Happy Halloween

Put this on your front porch!

It's Halloween- Time for girls to dress like whores... but wait...

Everyone's noticed a trend at Halloween parties: girls can dress skanky, and get away with it! Now, I'm not complaining about that trend at all... It's great. In fact, it made Halloween one of my favorite holidays when I was single! :)

No party was complete without the sexy nurse, the sexy maid, the sexy police woman, the sexy school girl, the sexy witch, the sexy pirate wench...

Like these ones:






HOWEVER...

But look at this- I ran across this article today that kind of disturbed me: link

Why are children's costumes being all sexified now? It's borderline kiddie porn.
Check this out. It's just wrong.


Food for thought. Watch out for your kids!

"Organic" is a scam!

Most text in this post quoted from this main source

Before presenting arguments against organic production (below), I would like to stress my opinion on the best route to sustainable food production. In order to attain nutritious crops with adequate yields to sustain the world's population, while reducing both ecological impacts and resistance of crop pests to pesticides, food production needs to incorporate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. IPM is the wave of the future. I am not a "nozzle head" who loves pesticides, but I really do believe they have their rightful place within IPM strategies. Genetically Modified (GM) foods are a useful tool as well, as long as they do not lead to problems such as "super weeds" (we'll discuss these at a later date).

It’s not healthier or Greener, and it's incapable of feeding the world. So why is Organic Food in fashion?

Organic food is certainly a lifestyle choice, but there is no conclusive evidence that it's better for you and that it's worth the money. It definitely is not sustainable in this world with ever-increasing populations. Organics are only four per cent of total farm produce, and one can not argue that 96 per cent of farm produce is inferior because it’s not organic.’ (1)

On main argument is that organic production is better for the environment. (2) But how much better is it really? And you have to ask yourself what is more valuable: production that is capable of feeding the world, or production that can feed only a small portion of the world's people but will cut pesticide use?

It is assumed by most people that organic food is more ‘natural’ and therefore by definition healthier and better for the environment – but is it true?

The author of The Truth About Organic Foods, Alex Avery, a plant physiologist and biologist, concludes that organic food is no healthier than ‘conventional’ food, and argues that the claim of organic food to be better for the environment is suspect.

Pesticide Residues

According to Avery, the fact is most of our food does not contain residues of toxic chemicals and pesticides, and the minority of food items that do have traces in the infinitesimal parts per millions range. A host of different chemicals can cause cancer in rodents when researchers feed them to the animals in very large quantities, but the minute quantities involved in pesticide residues mean the same chemicals are harmless in food. There is no evidence of anybody ever dying or falling seriously ill from eating food carrying traces of man-made pesticides.

The over-reaction to the dangers from manmade pesticides is in sharp contrast to the complete ignorance shown towards naturally-occurring poisons. Everyday foods are full of natural pesticides. The world-famous biochemist Bruce Ames makes the point clear: ‘The natural chemicals that are known rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee are about equal in weight to a year’s worth of ingested synthetic pesticide residues that are rodent carcinogens.’ (3) He is not arguing that coffee is dangerous, rather, he’s pointing out that the tiny risk from manmade chemicals is actually smaller than other small risks we accept as a normal part of life.

As it happens, as Avery points out, organic produce is not entirely free from chemicals – it is simply that a much narrower range of such chemicals is allowed for food to qualify as ‘organic’, and they tend to be used less frequently. Given that some of the things that pesticides are designed to eliminate – like poisonous fungal growths – are pretty dangerous, that is not necessarily beneficial in any event.

