Featured Member Comment
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “I wonder what she was doing under the car in the first place? Mid-street oil change?” read more by Raigen
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “I wonder what she was doing under the car in the first place? Mid-street oil change?” read more by Raigen
comment listing type:
Top New Videos by Vote
Roger Wheeler
Dave Anderson
Mark Orr
Paul Hyman
Timo Kujansuu
Top Rated New Comments
Videos Being Viewed Right Now
Subscribe
Partner Links
Top 15 Users by Vote Rank
Video Tag Cloud
50s
60s
70s
80s
90s
ad
amazing
animation
art
awesome
baby
bbc
beautiful
beer
british
bush
car
cartoon
cat
classic
clinton
comedy
commercial
cool
crash
crazy
cute
dance
dancing
death
documentary
dog
drugs
election
family guy
fight
film
fire
football
french
fun
funny
game
guitar
hilarious
history
horror
interview
iraq
japan
japanese
jazz
kids
live
love
mashup
movie
movies
music
music video
nature
news
nintendo
obama
of
ouch
parody
piano
police
politics
pop
prank
president
punk
race
rap
religion
robot
rock
ron paul
science
sex
short
show
simpsons
snl
song
space
spoof
standup
star wars
the
trailer
tv
video
war
water
weird
wow
wtf
Newest Sift Talk Posts
1. Barack Obama defies all odds (Election08 Talk)
2. Why the Sift shouldn't bow to Region Blocking (Canada Talk)
3. How do you measure a man? Kronosposeidon (Books Talk)
5. Bring out your inner Picasso, with Mr. Picassohead (Art Talk)
Recently Updated Playlists
VideoSift Links
How Mercury Causes Neurodegeneration (Brain Damage)
It's FL Lorscheider, btw, not Lorsheider. Bamdrew, I very much agree, Lorscheider's work is "focused", to be sure, and that is a concern, but I saw nothing in this video specifically that I took issue with.
Jwray, seriously, lol. "Rembar thinks mercury alloy is absolutely safe". Really? I said that? Quote me. Please. Either that, or you owe me an apology for putting words in my mouth for no other reason than building up a strawman to attack. That's low and outright dishonest, and I expect an apology. I'm serious. I'll accept that apology in email and comment form, thanks.
*science
How Mercury Causes Neurodegeneration (Brain Damage)
I apologize. This is not the video I intended to remove.
BBC Panorama: Poison in the Mouth
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
...then why are you quoting somebody else's review of studies?
...actually, don't even bother answering that....it doesn't matter anyways.
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
"After review of the scientific evidence and review of numerous studies submitted in support of banning or upclassifying dental restorative products containing mercury, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that the physiological and psychological symptoms attributed to amalgam fillings are caused by amalgam fillings. Furthermore, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that there is any improvement of these symptoms after removal of amalgam fillings. Although there are studies purporting to support the view that amalgam products pose risks to persons beyond the small subpopulation of hypersensitive individuals, conclusions cannot be drawn studies because they are methodologically flawed."
FDA Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams February 2002
lolwut.
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
But first, check the paper you linked. So the patients with autoimmune disorders in the study were specifically selected for lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, ok, that's already bringing it out of the original question about general amalgam safety. Then note the discussion, in which it is observed that health worsened for some of the patients in treatment, but this effect was dismissed because of smoking...wonder about the smoking habits for all the rest of the patients? Hmmm..... Then consider the materials and methods where the setup for determining whether a patient was getting better or worse was described. Any good, quantitative analysis there? Oh, and then there's the fact that the study had a sample of 35 people, of which four diseases were represented, and of which the maximum number of people in one disease category was 15.
....hm. I mean, there's some shaky ground, and that's even for their very specific case of people suffering from immune disorders with high lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, who, it does seem reasonable, might be better suited for non-mercury treatments. As for the general public...well, there's a reason I don't feel particularly inclined to argue about this "issue".
Oh, and Qruel....lol.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:
One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]
Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.
Just one man's opinion.
JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments (Science Talk Post)
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
Parallel Universes DO Exist. I kid you not.
Still, I'm sure this will still get plenty of attention now that it's a highly-ranked vid. Let history be the judge.
Darwins 150 yr old prediction finally comes true
Specifically, the interesting point to be made is that Darwin didn't simply predict that the length of the insect tongues would MATCH the orchid tubes, but rather that the orchids would be selected for longer tubes each generation (because the insects, now with slightly shorter tubes, would be forced to press up against the flower to get the nectar and thus would receive pollen all over their bodies that would then be spread by the insects), and the insects would be selected for longer tongues in order to reach across the ever-increasing distance.
It's somewhat of an arms race, in that the orchids benefit by the insects having to struggle to reach the nectar, and the insects benefit by having longer proboscises to not have to struggle to reach the nectar, leading to the development of very long tubes and tongues.
"Science leads you to killing people" - Ben Stein
Mercury vapor from dental fillings
NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings
The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People by Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Parallel Universes DO Exist. I kid you not.
Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.
Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.
Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.
I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.
I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.
In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.
P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.
Ben Stein edition of Why do people laugh at creationists?