1. Science isn’t a belief or an idea. It’s a word for the knowledge obtained through systematic testing and explained through rational reasoning.

    It’s not a fucking belief. Don’t lump it together with religion like it’s optional.

    It’s our only tool for understanding the truth to the universe.





    I just had to get that out.

  2. Definitely what I study in school!

    You all should check it out!

  3. primalpalette asked: Before you dismiss Fluoride as being safe, do a Google news search for it. Just type in "fluoride". All mainstream media, and the first 3+ pages are filled with the controversy. Some areas have already voted out the use of it in their drinking water. I'm not trying to influence your opinion, but check out the latest & greatest evidence. The scientists that aren't getting paid for their studies tend to heavily fall on the side of "not safe".

    Sorry it took me to long to get back to you.

    I’m not expressing my opinion, I’m just stating what I know as facts. We would be worse off without fluoride than with it. Fluoride is only toxic is large quantities, and people don’t consume it to a toxic level. I guess we should ban toothpaste too, because it also contains trace amounts of fluoride.

    I really love your blog. I just hope that you don’t rely on mainstream media as your facts source. I’ve written a couple university papers about how scientific journalism can actually skew the results of a scientific study or even question the legitimacy of a scientific study. And sometimes they DO catch papers and studies that have violated the scientific method and have biased results.

    All of the animal testing that showed neural toxicity, bone damages, and loss of kidney function had an incredible amount of fluoride injected to damage these systems, like wayyy wayy more than we would EVER encounter. And the survey studies done on human populations didn’t have enough statistical evidence to rule out third party variables.

    I do agree that fluoride will need more testing, and that it’s important to raise awareness that there IS fluoride in some drinking water. But I don’t think it’s right to go ahead and label something and dangerous when one hasn’t don’t proper research on the topic. 

    That’s my two cents.

  4. ➞ Blame Your Taste Buds for Liking Fat: Receptor for Tasting Fat Identified in Humans

    shychemist:

    Why do we like fatty foods so much? We can blame our taste buds. Our tongues apparently recognize and have an affinity for fat, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. They have found that variations in a gene can make people more or less sensitive to the taste of fat.

    The study is the first to identify a human receptor that can taste fat and suggests that some people may be more sensitive to the presence of fat in foods. The study is available online in the Journal of Lipid Research.

    Investigators found that people with a particular variant of the CD36 gene are far more sensitive to the presence of fat than others.

    “The ultimate goal is to understand how our perception of fat in food might influence what foods we eat and the quantities of fat that we consume,” says senior investigator Nada A. Abumrad, PhD, the Dr. Robert A. Atkins Professor of Medicine and Obesity Research. “In this study, we’ve found one potential reason for individual variability in how people sense fat. It may be, as was shown recently, that as people consume more fat, they become less sensitive to it, requiring more intake for the same satisfaction. What we will need to determine in the future is whether our ability to detect fat in foods influences our fat intake, which clearly would have an impact on obesity.”

    People who made more CD36 protein could easily detect the presence of fat. In fact, study subjects who made the most CD36 were eight times more sensitive to the presence of fat than those who made about 50 percent less of the protein.

    The researchers studied 21 people with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, which is considered to be obese. Some participants had a genetic variant that led to the production of more CD36. Others made much less. And some were in between.

    Participants were asked to taste solutions from three different cups. One contained small amounts of a fatty oil. The other two contained solutions that were similar in texture to the oil but were fat-free. Subjects were asked to choose the cup that was different.

    “We did the same three-cup test several times with each subject to learn the thresholds at which individuals could identify fat in the solution,” explains first author M. Yanina Pepino, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine. “If we had asked, ‘does it taste like fat to you?’ that could be very subjective. So we tried to objectively measure the lowest concentration of fat at which someone could detect a difference.”

    Her team masked input that might help participants identify fat by sight or smell. To eliminate visual cues, they lit the testing area with a red lamp. Study subjects also wore nose clips so that they could not smell the solutions.

    Fat is an important component of the diet, and both humans and animals usually prefer high-fat, energy-dense foods. Scientists have believed that people identify those high-fat foods mainly by texture, but this study suggests that the presence of fat can change the way our tongues perceive the food, just as it does for the tastes sweet, sour, bitter, salty and savory (umami).

    The CD36 discovery follows research that had identified a role for the gene in rats and mice. Scientists had learned that when animals are genetically engineered without a working CD36gene, they no longer display a preference for fatty foods. In addition, animals that can’t make the CD36 protein have difficulty digesting fat.

    Up to 20 percent of people are believed to have the variant in the CD36 gene that is associated with making significantly less CD36 protein. That, in turn, could mean they are less sensitive to the presence of fat in food.

    Click Title for more.