Nutritional Value

Another assertion often made about organic food is that it is more nutritious. It is not clear, in principle, why this might be. However, some studies suggest it might be the case. Avery looks at these studies in detail and finds many of them deeply flawed. The best review of the evidence, a paper by Woese et al in 1997, concludes that it is very difficult to conclude anything at all. ‘Conventional’ foods contain more pesticide residues and more nitrates – hardly surprising given their greater use in conventional agriculture. But overall, the authors note: ‘With regard to all other desirable nutritional values, it was either the case that no major differences were observed in physico-chemical analyses between the products from different production forms, or contradictory findings did not permit any clear statements. (4)’

In fact, not only do better quality studies in peer-reviewed journals show no consistent difference between the two types of food, Avery notes that even some organic advocates admit it. As William Lockeretz of Tufts University told an organic food conference in 1997: ‘I wish I could tell you that there is a clear, consistent nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods. Even better, I wish I could tell you that the difference is in favour of organic. Unfortunately, though, from my reading of the scientific literature, I do not believe such a claim can be responsibly made. (5)’

Even if there were nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, any benefit one way or the other is likely to be much smaller than variation based on the variety of a crop used, other growing conditions, freshness, cooking method - even which foods are consumed together.

Environmental concerns

The environmental case for organic mainly rests upon the pollution caused by producing agricultural chemicals and cleaning up after them. It is certainly true that producing fertilizers in particular uses energy and this inevitably means fossil fuels. But the production of chemicals is only one part of the energy used in putting food on our plates. As a recent article in the Economist notes, many of the assumptions made about what is the most ‘green’ way to supply food are simply wrong. It suggests that big supermarkets, with highly efficient logistics, are arguably ‘greener’ than trying to feed the nation through local farmers’ markets.

Citing research from the UK Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the article says: ‘[A] shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles. (6)’

To maintain the same overall level of food production using organic methods today would require far more land to be used for farming. In developed countries such as the UK, where the efficiency of industrial farming methods has left many small farms redundant, there might be space to indulge a small land-hungry organic sector. But if we truly pursued the idea of an organic-only economy, the effect on land usage would be dramatic. At a time when environmentalists complain about how wildernesses are being cleared to produce food, the need to clear more land is organic farming’s dirty little secret.

The other alternative is to grow less food. There is no way, using organic methods, that the world’s current population could be sustained on the 37 per cent of land currently used in agriculture. The solution for some, it would appear, is not more food but fewer people. In the words of one organic farmer quoted by Avery, ‘I want to argue that production is not the problem. The problem is the imbalance of humans relative to the millions of other species with whom we co-evolved. (7)’

Don’t mess with nature

The precise arguments organic food groups are actually neither here nor there because no-one is really holding them to account. The underlying temper of our times is that anything processed or industrialised can be seen as adulterated and harmful, while anything that appears to be natural or close to nature can be regarded as pure and uncorrupted. The precise facts about residues, nutrition or environmental impact are rarely discussed.

The ‘don’t mess with nature’ approach is illustrated by the organic movement’s attitude to genetic modification. Rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, it is rejected as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems. GM crops have the potential to allow greater productivity, reduced use of pesticides and increased nutrition. The organic movement prefers to smear GM crops as the work of malevolent agribusiness trying to create monopolies.

Even if it is found that a particular GM crop did not live up to expectations or caused unexpected problems, that would not be a cause to dismiss the whole technology out of hand. Any process involving experimentation and new techniques will have problems along the way. The most logical approach would be to learn from our mistakes in order to continue improvements. If the entire world was well-fed and food was as cheap as it could be, the discussion might be academic. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, society must constantly explore ways to grow more, better, food.

Sources:

(1) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007

(2) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007

(3) Risk, cancer and manmade chemicals, by Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold

(4) Woese K., D. Lange, C. Boess & K. Werner Böel (1997). ‘A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods: results of a review of the relevant literature’. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74: 281-293

(5) Quoted by Avery, The Truth About Organic Foods, p 32

(6) Voting with your trolley, Economist, 9 December 2006

(7) Fred Kirschenmann, quoted in Avery, p212

Frickin' Idiots!

Proof that Darwin was right about survival of the fittest.

Chris Osgood Gets To Third Base With Stanley Cup

Seeing that the NHL season is underway, I thought I would post some of the most shocking hockey news of the day.

This is the source for this article.

Chris Osgood Gets To Third Base With Stanley Cup

LOS ANGELES—Sources within the Red Wings organization confirm that goalie Chris Osgood, who is currently engaged in accompanying the Stanley Cup on a victory tour of talk shows and publicity events, has repeatedly and insistently claimed to have gotten as far as third base with hockey's championship trophy during the past week.

