PDA

View Full Version : Bad Truisms (what "everybody knows" and is wrong)



Pages : [1] 2

Ilya
2004-Nov-09, 06:29 PM
Thousands, if not millions bits of information comprise "common knowldege" -- things everybody knows (or at least supposed to know). People use this common knowledge almost without thinking, often to support more complicated positions, and it is almost never questioned. Trouble is, some of that "common knowledge" is wrong. Can you come up with some bits of conventional wisdom which so pervaded the collective consciousness that non-specialists quote them without even thinking - except that they happen to be false?

Here are some:

Humans use only 10% of their brains. Any neurologist will tell you this is nonsense. It originated with 1950's motivational speakers -- "You will unleash the FULL potential of your brain!"

Plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to mankind. Ralph Nader tossed it off, and gullible public ate it up.

Wars are good for the economy. World War II happened to be good for American economy. It still boggles my mind how that very unusual case became a universal rule. To see just how silly it is, all one had to do was look what WWII did to German or British economy. (To forestall criticism -- wars are frequently good for technological progress, but that is not the same thing.)

snowcelt
2004-Nov-09, 06:46 PM
Porcupines shoot their quills.
Hummingbirds migrate south on the backs of geese.
Lemmings run of of cliffs during mating season.
Bears can not run down hills.
A wolf can not turn it's head.
Giraffes are mute.

Men are stupid.
Ditto a blonde.

eburacum45
2004-Nov-09, 07:07 PM
Myths I have heard;

The Pole Star is the brightest star in the sky;
Water goes down the drain in different directions in the North and South hemispheres;
Carrots make you see in the dark;
You can never see the Dark Side of the Moon...

Ilya
2004-Nov-09, 07:13 PM
Carrots make you see in the dark;

Not entirely a myth - vitamin A deficiency does destroy your night vision, and carrots are a good source of vitamin A. However, if you already have normal human night vision, no amount of carrots would turn you into a cat.


You can never see the Dark Side of the Moon...

Of course you can't! Look up during night of the New Moon and tell me if you see it! :)

Andromeda321
2004-Nov-09, 07:17 PM
"Spinach has an insane amount of iron in it compared to other foods" is my favorite. In actuality it just came out when they did the study that someone misplaced a decimal place so spinach got ten times more iron then the other vegetables tested.

Ilya
2004-Nov-09, 07:18 PM
Porcupines shoot their quills.
Hummingbirds migrate south on the backs of geese.
Lemmings run of of cliffs during mating season.
Bears can not run down hills.
A wolf can not turn it's head.
Giraffes are mute.


Except for lemmings and porcupines, I would not call these "common knowledge". At least I never heard the hummingbird, bear and wolf stories; very vaguely may have heard about giraffes being mute.

But yes, lemmings run off the cliffs is a good example.

Laser Jock
2004-Nov-09, 07:21 PM
Bears can not run down hills.


I actually had someone try to tell me this a few days ago. He thought that running down a hill would be a good way to avoid a bear attack. #-o

I hope I convinced him that playing dead and covering your head with your hands was a better idea.

Silent Knight
2004-Nov-09, 07:22 PM
Columbus had to convince 15th century scholars that the Earth was round.

eburacum45
2004-Nov-09, 07:33 PM
Carrots make you see in the dark;

Not entirely a myth - vitamin A deficiency does destroy your night vision, and carrots are a good source of vitamin A. However, if you already have normal human night vision, no amount of carrots would turn you into a cat.

This myth was spread about during the Second World War in England to explain the accuracy of the fighters operating with the aid of Radar, which was supposedly secret. A good myth, becuase it had some basis in fact.



You can never see the Dark Side of the Moon...

Of course you can't! Look up during night of the New Moon and tell me if you see it! :)

I saw it a couple of months ago, thanks to Earthshine; if the Bright side of the moon hadn't been right next to it, the Dark side would have been the brightest thing in the sky.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-09, 07:50 PM
Bears can not run down hills.


I actually had someone try to tell me this a few days ago. He thought that running down a hill would be a good way to avoid a bear attack. #-o

I hope I convinced him that playing dead and covering your head with your hands was a better idea.

Why go through all the trouble of playign dead? Just tell him to make sure he can run faster than his hiking partner. :-P




Hmm.. This is turning inot a myth thread, but oh well. Ones that are common and anoy me alont with commonly heald beliefs.:

-Columbus "Discovered" america
-Lightning never strikes the same place twice (tell that to those who live in Florida. Or even easier. If they have a lgithning rod ask them to take it down saince once the rod is hit they must know then with their belief that their house will never be hit again. :-P)
-Diet Soda gives you cancer. We proved this wrong in the other thread, yet every time i go out somebody in my party has to mention this.
-You cant teach a old dog new tricks.

Sticks
2004-Nov-09, 08:41 PM
From the religious world (A seasonal one)

Three kings visited the infant Jesus....
Actualy the New Testament account does not mention the number of "magi" only three types of gift. It does not even say they were kings, let alone give them their names [-X

on the twelth night in the stable
Actually if you read the account in the gospel of Matthew (Chapter 2 Verse 11), they came to them in a house. The comand for all baby boys two years and under to be killed, implies they took a lot longer than twelve days. The twelf night comes from the twelve days of the feast of Saturnali, a pagan festival that was "christianised" by the early church.

I will leave you to fight it out about the "star of Bethlehem" :)

A poor drummer boy beat out a tune for the infant Jesus
Wrong - no mention of this in the gospel account. It was a syrupy song by Katherine Davis, Henry Onorati and Harry Simeone

It all happened on 25 December
Wrong time of year, as the reference to the shepherds reveals. Again this was another pagan festival hijacked by the early church. Speculation puts Jesus actual birdate around either the spring or for Jewish significance around the beginning of October (1st of Tishri)

This all happened around 1 CE
Again, slight problem here as according to archeaological evidence, Herod the Great died in 4 BCE (Someone made a slight error in the 6th Century on the dating front :P )

Silent Knight
2004-Nov-09, 09:28 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?

Humphrey
2004-Nov-09, 09:38 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?He was looking for a faster way to the pacific islands. GHe landed in the Carribean, not America as we know it. And Finally its been shown that the Vikings were the first Europeans to land in North America.

Careless
2004-Nov-09, 09:40 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?
No, but I'd say he did discover america. Why? Because he didn't know it was there. I've discovered lots of things in my life that other people knew well before me.
Oh, and to the animal thing: ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.

Ilya
2004-Nov-09, 09:42 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?

Really, WHY does Humphrey think it is a myth? True, Columbus never realized he found "New World" and yes, Vikings had reached America earlier, but Columbus certainly discovered America in the sense of making its existence known to the European community as a whole (which Vikings did not).

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-09, 09:45 PM
Myth: Magellan was the first to circumnavigate the globe

Technically his expedition circumnavigated the globe. Magellan died part way (in the Phillipines) but a remnant of the expedition did manage to complete the voyage. I think he started with five ships but only one, with 18 crew, made it back.

Glom
2004-Nov-09, 09:47 PM
Any accident in a nuclear power station is a Chernobyl.

Apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming is a certainty. The way the BBC carries on, you can't blame readers from believing it. Every week they have a report from some interest group about the impending disaster based on evidence used in affirmed consequents and dodgy IPCC climate models.

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-09, 09:51 PM
That ostrich one reminded me of misconceptions about elephants:

a) largest animal (no, that's whales)

b) they never forget

c) they are afraid of mice

Humphrey
2004-Nov-09, 09:52 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?

Really, WHY does Humphrey think it is a myth? True, Columbus never realized he found "New World" and yes, Vikings had reached America earlier, but Columbus certainly discovered America in the sense of making its existence known to the European community as a whole (which Vikings did not).

O.K. I accept your claim to his discovery. He did land in the Carribean first, but if i remember right he did come onto the Florida coast. And he did popularize the idea of its discovery.
But the way its thought of in most American minds is still a incorrect myth.

mickal555
2004-Nov-09, 10:34 PM
You can sit in kangaroo's poches

Its got a lot more muces than on T.V

Careless
2004-Nov-09, 10:50 PM
You can sit in kangaroo's poches

Its got a lot more muces than on T.V
:lol: Does that happen a lot on australian tv? aside from some pretty silly cartoons, I can't think of ever seeing that here in the States

NASA Fan
2004-Nov-10, 01:07 AM
Myth: Magellan was the first to circumnavigate the globe

Technically his expedition circumnavigated the globe. Magellan died part way (in the Phillipines) but a remnant of the expedition did manage to complete the voyage. I think he started with five ships but only one, with 18 crew, made it back.

I know that he died part way through, but I cannot remember was he buried along the way, or did his body finish the journey so it could be buried at home?

Andromeda321
2004-Nov-10, 01:41 AM
He was killed by a bunch of natives and there's a fair amount of distance between the Phillipines and Europe. If they'd've kept his body it'd probably have decayed by return.
Though there's probably a ceremonial gravesite somewhere in his hometown...

Extravoice
2004-Nov-10, 02:13 AM
"You can't teach cats tricks."

I have two that will roll over on request* (most of the time).

*With cats, it is never a "command". [-(

AGN Fuel
2004-Nov-10, 02:47 AM
A couple from the world of entertainment:

Humphrey Bogart never said 'Play it again, Sam' in Casablanca.
Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes never said 'Elementary, my dear Watson'.

mickal555
2004-Nov-10, 05:33 AM
You can sit in kangaroo's poches

Its got a lot more muces than on T.V
:lol: Does that happen a lot on australian tv? aside from some pretty silly cartoons, I can't think of ever seeing that here in the States

No, I dunno its just one came inside and I thought I'd try it but yer......

mike alexander
2004-Nov-10, 06:25 AM
One of the stupidest:

You fall in love with / marry the only person in the world for you.

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-10, 10:02 AM
That ostrich one reminded me of misconceptions about elephants:

c) they are afraid of mice
They don't seem to like high-frequency sounds, such as mice squeaking. Though pig squeals are much louder and work better, as the Romans found out. (And setting fire to the pigs makes them squeal... ewww)

Glom
2004-Nov-10, 10:08 AM
Pigs on fire,
Rolling down the road.
There's no my next of kin,
This pig shall explode!

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-10, 12:15 PM
I know that he died part way through, but I cannot remember was he buried along the way, or did his body finish the journey so it could be buried at home?

FindaGrave (http://www.findagrave.com/php/famous.php?page=name&firstName=ferdinand&lastName= magellan) has no location for the body, I assume it was left behind in the Phillipines. There is an official account of the expedition by Pigaletta (who survivied) so if Magellan was buried in the Phillipines then Pigaletta's account should mention it.

SeanF
2004-Nov-10, 12:15 PM
A couple from the world of entertainment:

Humphrey Bogart never said 'Play it again, Sam' in Casablanca.
Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes never said 'Elementary, my dear Watson'.
In that same vein, nobody ever said, "Beam me up, Scotty," on Star Trek.

man on the moon
2004-Nov-10, 07:18 PM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?

even that is up for debate, vikings perhaps as mentioned. there is now a new theory (http://www.1421.tv/=newtheory) that seems to be gaining ground and evidence, the book is quite good reading whether you agree or not with it. granted it's not european...

pghnative
2004-Nov-10, 07:42 PM
Hmmmm, let's see. Things "everybody knows, but is wrong". We're skipping the obvious one: That man landed on the moon!

[ducks, runs]

darkhunter
2004-Nov-10, 08:50 PM
*all* Viking helmets had horns (IIRC they've only found two)

Ilya
2004-Nov-10, 11:01 PM
*all* Viking helmets had horns (IIRC they've only found two)

Someone actually found two horned helmets? I thought it was a complete fabrication.

darkhunter
2004-Nov-10, 11:30 PM
*all* Viking helmets had horns (IIRC they've only found two)

Someone actually found two horned helmets? I thought it was a complete fabrication.

Jst something I remember from somewhere--if I could remember where I remember it from it would help work out weather it was true or just something in a work of fiction...

gethen
2004-Nov-10, 11:39 PM
Porcupines shoot their quills.

Whoa. If I had a dime for every moronic dog owner who swore that a porcupine "shot its quills right into my dog who was just minding his own business.." I'd be the wealthiest member of the BABB. Wait--actually, a dime would not amount to as much as the veterinary fees for removing those quills. So maybe I'll settle for a dime for every moronic dog owner who tried dumping ashes and vinegar onto the quills "because that will make them fall right out" or the ones who painstakingly cut the tip off each and every quill "to let air in so the quills will fall out."

gethen
2004-Nov-10, 11:42 PM
How about, "Every person on this earth has a double somewhere?"

worzel
2004-Nov-10, 11:52 PM
What about the opposite, things people say which sound like superstition but are in fact true. Like "Why are my keys always in the last place I think of looking?" (duh, because once you've found them you stop looking).

man on the moon
2004-Nov-11, 02:32 AM
Hmmmm, let's see. Things "everybody knows, but is wrong". We're skipping the obvious one: That man landed on the moon!

[ducks, runs]

/slap

i knew there was a truism right under my nose...why must you humans always make me feel so lonely? my only company (and here-in lies my contribution) is the little green men on mars...ok, gotta go!

/ducks, runs after pghnative

AGN Fuel
2004-Nov-11, 03:00 AM
Astronomy related one, but now 'common knowledge' thanks to "The Dish".....

The pictures of Neil's 'first step for man' came through the Parkes Dish.

(They actually came in through Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra. Parkes images were used about 10 minutes into the EVA and were so good that they remained with Parkes for the rest of the moon walk).

Makgraf
2004-Nov-11, 03:40 AM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?
Well also it's hard to "discover" a place that already has millions of inhabitants.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-11, 03:55 AM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?
Well also it's hard to "discover" a place that already has millions of inhabitants.


Oh come on! Everyone knows that it was the moundbuilders first who then were taken over by the savages the Eurpoeans encountered! :-P

Ut
2004-Nov-11, 05:27 AM
O.K. I accept your claim to his discovery. He did land in the Carribean first, but if i remember right he did come onto the Florida coast. And he did popularize the idea of its discovery.
But the way its thought of in most American minds is still a incorrect myth.

Columbus died believing he had found Japan and China. Later expeditions discovered that the land to the west of the Caribian islands was not China. Still later expeditions discovered that the land blocking the way was, in fact, a continent.

I vote for common misconception.

Sticks
2004-Nov-11, 05:38 AM
How about, "Every person on this earth has a double somewhere?"

Depends which bar they frequent :lol:

mickal555
2004-Nov-11, 05:42 AM
Porcupines shoot their quills.

Whoa. If I had a dime for every moronic dog owner who swore that a porcupine "shot its quills right into my dog who was just minding his own business.." I'd be the wealthiest member of the BABB. Wait--actually, a dime would not amount to as much as the veterinary fees for removing those quills. So maybe I'll settle for a dime for every moronic dog owner who tried dumping ashes and vinegar onto the quills "because that will make them fall right out" or the ones who painstakingly cut the tip off each and every quill "to let air in so the quills will fall out."
We have echidnas and I have never herd that

The Supreme Canuck
2004-Nov-11, 05:50 AM
Do echidnas' quills (Spines? Spikes? Meh.) even come off? They look better attached than porcupine quills.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-11, 05:57 AM
Columbus died believing he had found Japan and China. Later expeditions discovered that the land to the west of the Caribian islands was not China. Still later expeditions discovered that the land blocking the way was, in fact, a continent.

I vote for common misconception.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

Columbus:
Expedition 3: Of note from the page:" In 1498, Columbus left for the New World a third time, accompanied by the young Bartolome de Las Casas, who would later provide partial transcripts of Columbus's logs. This time he discovered the island of Trinidad (July 31) and the mainland of South America, including the Orinoco River, before returning to Hispaniola. Initially, he described the new lands as belonging to a previously unknown new continent, but later he retreated to his position that they belonged to Asia."

So he was swayed a bit that it might be new lands. But in all fairness the page then does go on to say that he died convinced that he landed in Asia.

So you are correct and mildly correct. :-)

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-11, 07:47 AM
Well some one pointed out a few Bible ones, though they missed:

Adam and Eve stole an Apple (It was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.)

Noah took two of every creature of the Ark (There were 7 of many)

The flood lasted 40 days and nights (The claim is that it took over a year to for the waters to receed.)

I'd probably have a dozen others if I was bothered actually thinking. :)

jt-3d
2004-Nov-11, 08:42 AM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-11, 08:56 AM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.
You forgot the Anchovies

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-11, 10:31 AM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.
Pepperoni is a meat? Capsicum annuum was a plant last time I looked...

Weird Dave
2004-Nov-11, 10:44 AM
More misconceptions:

Because anthropogenic climate change is not an absolutely 100% certainty, we should assume it is absolutely certainly false and do nothing about it.
Any action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (or other pollutants) would send us back to the stone age.