    This is an awesome article!

  5. primalpalette:

Plenty of information on the subject available in the public record. Look it up, learn about it, hound your duly elected officials to lower/remove the fluoride levels.

Without fluoride in our water supply, we would be overrun with toxic compounds produced by bacteria and fungus. And it DOES help prevent cavities and gingervitis. The amount of fluoride in our water is incredibly small, it will not affect human health.
These assumptions make me mad.
Dental benefits of fluoride in Childhood
Fluoride’s effectiveness against carcinogenic bacteria
By the way, these articles are from the 80s. It’s been known for a while that trace amounts of fluoride has benefits to humans.
Of course, in some areas of the world, the water there has a far larger ppm of fluoride and so there has been negative effects on human health. But in developed countries fluoride levels are regulated impeccably well.
People tend to label things as “dangerous” just because they don’t understand it.

    primalpalette:

    Plenty of information on the subject available in the public record. Look it up, learn about it, hound your duly elected officials to lower/remove the fluoride levels.

    Without fluoride in our water supply, we would be overrun with toxic compounds produced by bacteria and fungus. And it DOES help prevent cavities and gingervitis. The amount of fluoride in our water is incredibly small, it will not affect human health.

    These assumptions make me mad.

    Dental benefits of fluoride in Childhood

    Fluoride’s effectiveness against carcinogenic bacteria

    By the way, these articles are from the 80s. It’s been known for a while that trace amounts of fluoride has benefits to humans.

    Of course, in some areas of the world, the water there has a far larger ppm of fluoride and so there has been negative effects on human health. But in developed countries fluoride levels are regulated impeccably well.

    People tend to label things as “dangerous” just because they don’t understand it.

  6. atheistme:

violenceandadoration:

atheistme:

Different beliefs on how the world came into being.

I don’t believe in any scientific dating tools. I don’t think it’s possible to know how old something is. Science is a religion that you have to trust, there is no real proof. None.

Care to elaborate what makes you smarter than extremely well educated, professional scientists? 
Facts don’t work like that. They aren’t a matter of opinion. You can’t pick and choose which to believe.

"I don’t believe in any scientific dating tools."
is the same as saying “I don’t want to understand it because the results scare me.”
You can just wiki radiometric dating. With a basic knowledge of high school chemistry, you can understand it pretty easily.
Man, seeing responses like this really makes me wonder if I’m living in some sort of academic bubble. Does everyone else really understand the world in the same way that I do? Am I that sheltered from the real ignorant reality?
I usually don’t reblog discussion/debate posts about creation, but I had to this time.

    atheistme:

    violenceandadoration:

    atheistme:

    Different beliefs on how the world came into being.

    I don’t believe in any scientific dating tools. I don’t think it’s possible to know how old something is. Science is a religion that you have to trust, there is no real proof. None.

    Care to elaborate what makes you smarter than extremely well educated, professional scientists? 

    Facts don’t work like that. They aren’t a matter of opinion. You can’t pick and choose which to believe.

    "I don’t believe in any scientific dating tools."

    is the same as saying “I don’t want to understand it because the results scare me.”

    You can just wiki radiometric dating. With a basic knowledge of high school chemistry, you can understand it pretty easily.

    Man, seeing responses like this really makes me wonder if I’m living in some sort of academic bubble. Does everyone else really understand the world in the same way that I do? Am I that sheltered from the real ignorant reality?

    I usually don’t reblog discussion/debate posts about creation, but I had to this time.

    (Source: atheist-me, via atheist-me)

  7. ➞ Fuck Yeah Nightmares: Mind Control Fungus

    fuckyeahnightmares:

    A stalk of the new fungus species Ophiocordyceps camponoti-balzani, grows out of a “zombie” ant’s head in a Brazilian rain forest.

    Originally thought to be a single species, called Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, the fungus is actually four distinct specie all of which can “mind control” ants,…

    There could actually be just as many specific fungi for every specific species of ants! Really cool stuff!

  8. desperatelark:

    I’m strongly convinced that when God was forming David Attenborough’s Larynx he REALLY did make it in his own image. Here’s a clip of his new series Frozen Planet , that’s coming out in early 2012. It shows an underwater icicle called a “Bernicle Ice Finger” caught in slow-lapse, killing some starfish. If I ever have the honor of starting a Black Metal Band I’ll most definitely call it “Bernicle Death” because this is just way to fucking rad.

  9. ohscience:

more starch granules inside banana cells. The cells are stained with iodine to show the starch.

coooooooooooooool!

    ohscience:

    more starch granules inside banana cells. The cells are stained with iodine to show the starch.

    coooooooooooooool!

  10. micro-scopic:

Starfish Development

    micro-scopic:

    Starfish Development