On Tuesday night Osgood, teammate Nicklas Lidstrom, and the Stanley Cup made an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno during which Osgood was seen repeatedly touching and attempting to hold the Cup. Witnesses say that after the segment had taped, Lidstrom left for the airport, while Osgood and the Cup left together for the Four Seasons Hotel.

Housekeeping staff said Wednesday morning that the Cup's room had not been slept in.

When asked for comment, Osgood himself initially refused to give details.

"Listen, it's tradition for us to all kiss the Cup. But I'm not one of those hockey players who are always saying 'I'm gonna [expletive deleted] that Stanley Cup,'" Osgood told ESPN's Jim Rome when asked about his involvement with the trophy on Wednesday's Jim Rome Is Burning. "I mean, everyone dreams of winning the Cup, that's only natural. But it's not like that with me. Come on, man."

However, when Rome attempted to change the subject to Osgood's long and tumultuous Detroit career, Osgood, apparently warming to the subject, continued to talk about his relationship with the Cup.

"Okay, now, I'm not saying there isn't—it's a powerful feeling, when you win the Cup, and sometimes that leads to other feelings that are just as powerful," Osgood continued. "Things happen, but you and the Cup both want them to happen, and you go back to the hotel and ask it to watch Dirty Dancing, and eventually maybe you get into some up and over, or there's some up and down and underneath, or maybe—I'm not saying this happened, but you know—maybe there's more than one way to kiss the Cup."

"A better way," a grinning Osgood added as an evidently stunned Rome remained mute. "A way that brings the Cup as much pleasure as the Cup brings you. Or the great city of Detroit, for that matter."

Reaction from the world of hockey has, predictably, been mixed. Although the Stanley Cup is more revered than other trophies, perhaps because of its accessibility, not everyone is comfortable with the prospect of it being involved in mild to moderate sexual contact with a player.

"I know that every player on the winning team gets a day with the Cup. That's just tradition," said Detroit hockey fan Roy Wertree. "And no one deserves that day more than Chris, because he really got us through the Finals. And I know he and the Cup are both old enough to make their own decisions, but I don't know. Something about Osgood and the cup gratifying one another in a sensual fashion is just weird."

"Why would he even want to?" asked Grosse Point's Meg McEntyre. "I mean, the Stanley cup is older than he is, for one thing. And do you know how many guys must have kissed it over the years?"

Although the NHL has not officially commented on the event, sources within the organization say that Osgood's experience may not be unique.

"For years there have been rumors that the Stanley Cup had been involved in unusual relationships with top players," said ESPN's Barry Melrose. "Mark Messier was rumored to appear late at night outside the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto in the offseason, shouting the Cup's name until the police could escort him home. Wayne Gretzky was once seen standing between his furious wife Janet and the Stanley Cup in the corridor of the Edmonton Hilton, clad only in a towel and repeatedly denying that the Cup was destroying their marriage. And Gordie Howe's career was haunted by rumors that he allowed the Cup to tie him to seedy hotel beds. It's all part of why this is the greatest sport in the world."

Insane Picture, Part 1

Just as I will add Crazy Videos regularly, I will also add Insane Pictures often.

Here is the first in the series:
How's that for a banana hammock? It's just like Borat's from that movie. The crazy thing is, I actually saw a guy wearing one of these at one of our local beaches a couple weeks ago. Why... why... why?!

Crazy Video, Part 1

Every so often, I will post Crazy videos of the day. Here's the first one...

What is wrong with the Japanese?! :)
Crazy Japanese Port-O-Potty Prank - The funniest bloopers are right here

Inappropriate Beach Attire

When my wife and I travel to sunny destinations, we like to take lots of pictures. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes we catch people in the background of our shots who should be on the beach version of "What not to Wear". As painful as they sometimes are to our retinas, we also get a good laugh out of it.

Below are actual pictures from some of our travels, with everything cropped out of the picture except the subject matter at hand.





First of all, why, in this day and age, are men still wearing the “banana hammock”? It’s mostly European men, and I suppose things are different in Europe. But seriously… Nobody wants to see that.












Here is a man waiting -inside- the hotel lobby in the checkout line, letting it all hang out. How classy.