You can't see the moon in the daytime. I don't know if anyone really thinks this, but have you ever seen the daytime moon in any film or TV programme?
If you look at a galaxy through a small telescope, you will easily see beautiful spiral structure just like the Hubble ST. :roll:

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-11, 11:42 AM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.
Pepperoni is a meat? Capsicum annuum was a plant last time I looked...
wow

you're thinking of another common pizza topping, green peppers, or bell peppers--pepperoni is a spiced sausage

worzel
2004-Nov-11, 11:51 AM
you're thinking of another common pizza topping, green peppers, or bell peppers--pepperoni is a spiced sausage

Or maybe "peperoni" :D (Italian for capsicum)

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-11, 12:19 PM
you're thinking of another common pizza topping, green peppers, or bell peppers--pepperoni is a spiced sausage

Or maybe "peperoni" :D (Italian for capsicum)
Capsicum annuum is bell (green) peppers, no?

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-11, 12:45 PM
I think we've hit a linguistic snag here. AFAIK, pepperoni/peperoni is only used for a spiced sausage in the US - everywhere else, it's the word for a specific kind of the fruits of Capsicum annuum - there are a lot of strains with different usages; the mild one that can be used as a vegetable is called peperoni in Sweden and Italy at least, and the hotter ones like jalapeño, pimento, cayenne pepper and so forth are used as spices.

worzel
2004-Nov-11, 01:00 PM
you're thinking of another common pizza topping, green peppers, or bell peppers--pepperoni is a spiced sausage

Or maybe "peperoni" :D (Italian for capsicum)
Capsicum annuum is bell (green) peppers, no?
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just added the Italian word for capsicum that is easily confused with the American word "pepperoni".

gethen
2004-Nov-11, 01:25 PM
There is of course an ingredient called pepperoncini (http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/pepperoncini.htm) that might easily be confused with the word pepperoni. The pepperoncini is a pepper.

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-11, 01:44 PM
There is of course an ingredient called pepperoncini (http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/pepperoncini.htm) that might easily be confused with the word pepperoni. The pepperoncini is a pepper.
and now we know why spelling is impertant, even on the internet

pumpkinpie
2004-Nov-11, 02:18 PM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.

I know you're not trying to be super-serious here, but just remember that "Pepperoni pizza is good" is not the type of statement we're talking about in this thread--it can't be said to be either true or false. It's a matter of taste, a matter of opinion! You say that's false, but I say it's 100% true. Is either of us wrong? No!
I could eat pepperoni pizza every day--and if I had to make that my only pizza topping for the rest of my life, that would be fine! Mmmm.....I think I know what I'll get for lunch today! :D

Careless
2004-Nov-11, 02:25 PM
I could eat pepperoni pizza every day--and if I had to make that my only pizza topping for the rest of my life, that would be fine! Mmmm.....I think I know what I'll get for lunch today! :D
Ah, what you east-coasters don't know about pizza sausage...

papageno
2004-Nov-11, 02:33 PM
I could eat pepperoni pizza every day--and if I had to make that my only pizza topping for the rest of my life, that would be fine! Mmmm.....I think I know what I'll get for lunch today! :D

You should try pizza with both the hot sausage known by the Italians as "salamino piccante" (a.k.a. pepperoni, as far as I understand) and the german sausage known by the Germans as "Bockwurst".

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Nov-11, 07:18 PM
I could eat pepperoni pizza every day--and if I had to make that my only pizza topping for the rest of my life, that would be fine! Mmmm.....I think I know what I'll get for lunch today! :D

You should try pizza with both the hot sausage known by the Italians as "salamino piccante" (a.k.a. pepperoni, as far as I understand) and the german sausage known by the Germans as "Bockwurst".

I say, PILE ON THE MEATS!

And, Don't Spare the Hot Sauce ...

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-12, 09:21 AM
You should try pizza with both the hot sausage known by the Italians as "salamino piccante" (a.k.a. pepperoni, as far as I understand) and the german sausage known by the Germans as "Bockwurst".

Is pepperoni like salami?

papageno
2004-Nov-12, 10:29 AM
You should try pizza with both the hot sausage known by the Italians as "salamino piccante" (a.k.a. pepperoni, as far as I understand) and the german sausage known by the Germans as "Bockwurst".

Is pepperoni like salami?

Salami is similar to a sausage (usually harder and spicier, because it is stocked for a long time).
The "pepperoni" used in Italy on pizza is typically a spicy salami (pizza alla diavola).

If you can read Italian, try this (http://www.cookaround.com/cucina/salumi/index.php).
For the others see here (http://www.italiancookingandliving.com/food/ingredients/salami.html) and here (http://www.sausagemaking.org/index.html).

Sheki
2004-Nov-12, 01:32 PM
Weird Dave wrote:


Because anthropogenic climate change is not an absolutely 100% certainty, we should assume it is absolutely certainly false and do nothing about it.

That's an odd sort of statement. Many of the other posts in this thread are along the lines of "percieved to be true facts" that are actually wrong. Your contribution would appear to be more of a "commonly held opinion that you happen not to agree with, or feel is based on flawed logic".


Any action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (or other pollutants) would send us back to the stone age.

Again a very strange statement. I find it hard to believe that there are a significant number of people who believe this, as stated. Switching my home over to low-wattage light bulbs curbs GHG production, but I am under no illusions that I have begun a slippery slope toward cave-dwelling...

Sheki

swansont
2004-Nov-12, 02:41 PM
Carbon dating is the method used to radiometrically date everything.

Weird Dave
2004-Nov-12, 03:12 PM
Weird Dave wrote:


Because anthropogenic climate change is not an absolutely 100% certainty, we should assume it is absolutely certainly false and do nothing about it.

That's an odd sort of statement. Many of the other posts in this thread are along the lines of "percieved to be true facts" that are actually wrong. Your contribution would appear to be more of a "commonly held opinion that you happen not to agree with, or feel is based on flawed logic".


I admit this; I think that logical flaws are misconceptions just like flaws in knowledge.




Any action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (or other pollutants) would send us back to the stone age.

Again a very strange statement. I find it hard to believe that there are a significant number of people who believe this, as stated. Switching my home over to low-wattage light bulbs curbs GHG production, but I am under no illusions that I have begun a slippery slope toward cave-dwelling...

Sheki

I do hear comments like this sometimes - exaggerated perhaps, but they are still said. The use of low-wattage bulbs is just one of the many reasons that I disagree with claims of this nature.

I accept that some people may disagree that these are misconceptions (whether you think that they are true, or that nobody believes them); but some people would also disagree with Glom's examples on page 1. Not being a climate scientist, I am not qualified to have a learned debate on the issue, which is why I didn't disagree with Glom's post or comment on the science.

There's one thing I'm sure we're agreed on: none of my comments are as controversial as the ridiculous claim that people actually went to the Moon.
8-[
:lol: [Runs away]

Sheki
2004-Nov-12, 03:20 PM
Swansont wrote:


Carbon dating is the method used to radiometrically date everything.

=D> =D>

Oh, that's a good one.

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-12, 03:32 PM
DNA identification is always 100% right (Or did we cover this one?)

worzel
2004-Nov-12, 03:46 PM
"Peperoni is a type of sausage"
"Pepperoni is a capsicum"

Humphrey
2004-Nov-12, 03:49 PM
DNA identification is always 100% right (Or did we cover this one?)

Well it technically is somewhat close to something slighly less than 100% correct if you do not have a twin and you look at the entire chain. :-)

How about that fact that it happens nearly instantly.




Another few:

-Mideval castles poured Boiling oil ontop of enemies. Oil was far to expensive to be wasted this way. They used other things. It did happen, but not even close to the frequency shown in the movies and T.V.
-people in the past were "stupider" or "dumber" than people today. Absolutely not true. They are the exact same as today. Take a kid from 100, heck 1000 years ago and put him in a shool today and i bet you will not be abel to tell the difference.
-Native Americans always used horses as a means of Transportation. Nope, Horses might of origonally evolved in the Americas, but they wen't extinct. They were brought back by Colonial settlers.

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-12, 04:00 PM
Has anyone mentioned that connection between the full moon and "people acting crazier"? That's apparantly a myth as well.

Weird Dave
2004-Nov-12, 04:11 PM
"Atoms are like miniature solar systems, and the electrons orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the Sun".

If you believe that, it's probably because you were taught it at school. I'm afraid it's wrong. More wrong than you can possibly imagine. And yet, thinking like this can give the right answers in many cases. This is an example of why physics is difficult, and proves that all physicists deserve a pay rise. Please write to your MP/senator and request a pay rise for your local physicist. :)

papageno
2004-Nov-12, 04:15 PM
This is an example of why physics is difficult, and proves that all physicists deserve a pay rise. Please write to your MP/senator and request a pay rise for your local physicist. :)

=D>
You have no idea of how much I agree with this! :)

worzel
2004-Nov-12, 04:18 PM
"Passive smoking is bad for you"

Come on, if you work in a bar and inhale even one cigarette's worth of nicatine a day you'd be addicted within a week. If you're not addicted you can't be passively smoking enough to have any significant effect on your health.

[runs for cover]

Humphrey
2004-Nov-12, 04:21 PM
This is an example of why physics is difficult, and proves that all physicists deserve a pay rise. Please write to your MP/senator and request a pay rise for your local physicist. :)

=D>
You have no idea of how much I agree with this! :)

Its a common misconception that writing to your senator will actually do anything.

;-) :-P



[joke folks, just a joke]

pghnative
2004-Nov-12, 06:08 PM
It's a common misconception that shaving will make a man's (or woman's!) beard/mustache grow back thicker.

Was told this many times while growing up. Then I learned to think.

Glom
2004-Nov-12, 06:09 PM
Yeah, that sucks. I hate hair.

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-13, 08:18 AM
"Passive smoking is bad for you"

Come on, if you work in a bar and inhale even one cigarette's worth of nicatine a day you'd be addicted within a week. If you're not addicted you can't be passively smoking enough to have any significant effect on your health.

[runs for cover]

It's not the nicotine that is the trouble it's all the rest of the junk. And if you don't think it's bad for you, ask a non-smoker how they feel after being in a room fulled with people smoking. Cming away with a splitting headache and feeling like you're got a hang-over isn't be normal and you can't tell me that when you feel like that it hasn't harmed you. Now imagine being in that environment 5 nights a week 225 days a year and tell me that a person wouldn't be suffering any harm.

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-13, 07:04 PM
"Passive smoking is bad for you"

Come on, if you work in a bar and inhale even one cigarette's worth of nicatine a day you'd be addicted within a week.
I get the impression that the first part is false, the second part true. I can attest that the second part is way off base, however.

Ut
2004-Nov-13, 07:35 PM
It's a common misconception that shaving will make a man's (or woman's!) beard/mustache grow back thicker.

Was told this many times while growing up. Then I learned to think.

This, I hear, is an illusion created by the shaved tips of the hair. As it grows back, the ends are sharp, so they feel more corse. They also look thicker, because the tips haven't been worn down to a point.

gethen
2004-Nov-13, 09:50 PM
And if you keep crossing your eyes, they'll stay that way.

mickal555
2004-Nov-13, 10:08 PM
Cracking your knuckles causes arthritis?

jt-3d
2004-Nov-13, 10:17 PM
That Armagedon is a bad movie. Sorry, I like it.

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-14, 01:05 AM
It's not the nicotine that is the trouble it's all the rest of the junk. And if you don't think it's bad for you, ask a non-smoker how they feel after being in a room fulled with people smoking. Cming away with a splitting headache and feeling like you're got a hang-over isn't be normal and you can't tell me that when you feel like that it hasn't harmed you. Now imagine being in that environment 5 nights a week 225 days a year and tell me that a person wouldn't be suffering any harm.

Eyup. My grandfather (father's side) died in the VA hospital after living tied to an oxygen tank for 8 years. My father died when I was 13, he had very bad emphysema, among other things. Both were heavy smokers. I had a long list of lung related diseases when I was young ... so often some kids labeled me a hypocondriac. Strangely enough, after my father died, I became one of the healthiest kids in the school.

Of course, I never smoked myself, and would never think of it.

We go to a great deal of trouble to control a long list of chemicals based on relatively little research indicating their danger. There is absolutely no doubt that many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are dangerous. It is trivially easy to see that smoke can irritate the lungs, making diseases more likely, exacerbate problems like asthma, and causes misery to many allergy sufferers. And, unfortunately, smoke goes EVERYWHERE.

Sorry for the rant, but this one is a bit personal.

Moose
2004-Nov-14, 01:21 AM
I hear you, Van Rijn.

I've lost far too many people to lung cancer, and only half of them were smokers. The others were exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular basis. Another fellow I met in the hospital a while back, he had just been diagnosed with colon cancer. Punchline? He chewed tobacco.

These are anecdotes, not data, but it's going to take some really strong research to convince me that second-hand smoke isn't harmful.


(http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm)Second-hand smoke ranks third as a major preventable cause of death behind only active smoking and alcohol.1

1. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation , 1991:83;1-12.

As prone as I am to make fun of Central Canada at the drop of a hat, I'll take the word of the Ontario Medical Association over anybody here on medical issues.

The Supreme Canuck
2004-Nov-14, 01:38 AM
And a smoking ban in all public places is being considered by the provincial government. Hopefully this will reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. It's been a very successful by-law here in Ottawa, though some smokers and restaurant owners complained.

Mrdomination
2004-Nov-14, 02:52 AM
We have had the smoking ban for some time now in B.C.....

So long that when me and my friends took a trip to Sask., my smoking friend would always go outside to have a smoke, even though they have a smoking section indoors...he was so well trained to got outside, he did it for the enitre trip...

Ya shoulda seen the looks he was gettin.....


And how about....

The Wayans brothers are funny.....because their not...

Tha_Pig
2004-Nov-14, 04:18 AM
A common misconception I hear a lot is:

People don't age in outer space.

I guess the origin of this myth lies in people who heard the parable of the astronaut (commonly used to explain relativity) that travels at near-light speed and comes back to earth to find his twin brother he left behind is an old man. For some reason, people don't understand the relativity part of the story and just assume people in space remain the same age forever.

Ut
2004-Nov-14, 04:50 AM
And a smoking ban in all public places is being considered by the provincial government. Hopefully this will reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. It's been a very successful by-law here in Ottawa, though some smokers and restaurant owners complained.

They always complain at the start. "It'll ruin buisness!" they claim. But people get used to smoking outdoors really quickly. People don't not go to their favourite places if they can't smoke. They just take a quick step outside.

The Supreme Canuck
2004-Nov-14, 05:09 AM
Exactly. But while they are angry, watch out! The whole thing almost fell apart. They were close to violence for awhile.

Finally died down, though.

Moose
2004-Nov-14, 03:08 PM
The NB public smoking ban has been a bit of a problem for businesses in my town. We're right next to the Québec border where public smoking is commonplace. The smokers all go there now. It's working well everywhere else in NB though.

That said, we haven't had much visible resistance to the ban in the province.

Makgraf
2004-Nov-14, 09:22 PM
The smoking ban has been great here in Toronto. First it was no smoking in restaurants but smoking was allowed in bars (so the definition of a bar was a place where you could smoke, not where you could drink). Now they're banned smoking in bars. It's really great to not have acrid smoke floating around when you're trying to eat (or drink). To say nothing of the health savings.

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-15, 06:41 AM
On Dec 10th NZ goes pretty much Smokefree. Our workplces hve been for years, but on the 10th it'll include all indoor workplaces including Pubs and Clubs. There'll be no smoking in doorways or in "smoko rooms." Smokers will have the choice of going outdoors or to Australia, either way doesn't worry me. ;)

worzel
2004-Nov-15, 09:54 AM
Re: passive smoking

After reading some of the peronal accounts here I am worried that my flipant comments may have offended.

I don't think that passive smoking is completely unharmful. I just think that it sometimes gets overstated - like the often made claim that passive smoking is worse for you than active smoking.

I hope I am what you would call a considerate smoker. I don't light up as soon as I have the right to (like on a crowded enclosed train platform for example) but wait until I am really out in the open - smokey bars being the only exception.

I actually look forward to a ban on smoking in enclosed public places here in London. It will certainly help me to cut down, Not smoking in a smokey environment is much harder than in a clean one, and popping outside for the occasional smoke is no great hardship.

Kaptain K
2004-Nov-15, 10:09 AM
IMHO - It is a matter of personal freedom and government intrusion. If I own a restaurant, what right does the government have to tell me what my clientele will be. Let the marketplace decide! If you want a job in a restaurant, but don't like smoke, go find a job in a non-smoking restaurant. If you want to eat in a smoke free restaurant, go find one. But, don't tell me my restaurant has to be smoke free, just so you can eat there!

papageno
2004-Nov-15, 10:29 AM
IMHO - It is a matter of personal freedom and government intrusion. If I own a restaurant, what right does the government have to tell me what my clientele will be. Let the marketplace decide! If you want a job in a restaurant, but don't like smoke, go find a job in a non-smoking restaurant. If you want to eat in a smoke free restaurant, go find one. But, don't tell me my restaurant has to be smoke free, just so you can eat there!

