qruel's videos went out the window. Seriously, at least make an effort to know a situation before you jump in and start telling people what to do.

Nobody has to name call or be offended/offensive. If that happens, you've jumped off the science wheel and into the cat box.

It keeps me entertained. And no, ad hom attacks don't negate a scientific argument, they are neutral to the topic. And since Gluonium isn't with us anymore, I'm making up for lost insults.

Anyhow, enough about that. This is the beginning. Change is coming. Go forth and do good.

^yikes, that cat box looks terrifying (no joke, I'm deathly allergic). sounds good to me rottenseed. I would imagine citing studies and research that the EPA & NRC evaluated would hold up to that standard. I think the NRC's findings speak volumes but something we can all hopfully agree on (except maybe rembar?) is that while they found tons of research and evidence that warrants serious concern, there was no overwhelming evidence in any one area of fluoride exposure and they advocate further research and evaluation of fluorides effects on the brain, endocrine system, thyroid, pineal gland, diabetes, immune system, liver, kidney and a host of others.

A copy of the brief is available here for free. Let me state in advance that this study only looked at research on fluoride found naturally in the water and not Hydrofluorosilicic Acid or Sodium Fluorosilicate (the kind from the phosphate fertilizer industry) that is used when artifically fluoridating water.

well you're right, it is YOUR channel. I was under the impression that a major discrepancy between what is thought to be science. Intelligent design should NOT be included. Well either way, as long as the rules are clear and there won't be need for these discussions all the time there shouldn't be a problem.

As for Seriously, at least make an effort to know a situation before you jump in and start telling people what to do. I do apologize (enjoy because it doesn't happen much I was merely going off of this discussion. That was bad practice and I should know better...Now I'm off to my masseuse to receive my "spanking".

*quality, since JAPR went AWOL.

Awarding rembar with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by Fjnbk.

the irony is that I'm reading this thread with a toothache.

...no really, this sucks.

um, wouldn't it be ironic if you were reading this thread while brushing your teeth, drinking fluoridated water, or eating one of thousands of items that contain fluoride? Now if the toothache was a result of fluorosis then yea, that would be ironic and I feel your pain.

Or did you mean ironic in the sense of the song "isn't it ironic" by Alanis Morisette where she was singing about things that weren't actually ironic, but just plain sucked.

See final Futurama episode, in which Bender speaks re: irony.

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
General Jack D. Ripper: Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well, no, I can't say I have.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Jack. Eh? Look, eh? And I drink a lot of water, you know. I'm what you might call a water man, Jack - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Jackie.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: If you don't put that gun away and stop this stupid nonsense, the court of Enquiry on this'll give you such a pranging, you'll be lucky if you end up wearing the uniform of a bloody toilet attendant.
--Dr. Stranglove, mildly editted

^what crap. my position has never been about some silly commie plot or mind control, but that's a great technique to diminish my actual position (by linking it to something crazy conspiratorial or an insanely stupid/funny movie plot).

Seriously, what does that add to the conversation doc_m ? You might as well start posting rembars lines about equating fluoride science that finds anything contrary to the government line as creationist science/intelligent design.

I find it sad that rembar gets away with saying he presented evidence (when he didn't) as to why the The Fluoride Deception should not be in the science sift. That video discusses the tainted and mostly unknown history of fluoridation and is supported by original documents and several years of research by an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC.

Yeesh. It's a funny scene from a movie... f-ing relax. The conversation ended more than a week ago and no one cares anymore.

Maybe it's just that you haven't seen the movie. You'd be laughing now if you had, instead of getting pissy. What does it add to the conversation? A chuckle. If that "diminishes" your viewpoint, well, I think you've made your viewpoint quite clear.