The thong. OK, they look great in rap videos or “Girls Gone Wild” commercials, but why wear them at family vacation spots, especially when you don’t have a thong-appropriate body like this lady?













Here’s a banana hammock and bad thong combo having a leisurely stroll together. What a happy couple.






Now don't get me wrong; I do like thongs... when they are on the right kind of body. But here's the thing- although they won’t get many complaints from the guys in the area, should they really be showing off the “shanks” to the little kiddies at poolside? This would be OK at an all adult resort, or whatever.





And this one… it looks like it’s gonna fall off any second… Somebody get some duct tape. It's kind of distracting when you're sitting there waiting for an accident to happen.

Deep Fried Mon Calamari

Mmmm, I had the best food at the Coruscant Cafe last night. If you're ever in the area, you must go check it out!There were more choices of entrees there than you could shake a stick at, and the one I had was cooked to perfection by one of the best Corellian chefs in the area.

The appetizers are so good, you're gonna want to make a meal out of them. Here's what I had:

Deep fried "Mon Calamari", with sweet lemon dipping sauce. Absolutely mouth-watering!


Not only that, but I even got to select the animal from an aquarium prior to cooking. I managed to snap a quick pic of the unsuspecting molluscs before I selected the tantalizing one in the middle. Yum!

Language Rant, Part 1

There are certain habits people have when speaking or writing in English that chafe me like a marathon runner in a burlap shirt. This will be the first of several rants on the subject.

• Let's start with "expecially". It's supposed to be "especially". Oh, and it's "espresso", not "expresso".
• "Irregardless". What editing genius at Merriam-Webster allowed this word to become acceptable?
• "Anyways"- Why do people always pluralize this word? You wouldn't say "You can go any ways you want to get there.", would you?
• "I says"- I hear this one often when people are recounting past conversations. "I says, 'that can't be', and he says, 'yes, it's true', so I says, 'get outta town!'". It's "I said"!
• Inappropriate use of apostrophes! I can't stand that. You should never randomly insert an apostrophe into a plural. For example, "tomato's" does not mean the same thing as "tomatoes"; it means the subject belongs to someone named Tomato. Also, inappropriate use of quotations- people often use them to add emphasis, but they shouldn't be used that way. For example, when a sign reads "Buy one, get one “Free"", it makes it seem like there's a catch and the second item really isn't free.
• Since when should anyone ever "axe" a question? A friend of mine once said he "axed" a girl out, and I thought that sounded horrible, and I should probably call the cops!

OK, that's all for now. Stay tuned for more.

Who's the greatest female Three's Company roommate ever?

OK, let's get the preamble out of the way first: Everyone watched "Three's Company". It's a classic. Let's face it, John Ritter was a master of physical comedy, and it's a shame he passed away so young. I've been watching the show nostalgically on Deja View for the past few weeks. My favourite episode was the one where someone told a lie to cover something up, and there was a misunderstanding, then one roommate eavesdropped on another and overheard something that they misinterpreted, and there was another crazy misunderstanding... You know the one, right?

Now let's get to the burning question that is on everyone's lips: "Who was the best of all Jack Tripper's female roomates?" Let me count them down.


#4 Cindy Snow- Jenilee Harrison
Fourth place seems too high (even though there were only four). If Jack had had 100 roommates, she would have come in 100th place. I can't say enough negative things about the Cindy character and Jenilee's portrayal of her. The best thing about Cindy was when she decided to no longer drop in on the "lovable space that needs your face." More like the writers wrote her off the show, and with very good reason. When Suzanne Somers (Chrissy Snow) left the show, the writers introduced Chrissy's slightly less dumb but more clutsy cousin, Cindy. The formula could have worked if Jenilee's clumsiness wasn't so contrived (read poor comedic timing), and her character wasn't such a naive know-it-all. She was not well received by the audience who wanted Chrissy back, and after one bad season, she was quickly sidelined to make way for a much better performer, and better looking Priscilla Barnes (Terri Alden). Surprisingly, the writers kept her around for another season, but as a secondary character, and not one of the roommates.