A smoker might have the right to smoke, but a non-smoker might have the right not to breathe other people's smoke.

Not all smokers are considerate like worzel.
And as Van Rijn pointed out, smoke gets everywhere, it sticks even after a while.

What happens if I am sitting in the restaurant and the guy next to me starts smoking?
Do I have to get up and leave, because the smoker cannot wait?
Do I get a discount for leaving in the middle of the meal?
I had people smoking in non-smoking areas of a resaurant.

Irresponsible drivers get tickets and even lose their licence.
What about irresponsible smokers?

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-15, 10:31 AM
A bit more astronomy-related:

You are weightless in space because there isn't any atmosphere.

Basically, for some reason, "people" seem to have gotten cause and effect reversed...

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-15, 10:39 AM
IMHO - It is a matter of personal freedom and government intrusion. If I own a restaurant, what right does the government have to tell me what my clientele will be. Let the marketplace decide! If you want a job in a restaurant, but don't like smoke, go find a job in a non-smoking restaurant. If you want to eat in a smoke free restaurant, go find one. But, don't tell me my restaurant has to be smoke free, just so you can eat there!

Are you also prepared to take the responsiblity for any staff members who contract illnesses related to working in a smokey workplace? Or do you think that the Government should have to deal with that?

kucharek
2004-Nov-15, 11:23 AM
Pythagoras' Theorem is a^2+b^2=c^2

a^2+b^2=c^2 is just an algebraic term which may be right or wrong depending on which values you put in for a, b and c

Pythagoras' Theorem says, that the sum of the areas of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the area of the square on the hypotenuse.
The algebraic term just hold, if a and b denote the length of the sides and c the length of the hypotenuse.

swansont
2004-Nov-15, 12:10 PM
A bit more astronomy-related:

You are weightless in space because there isn't any atmosphere.

Basically, for some reason, "people" seem to have gotten cause and effect reversed...

Do you tell them, "You're weightless because there's no gravity, you silly goose! " :wink:

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-15, 12:20 PM
IMHO - It is a matter of personal freedom and government intrusion.
A reasonable argument for not having such a ban in the US. In Canada there is another factor to consider - the government pays for health care, and provides workers compensation insurance, for all of its citizens. One of the arguments they use is "the government is the one paying for all of the increased health problems related to second-hand smoke so we have a say in whether people can smoke in restaurants and bars".

Back to myths. I have just found out that fake owls (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17641) really don't scare birds very well. :)

Fram
2004-Nov-15, 03:40 PM
"Every person in the world is 'connected' to every other person by a chain of max. 6 persons."

And then they go on and prove it by an example where one very famous person is connected to another very famous person by this kind of link.
Of course, if it's true for two famous persons, then it must be true for the Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller too!

Edit: my last post as a bad newbie, no more nonsense after this one! :)

Humphrey
2004-Nov-15, 03:46 PM
Bah i can do it in one.

Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller both live on earth.

Done.

kucharek
2004-Nov-15, 03:49 PM
Of course, if it's true for two famous persons, then it must be true for the Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller too!

Two ethnologists? 8-[

ToSeek
2004-Nov-15, 06:07 PM
Bah i can do it in one.

Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller both live on earth.

Done.

And neither have been in your kitchen....

Kaptain K
2004-Nov-15, 07:42 PM
IMHO - It is a matter of personal freedom and government intrusion. If I own a restaurant, what right does the government have to tell me what my clientele will be. Let the marketplace decide! If you want a job in a restaurant, but don't like smoke, go find a job in a non-smoking restaurant. If you want to eat in a smoke free restaurant, go find one. But, don't tell me my restaurant has to be smoke free, just so you can eat there!

Are you also prepared to take the responsiblity for any staff members who contract illnesses related to working in a smokey workplace? Or do you think that the Government should have to deal with that?
Neither! I am not holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work in a "smokey workplace". If you do not want to work in a restaurant where smoking is allowed, I'm sure that:
1) You can find a non-smoking restaurant to work in.
2) I can find a smoker who is willing to take responsibility for his/her own actions and not claim to be a "victim"!

Moose
2004-Nov-15, 07:56 PM
1) You can find a non-smoking restaurant to work in.

[pregnant pause] ... Really?

Please name five successful restaurants or chains, anywhere in North America that volunteered to go entirely non-smoking before smoking-ban legislation was on the radar. I can think of only one. [And by any report I've heard, the move was entirely positive for Tim Horton's.]

Humphrey
2004-Nov-15, 08:20 PM
Moose: I am very sure that Outback wen't non smoking before the ban here in florida. And i might be misremembering, but i do not think Olive Garden ever allowed people to smoke indoors, but i could be wrong on this part.

Currently Bars here are allowed to be smoking as long as a majority of their profits come from the sale of drinks and alcohol.

There are several popular restauraunts that are known for quality and very good food that cannot be replaced. It is not like a area with 10 pizza places all the same. Some of the higher end restauraunts are one of a kind and irreplaceable. There is no ability to go somewhere else. When a person lights up in one of these places it ruins the tase of the food and could damage your health in prolonged circumstances. The smoke even after brief priods will stick to your hair and clothing for long times and smells disgusting.

IF a person wants, go outside for a few minutes and smoke, then return to your food. If you cannot go for one hour without a cigarette, maybe you need to rethink how much controll the thing has over your life.

For me i find it worse. I am more suceptible to smoke and get headaches from light amounts.


But i have to say im biased. I am very Anti-smoking.

Glom
2004-Nov-15, 08:24 PM
I'm anti-smoking by desire, but these days, my advocacy is tempered by my libertarianism.

SeanF
2004-Nov-15, 08:35 PM
1) You can find a non-smoking restaurant to work in.

[pregnant pause] ... Really?

Please name five successful restaurants or chains, anywhere in North America that volunteered to go entirely non-smoking before smoking-ban legislation was on the radar. I can think of only one. [And by any report I've heard, the move was entirely positive for Tim Horton's.]
First, there are many restaurants that went non-smoking before there was a ban. Before the ban "was on the radar" is unrealistic - a restaurant wouldn't start restricting its customers until it became apparent that it was good business to do so. By the time it became clear that there were a lot of people who wanted non-smoking, a ban was already "on the radar." That's because there're so many people out there who's first response when they don't get something they like is to start crying about making a law.

And there have been several restaurants that have gone smokeless even where there're no laws, but it's been going on so long (and there are enough laws out there now) that identifying them wouldn't be simple. McDonald's jumps quickly to mind, however. :)

At any rate, there are only two possibilities:

There are enough people who want non-smoking dining that restaurants can be successful without allowing smoking; or

There aren't.

In the first case, no law is necessary. In the second, it's tyranny of the minority to make a lot of noise and get a law passed, isn't it?

Moose
2004-Nov-15, 08:43 PM
Moose: I am very sure that Outback wen't non smoking before the ban here in florida. And i might be misremembering, but i do not think Olive Garden ever allowed people to smoke indoors, but i could be wrong on this part.

I'm pretty sure I've never been to an Olive Garden. I don't think there are any in the maritimes, nor have I eaten at one during my trips to the States or west.

Of the two Outbacks in Atlantic Canada that I know of, as far as I remember, both were smoking restauraunts from their inception right up to the smoking ban. I have never been to a restaurant, save Tim's since a few years ago, that has had an effective non-smoking section. That includes family and children's restaurants.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-15, 08:49 PM
Sorry moose, i was not clear. When the bad on smoking indorrs in restauraunts was aproved in florida. Outback went non-smopking before the official date.

Moose
2004-Nov-15, 09:01 PM
At any rate, there are only two possibilities:

There are enough people who want non-smoking dining that restaurants can be successful without allowing smoking; or

There aren't.

In the first case, no law is necessary. In the second, it's tyranny of the minority to make a lot of noise and get a law passed, isn't it?

I suppose there are also only two possibilities: Hoagland's right or Siebrel's right. False dilemna.

And you've got it wrong, btw, smokers are very much in the minority, and have been for decades.

According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus059.pdf), in 1965, overall, only 41.9% of Americans smoked. This has trended downward until 2001, where only 22.7% of persons 18 and older smoked.

Only among males, and only in 1965 have smokers outnumbered non-smokers.

So yes, there was a tyranny of the minority. Something that is now finally being corrected.

[Edit to correct a critical typo]

swansont
2004-Nov-15, 09:14 PM
Bah i can do it in one.

Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller both live on earth.

Done.

And neither have been in your kitchen....

Wow, Cliff, you're right! :)

SeanF
2004-Nov-15, 09:15 PM
At any rate, there are only two possibilities:

There are enough people who want non-smoking dining that restaurants can be successful without allowing smoking; or

There aren't.

In the first case, no law is necessary. In the second, it's tyranny of the minority to make a lot of noise and get a law passed, isn't it?

I suppose there are also only two possibilities: Hoagland's right or Siebrel's right. False dilemna.

And you've got it wrong, btw, smokers are very much in the minority, and have been for decades.

According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus059.pdf), in 1965, overall, only 41.9% of Americans smoked. This has trended downward until 2001, where only 22.7% of persons 18 and older smoked.

Only among males, and only in 1965 have smokers outnumbered non-smokers.

So yes, there was a tyranny of the minority. Something that is now finally being corrected.

[Edit to correct a critical typo]
No, what I presented was not a false dichotomy. There's a certain number of non-smoking diners that would be necessary for a non-smoking restaurant to be a success. Either the number of non-smokers that actually exists is greater than that number or it isn't. That's a real dichotomy, not a false one.

Bottom line, if any significant number of diners want non-smoking restaurants, then there will be non-smoking restaurants, no law required.

Moose
2004-Nov-15, 09:23 PM
*shrug* If 77.3% of adults (2001) wanted to smoke, they'd smoke, and such laws would never have passed.

ToSeek
2004-Nov-15, 09:40 PM
Bah i can do it in one.

Mato Grosso indian and the Papua dweller both live on earth.

Done.

And neither have been in your kitchen....

Wow, Cliff, you're right! :)

I'm glad someone caught the reference! ;)

SeanF
2004-Nov-15, 10:47 PM
*shrug* If 77.3% of adults (2001) wanted to smoke, they'd smoke, and such laws would never have passed.
So, we're agreed. Restaurant anti-smoking laws are pointless, because they only pass when they're unnecessary.

Tha_Pig
2004-Nov-15, 10:54 PM
Another very common myth:

High Octane gasoline means "stronger" or "better performance" for your car.

How many people always buy the more expensive gasoline instead of the regular unleaded one because they think it will give them better speed or performance or whatever?

Unless you have a racing engine specially designed for high-octane fuels, your car is designed for regular (87) gas. Pumping premium is just paying more for the same thing.

Octane rating actually measures a gasoline's ability to limit or prevent an engine from knocking or rattling, due to premature ignition of the fuel-air mixture in one or more of the engine cylinders.

Avatar28
2004-Nov-15, 11:33 PM
Another very common myth:

High Octane gasoline means "stronger" or "better performance" for your car.

How many people always buy the more expensive gasoline instead of the regular unleaded one because they think it will give them better speed or performance or whatever?

Unless you have a racing engine specially designed for high-octane fuels, your car is designed for regular (87) gas. Pumping premium is just paying more for the same thing.

Octane rating actually measures a gasoline's ability to limit or prevent an engine from knocking or rattling, due to premature ignition of the fuel-air mixture in one or more of the engine cylinders.

That's not always 100% accurate. Premium gasolines sometimes contain additional additives that can help with cleaning your engine slightly. Also some cars DO benefit. Even cars designed for premium unleaded (and there are some that tell you to use nothing lower than 92 or 93 octane), can run on lower octane gas. The knock sensor will detect that it's trying to ping and retard the timing to prevent the engine from destroying itself with knock. But it does so at the expense of performance (and I think mileage).

Also sometimes there can also be a difference otherwise. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't, but my car seems to drive better when I use midgrade or premium gas compared to 87. Maybe it's wear that causes it, I'm not sure. It also seems to get slightly (maybe on the order of 10%) better mileage most of the time. Like I said, I KNOW there shouldn't really be a noticable difference, but it's there nonetheless. I figure it's worth a few cents extra per gallon to me. Currently there's a Citgo station down the road from where I work that sells 87 at $1.91, 89 at $1.96 and 93 at $1.97.

Tha_Pig
2004-Nov-15, 11:57 PM
That's not always 100% accurate. Premium gasolines sometimes contain additional additives that can help with cleaning your engine slightly.

Another myth! The amount of additives and detergents than prevent harmful fuel deposits from collecting in engines is the same in all three grades of gasoline, due to law requirement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Maybe the reason of your car performing better on some kind of gasoline is more psychological than mechanic? http://www.angelfire.com/comics/pinton/PIGMILE4.gif

worzel
2004-Nov-16, 12:03 AM
IF a person wants, go outside for a few minutes and smoke, then return to your food. If you cannot go for one hour without a cigarette, maybe you need to rethink how much controll the thing has over your life.
You have to remember that us smokers are basically drug addicts. We need help. I find it much more enjoyable to have a meal in a clean, smoke free environment, especially as most of the people I dine with are non-smokers. But if people are puffing away all around me the smell gives me a nicotene frenzie like a vampire smelling blood and I need to virtually chain smoke my way through it - espicially if I'm a bit plastered. Make it easy on us, ban it! We'll moan, go outside together every hour or so for a quick puff, annoy our friends less, make new friends (joining the smoking club is the easiest way to meet people in any new job), save money, be healthier, and eventually learn to thank you for it.

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 12:56 AM
*shrug* If 77.3% of adults (2001) wanted to smoke, they'd smoke, and such laws would never have passed.
So, we're agreed. Restaurant anti-smoking laws are pointless, because they only pass when they're unnecessary.

Actually we're not in agreement at all, and I think you're well aware of it.

The fact is, as of 2001, 77.3% of the adult population has chosen, for some reason or another, to not smoke. Unfortunately, the reality is that it takes only one smoker, clearly a minority population as I've shown, in a public place (work environment, public transportation, or recreation location), for that choice to be negated.

If smoking can be considered a protectable right and not a privilege (which I would dispute in any case), then not-smoking must also be afforded the same protections as a right. Unfortunately, since both "rights" are in conflict, the heavily paraphrased adage must hold: your "right" to smoke for fun ends at the air I have no choice but to breathe.

The majority have finally spoken. The 22.7% of you will just have to deal with it.

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 12:59 AM
You have to remember that us smokers are basically drug addicts. We need help. I find it much more enjoyable to have a meal in a clean, smoke free environment, especially as most of the people I dine with are non-smokers. But if people are puffing away all around me the smell gives me a nicotene frenzie like a vampire smelling blood and I need to virtually chain smoke my way through it - espicially if I'm a bit plastered. Make it easy on us, ban it! We'll moan, go outside together every hour or so for a quick puff, annoy our friends less, make new friends (joining the smoking club is the easiest way to meet people in any new job), save money, be healthier, and eventually learn to thank you for it.

Worzel, that is very well said.

worzel
2004-Nov-16, 01:36 AM
If smoking can be considered a protectable right and not a privilege (which I would dispute in any case), then not-smoking must also be afforded the same protections as a right. Unfortunately, since both "rights" are in conflict, the heavily paraphrased adage must hold: your "right" to smoke for fun ends at the air I have no choice but to breathe.
I'm not about to start defending smokers' rights, but how do you feel about my right not to inhale petrol fumes all day every day (I live in central London). I don't drive, I mostly skate and cycle and use public transport for the rest (and if it weren't for all those cabbies and cops trying to run me off the road I'd skate a lot more). I'm not arguing for a car ban either, it's just that living in a city means living with other people and their by-products.

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-16, 02:08 AM
No, what I presented was not a false dichotomy. There's a certain number of non-smoking diners that would be necessary for a non-smoking restaurant to be a success. Either the number of non-smokers that actually exists is greater than that number or it isn't. That's a real dichotomy, not a false one.

Bottom line, if any significant number of diners want non-smoking restaurants, then there will be non-smoking restaurants, no law required.

Before the smoking bans went into effect here in California, you might be able to find SOME places where everybody wasn't smoking, but those were far and few between. On a prior job, before we moved to a non-smoking building, I had to work near chain smokers. On my next job, the cafeteria had a "non smoking" section - that was gray with smoke. Realistically, unless you didn't work and stayed at home, you couldn't avoid quite a lot of smoke. Remember that smoke is hard to control.