#3 Terri Alden- Priscilla Barnes
Priscilla was a former Penthouse Pet of the Month, who had some definite acting skills, and her timing with John Ritter was very good. I'm not really into blondes, but of all the blondes on the show, I think she was the best looking. Most people prefer Suzanne Somers, but I always thought Priscilla Barnes was hotter, even when I was a pre-teen. Priscilla was a welcomed change from the horrible Jenilee Harrison, and it's obvious why she was brought into the show to help save a sinking ship... and help she did- the show went on for another four successful seasons. For once, the show had a blonde who was not dumb, but in fact, Terri Alden was a very intelligent, professional woman. Her antagonism of Jack was fantastic.

#2 Chrissy Snow- Suzanne Somers
Suzanne Somers was one of the most popular actresses on all of TV when she played Chrissy Snow, and Chrissy tops many people's lists of favourite Three's Company characters. In fact, Chrissy's tops were on many people's lists. She played the "bouncy" dumb blonde exceptionally well, and how she so naively got a "rise" out of Jack was incredible. She wasn't the hottest in my opinion, though, and another negative was that her facial expressions often made her seem somewhat mentally challenged (a turn off). All in all, she did a good job, and it was too bad she left the show .

#1 Janet Wood- Joyce DeWitt
By far and away, number one. Joyce DeWitt was very much underrated. Not only was she a solid staple on the show for its duration, but she had exceptional comedic timing, and made John Ritter seem even better than he was. I think many people overlook her, as her character was one of the only level-headed people on the show... not to mention she was the dependable tom-boyish brunette. Call me crazy, but I always thought she was the cutest girl on the show (but alas, I prefer brunettes after all). She didn't look her best in her awful afro phase, though. I always thought Janet and Jack should have ended up together in TV land. "Three's a Crowd" would have been much better if it revolved around a married Janet and Jack--- I never liked that prudish Vicky character. "Three's a Crowd", unfortunately for John Ritter's career was a flop; perhaps things would have been different if Joyce DeWitt had been involved.

The Large Hadron Collider- Are we all doomed?!

So here's the thing... The experiments talked about below are some of the largest, most relevant and exciting experiments being undertaken at the moment, and are possibly the most significant of this century. Hundreds of scientists are as excited about these experiments as I was at 8 years old when Return of the Jedi came out in theatres. Believe me, I'm interested in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) results as well; it -could- support or even prove some of the biggest theories in physics. But... the LHC -could- also spell our doom. If something has a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of happening, it still has a chance! One scientist said there is more chance that all the oxygen molecules in the room you are sitting in shift to one side of the room suddenly and suffocate you than the LHC producing a global disaster. I say, even if that's true, it's still a chance!

Mark October 21st on your calendar- it could be the first day of Armaggedon!

This summary of the LHC comes from the most reputable source in existence, Wikipedia:

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex, intended to collide opposing beams of protons with very high kinetic energy. Its main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations of the Standard Model, the current theoretical picture for particle physics. It is theorized that the collider will confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, the observation of which could confirm the predictions and missing links in the Standard Model, and could explain how other elementary particles acquire properties such as mass.

The LHC was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and lies underneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland. It is funded by and built in collaboration with over eight thousand physicists from over eighty-five countries as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories. The LHC is already operational and is presently in the process of being prepared for collisions. The first beams were circulated through the collider on 10 September 2008, and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC is officially unveiled on 21 October.

When in operation, about seven thousand scientists from eighty countries will have access to the LHC. It is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson, the last unobserved particle among those predicted by the Standard Model. The verification of the existence of the Higgs boson would shed light on the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, through which the particles of the Standard Model are thought to acquire their mass. In addition to the Higgs boson, other particles predicted by possible extensions of the Standard Model might be produced at the LHC. More generally, physicists hope that the LHC will enhance their ability to answer the following questions:

• Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model indeed realised in nature?^[1] If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?
• Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
• Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.
• Is Supersymmetry realised in nature, implying that the known Standard Model particles have supersymmetric partners?
• Will the more precise measurements of the masses and decays of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
• Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP-violation.
• What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?
• Are there extra dimensions^[2] , as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?