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-16, 02:17 AM
I'm not about to start defending smokers' rights, but how do you feel about my right not to inhale petrol fumes all day every day (I live in central London). I don't drive, I mostly skate and cycle and use public transport for the rest (and if it weren't for all those cabbies and cops trying to run me off the road I'd skate a lot more). I'm not arguing for a car ban either, it's just that living in a city means living with other people and their by-products.

Agreed, and I don't have a problem with people smoking outside. I wouldn't even have a big problem with people smoking inside *IF* the smoke could be controlled or filtered. The issue is that this is pollution in a confined space for something that provides absolutely no societal benefit and clearly does do harm.

worzel
2004-Nov-16, 02:28 AM
Agreed, and I don't have a problem with people smoking outside. I wouldn't even have a big problem with people smoking inside *IF* the smoke could be controlled or filtered. The issue is that this is pollution in a confined space for something that provides absolutely no societal benefit and clearly does do harm.
I think it's a bit of a vicious circle. Non-smokers get more vocal about how disgusting smoking is, smokers get millitant, "It aint illegal mate", non-smokers get millitant, "It is now mate". If everyone showed a bit more respect for each other in the first place then maybe we wouldn't need to legislate.

My first post on this subject was really a knee-jerk reaction to people who think they have a right to tell me not to smoke when they can detect a hint of tobacco, like if I'm outside and they've got their window open, hence my comments about petrol fumes.

Ilya
2004-Nov-16, 04:41 AM
Snuff movies exist. Most people accept "snuff movies" as a rare, but certainly real, abomination. Some militant feminists claim that as men get addicted to pornography, they crave more and more explicit and violent stuff, culminating in snuff movies. Trouble is, no one ever saw one. Do a google search on "snuff movies" and all you'll find is "someone spoke to someone who claimed to know someone who saw it." Or some such. No doubt there are videos of rape, torture and murder, but there is absolutely no evidence that anyone ever produced a film with actors PLAYING ROLES, and subsequently getting killed. Which is the definition of a snuff movie.

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 11:49 AM
If smoking can be considered a protectable right and not a privilege (which I would dispute in any case), then not-smoking must also be afforded the same protections as a right. Unfortunately, since both "rights" are in conflict, the heavily paraphrased adage must hold: your "right" to smoke for fun ends at the air I have no choice but to breathe.
I'm not about to start defending smokers' rights, but how do you feel about my right not to inhale petrol fumes all day every day (I live in central London). I don't drive, I mostly skate and cycle and use public transport for the rest (and if it weren't for all those cabbies and cops trying to run me off the road I'd skate a lot more). I'm not arguing for a car ban either, it's just that living in a city means living with other people and their by-products.

That's not a bad point, but the comparison isn't a direct one.

First off, you don't use cars indoors. The only two exceptions I can think of (indoor auto displays and garages (both personal and commercial), auto use is not sustained. Nobody considers prolonged use of a vehicle indoors to be a safe practice, without considerable ventilation. My auto mechanic always hooks a ventilation pipe to my car's exhaust if/when he needs to run the engine for more than a few seconds.

Second, smoking hasn't been banned outdoors, so I don't see why automobile use would be.

Third, (and especially in California), automobile makers are heavily regulated on how polluting a specific vehicle is permitted to be while operating.


I think it's a bit of a vicious circle. Non-smokers get more vocal about how disgusting smoking is, smokers get millitant, "It aint illegal mate", non-smokers get millitant, "It is now mate". If everyone showed a bit more respect for each other in the first place then maybe we wouldn't need to legislate.

Yeah, that's certainly a fair point. Unfortunately, while most smokers are considerate, many are not. And smoke is hard to control. No measure taken in the last thirty years has proven effective. [Edit to clarify: Until recently], I'd still been subjected to considerable smoke in restaurants, and I only ever sat in the non-smoking sections. The previous state of regulations in my province was that for a building to permit smoking, the smoking areas must be isolated from the non-smoking areas and ventilated. Those regulations were largely ignored by businesses, as were earlier regulations attempting to find an adequate compromise. The simple fact is that the businesses (at large) weren't interested in expending money to accomodate their clients or staff.


My first post on this subject was really a knee-jerk reaction to people who think they have a right to tell me not to smoke when they can detect a hint of tobacco, like if I'm outside and they've got their window open, hence my comments about petrol fumes.

And that's understandable. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to solve this problem equibly. I don't think there will be an equible solution that won't involve redesigning some smoking system that contains its own smoke. Mark me, if smoking did not produce second-hand smoke, I would have no problem whatsoever with the practice. (Except possibly in terms of the health-care cost rammifications on my country, but this problem would be easier, I think, to deal with. If it is, indeed a problem at all.)

I have no desire to marginalize smokers. I occasionally hang out with the smoking crowd at my office (much more frequently back when I was an intern). Considerate smokers, they simply keep me upwind.

Unfortunately, not all smokers are that considerate. Many will go out of their way to subject their smoke to non-smokers. Vicious circle? Sure. Inevitable escalation? Well, possibly, but only inevitable because of human nature, I guess. This could have been solved a long time ago with considerably less effort if people were really interested in a compromise.

All I know is that for the first time in my life, I can go to a restaurant (in my province) without wheezing. Always before, I felt like I was just short of an asthma attack in a restaurant. Nothing short of an outright ban has been effective.

Glom
2004-Nov-16, 11:52 AM
They should go nuclear for their smoking needs and then we won't have this pollution. :P

Fram
2004-Nov-16, 12:58 PM
Viewer numbers for internationally broadcasted events.
Things like 'Olympic Opening ceremony viewed by 2.5 billion people' or 'MTV European Music Awards watched by 600 million people'.
There has never been a television broadcast that has been viewed by 2.5 billion people. I don't know where those numbers come from, I believe they are the number of people that could potentially watch it. Just check the numbers for the opening ceremony in your country: if it reaches 25% of the population, it will be very much. Now consider that in China and India (together you have 2.5 billion people plus), many people don't have access to a television.
I see regulary such claims in the better media (BBC, newspapers, ...), and they always get on my nerves.

pghnative
2004-Nov-16, 01:42 PM
Second, smoking hasn't been banned outdoors.It will soon. Try googling "Smoking ban outdoors" and you'll get a lot of hits. For instance: here (http://www.no-smoking.org/march01/03-14-01-1.html). I don't feel like looking for a link, but I am reasonably sure that New York City has proposed (but not enacted) laws to ban smoking in public parks and other public spaces.

Bawheid
2004-Nov-16, 02:05 PM
They should go nuclear for their smoking needs and then we won't have this pollution. :P

=D> =D> =D>

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 02:46 PM
Second, smoking hasn't been banned outdoors.

It will soon. Try googling "Smoking ban outdoors" and you'll get a lot of hits. For instance: here (http://www.no-smoking.org/march01/03-14-01-1.html). I don't feel like looking for a link, but I am reasonably sure that New York City has proposed (but not enacted) laws to ban smoking in public parks and other public spaces.

Huh. That isn't even on the radar, as far as I know, up this way.

ToSeek
2004-Nov-16, 03:15 PM
I'm not about to start defending smokers' rights, but how do you feel about my right not to inhale petrol fumes all day every day (I live in central London). I don't drive, I mostly skate and cycle and use public transport for the rest (and if it weren't for all those cabbies and cops trying to run me off the road I'd skate a lot more). I'm not arguing for a car ban either, it's just that living in a city means living with other people and their by-products.

Oh, heavens, yes. I love London and have visited there several times, but I also remember blowing my nose after walking around all day and having gray, black-particle-speckled goo on my handkerchief from all the pollution. Ick!

SeanF
2004-Nov-16, 03:43 PM
*shrug* If 77.3% of adults (2001) wanted to smoke, they'd smoke, and such laws would never have passed.
So, we're agreed. Restaurant anti-smoking laws are pointless, because they only pass when they're unnecessary.

Actually we're not in agreement at all, and I think you're well aware of it.
:)


The fact is, as of 2001, 77.3% of the adult population has chosen, for some reason or another, to not smoke. Unfortunately, the reality is that it takes only one smoker, clearly a minority population as I've shown, in a public place (work environment, public transportation, or recreation location), for that choice to be negated.

If smoking can be considered a protectable right and not a privilege (which I would dispute in any case), then not-smoking must also be afforded the same protections as a right. Unfortunately, since both "rights" are in conflict, the heavily paraphrased adage must hold: your "right" to smoke for fun ends at the air I have no choice but to breathe.
Ah, "no choice?" I'm talking about restaurants, specifically - private businesses. Nobody's holding a gun to your head preventing you from going to breathe air someplace else, so we're not talking about air you have "no choice but to breathe."

It's really no different than passing a law restricting people from smoking in their own homes if someone else is present. As long as you have the freedom to leave, you have the right to breathe your clean air.


The majority have finally spoken. The 22.7% of you will just have to deal with it.
The US is not a democracy (man, I've typed that a lot lately!), so the authority of "the majority" is somewhat limited - and it doesn't make it right, anyway.

BTW, don't lump me in with "the 22.7%" who smoke. I'm a non-smoker. I'm just a firm believer in the concept of "freedom."

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 04:04 PM
Hey Sean?


In the second, it's tyranny of the minority to make a lot of noise and get a law passed, isn't it?

You brought it up in the first place. Smokers are the minority. Not non-smokers. Merely correcting you.


Ah, "no choice?" I'm talking about restaurants, specifically - private businesses. Nobody's holding a gun to your head preventing you from going to breathe air someplace else, so we're not talking about air you have "no choice but to breathe."

Nobody's holding a gun to your head preventing "you" from smoking out of doors, either, nor are smokers prevented from eating at restaurants. In terms of conflicting personal rights, any argument one can give for either position tends to work the same in the other direction.

But is it your position, then, that the majority should be making way for the minority in this? Why?

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 04:11 PM
I'm a non-smoker. I'm just a firm believer in the concept of "freedom."

Incidentally, so am I, and it's another logical fallacy (though I don't know what it's called) on your part to claim/assume otherwise.

I simply value the freedom to go to a restaurant without having health hazards imposed on me far higher than I value someone's freedom to smoke indoors, particularly when that freedom tends to remove mine.

If these freedoms cannot successfully co-exist, then sometimes a choice has to be made.

SeanF
2004-Nov-16, 04:27 PM
I'm a non-smoker. I'm just a firm believer in the concept of "freedom."

Incidentally, so am I, and it's another logical fallacy (though I don't know what it's called) on your part to claim/assume otherwise.

I simply value the freedom to go to a restaurant without having health hazards imposed on me far higher than I value someone's freedom to smoke indoors, particularly when that freedom tends to remove mine.

If these freedoms cannot successfully co-exist, then sometimes a choice has to be made.
See, this is the kind of thing that gripes me. "Freedom to go to a restaurant..." indeed. Somebody else has put their blood, sweat, and money into running that business, and your "freedom" or "right" to go eat there is entirely dependent on their continuing to do so. It's theirs, not yours.

So, as to the choice between "freedom to smoke" and "freedom to not breathe smoky air" while at that restaurant, in a free society it's the restaurant owner who makes that choice.

As I said, it's no different than banning smoking in people's homes - it's private property.

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 05:14 PM
Let me ask this, then.

Is it your position that a restaurant owner should not be held to health and safety regulations? That, say, the owner of a restaurant should be able to serve "beef" that is, in reality, filler? Or chicken, say, that has sat in the sun for days?

Why do we inspect beef for disease? Surely packers should be free to sell whatever they like? People are free to not buy it, right?

How about this? If someone enters a shop, should they be required to make a purchase on the owner's say-so? Should the owner be allowed to shoot a prospective client who doesn't buy enough?

Clients who don't want to be mislead or shot can go elsewhere, right?

Enron... Worldcom...

The problem is this: a person's unrestricted freedom to choose what to do with his/her property and goods must end the moment the choice impacts someone else. The advantages of a functionning society by far outweigh the "disadvantages" of restricting the unlimited expression of "freedom".

No, a shop owner cannot shoot a client. The restauranteer may not claim to be serving beef when he/she's not. The packing plants may not sell dangerous meats. There is very little fundamental difference between these necessary protection laws and the smoking ban.

But it gets even more clear when you consider that smoking is fundamentally a luxury. A luxury-based "freedom" cannot trump a physical necessity like breathing.

Glom
2004-Nov-16, 05:19 PM
=D> =D> =D>

I was applauded by Bawheid? I thought the day would never come. Peace with the Jocks.

Sheki
2004-Nov-16, 05:46 PM
SeanF wrote:


As I said, it's no different than banning smoking in people's homes - it's private property.

Nitpick: Yes it's private property, but its a Public Place - making it very different indeed than a private residence. As such, as the proprietor of such a place one can expect that different responsibilities may in some cases outweight the freedoms you might otherwise enjoy.


Sheki

SeanF
2004-Nov-16, 09:10 PM
Moose, there are some valid points in your last post, but they're not all fair comparisons. Smoking in a restaurant is not something that's "hidden," like filler, or bad chicken, or diseased beef. No-one, in this day and age, can sit in a room with a smoker and say, "Well, I didn't know that might not be healthy for me."

As for shooting the customer, come on. Let's not get out of hand. I'm sure you've been in a situation where you were in a restaurant and the person next to you started smoking, and I know you reacted differently than you would have if the person had started spraying bullets around the room. They're not the same thing.

You summed up the problem thusly:


[A] person's unrestricted freedom to choose what to do with his/her property and goods must end the moment the choice impacts someone else.
That is not absolutely true, not when the impact on someone else is entirely at the "someone else's" discretion. It's like saying that a restaurant can't serve me rare steak because of the dangers of eating undercooked food. I can make that choice myself, just like I can whether or not to submit myself to second-hand smoke.

This discussion is starting to get a little too heated and political for the BABB, so I'm going to bow out before I get myself banned. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

BlueAnodizeAl
2004-Nov-16, 09:22 PM
I simply value the freedom to go to a restaurant without having health hazards imposed on me far higher than I value someone's freedom to smoke indoors, particularly when that freedom tends to remove mine.

I have a right to taste my food without cigarette smoke tainting the flavor.

Back on topic:

I hate the fact everyone thinks it's so wonderful to live in Orlando, like a magic fairy tale land all the time....I love toursits because of the money they bring here and for no other reason.

snowcelt
2004-Nov-16, 09:28 PM
People say that the only reason why Canadians live in Florida and California is because they were trying to get away from hockey. The strike has been on for 60 days. You can come home now.

Moose
2004-Nov-16, 09:46 PM
Moose, there are some valid points in your last post, but they're not all fair comparisons. Smoking in a restaurant is not something that's "hidden," like filler, or bad chicken, or diseased beef. No-one, in this day and age, can sit in a room with a smoker and say, "Well, I didn't know that might not be healthy for me."

In this day and age, no. Because our various governments are finally beginning to holding tobacco responsible for their actions, because they didn't just say, "heck, people can choose not to smoke". Big Tobacco certainly didn't volunteer to become part of the solution. They've done everything they can to obscure the problem.

That's my point. Businesses will always look after their interests. Your "market forces" rarely apply once a business is sufficiently entrenched. There are 22-odd% of smokers in the adult population today, and yet non-smoking establishments are still rare enough that if you live in a relatively rural province like mine, they simply did not exist until the ban.

Basically, what you're telling me is that if I, and the 10000 other residents of my county who don't smoke prefer to frequent a non-smoking establishment, well, we can't. We'd just have to stay home.

No. I'm sorry, but no.


As for shooting the customer, come on. Let's not get out of hand. I'm sure you've been in a situation where you were in a restaurant and the person next to you started smoking, and I know you reacted differently than you would have if the person had started spraying bullets around the room. They're not the same thing.

Your "person next to me" is a customer, not the property owner. Not the same thing at all.


You summed up the problem thusly:


[A] person's unrestricted freedom to choose what to do with his/her property and goods must end the moment the choice impacts someone else.

That is not absolutely true, not when the impact on someone else is entirely at the "someone else's" discretion. It's like saying that a restaurant can't serve me rare steak because of the dangers of eating undercooked food. I can make that choice myself, just like I can whether or not to submit myself to second-hand smoke.

Not the same thing at all. Your ordering rare steak is not a health hazard to the person next to you. That's the whole point.

Sheki is right. You're mistaking property rights for what happens when a property owner chooses to open his establishment as a public place.

A homeowner can eat all the rare steaks he/she wants with as little or as many health controls as he/she likes. But if he/she opens a restaurant, something she can choose to do, or not do, it becomes a public place. She has to conform to health codes for the public's safety, may not commit fraud, and he/she can't discriminate based on certain protected classes. And now, the ban on smoking is added to his/her responsibilities as the private owner of a public place.


This discussion is starting to get a little too heated and political for the BABB, so I'm going to bow out before I get myself banned. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Probably a good idea. "Least said, soonest mended" and all that.

snowcelt
2004-Nov-16, 10:45 PM
Looks like this thread has been torched by special interest groups. Maybe these people may wish to light up elsewhere. I can not hold a flame to this argument. Perhaps I should but out eh?

Back too what the thraed is about. Let me think--Oh yah! Everyone who is concerned about smoking are non-comital.

Van Rijn
2004-Nov-16, 11:10 PM
Moose did a good job with this, and it is starting to get political, but there are a couple of points I wanted to quickly cover:


Moose, there are some valid points in your last post, but they're not all fair comparisons. Smoking in a restaurant is not something that's "hidden," like filler, or bad chicken, or diseased beef. No-one, in this day and age, can sit in a room with a smoker and say, "Well, I didn't know that might not be healthy for me."

Actually, there is a large segment of smokers (in the U.S. at least) that still insist that second hand smoke isn't dangerous. It reminds me of the old tobacco company arguments.

The key issue with smoking is that it is a "third-party" problem, like many other forms of pollution, precisely because it is so hard to selectively control exposure. In practice, before the bans here, it was virtually impossible to avoid a great deal of exposure. I didn't WANT to be around all that smoke, but there really wasn't a choice. Smoking should be controlled like other forms of air pollution. My impression is that if this were anything BUT about smoking, there wouldn't be any question that it should be well controlled.

Silent Knight
2004-Nov-22, 05:16 AM
There is an official account of the expedition by Pigaletta (who survivied) so if Magellan was buried in the Phillipines then Pigaletta's account should mention it.

Death of Magellan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan#Death_of_Magellan)


Antonio Pigafetta, a wealthy tourist who paid to be on the Magellan voyage, is the only extant eyewitness account of Magellan's death. He writes:

"When morning came, forty-nine of us leaped into the water up to our thighs, and walked through water for more than two cross-bow flights before we could reach the shore. The boats could not approach nearer because of certain rocks in the water. The other eleven men remained behind to guard the boats. When we reached land, [the natives] had formed in three divisions to the number of more than one thousand five hundred persons. When they saw us, they charged down upon us with exceeding loud cries... The musketeers and crossbow-men shot from a distance for about a half-hour, but uselessly... Recognizing the captain, so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... An Indian hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the Indian's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide. When they wounded him, he turned back many times to see whether we were all in the boats. Thereupon, beholding him dead, we, wounded, retreated, as best we could, to the boats, which were already pulling off."


*all* Viking helmets had horns (IIRC they've only found two)

Horned helmets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#Horned_helmets)


There is no evidence whatsoever that the Vikings on any occasion wore horned helmets. This is a latter-day myth created by national romantic ideas in Sweden at the end of the 19th century, notably the Geatish Society, and further imprinted by cartoons like Hagar the Horrible or Asterix and numerous fictitious movies. The people living in Scandinavia during the Bronze Age did, however, wear horned helmets during ceremonies, as testified by rock carvings and actual finds. See Bohuslän.

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-22, 12:27 PM
There is an official account of the expedition by Pigaletta (who survivied) so if Magellan was buried in the Phillipines then Pigaletta's account should mention it.

Death of Magellan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan#Death_of_Magellan)
Thanks for the link! :)

darkhunter
2004-Nov-22, 08:08 PM
[snip]

*all* Viking helmets had horns (IIRC they've only found two)

Horned helmets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#Horned_helmets)


There is no evidence whatsoever that the Vikings on any occasion wore horned helmets. This is a latter-day myth created by national romantic ideas in Sweden at the end of the 19th century, notably the Geatish Society, and further imprinted by cartoons like Hagar the Horrible or Asterix and numerous fictitious movies. The people living in Scandinavia during the Bronze Age did, however, wear horned helmets during ceremonies, as testified by rock carvings and actual finds. See Bohuslän.
Thanks--I don't know where I got "they only fould two". It's just something that's been stuck in my head for years :D

fossilnut
2004-Nov-23, 01:00 AM
Great topic of discussion (when on track).Back to the original question. I've learned a lot about pepperoni (both the plant and the meat), Magellan, echidnas...


Here's one I come across everyday. As a sedimentary geologist I'm constantly explaining to people (especially smart ones because they are inquisitive) where oil comes from. There's a public misperception that when one drills for oil that there's a big 'bathtub' or underground cavity full of oil and this is drilled into and the oil is pumped out until the cavity is empty. The same way that you would put a pump into a bucket and pump the water out.

There are no 'hollow caverns' beneath the surface in oil producing basins. The oil is found within the rock itself. The rock is porous and contain oil deposits. Pressure forces the oil out of the permeable rock and this is extracted to the surface. To a novice, the oil producing rock (we look at drilling cores) would not look any different from any other rock.

I've spoke to people who thought we could measure the remaining oil reserves in a well by using a type of dipstick. Bottom line: there are no 'hollow' chambers beneath the surface full of oil. It's all rock...as solid in appearance as any rock on the surface.

Fram
2004-Nov-23, 10:05 AM
Is it the same for gas? I know there have been depressions in places where they had extracted the gas from the bottom, but it can be a 'hole' that collapses or the porous rocks that get squeezed together now theat the pressure of the gas is gone... e.g. in Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands.

mickal555
2004-Nov-23, 12:37 PM
gezz its little wounder people think that if you see a diagram or any thing it always looks like a cavety just look at the simpsons the just sucked it up a pipe like a straw.

Wally
2004-Nov-23, 02:26 PM
Aquafers are the same kind of thing, I think. . . When you sink a well, you're not going for an underground lake or free flowing river. You're looking for that region in the rockbed where water is "flowing" thru the porous rock.

At least I think it works that way. . .

fossilnut
2004-Nov-23, 06:47 PM
Is it the same for gas? I.

Yes similar to oil although gas tends to 'hang around' and will form pockets. Gas will fill underground chambers (and thus can form a safety issue especially in carboniferous rock with 'Karst' geology.)

Wally, aquafers aren't quite the same but you are right they are some type of rock deposit. Unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sand and all types of rocks from carbonates to igneous. I'm not a hydrologist but I think that, as you said, water is mobile in the aquafer whereas in sedimentary oil basis it's just filling in the porosity of the rock. The bottom line is they are not hollow underground canals but rock with water flowing through. Like punching holes in the bottom up a bucket, filling it with sand or gravel and pouring water in.

I'm sure there's some bad sciencein a novel novel or movie where some fellow gains access to a 'so-called aquafer' and rides it like a river to eventually access some underground chamber to thwart an evil force from conquering the world.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Nov-23, 07:36 PM
Is it the same for gas? I.

Yes similar to oil although gas tends to 'hang around' and will form pockets. Gas will fill underground chambers (and thus can form a safety issue especially in carboniferous rock with 'Karst' geology.)

Wally, aquafers aren't quite the same but you are right they are some type of rock deposit. Unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sand and all types of rocks from carbonates to igneous. I'm not a hydrologist but I think that, as you said, water is mobile in the aquafer whereas in sedimentary oil basis it's just filling in the porosity of the rock. The bottom line is they are not hollow underground canals but rock with water flowing through. Like punching holes in the bottom up a bucket, filling it with sand or gravel and pouring water in.

I'm sure there's some bad sciencein a novel novel or movie where some fellow gains access to a 'so-called aquafer' and rides it like a river to eventually access some underground chamber to thwart an evil force from conquering the world.

Strangely enough, you Just Described a Care Bears Episode.

What's REALLY Scary, is that I Know That!

weatherc
2004-Nov-23, 08:17 PM
Here's one that's appropriate for us here in the States this week:

The L-tryptophan in turkey makes you sleepy.

Wrong. Eating huge quantities of food in one sitting while drinking adult beverages and socializing makes you sleepy. There is not enough L-tryptophan in turkey to have an effect on you on Thanksgiving.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-23, 09:46 PM
I have no doubt that talking alone to family members will bore you into sleapyness.

weatherc
2004-Nov-23, 09:49 PM
I have no doubt that talking alone to family members will bore you into sleapyness.

I guess it depends on the family...

Some can bore you to sleepiness, others can frustrate/anger you to exhaustion. :lol:

parallaxicality
2004-Nov-24, 01:07 AM
Technically his expedition circumnavigated the globe. Magellan died part way (in the Phillipines) but a remnant of the expedition did manage to complete the voyage. I think he started with five ships but only one, with 18 crew, made it back.

According to one site I found, the honour does belong to Magellan, because, though indeed Magellan never made it home on his expedition, he had already sailed from the East Indies to Lisbon years before the expedition began, and therefore, had circumnavigated the globe by the time he died. Some, however, would argue that he never quite made it back to where he had started, and that the honour belongs to his slave, Black Enrique, who accompanied Magellan on all of his voyages and actually made the full return trip.

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-24, 12:32 PM
According to one site I found, the honour does belong to Magellan, because, though indeed Magellan never made it home on his expedition, he had already sailed from the East Indies to Lisbon years before the expedition began, and therefore, had circumnavigated the globe by the time he died. Some, however, would argue that he never quite made it back to where he had started, and that the honour belongs to his slave, Black Enrique, who accompanied Magellan on all of his voyages and actually made the full return trip.
I agree that Magellan had gone east from Portugal to the Spice Islands (Indonesia) so I agree that a claim could still be made that he circumnavigated the Earth, be it in a two-part manner. However the common myth is that he sucessfully completed the expedition to circumnavigate the globe, which is false since he died part way. Most people do not know about the earlier trip to the Spice islands.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-25, 08:50 PM
I'm anti-smoking by desire, but these days, my advocacy is tempered by my libertarianism.Typical libertarian myth. The smokers' rights count. The non-smokers' rights, well if we have to add those, the Libertarian position can't deal with it.

They don't have to go there? Well that can be said for both.

Can the non-smoker sue the smoker for polluting the non-smokers' air?

Who owns the air in the Libertarian model society by the way? Do I own it up to a foot around me? Do I own it if I inhale it?

beskeptical
2004-Nov-25, 08:53 PM
If smoking can be considered a protectable right and not a privilege (which I would dispute in any case), then not-smoking must also be afforded the same protections as a right. Unfortunately, since both "rights" are in conflict, the heavily paraphrased adage must hold: your "right" to smoke for fun ends at the air I have no choice but to breathe.
I'm not about to start defending smokers' rights, but how do you feel about my right not to inhale petrol fumes all day every day (I live in central London). I don't drive, I mostly skate and cycle and use public transport for the rest (and if it weren't for all those cabbies and cops trying to run me off the road I'd skate a lot more). I'm not arguing for a car ban either, it's just that living in a city means living with other people and their by-products.Well, we do have clean car emissions regulations. And, regulations on industrial air pollutants.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-25, 09:19 PM
Whoops, I didn't mean to drag the smokers vs non-smokers fight back in. Sorry. Here, let me get some health beliefs in here to change the subject back OT.

You catch colds from being out in inclement weather, or getting a chill or whatever other version you want to put in here.
Totally disproved by research, no affect on one's immune system either for those of you who hold on to that belief.

Vitamin C has a direct effect on the immune system, whether you think it prevents a cold or helps when you have one.
Totally disproved by research. Take your vitamins for their other benefits, but this isn't one of them.

Listerine kills germs, thus it "prevents gum disease and bad breath", and implying it prevents other infections.
There are good and bad bacteria in your mouth. Killing all bacteria can actually take out the competition for the bad ones. If Listerine were as effective as claimed, it would kill the cells in your mouth along with the bacteria. It is the brushing away of the plaque on your teeth that is actually doing the good.

Lysol kills 99.7% of germs in 30 seconds. Lysol spray in the air prevents infections.
Again, if it were that effective, it'd be incredibly toxic. You can't disinfect air. Try throwing darts in a room full of balloons. You need one dart for every balloon. Think Lysol in the air is hitting every organism? Again, simple cleaning is as effective as cleaning with disinfectants in most situations.

The Ionic Breeze filters the air.
Well, maybe about as well as your TV screen picks up dust. There is no mechanism for circulating air through the device no matter what claims are made by the company.

And, on another topic, it was a widely held belief the world was round by the time Columbus sailed. Washington isn't on record as having cut down a cherry tree. Betsy Ross did not design nor sew the first flag. And, as long as it is Thanksgiving, I might point out the Pilgrims did not land on Plymouth Rock. :D

worzel
2004-Nov-25, 09:36 PM
You catch colds from being out in inclement weather, or getting a chill or whatever other version you want to put in here.
Totally disproved by research, no affect on one's immune system either for those of you who hold on to that belief.
But getting cold when ill (even mildly) can make it worse can't it?


Listerine kills germs, thus it "prevents gum disease and bad breath", and implying it prevents other infections.
There are good and bad bacteria in your mouth. Killing all bacteria can actually take out the competition for the bad ones. If Listerine were as effective as claimed, it would kill the cells in your mouth along with the bacteria. It is the brushing away of the plaque on your teeth that is actually doing the good.
Are you sure Listerine doesn't kill some of the bad germs then? I notice the difference to ulcers, gum disease and sore throats when I use it.


Lysol kills 99.7% of germs in 30 seconds. Lysol spray in the air prevents infections.
Again, if it were that effective, it'd be incredibly toxic. You can't disinfect air. Try throwing darts in a room full of balloons. You need one dart for every balloon. Think Lysol in the air is hitting every organism? Again, simple cleaning is as effective as cleaning with disinfectants in most situations.
Again, don't know about Lysol, but maybe it kills some types of germs, in 30 seconds :)


The Ionic Breeze filters the air.
Well, maybe about as well as your TV screen picks up dust. There is no mechanism for circulating air through the device no matter what claims are made by the company.
My tv screen picks up dust very well :-?

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-25, 11:14 PM
"In a vacuum, a person would explode."

Human flesh is stronger than that.

"In space, a person would freeze."

Not very fast.

"Jupiter is a failed star."

No it isn't. To qualify as a "failed star", it would have to be about 80 times more massive.

"Ebola/Marburg is not contagious."

Something transmissable by contact is pretty contagious.

"Cable internet access is better than DSL."

Not if the cable-providing ISP is a crappy one. :evil: (This is from personal experience. Norwoodlight does seem to have given me a surprise this Thanksgiving, though... My cable connection is now twice as fast as before! Yay!)

"A missile-defense system is a good idea."

Unfortunately, most of them don't work.

"A powerful laser would make a good weapon."

Only against things that move very fast - lasers would not be very efficient compared to projectile weapons.

"Open-source software is always better."

Not if it's crappy open-source software.

"More expensive means better."

Please compare the iMac and the PC... And note which one kicks the pants off the other in the benchmarks. :P

"Female geeks are a rarity."

More than half of the "geeks" in my high school are girls. (I'm counting all "geeks" here, not just computer geeks, but most have multiple interests.)

"Geeky types are not physically fit."

I'm one of the best runners in my gym class.

"'All Natural'/'Organic' products are better."

"All Natural" cigarettes will still kill you.

"Soy products are a good substitute for meat products."

Are they healthy? Seems that way... But tofu does not, never did, and never will taste like chicken.

"You should drink [blah amount] of water per day."

The majority of people should drink when they get thirsty!

"[Blah blah blah] is a miracle!"

No it isn't, unless it involves some ver extraordinary stuff. The word "miracle" is getting a bit watered down these days...



Edit: Question, Beskep... Do you go by the name of "Skeptigirl" on FWIS?

fossilnut
2004-Nov-26, 02:04 AM
"Jupiter a failed star': I guess it didn't apply itself hard enough

Here's another one the crops up in paleontology and every other science dealing with taxonomy.

The Kingdom animalia can be divided into 'Vertebrates and Invertebrates' and this is suppose to be some meaningful dichotomy. The division is an one of convenience for study purpose.

Actually, vertebrates are just one of many phyla of animalia. Vertebrates are no less related to an invertebrate clam than a jellyfish is related to a clam. A jellyfish is less related to a starfish than they are to us (a man).

So, if you do a family tree, clump man closer to a clam than you would a starfish to a clam. Neither the clam nor man has any taxonomic argument to being more closely related to a starfish.

Makgraf
2004-Nov-26, 02:55 AM
"Ebola/Marburg is not contagious."

Something transmissable by contact is pretty contagious.
Is this actually a common belief :o? I think what people mean is that it's not an airborn virus. Also, viral haemorrhagic fevers aren't spread by contact per se, it's through bodily fluids like blood. So I could sit next to a guy with ebola and not get infected.


"A missile-defense system is a good idea."

Unfortunately, most of them don't work.
So get the one that does :). Seriously though, Stuart has written some good stuff on this board about the effectiveness and the desirability of having WMD.


"Open-source software is always better."

Not if it's crappy open-source software.
I think that people are saying that the paradigm of open-source software is far more effective than the paradigm we have. Open-source anything is a pretty good idea, decentralization is better than command n' control.


"More expensive means better."