Of the possible discoveries the LHC might make, only the discovery of the Higgs particle is relatively uncontroversial, but even this is not considered a certainty. Stephen Hawking said in a BBC interview that "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of one hundred dollars that we won't find the Higgs." In the same interview Hawking mentions the possibility of finding superpartners and adds that "whatever the LHC finds, or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe."^[3]

Safety of particle collisions

Although a few individuals, including scientists, have questioned the safety of the Large Hadron Collider in the media and through the courts, the consensus in the scientific community is that there is no conceivable threat from the LHC particle collisions.

Sources:

1. ^ "...in the public presentations of the aspiration of particle physics we hear too often that the goal of the LHC or a linear collider is to check off the last missing particle of the Standard Model, this year’s Holy Grail of particle physics, the Higgs boson. The truth is much less boring than that! What we’re trying to accomplish is much more exciting, and asking what the world would have been like without the Higgs mechanism is a way of getting at that excitement." -Chris Quigg, Nature's Greatest Puzzles
2. ^ Randall, Lisa. "Extra Dimensions and Warped Geometries. Science. Vol. 296, 24 May 2002]".
3. ^ Stephen Hawking interviewed by the BBC on the switch-on of the Large Hadron Collider. news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 10 September 2008."

The following info comes from this article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

"The claimed dangers of the LHC particle collisions, which are scheduled to begin on 21 October 2008,^[3] include doomsday scenarios involving the production of stable micro black holes or the creation of hypothetical particles called strangelets.^[4] The potential risks of these unprecedented experiments were reviewed in 2003 by the LHC Safety Study Group, a group of independent scientists, who concluded that, like current particle experiments such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the LHC particle collisions pose no conceivable threat.^[5] A second review of the evidence commissioned by CERN in 2008 reaffirmed the safety of the LHC collisions in light of further research conducted since the 2003 assessment.^[6][7] The 2008 report was reviewed and endorsed by CERN's governing body and by the Division of Particles & Fields of the American Physical Society and was published in the Journal of Physics G.^[8][9][6] It concludes that any doomsday scenarios at the LHC are ruled out because the physical conditions and events that will be created in the LHC experiments occur naturally in the universe without hazardous consequences.^[6]

In the run up to the commissioning of the LHC, with the first high energy collisions scheduled for 21 October 2008, a group of individuals led by Walter L. Wagner (a former nuclear safety officer and an original opponent of the RHIC) and Otto Rössler, a German biochemist, have expressed concerns over the safety of the LHC, and have attempted to halt the beginning of the experiments through petitions to the US and European Courts.^{[1][10][11][12]} Opponents assert that the LHC experiments have the potential to create low velocity micro black holes that could grow in mass or release dangerous radiation leading to doomsday scenarios, such as the destruction of the Earth.^[4] Other claimed potential risks include the creation of theoretical particles called strangelets, magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles.^[4] The claims made about the safety of the LHC have attracted widespread media attention.^[1] This has raised fears among the public that the Earth will be destroyed by the experiments at the LHC, and scientists associated with the project have received many protests. The Large Hadron Collider team revealed they had received death threats and threatening emails and phone calls demanding the experiment be halted.^[13][14]

Concern over the LHC has also arisen due to the interpretation of comments made by Martin Rees, an English cosmologist and astrophysicist who is President of the Royal Society and has been the Astronomer Royal since 1995.^[10] Rees authored the book Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? in which he estimates a 50% chance that mankind will destroy itself before the year 2100.^[15] Rees calculated that the probability of the Large Hadron Collider to produce a global catastrophe or black hole is 1 in 50 million.^[10][16][17] However, Rees has also reported not to be "losing sleep over the collider," and trusts the scientists who have built it.^[18] He has stated, "My book has been misquoted in one or two places. I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."^[13]

Specific concerns and safety arguments

Micro black holes

A major concern amongst CERN opponents is that any micro black holes produced by the LHC particle collisions may have a very low velocity and so, unlike any created by natural cosmic ray collisions, they will not escape the Earth's gravitational pull. If the black holes do not immediately decay, they may remain within the Earth and begin accreting (collecting) matter in the planet. Walter L. Wagner has argued that if micro black holes are produced at the LHC, they might not decay as predicted by CERN, since Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon and might not exist.^[34][35]

Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate on the order of one per second.^[36][37][38] According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Hawking radiation.^[36][37] The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) indicates that "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation, but so far no experiment has had the sensitivity required to find direct evidence for it."^[6] According to the LSAG, even if micro black holes were produced by the LHC and were stable, "they would be unable to accrete matter in a manner dangerous for the Earth. [...] they would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in the Earth or some other astronomical body, and the stability of these astronomical bodies means that they cannot be dangerous."^[6] The LSAG argues that:

“

Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral. [...] If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.[7]

”

Otto Rössler, German chemistry professor at the University of Tübingen, believes that micro black holes created in the LHC could grow exponentially.^{[39][40][41][42]} Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute, in Germany, has examined Otto Rössler's research paper on the safety of the LHC^[40] and has issued a statement highlighting logical inconsistencies and physical misunderstandings in Rössler's arguments.^[43] Nicolai concludes that "this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal."^[43][44] Domenico Giulini has also commented with Hermann Nicolai on the validity of Otto Rössler's thesis, concluding that "his argument concerns only the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), and makes no logical connection to LHC physics; the argument is not valid; the argument is not self-consistent."^[45] On 1 August 2008, a group of German physicists, the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET),^[46] published an open letter dismissing Rössler's concerns and carrying assurances that the LHC is safe.^[47][48]

Strangelets

Strangelets are a hypothetical form of strange matter that contains roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks and are more stable than ordinary nuclei.^{[citation needed]} If strangelets can actually exist, and if they were produced at LHC, they could conceivably initiate a runaway fusion process in which all the nuclei in the planet were converted to strange matter, similar to a strange star.^{[citation needed]}

“

Perhaps cosmic-ray collisions really are creating tiny black holes or strangelets, but those little bits of doomsday zip by too fast to cause any trouble. In the LHC, they say, the bad stuff could hang around long enough to be captured by Earth’s gravity and set off a catastrophe.[34]

”

The probability of the creation of strangelets decreases at higher energies. As the LHC operates at higher energies than the RHIC or the heavy ion programs of the 1980s and 1990s, LHC is less likely to produce strangelets than its predecessors.^[6] Furthermore, models indicate that strangelets are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures. Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV), whilst the collisions in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling water.^[6]

Sources: see this link

Who's the Hybrid?

Inspired by Conan O'Brien's "If they Mated" segments, I decided to start a new game that I will be repeating every so often on this site. It's called "Who's the Hybrid?"

I have access to a highly advanced and top secret software that allows me to accurately morph two images together, so that the result is an exact hybrid between the two. Whereas Conan exagerates the flaws of celebrities for humour's sake, I will produce the 50:50 hybrid for you.

Here's the first ever "Who's the Hybrid" quiz:

Who is this image a cross between?Hint: The hybrid does not look anything like this guy:














Answer (Posted September 5, 2008) Highlight the text below:
The hybrid is a cross between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen, who play Padme and Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. They play the parents of Luke Skywalker, portrayed by Mark Hamill (pictured in the hint) in the original trilogy.

What's the deal with chopsticks?

I think Jerry Seinfeld expressed it very well:

"I’ll tell you what I like about Chinese people. They’re hanging in there with the chopsticks, aren’t they? You know they’ve seen the fork. They’re staying with the sticks. I don’t know how they missed it. Chinese farmer gets up, works in the field with a shovel all day. Shovel. Spoon. Come on. You’re not plowing 40 acres with a couple of pool cues!"

Indeed.

What is the deal with chopsticks? If you've got a bowl full of food, is it not easier to scoop it out on a fork or spoon? A shovel is more appropriate for digging a ditch than is a pair of pool cues.

The wooden ones are contributing to deforestation, especially when you consider that well over one fifth of the world uses them on a daily basis. The plastic ones are devoid of any traction whatsoever, and are nearly useless when it comes to picking up your more slippery morsels.