Please compare the iMac and the PC... And note which one kicks the pants off the other in the benchmarks. :P
Apple doesn't sell computers, it sells a lifestyle. An iMac may not be as useful computerly (probably not a word) but it's far more asethetic. An iMac is an acessory that goes great with your gottee, your starbucks latte and your hipster box glasses.


"Female geeks are a rarity."

More than half of the "geeks" in my high school are girls. (I'm counting all "geeks" here, not just computer geeks, but most have multiple interests.)
This really depends on how the word is defined. When people hear "geek" they think the traditional computer nerd/star trek fan (or they think about some guy biting the head off a chicken). I think the vast majority of hackers are men (no data on that though) and men are certainly overrepresented in sf (both as readers and as writers). It really depends on how you set the terms though, Harry Potter fandom is disproportionately female (and I don't mean people who have read them but people who, say, know who Theodore Nott is).


"'All Natural'/'Organic' products are better."

"All Natural" cigarettes will still kill you.
"All Natural" cigarettes, aren't.


"Soy products are a good substitute for meat products."

Are they healthy? Seems that way... But tofu does not, never did, and never will taste like chicken.
Pork doesn't taste like chicken either, but does that not make it a good substitute? I'm more of a tvp or mushroom man myself when it comes to meat substitutions, but tofu's good too. Doesn't have much (any) flavour which is why you have to marinate it in things. It's healthy and nutritious. Though rather ironically soy, not beef, is one of the main causes of the destruction of the amazonian rainforest. Hey, I didn't say it was more environmentally friendly!

Kaptain K
2004-Nov-26, 02:03 PM
"Jupiter is a failed star."

No it isn't. To qualify as a "failed star", it would have to be about 80 times more massive.
Actually, if it was "about 80 times more massive", it would be a star (main sequence red dwarf).

If it were between about 13 times and 80 times more massive, it would have "burned" deuterium for a while (in its youth), but would have stopped by now, so would/could be considered a "failed" star!

Kaptain K
2004-Nov-26, 02:11 PM
You catch colds from being out in inclement weather, or getting a chill or whatever other version you want to put in here.

Totally disproved by research, no affect on one's immune system either for those of you who hold on to that belief.
Thank you!!!

You catch a cold by being inside, where the germs are.

mid
2004-Nov-26, 04:31 PM
"More expensive means better."

Please compare the iMac and the PC... And note which one kicks the pants off the other in the benchmarks. :P

Or, on the other hand:

"Higher benchmark numbers mean better"

There are many variables in both the value and the cost of a computer other than benchmark speed. My PC doesn't run Doom3 any faster because I spent £100 on a DVD Writer and second hard-drive. Upgrading to a nicer monitor, adding a Bluetooth dongle and putting the lot in a better case a while back didn't make any difference, either.

Tha_Pig
2004-Nov-27, 05:38 AM
"'All Natural'/'Organic' products are better."

I hear that a lot. Especially when it comes to medicine. Every time someone is selling any kind of "miracle pill" they say "It can't harm you because it’s made with natural ingredients". Or “It has to be good for you because it’s natural”.

Isn’t curare and other powerful poisons natural ingredients? People seem to have the idea that "natural" implies "good for you". Actually, a lot of natural things can kill you. Even water in enough quantities.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-27, 07:08 AM
Best way to counter the "Natural/Organic" crud?
Pick up a Mushroom from the ground and give it to them. Say "i just picked it up from the ground, you still want to eat it? Its natural by the way. Nuthing added after i took it out of the ground, and nuthing before. !. Sure it will kill you nearly right away but its natural, so it cant be bad right?

mickal555
2004-Nov-27, 07:20 AM
Best way to counter the "Natural/Organic" crud?
Pick up a Mushroom from the ground and give it to them. Say "i just picked it up from the ground, you still want to eat it? Its natural by the way. Nothing added after i took it out of the ground, and nothing before. !. Sure it will kill you nearly right away but its natural, so it cant be bad right?
The counter argument could be;
Yes, but it won't kill me as fast as an artificial mushroom.

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-27, 07:29 AM
"'All Natural'/'Organic' products are better."

I hear that a lot. Especially when it comes to medicine. Every time someone is selling any kind of "miracle pill" they say "It can't harm you because it’s made with natural ingredients". Or “It has to be good for you because it’s natural”.

Isn’t curare and other powerful poisons natural ingredients? People seem to have the idea that "natural" implies "good for you". Actually, a lot of natural things can kill you. Even water in enough quantities.

Yup, Cyanide and Arsnic are both natural products, and both are decidely unheathy for you. Hydrogen Cyanide can poisoning come from eating raw casava or almonds.

Glycoalkaloids can occur in Potatoes, Tomtoes and Egg Plant. These can be fatal if too much is ingested.

Soy products contain trypsin inhibitors from the Raw Soy.

Phytohemagglutinin in red kidney beans cn be fatal.

Lathyrogens from legumes such as chick peas can cause paralysis and death with long term and high level exposure

Amanitin, Gyromitrin, Orellanine, Muscarine, Ibotenic Acid, Muscimol, Psilocybin and Coprine are all poisons that can rnge from debilitating to deadly from various mushrooms

There are a LOT of natural things that are deadly.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 08:45 AM
You catch colds from being out in inclement weather, or getting a chill or whatever other version you want to put in here.
Totally disproved by research, no affect on one's immune system either for those of you who hold on to that belief.
But getting cold when ill (even mildly) can make it worse can't it?NO. It might feel less comfortable but then so does going on the treadmill when you are ill.



Listerine kills germs, thus it "prevents gum disease and bad breath", and implying it prevents other infections.
There are good and bad bacteria in your mouth. Killing all bacteria can actually take out the competition for the bad ones. If Listerine were as effective as claimed, it would kill the cells in your mouth along with the bacteria. It is the brushing away of the plaque on your teeth that is actually doing the good.
Are you sure Listerine doesn't kill some of the bad germs then? I notice the difference to ulcers, gum disease and sore throats when I use it.Ouch. You use Listerine when you have ulcers? Actually, using Listerine to treat an aphthous ulcer is OK. That is a specific condition where killing bacteria is useful. Listerine is also useful for a short time AFTER you have dental work like gum surgery or extensive plaque removal to prevent infection in exposed tissue. BTW, gum disease is the result of plaque which allows bacteria to live and grow at the tooth base, it is not a result of bacteria alone. You prevent gum disease by removing plaque, not by killing the germs.

Brushing your teeth is useful. Listerine is not useful on a daily basis just killing a few bacteria here and there. The bacteria are back within 20 or 30 minutes anyway. Want to use Listerine every 20 minutes day and night?

Listerine HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON A SORE THROAT caused by bacteria or viruses. In fact, the company has had to pull ads off the air repeatedly for claims of preventing or treating colds. But as you can see, the false marketing message still gets through and sticks with consumers.



Lysol kills 99.7% of germs in 30 seconds. Lysol spray in the air prevents infections.
Again, if it were that effective, it'd be incredibly toxic. You can't disinfect air. Try throwing darts in a room full of balloons. You need one dart for every balloon. Think Lysol in the air is hitting every organism? Again, simple cleaning is as effective as cleaning with disinfectants in most situations.
Again, don't know about Lysol, but maybe it kills some types of germs, in 30 seconds :) And the reason to buy and use it is??????? We don't live in a germ free environment. We want to prevent disease, not kill germs. It wouldn't matter if it did kill the germs the ads claim, it doesn't prevent disease.



The Ionic Breeze filters the air.
Well, maybe about as well as your TV screen picks up dust. There is no mechanism for circulating air through the device no matter what claims are made by the company.
My tv screen picks up dust very well :-?Of course it does. That's how they probably came up with the idea of the Ionic Breeze. So if you have a TV does your house stay dust free? Of course not. You can't filter air you don't move through the filter. You can't ionize dust and get it to cling to your TV unless it comes close to the TV screen. Do you see any mechanism for moving air in that Ionic Breeze device? Just because they show you a cartoon illustration of how it "powers through smoke" doesn't mean it actually works.



OUR PARTNER, CONSUMER REPORTS MAGAZINE, EVALUATED SHARPER IMAGE'S IONIC BREEZE (http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/dontwasteyourmoney/2060d4e5.html) ALONG WITH 17 OTHER PORTABLE CLEANERS

"In the same test, the Ionic Breeze Quadra had a very slow rate of cleaning. And when we tested it over a longer period of time, its cleaning performance did not improve."

AS A RESULT, THE MAGAZINE DOES NOT RECOMMEND IONIC AIR CLEANERS, FROM SHARPER IMAGE OR ANYONE ELSE.

THE SHARPER IMAGE DISPUTES CONSUMER REPORTS TESTS...AND QUESTIONS THE MAGAZINES TESTING CONDITIONS.

BUT CONSUMER REPORTS IS STANDING BY ITS GUNS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE IONIZING CLEANERS... IN SAYING DONT WASTE YOUR MONEY.

Court Dismisses Sharper Image Lawsuit against Consumers Union (http://www.quackwatch.org/14Legal/ionicbreeze.html)

Consumer Report on other endorsers of the IB (http://www.consumersearch.com/www/house_and_home/air_purifiers/)

"In spite of the poor results reported by Consumer Reports and Air Purifiers America, we did find some professional endorsements for the Ionic Breeze. We discovered that the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), a nonprofit patient organization dedicated to improving quality of life for asthma and allergy sufferers, has awarded its Label of Truth to the Ionic Breeze. We contacted William McLin, the Executive Director of AAFA, who stated that though this is not a seal of endorsement, it does mean that AAFA's Medical-Scientific Council (volunteer MDs, PhDs, MPHs, and other experts) examined the research behind Sharper Image's claims and deemed the claims to be true. AAFA would not release their research findings to us, but instead referred us back to The Sharper Image. The British Allergy Foundation has also given the Ionic Breeze its Seal of Approval. After performing independent testing, they found "the Ionic Breeze reduces the allergen load in the air sufficiently to be of benefit to allergy sufferers." The details of this testing were not available to us.

Despite endorsement from The British Allergy Foundation and certification from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, we feel the weight of evidence favors the conclusion of multiple tests conducted by Consumer Reports magazine and the evaluation by Air Purifiers America. Accordingly, we've chosen not to include the Ionic Breeze models in ConsumerSearch Fast Answers."

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 08:56 AM
"In a vacuum, a person would explode."

Human flesh is stronger than that.

"In space, a person would freeze."

Not very fast.

.....

Edit: Question, Beskep... Do you go by the name of "Skeptigirl" on FWIS?Yes, I am Skeptigirl there and Beskeptigal on The Skeptic Friends Network. You know how it is, you start with one name but then later another sounds better ....it's not worth trying to change it (unless you are grapes of wrath aka kilo pi aka a thousand pardons :wink: I missed one didn't I?)

You don't explode in a vacuum? Fish explode sometimes when you bring them up from the deep. Is it because you are not equating the vacuum to zero pounds of pressure?

And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?

Careless
2004-Nov-27, 09:02 AM
And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?
Well, why does water feel much colder than air at the same temperature?

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 09:18 AM
"Ebola/Marburg is not contagious."

Something transmissable by contact is pretty contagious.
Is this actually a common belief :o? I think what people mean is that it's not an airborn virus. Also, viral haemorrhagic fevers aren't spread by contact per se, it's through bodily fluids like blood. So I could sit next to a guy with ebola and not get infected. There are many types of viral hemorrhagic fevers. For example, Dengue fever, spread by mosquitos has a hemorrhagic form. The Reston Ebola virus was airborne. We are just lucky only certain primates were susceptible.


"All Natural" cigarettes, aren't.Maybe not rolled in paper but tobacco is smoked in it's natural form.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 09:21 AM
And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?
Well, why does water feel much colder than air at the same temperature?If you are implying there is insulation in that vacuum why do the astronauts need such protection from the cold?

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 09:30 AM
Functions of the Spacesuit (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/youth_educators/educators/resources/packages/spacesuit/functions.asp)


Pressurized environment
Spacesuits must provide an environment that is adequately pressurized in order for an astronaut’s body fluids to remain in a liquid state.

Protection against extreme temperatures
It can be extremely hot or exceedingly cold in space. The temperature of objects exposed directly to the Sun’s rays can quickly reach 150 °C, whereas the temperature of objects located in the shade can drop as low as -120 °C. Spacesuits are insulated to protect astronauts from these variations.

darkhunter
2004-Nov-27, 10:04 AM
You don't explode in a vacuum? Fish explode sometimes when you bring them up from the deep. Is it because you are not equating the vacuum to zero pounds of pressure?

And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?

A person being dumped into a vaccuum experiences only a 14psi drop in pressure. A fish from the deep experiences a much higher (hundreds to thousands) psi difference...

JMV
2004-Nov-27, 03:34 PM
And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?
Well, why does water feel much colder than air at the same temperature?If you are implying there is insulation in that vacuum why do the astronauts need such protection from the cold?
Remember that there is no convection or conduction in vacuum. Only way for an object to cool in vacuum is radiative heat transfer, which isn't really that quick way to get rid heat. Cooling by radiating takes time and you wouldn't freeze immediately like shown in some movies.

"Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death"
Isn't this just an illusion caused by dehydration of flesh, so that skin pulls away from hair and fingernails making them look like they've grown.

MuscaDomestica
2004-Nov-27, 04:27 PM
Here's another one the crops up in paleontology and every other science dealing with taxonomy.

The Kingdom animalia can be divided into 'Vertebrates and Invertebrates' and this is suppose to be some meaningful dichotomy. The division is an one of convenience for study purpose.

Actually, vertebrates are just one of many phyla of animalia. Vertebrates are no less related to an invertebrate clam than a jellyfish is related to a clam. A jellyfish is less related to a starfish than they are to us (a man).

So, if you do a family tree, clump man closer to a clam than you would a starfish to a clam. Neither the clam nor man has any taxonomic argument to being more closely related to a starfish.

er... I would use something other then an Echinoderm for that example, vertebrates evolved from them. :)

"reptiles are related group of animals"

Snakes and Lizards are related but Crocs, turtles and the tuatara are much closer to other groups then the other reptiles (well exept for turtles they aren't related to anything)

And fish explode because they have a large sack of gas in them (swim bladder) that is much harder to regulate then our lungs.

fossilnut
2004-Nov-27, 05:03 PM
Muscadomestica, your: "er... I would use something other then an Echinoderm for that example, vertebrates evolved from them"

I'm an invertebrate paleontologist working with paleozoic animalia. Your statement is new to me. It's even strange you mention echinodermata as some paleontologists theorize that the principal division in animalia is echinodermata and 'everything else'. But the 'everything else' isnt monolithic but keeps dividing into the other phyla of animalia that we have today.

Anyways, it's not 'vertebrates' that 'may have' broken away from echinodermata but 'other animalia' and among this 'other animalia' evolved some of today's phyla including mollusca, cnidaria, vertebrata, etc. Thus, you are probably more related (always use a qualifying adjective) to a jellyfish and clam than to members of echinodermata such as a starfish, sand dollar or a sea urchin.

worzel
2004-Nov-27, 05:07 PM
You catch colds from being out in inclement weather, or getting a chill or whatever other version you want to put in here.
Totally disproved by research, no affect on one's immune system either for those of you who hold on to that belief.
But getting cold when ill (even mildly) can make it worse can't it?NO. It might feel less comfortable but then so does going on the treadmill when you are ill.
Well this is purely anecdotal, but I got pneumonia once after getting rained on in just a t-shirt in a about 10 degrees with a very mild cold.


Ouch. You use Listerine when you have ulcers? Actually, using Listerine to treat an aphthous ulcer is OK. That is a specific condition where killing bacteria is useful. Listerine is also useful for a short time AFTER you have dental work like gum surgery or extensive plaque removal to prevent infection in exposed tissue. BTW, gum disease is the result of plaque which allows bacteria to live and grow at the tooth base, it is not a result of bacteria alone. You prevent gum disease by removing plaque, not by killing the germs.
Again, purely anecdotal, I notice a big difference when I use it (as well as brushing of course).


Listerine HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON A SORE THROAT caused by bacteria or viruses. In fact, the company has had to pull ads off the air repeatedly for claims of preventing or treating colds. But as you can see, the false marketing message still gets through and sticks with consumers.
When I have a soar throat I get IMMEDIATE relief gargling with Listerine. I didn't have a tv when I started using it for this, no advert made me try it, I just thought it was worth a try.




Lysol kills 99.7% of germs in 30 seconds. Lysol spray in the air prevents infections.
Again, if it were that effective, it'd be incredibly toxic. You can't disinfect air. Try throwing darts in a room full of balloons. You need one dart for every balloon. Think Lysol in the air is hitting every organism? Again, simple cleaning is as effective as cleaning with disinfectants in most situations.
Again, don't know about Lysol, but maybe it kills some types of germs, in 30 seconds :) And the reason to buy and use it is??????? We don't live in a germ free environment. We want to prevent disease, not kill germs. It wouldn't matter if it did kill the germs the ads claim, it doesn't prevent disease.
Point taken, I think people (especially mothers) use far too many anti-bacterial products these days and don't give their kids immune systems a chance to develop normally. Maybe this is why allergies are on the up.




The Ionic Breeze filters the air.
Well, maybe about as well as your TV screen picks up dust. There is no mechanism for circulating air through the device no matter what claims are made by the company.
My tv screen picks up dust very well :-?Of course it does. That's how they probably came up with the idea of the Ionic Breeze. So if you have a TV does your house stay dust free? Of course not. You can't filter air you don't move through the filter. You can't ionize dust and get it to cling to your TV unless it comes close to the TV screen. Do you see any mechanism for moving air in that Ionic Breeze device? Just because they show you a cartoon illustration of how it "powers through smoke" doesn't mean it actually works.
Point taken. I've never seen an Ionic Breeze filter or an advert for one. Just pointing out that my tv picks up a lot of dust. Your original post made it sound like if it did, then ionic bbreeze filters would work well.

fossilnut
2004-Nov-27, 05:42 PM
Mucadomestica your: ""reptiles are related group of animals"

You make an excellent point with your examples.

The whole of taxonomy is a bit of a misconception. 'Levels' such as class family, order, are often apples and oranges when cataloguing organisms. Why is 'reptile' the same taxonomic level as 'mammalia'? Of course, it isn't but the same taxonomy will be perpetuated from textbook to textbook. So a misconception arises that the birds, reptiles, fish, mammals, etc. are 'equivalent' biological branches somehow.

So should 'reptilia' become a superclass of vertebrates or should 'mammalia' be a subclass of reptila (as would turtles). The divisions are arbitrary. Taxonomy can attempt show who is more closely to whom but the levels of divisions themselves are usually subjective and based on incorrect assumptions (such as Mucadomestica's reptile example).

I'm often asked if a dinosaur was a reptile. The answer isn't meaningful. Where does a reptile begin or end in any taxonomic order? A meaningful answer is to what other vertebrate animals is a dinosaur most closely related (which I don't know).

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Nov-27, 06:30 PM
Mucadomestica your: ""reptiles are related group of animals"

You make an excellent point with your examples.

The whole of taxonomy is a bit of a misconception. 'Levels' such as class family, order, are often apples and oranges when cataloguing organisms. Why is 'reptile' the same taxonomic level as 'mammalia'? Of course, it isn't but the same taxonomy will be perpetuated from textbook to textbook. So a misconception arises that the birds, reptiles, fish, mammals, etc. are 'equivalent' biological branches somehow.

So should 'reptilia' become a superclass of vertebrates or should 'mammalia' be a subclass of reptila (as would turtles). The divisions are arbitrary. Taxonomy can attempt show who is more closely to whom but the levels of divisions themselves are usually subjective and based on incorrect assumptions (such as Mucadomestica's reptile example).

I'm often asked if a dinosaur was a reptile. The answer isn't meaningful. Where does a reptile begin or end in any taxonomic order? A meaningful answer is to what other vertebrate animals is a dinosaur most closely related (which I don't know).

Depends on which Branch.

But, the Majority of them Fall in-between Crocodillians and Birds, with The Balance, branching off into Orders, which No Longer exist, i.e. Pleisiosaurs, Pterodactyls, and Enantiornithan Birds (e.g. Archeaopteryx).

I Hope, this Answers, your Question.

eburacum45
2004-Nov-27, 07:48 PM
Fossilnut;
I also had heard that echinoderms were ancestral to chordates, long ago; perhaps it is an old fashioned idea.

here is a page (http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/Bio%20102/Bio%20102%20lectures/Animal%20Diversity/Deuterostomes/echinode.htm) showing a tree with echinoderms on the same branch as chordates; but I am reserving judgement till I find something about it from a molecular phylogeny point of view...

eburacum45
2004-Nov-27, 07:56 PM
Well, here is a study of the molecular phylogeny of chordates and echinoderms;

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/648




the urochordates form the sister taxon to the hemichordates, and together this clade plus the echinoderms forms the sister taxon to the cephalochordates plus craniates.

whatever that means.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Nov-27, 08:11 PM
Well, here is a study of the molecular phylogeny of chordates and echinoderms;

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/648




the urochordates form the sister taxon to the hemichordates, and together this clade plus the echinoderms forms the sister taxon to the cephalochordates plus craniates.

whatever that means.

What it means, is that Chordata, may not Actually Be a Phylum, but may be Instead, a Superclass.

Kinda Interesting Actually ...

We should show that to Betoire, on FWIS.

AndrewGPaul
2004-Nov-27, 10:25 PM
isn't another of these "everybody knows" things that the Moon orbits the Earth. I read somewhere (was it on here? some thread about multiple bodies in the same orbit) that they actually share orbits around the sun.

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-27, 11:44 PM
Earth and Luna orbit a common center of gravity. ;) You don't explode in a vacuum? Fish explode sometimes when you bring them up from the deep. Is it because you are not equating the vacuum to zero pounds of pressure?

A fish's swim bladder would rupture. If the swim bladder is close to the skin, I suppose the fish might explode. But no, a human would not explode in a vacuum. (Holding one's breath in a vacuum would probably be a bad idea, resulting in a pair of ruptured lungs. It would blow you to pieces though.)

A human would indeed freeze in space, but that would take a while - he'd have a lot of heat to lose.

Tobin Dax
2004-Nov-28, 12:25 AM
isn't another of these "everybody knows" things that the Moon orbits the Earth. I read somewhere (was it on here? some thread about multiple bodies in the same orbit) that they actually share orbits around the sun.

Wasn't this whole thing hit already when someone pointed out that two objects orbit the center of mass of their system?

And in that case, it can be said that the CoM of the Earth-moon system is orbiting the CoM of between itself and the sun. :)

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Nov-28, 01:18 AM
isn't another of these "everybody knows" things that the Moon orbits the Earth. I read somewhere (was it on here? some thread about multiple bodies in the same orbit) that they actually share orbits around the sun.

Wasn't this whole thing hit already when someone pointed out that two objects orbit the center of mass of their system?

And in that case, it can be said that the CoM of the Earth-moon system is orbiting the CoM of between itself and the sun. :)

The Big Point though, is that of the Two, The Moon is More Gravitationally Bound, to The Sun.

Weird, huh?

Ilya
2004-Nov-28, 04:17 AM
And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?
Well, why does water feel much colder than air at the same temperature?If you are implying there is insulation in that vacuum why do the astronauts need such protection from the cold?

As the matter of fact, they don't. Spacesuits are actively cooled, otherwise astronauts would be in serious danger of overheating.

Hey, that's another falsehood "everybody knows"! "You freeze in space!"

tracer
2004-Nov-28, 06:15 AM
Ooh, ooh, Mista Kotter!

I have another thing "everybody knows" but is false:

The notion that "microwave ovens emit microwaves tuned to the resonant frequency of water molecules, so they only heat water." This is not true (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmicrowave2.html). If it were true, the microwave energy would be absorbed by the water molecules closest to the surface of the food, and the inside of the food wouldn't get hot.

Maksutov
2004-Nov-28, 07:19 AM
[edit]Snakes and Lizards are related but Crocs, turtles and the tuatara are much closer to other groups then the other reptiles (well exept for turtles they aren't related to anything)...
Poor Humphrey!

Well, at least he has his new in-laws... :wink:

Maksutov
2004-Nov-28, 07:48 AM
Pepperoni pizza is good. Really now, that is the most popular pizza ingredient, I think it even rates cliche status and yet pepperoni is the most vile, greasy, nasty tasting meat known to (this) man.
You forgot the Anchovies
I'm glad you folks feel that way. It means more pepperoni and anchovies will be available for my apizza! Yum! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/ernaehrung/food-smiley-002.gif

Humphrey
2004-Nov-28, 08:05 AM
[edit]Snakes and Lizards are related but Crocs, turtles and the tuatara are much closer to other groups then the other reptiles (well exept for turtles they aren't related to anything)...
Poor Humphrey!

Well, at least he has his new in-laws... :wink:And one very beautiful Lady! :-D


Speaking of turtles i got a scare today from Humphrey. I cam into the main room and checked out his tank as i ws feeding him. I notice a shell on the ground and i go "oh crud!!! Is he ok? " Then i notice Huphrey is there sunning himself with a brand new shell. He had shed the outer layer of the old one. Its nice hard, and very beautiful looking. :-)

Maksutov
2004-Nov-28, 08:28 AM
[edit]Snakes and Lizards are related but Crocs, turtles and the tuatara are much closer to other groups then the other reptiles (well exept for turtles they aren't related to anything)...
Poor Humphrey!

Well, at least he has his new in-laws... :wink:And one very beautiful Lady! :-D
AKA wife-in-law...


Speaking of turtles i got a scare today from Humphrey. I cam into the main room and checked out his tank as i ws feeding him. I notice a shell on the ground and i go "oh crud!!! Is he ok? " Then i notice Huphrey is there sunning himself with a brand new shell. He had shed the outer layer of the old one. Its nice hard, and very beautiful looking. :-)
Ah, fell for the old shell game, eh? Look out, that turtle'll be selling you a bridge over the East River next! 8)

JMV
2004-Nov-28, 12:50 PM
And freezing in space, isn't it darn cold up there?
Well, why does water feel much colder than air at the same temperature?If you are implying there is insulation in that vacuum why do the astronauts need such protection from the cold?

As the matter of fact, they don't. Spacesuits are actively cooled, otherwise astronauts would be in serious danger of overheating.
That's mainly to remove astronaut's own excess metabolic heat in the airtight suit. Astronauts have to be protected also from solar radiation but that's why the spacesuits are white. That way they absorp only a minimum amount of solar radiation and keep cool.


Hey, that's another falsehood "everybody knows"! "You freeze in space!"
Well, that would depend on whether you're in sunshine or shade. The side getting a lot of solar radiation would heat up but the side in shade would cool down to extremely low temperatures. (Of course there would be some conduction of heat from the hot side to the cold side but let's not complicate this too much.) But then again remember that the cooling to these temperatures takes time and is not an immediate effect.

TrAI
2004-Nov-28, 04:33 PM
Well, that would depend on whether you're in sunshine or shade. The side getting a lot of solar radiation would heat up but the side in shade would cool down to extremely low temperatures. (Of course there would be some conduction of heat from the hot side to the cold side but let's not complicate this too much.) But then again remember that the cooling to these temperatures takes time and is not an immediate effect.

I think the point is that you would not freeze instantly as some people seem to think, it takes some time. If you are unprotected in open space the temperature is a small worry really, I mean, if I remember correctly you are unlikely to be conscious after 20-30 seconds due to insufficient oxygen in the blood. I don't think you would survive for long after that. So whether you are frozen in an hour or if it takes days, doesn't really matter, does it?

JMV
2004-Nov-28, 05:07 PM
You're quite right. The temperature really would be the least of your concerns in a situation like that.

lti
2004-Nov-28, 07:44 PM
im not sure if this has been mentioned earlier or not, but having just had a long argument with a friend about it i thought i would mention it.

Wider tyres provide greater friction because they have greater surface area in contact with the road.
Or more generaly, it is a common belief that greater surface area produces a greater frictional force. Friction is independent of Surface area.

ive also had lots of people wonder why submarines are in danger of being crushed and therefor whether space shuttles are in danger of popping. As has been covered earlier i think its important to mention the relative pressures involved. the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of a submarine can be many hundreds of atm, while the difference between the inside and outside of the shuttle is only 1 atm

darkhunter
2004-Nov-28, 08:31 PM
im not sure if this has been mentioned earlier or not, but having just had a long argument with a friend about it i thought i would mention it.

Wider tyres provide greater friction because they have greater surface area in contact with the road.
Or more generaly, it is a common belief that greater surface area produces a greater frictional force. Friction is independent of Surface area.

ive also had lots of people wonder why submarines are in danger of being crushed and therefor whether space shuttles are in danger of popping. As has been covered earlier i think its important to mention the relative pressures involved. the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of a submarine can be many hundreds of atm, while the difference between the inside and outside of the shuttle is only 1 atm

Wider tyres don't have more friction--this is true. However, they have better grip and traction because there is more surface contact to apply the friction on....

Ilya
2004-Nov-28, 09:26 PM
ive also had lots of people wonder why submarines are in danger of being crushed and therefor whether space shuttles are in danger of popping. As has been covered earlier i think its important to mention the relative pressures involved. the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of a submarine can be many hundreds of atm, while the difference between the inside and outside of the shuttle is only 1 atm

Same faulty reasoning -- deep-sea fish lifted to the surface blow up, therefore same thing must happen to humans in vacuum.

While you are absolutely right, I disagree with your phrasing -- it is absolute pressure difference which counts (hundreds of atm in case of fish, 1 atm in case of human in vacuum), not relative pressure difference.

MuscaDomestica
2004-Nov-28, 11:54 PM
Muscadomestica, your: "er... I would use something other then an Echinoderm for that example, vertebrates evolved from them"

I'm an invertebrate paleontologist working with paleozoic animalia. Your statement is new to me. It's even strange you mention echinodermata as some paleontologists theorize that the principal division in animalia is echinodermata and 'everything else'. But the 'everything else' isnt monolithic but keeps dividing into the other phyla of animalia that we have today.

Anyways, it's not 'vertebrates' that 'may have' broken away from echinodermata but 'other animalia' and among this 'other animalia' evolved some of today's phyla including mollusca, cnidaria, vertebrata, etc. Thus, you are probably more related (always use a qualifying adjective) to a jellyfish and clam than to members of echinodermata such as a starfish, sand dollar or a sea urchin.

might have been outdated, should have double checked it.

fossilnut
2004-Nov-29, 01:55 AM
This is more a question than misconception.

The population of subSahara Africa? There seems to be two contradictary trends. Firstly, UN population estimates has Subsahara Africa gowing significantly in population until the 2050s.

BUT: I keep hearing about these horrific rates of AIDS rates (such as 50%) of the young breeding population.

How can Africa lose half it's breeding population to AIDS but keep growing? Why won't potential mothers be dead? Are the AIDS figures just a bunch of hyperbolae pulled out of thin air?

worzel
2004-Nov-29, 02:25 AM
Wider tyres don't have more friction--this is true. However, they have better grip and traction because there is more surface contact to apply the friction on....
While we're on the subject of wheels, here's one that comes up every so often on the uk skating forums and although seeminlgly simple at first sight, has never been properly resolved :-

Why do inline skates turn when you leaan them to one side?

lti
2004-Nov-29, 03:33 AM
ill hazard that by leaning to one side u redistribute ur weight over that foot. thus the wheels experience a greater normal force.

friction = mu * normal force

therefore, an increase in weight (by leaning) leads to an increase in friction. unbalanced forces lead to an acceleration, slowing down that side causing u to turn.

Its not quite that simple as anyone who ever tried to build a robot that could rollerblade or ice skate will atest (assuming someone has ever tried such a feat), the human body makes a whole lot of other subtle changes in position and turning the foot so as to remain upright and bring the other foot around in a turn.

Careless
2004-Nov-29, 05:39 AM
im not sure if this has been mentioned earlier or not, but having just had a long argument with a friend about it i thought i would mention it.

Wider tyres provide greater friction because they have greater surface area in contact with the road.
Or more generaly, it is a common belief that greater surface area produces a greater frictional force. Friction is independent of Surface area.
Except! Rubber, while fairly hard on tires, isn't unbendable or indestructable. At a certain amount of pressure on it, the rubber will be rubbed off and you'll lose friction. Wider tires give you less stress on the rubber itself so you'd have a higher maximum friction.

lti
2004-Nov-29, 05:45 AM
so u think that breaking rubber off uses up less energy than sliding over the surface of the road?

Wider tyres do produce more friction but that is because softer rubber produces more friction than harder rubber and softer tyres need to be wider to support the weight of the car.

My point was that its a common held belief that friction is related to surface area when it isnt.

Careless
2004-Nov-29, 05:54 AM
so u think that breaking rubber off uses up less energy than sliding over the surface of the road?

Wider tyres do produce more friction but that is because softer rubber produces more friction than harder rubber and softer tyres need to be wider to support the weight of the car.

My point was that its a common held belief that friction is related to surface area when it isnt.
And my point was that with your example of tires, more surface area can mean more friction because the simple physical model is ruined by the... imperfect nature of rubber.
It's just a bad example because in practice they do get more friction from using wider tires.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-29, 08:08 AM
ive also had lots of people wonder why submarines are in danger of being crushed and therefor whether space shuttles are in danger of popping. As has been covered earlier i think its important to mention the relative pressures involved. the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of a submarine can be many hundreds of atm, while the difference between the inside and outside of the shuttle is only 1 atm

Same faulty reasoning -- deep-sea fish lifted to the surface blow up, therefore same thing must happen to humans in vacuum.