Here's a pet peeve of mine: people who insist on sticking with the sticks when eating their leftovers for lunch, regardless of where they are and whether they are alone. I had this buddy back in school a few years ago who brought his fried rice leftovers to the student lounge, and proceeded to pull out his disposable chopsticks. I said, "Hey buddy, it's just you and me here; I won't care if you use a fork or a spoon. You know as well as I do that it's easier." He looked at me like I was from Mars and replied, "But it's Chinese food!". I didn't bother pursuing the argument, but I enjoyed watching him struggle with balancing the rice on the sticks. It took him about fifteen minutes to eat what he could have scarfed down in about two with a spoon.

So what -are- they good for? Sushi. What else? Not sure. The reason why I say they are good for sushi is that a unique precision is required to pick up the bite-sized morsels. The unique precision can be described as a "tong-like" grip...

But now I'm thinking "Why not just use tongs?!" How about using little tongs instead of chopsticks? The closed end of tongs ensures that they are fool proof, and your average gweilo can use them without practise. How about these special tongs have a rough grip on it's business end, so that the slippery morsels never fall? Genius! I should market these things. If I sell them to one fifth of the world's population, I'll be rich!

Recycling is a scam

What? The Earth is bleeding, and were doing nothing but plunder its resources, so how can I say something so brazen as "recycling is a scam"?

Let me clarify something. Not all recycling is pointless. If a material is non-renewable, and will otherwise end up in a landfill for millennia without breaking down, then yes, it's worth recycling.


Plastic is worth recycling- It is derived from non-renewable petroleum, and takes forever to break down.




Metal is worth recycling- It is mined from the Earth, and can not be replenishable. It degrades within decades, but the mineral serves no more use when it sits in a landfill.


Glass? That's questionable. Glass is derived from sand, which is derived from the erosion of stone, so technically, it's a limited resource. However, there is so much sand in the world that there is no danger at all in the long term of running out. So, is it worth recycling glass? No, it's too expensive and it pollutes. See paper, below.



Paper? Well, here's the kicker: paper is not worth recycling. First of all, paper is a renewable resource. It comes from trees which come from forests, and forests regenerate at a surprisingly quick rate. With today's advanced forest management practices (at least in more developed nations), we are harvesting less trees than we did 100 years ago. Not only that, but we are harvesting almost entirely "regen" or replanted forests. New techniques are being employed to limit clear-cutting, and measures are implemented to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity. Believe me, I've witnessed the system first hand. When forests are managed correctly, we are not in danger of running out of trees. In fact, pests, such as the mountain pine beetle pose a significantly greater threat to the landscape than does timber harvesting. However, even if most pine forests are wiped out by the beetle, we will certainly see a newly regenerated forest of pines within a few decades. The point is this: forestry is not all bad, and we need the resource for paper and building supplies, especially with the growing population of the Earth and the demands that come with it. Wood is an inexpensive building material, and will not be replaced by anything cheaper or more "environmentally sound" in our lifetimes.

So why not recycle the paper anyway, rather than having it go aimlessly to a landfill? Well, what most people don't know is that paper recycling is extremely expensive. It costs significantly more to collect, sort, break down, and reform paper pulp into recycled paper than it does to create new paper. Not only that- it pollutes as well! Paper recycling plants do nearly as much harm to the environment as paper mills.

Wanna watch something interesting? Here's a link to Penn & Teller's "Bullshit", which talks about some of the same things. There are points I disagree with, but I mainly agree with the parts on paper.

Penn & Teller Bullshit- Recycling

Now, believe me, I really want recycling to work out, and I'm glad that so many people want to save the planet. I just think that the system isn't efficient enough at this time. I think we should focus more on reducing than recycling, and I'm glad to note that the world is becoming more and more paperless.

Before you beat me over the head about not putting my junk mail in the recycle bin, I have to admit that I do use the blue boxes. *sigh* As Val Kilmer said as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone", "My hypocrisy knows no bounds." My hands are tied. My municipality has enacted a bylaw prohibiting the disposal of paper trash; any recyclables not in the blue bins are not even collected. So... I have to do it. Not only that, but the strata council at my condo complex would linch me if I tossed paper into the dumpster. Not only that, but so would my coworkers in the office.

It seems everyone has fallen prey to the recycling cult's message.