While you are absolutely right, I disagree with your phrasing -- it is absolute pressure difference which counts (hundreds of atm in case of fish, 1 atm in case of human in vacuum), not relative pressure difference.Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we? So if we leave and are under no weight of air that's a pretty big differential. It is all relative. I don't think the space ship will pop. Clearly the surface can support one atm of pressure. And, I don't think I said the vacuum was the issue, but rather the lack of pressure, so the reasoning wasn't faulty. Perhaps the scale was not comparable, but the reasoning was.

worzel
2004-Nov-29, 09:29 AM
ill hazard that by leaning to one side u redistribute ur weight over that foot. thus the wheels experience a greater normal force.

friction = mu * normal force

therefore, an increase in weight (by leaning) leads to an increase in friction. unbalanced forces lead to an acceleration, slowing down that side causing u to turn.
The problem is there are four (or five) wheels on each foot all held rigidly inline so it takes quite a lot of force to turn them, but when you lean they seem to turn themselves.


Its not quite that simple as anyone who ever tried to build a robot that could rollerblade or ice skate will atest (assuming someone has ever tried such a feat), the human body makes a whole lot of other subtle changes in position and turning the foot so as to remain upright and bring the other foot around in a turn.
Indeed, but it's figuring out reallly causes you to turn that's difficult. It isn't like ice skating, they have a curved blade which cuts a track in the ice so that when you lean you are cutting a curved line, inlines are usually flat. With four wheels in contact at least two must be sliding when turning, it has been suggested that you push the back ends of the skate out thus steering into the lean, but if this were true you could put the weight on the front wheels causing them to slip and steer the wrong way (until you fell over).

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-29, 01:55 PM
The population of subSahara Africa? There seems to be two contradictary trends. Firstly, UN population estimates has Subsahara Africa gowing significantly in population until the 2050s.

BUT: I keep hearing about these horrific rates of AIDS rates (such as 50%) of the young breeding population.

From the website for the UN's Population projections (http://esa.un.org/unpp/assumptions.html), noting the assumptions they used about AIDS:

In addition, for the countries highly affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, estimates of the impact of HIV/AIDS are made explicitly through assumptions about the future course of the epidemic-that is, by projecting the yearly incidence of HIV infection. The model developed by the UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling and Projections1 has been used to fit HIV prevalence data provided by UNAIDS so as to derive the parameters determining the past dynamics of the epidemic. For most countries, the model is fitted assuming that the relevant parameters have remained constant in the past. For projection purposes, the parameters are kept constant until 2010. Thereafter, the parameter PHI, which reflects the rate of recruitment of new individuals into the high-risk group, is projected to decline by a third over intervals of increasing length. In addition, the parameter R, which represents the force of infection, is projected to decline by 15 per cent over the same intervals. A reduction in R is based on the assumption that changes in behaviour among those subject to the risk of infection will reduce the chances of transmitting the virus.

So AIDS was taken into account when developing their projections, in the manner noted above.

tracer
2004-Nov-29, 05:06 PM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

Russ
2004-Nov-30, 12:03 AM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

So that's why it is so hard to get up in the morning! :wink: :lol:

Kaptain K
2004-Nov-30, 06:47 AM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

So that's why it is so hard to get up in the morning! :wink: :lol:
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! 8)

wedgebert
2004-Nov-30, 03:10 PM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

Actually, I believe we're under the same pressure no matter what orientation we're in. Air pressure doesn't just exert a downward force, it presses in all directions. Otherwise, when you went indoors, the celing would shield you from the air above you and you'd find yourself struggling to breathe in the new low pressure area.

TriangleMan
2004-Nov-30, 08:01 PM
The population of subSahara Africa? There seems to be two contradictary trends. Firstly, UN population estimates has Subsahara Africa gowing significantly in population until the 2050s.

BUT: I keep hearing about these horrific rates of AIDS rates (such as 50%) of the young breeding population.

Just found some more information, a few days ago the IMF (www.imf.org) released a report on AIDS and its social and economic effects. A population growth study projected that in Botswana, which has the highest HIV incidence rate in the world (around 30-40% of adults) will experience a population decline of only 2.1% per year for the next few years. The incidence rate is a lot lower in many other Sub-Saharan countries, down to as little as 1% in Senegal and Gambia.

Part of the reason is that the average life expectancy for someone with HIV (as opposed to AIDS) is around 8-10 years. So while there are about 30 million people in Africa with HIV, it is out of a total population of around 600 million people and many of those infected right now will live for years. Since Africa has a very high birth rate the population growth is expected to be greater than the offset in the death rate due to AIDS (unless of course HIV rates in other countries climb until they match Botswana).

fossilnut
2004-Dec-01, 01:50 AM
Thanks Triangle:

Yes, some folks will have children but aren't those children infected? They won't live past the 2020's... Seems unlilely to take such a big percent of the population, in their prime breeding years, out of society and have population growth despite birth rates.

Anyways, it's scary to think what the population would be if was NOT for AIDs. That's not to wish it upon the people (every case is a real person with a grieving mother, sister, etc.).

jaydeehess
2004-Dec-01, 04:58 AM
Bears can not run down hills.

Polar bears usually do not climb hills. One safety measure for a person walking in the Arctic is to walk along the ridgeline of hills rather than along the seashore. This may have given rise to this myth.

Polar Bears simply don't find any food on hill tops and also do not want to be silloueted where potential prey (almost exclusivly seals and other pinnipeds) will see them coming. Polar bears hind legs are also longer than their front legs which does make them a little slower going downhill but they can still outrun any human.

swansont
2004-Dec-01, 11:41 AM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

Actually, I believe we're under the same pressure no matter what orientation we're in. Air pressure doesn't just exert a downward force, it presses in all directions. Otherwise, when you went indoors, the celing would shield you from the air above you and you'd find yourself struggling to breathe in the new low pressure area.

Pressure, yes. But he said weight, and that's dependent of the surface area.

TriangleMan
2004-Dec-01, 12:00 PM
Thanks Triangle:
Yes, some folks will have children but aren't those children infected?
Most of the time, no. The IMF study said only one-third of children born to HIV-infected mothers would have HIV themselves. This site (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/5CDB7FE9-ACBF-4276-95C5-B44588D3EE14.asp) says the mother-baby transmission rate is 15 to 20 percent.

beskeptical
2004-Dec-05, 09:37 PM
Well we are under 740 pounds of air aren't we?
Huh?

At sea level, we're under 14.7 pounds of air per square inch of surface area. The total weight of air we're under would thus be 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches facing upward -- so that would vary depending on whether we're standing up or lying down.

Actually, I believe we're under the same pressure no matter what orientation we're in. Air pressure doesn't just exert a downward force, it presses in all directions. Otherwise, when you went indoors, the celing would shield you from the air above you and you'd find yourself struggling to breathe in the new low pressure area.Brain lapse, forgive me. I'm not even sure if I have 14.7 mixed in my brain with 740 or if 740 goes with something else.

Anyway, pounds per sq inch, so in the absence of Earth's atmosphere, any gas in our systems that could come out of their compressed liquid form would. So it wouldn't be pretty in a vacuum where there was no air pressure being exerted.

beskeptical
2004-Dec-05, 09:40 PM
Thanks Triangle:
Yes, some folks will have children but aren't those children infected?
Most of the time, no. The IMF study said only one-third of children born to HIV-infected mothers would have HIV themselves. This site (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/5CDB7FE9-ACBF-4276-95C5-B44588D3EE14.asp) says the mother-baby transmission rate is 15 to 20 percent.That would be correct. There could be more infected through breast feeding later. And, OTOH, the rate of infection in newborns can be reduced to a very small percentage if the mom takes anti-retroviral drugs near the time of delivery followed by giving anti-retroviral drugs to the infant for a while after birth.

beskeptical
2004-Dec-05, 09:43 PM
Pressure, yes. But he said weight, and that's dependent of the surface area.'She' said, but not to worry.

I know the diff in pressure and weight, I was just speaking in laypersons' terms.

beskeptical
2004-Dec-05, 09:56 PM
Re the HIV rate vs the rate of population increase...

It will be a while before we see the actual effects of the HIV epidemic on population growth. Persons with HIV do not die for years. And, the epidemic only started ~35 years ago.

In some countries, HIV has brought the expected life span down to the 30s, a number not seen in a long time. Eventually we could see an actual decline in population. Especially since HIV kills off women of childbearing age. But remember, even when past life expectancies were low, the birth rates were high enough to still get population growth.

OTOH, the rates of HIV infection have leveled off in some countries. That means the same number of people dying are being replaced by newly infected persons. The speculation is the entire population is not at risk, and those that are, are now infected in high percentages. In oversimplified words, all the persons with multiple sex partners, for example, are being infected at the same rate they are dying. Those who are monogamous still comprise a certain percentage of the population and are not being infected at very high rates.

So there are many factors at play with HIV's impact on population growth.

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-05, 10:00 PM
A widely-held belief has it that the word kangaroo comes from an Australian Aboriginal word meaning “I don't know.” This is in fact untrue. The word was first recorded in 1770 by Captain James Cook, when he landed to make repairs along the northeast coast of Australia. In 1820, Captain Phillip K. King recorded a different word for the animal, written “mee-nuah.” As a result, it was assumed that Captain Cook had been mistaken, and the myth grew up that what he had heard was a word meaning “I don't know” (presumably as the answer to a question in English that had not been understood). Recent linguistic fieldwork, however, has confirmed the existence of a word gangurru in the northeast Aboriginal language of Guugu Yimidhirr, referring to a species of kangaroo. What Captain King heard may have been their word minha, meaning “edible animal.”

Lianachan
2004-Dec-06, 09:23 AM
Columbus "Discovered" america

Is that because he thought he discovered India? Was he the first European to go to the New World?

Really, WHY does Humphrey think it is a myth? True, Columbus never realized he found "New World" and yes, Vikings had reached America earlier, but Columbus certainly discovered America in the sense of making its existence known to the European community as a whole (which Vikings did not).

Actually - they did. Their discovery was pretty well known in royal circles in northern Europe. I think Adam of Bremen even wrote about it in the 11th century, and there was a fair amount of trade between the fledgeling colony and Iceland for a while. There is also some evidence that traders from Bristol (England), who definately traded with the Norse in Greenland, may have gone that extra few days west as well.

Careless
2004-Dec-06, 06:42 PM
The city I live in is getting a snow melter to stick the snow they plow off the streets into. The water will then go into the sewer system. People have been voicing worries that large snowfalls will flood the sewers

jaydeehess
2004-Dec-07, 05:08 AM
The city I live in is getting a snow melter to stick the snow they plow off the streets into. The water will then go into the sewer system. People have been voicing worries that large snowfalls will flood the sewers

hahaha, good one. Even if the town had 100 such machines all working at the same time I doubt they could flood the sewer as effectivly as even a medium sized rainfall during the summer months.

Now, are you pulling our leg about such a machine? Seems to me that the energy requirements would be astronomical to melt the snow from even one city block length of a residential street let alone a whole city.

Last April 1st the local paper ran an article about a new bridge to a nearby island. This island has a road to it presently only in winter over the ice(up to 6 feet thick during some really nasty winters, one foot suffices for vehicular traffic). The article explained that a series of cooling stations and a network of pipes carrying the coolant would keep this ice road in place all summer long(even during the highest temps of +40 C and 18 hour daylight we get in summer). "What the H***" I exclaimed to the empty room, when I read this. The energy requirements for one or two summers would cost more than building a steel and concrete connection! Quickly though I noticed the date. Damn, they got me #-o

Careless
2004-Dec-07, 09:19 AM
Now, are you pulling our leg about such a machine? Seems to me that the energy requirements would be astronomical to melt the snow from even one city block length of a residential street let alone a whole city.
It's possible the paper was lying for some reason, but the machine is real
specs on the Trecan 40-PD Snowmelter (http://www.snowmelter.com/40pd.pdf#search='trecan%2040%20pd%20snowmelter')
9 million BTUs/hr, melts 40 tons of snow/hr, and I believe the 64 GPH is gallons of fuel per hour used.
edit: formatting

fossilnut
2004-Dec-07, 06:58 PM
"A widely-held belief has it that the word kangaroo comes from an Australian Aboriginal word meaning “I don't know.” This is in fact untrue'

Well, I have to admit that I was never tainted by that one. I was an innocent protected from such a fallacy.

beskeptical
2004-Dec-17, 05:50 AM
Big snow can flood anything if it melts fast enough. The snow can accumulate where as rain runs off right away. Not that rain can't cause big floods mind you. But we have had 2-3 ft snow falls in a day on a rare occasion that then melt quickly. It floods plenty.

As to who 'discovered' the Americas, don't you think the people who got here first count as discoverers? It wasn't Europeans in the 1400s.

Lianachan
2004-Dec-17, 07:43 AM
As to who 'discovered' the Americas, don't you think the people who got here first count as discoverers? It wasn't Europeans in the 1400s.

Indeed, yes. I was only responding to the statement below about who first notified Europe about this new place.


but Columbus certainly discovered America in the sense of making its existence known to the European community as a whole (which Vikings did not).

Fram
2004-Dec-17, 10:07 AM
I don't think it is wrong to use 'discover' in the sense of 'rediscover' or 'discover for a part of the population that didn't know it before'. Otherwise you could just as well say that the Neanderthaler wasn't discovered in the 19th century, as he lived contemporarily with Homo Sapiens Sapiens and they (almost) certainly knew each other...

jaydeehess
2004-Dec-17, 11:08 PM
Big snow can flood anything if it melts fast enough. The snow can accumulate where as rain runs off right away. Not that rain can't cause big floods mind you. But we have had 2-3 ft snow falls in a day on a rare occasion that then melt quickly. It floods plenty.

Perhaps I am prejudging as I am from a part of N.America where if it snows then that snow stays around for a few months in dry form, not the sloppy muck some of my more southern fellow N.Americans get.

Where I live if a snow melter were being utilized and the water entering the sewer system then that would be the only water doing so and there is practically no way any city could afford enough machines to dump enough water into a sewer system fast enough to overwhelm the system. On the other hand the ice forming at the outflow would be really nasty looking crud!!!

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-18, 02:44 AM
In all the universe (micro to macro, powers of ten) Earth is the ONLY place, scale, intelligence proof of life.

The entire universe operates on exactly the same scale as the human mind.

Appx 14 BILLION years VS appx 250,000 years. Human beings 'KNOW' anything about anything.

Human beings are the deadliest form of life on Earth=LOL

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-18, 05:05 AM
That a conventional firearm would/wouldn't fire in a vacuum. Usually, they side with "would," and this should be correct. The cartridges are sealed pretty tightly, and I don't think air pressure would be enough to pop the bullet out on its on. Plus, there is already an oxidizer mixed with the gunpowder. I'm always stuck with a scene from Space:1999 where someone uses a revolver on the moon. Should work fine, though I was suspicious when I saw it as a kid.

However, an automatic weapon should only get off one shot. It uses a mechanism to load the chamber initially, but relies on pressure from hot gasses to initiate blowback of the slide, which loads the next round. Unless someone can figure out if the gas venting in a vacuum would still provide sufficient force to move the slide?

And I'm not sure about shotguns, which have a paper or plastic seal on the business end of the cartridge. Seems like this could pop open in a vacuum.

(And since I dabble in fiction, I would be really interested if someone has an answer.)

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-18, 08:07 AM
Clones having baseline memories and tendancies, references and opinions
or even looking alike.
Clone emerge full-grown

darkhunter
2004-Dec-18, 09:49 AM
That a conventional firearm would/wouldn't fire in a vacuum. Usually, they side with "would," and this should be correct. The cartridges are sealed pretty tightly, and I don't think air pressure would be enough to pop the bullet out on its on. Plus, there is already an oxidizer mixed with the gunpowder. I'm always stuck with a scene from Space:1999 where someone uses a revolver on the moon. Should work fine, though I was suspicious when I saw it as a kid.

However, an automatic weapon should only get off one shot. It uses a mechanism to load the chamber initially, but relies on pressure from hot gasses to initiate blowback of the slide, which loads the next round. Unless someone can figure out if the gas venting in a vacuum would still provide sufficient force to move the slide?

And I'm not sure about shotguns, which have a paper or plastic seal on the business end of the cartridge. Seems like this could pop open in a vacuum.

(And since I dabble in fiction, I would be really interested if someone has an answer.)

barring efffects such as vaccum welding of the moving parts, an automatic should work in space--the hot gasses are drawn from inside the weopons barrel/breach (depending on the design)...

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Dec-18, 12:16 PM
And I'm not sure about shotguns, which have a paper or plastic seal on the business end of the cartridge. Seems like this could pop open in a vacuum.

I agree with darkhunter (and I guess he should know). And the shotgun cartridge aren't completely airtight, for the most part.