The dumb questions thread

[bilby]

Can anyone point me to an objective, evidence based paper or article on the health affects of pesticides? Or can anyone who actually has a pretty good idea already based on evidence just let me know if organic produce has any value?

Remember reading a study a while back that scientists were split on the issue, so I wonder if concrete evidence just isn't quite there yet.

Given that produce can be labelled 'Organic' even though it was grown using pesticides, there is zero chance that organic produce has any value at all with respect to health effects from pesticides, even if we accepted that pesticides as a class were a problem.

If you eat food in a developed nation, pesticides are very unlikely to be a problem; A far more likely source of harm is fecal residues causing e. coli infection - which as Chipotle Mexican Grill customers can tell you, is more common for consumers of 'organic' foods.

The label 'Organic' basically means 'More expensive and may contain traces of shit', or 'Intended for consumption by people who don't realise that "Appeal to nature" is a logical fallacy'.

 

[thebeave]

Can anyone point me to an objective, evidence based paper or article on the health affects of pesticides? Or can anyone who actually has a pretty good idea already based on evidence just let me know if organic produce has any value?

Remember reading a study a while back that scientists were split on the issue, so I wonder if concrete evidence just isn't quite there yet.

Given that produce can be labelled 'Organic' even though it was grown using pesticides, there is zero chance that organic produce has any value at all, even if pesticides as a class were to be a problem.

If you eat food in a developed nation, pesticides are very unlikely to be a problem; A far more likely source of harm is fecal residues causing e. coli infection - which as Chipotle Mexican Grill customers can tell you, is more common for consumers of 'organic' foods.

The label 'Organic' basically means 'More expensive and may contain traces of shit'.

The Chipotle customers have some comfort in the knowledge that they've been confined to the shitter for days due to a natural toxin, rather than some synthetic pesticide that some "evil" scientist in a white lab coat made. So, I think they're OK with it.

But, yeah, organic is a big scam....stay away. If you have an aching desire to spend extra money on food, donate to a food bank.

 

[Deepak]

Can anyone point me to an objective, evidence based paper or article on the health affects of pesticides? Or can anyone who actually has a pretty good idea already based on evidence just let me know if organic produce has any value?

Remember reading a study a while back that scientists were split on the issue, so I wonder if concrete evidence just isn't quite there yet.

You'll have to look at reams of papers. Organophosphates are definitely bad, though they've been mostly (completely?) phased out.

Pesticides, both the ones allowed under Organic Farming guidelines or otherwise, are still being actively studied with papers published regularly.

 

[bilby]

Can anyone point me to an objective, evidence based paper or article on the health affects of pesticides? Or can anyone who actually has a pretty good idea already based on evidence just let me know if organic produce has any value?

Remember reading a study a while back that scientists were split on the issue, so I wonder if concrete evidence just isn't quite there yet.

You'll have to look at reams of papers. Organophosphates are definitely bad, though they've been mostly (completely?) phased out.

Pesticides, both the ones allowed under Organic Farming guidelines or otherwise, are still being actively studied with papers published regularly.

Asking about the health effects of pesticides is like asking about whether animals are dangerous; It's not really a meaningful question simply because the category is so broad.

Are animals dangerous? Depends on the animal, what you consider 'danger', and on what you and the animal are doing at the time.

Will pesticides affect your health? Depends on the pesticide, what you consider an effect, and on what dose you receive and by what pathway.

 

[bigfield]

You'll have to look at reams of papers. Organophosphates are definitely bad, though they've been mostly (completely?) phased out.

Pesticides, both the ones allowed under Organic Farming guidelines or otherwise, are still being actively studied with papers published regularly.

Asking about the health effects of pesticides is like asking about whether animals are dangerous; It's not really a meaningful question simply because the category is so broad.

Are animals dangerous? Depends on the animal, what you consider 'danger', and on what you and the animal are doing at the time.

Will pesticides affect your health? Depends on the pesticide, what you consider an effect, and on what dose you receive and by what pathway.

Are the animals organic?

 

[bilby]

Asking about the health effects of pesticides is like asking about whether animals are dangerous; It's not really a meaningful question simply because the category is so broad.

Are animals dangerous? Depends on the animal, what you consider 'danger', and on what you and the animal are doing at the time.

Will pesticides affect your health? Depends on the pesticide, what you consider an effect, and on what dose you receive and by what pathway.

Are the animals organic?

Almost everything I eat is organic; apart from a little sodium chloride now and then.

 

[bigfield]

Are the animals organic?

Almost everything I eat is organic; apart from a little sodium chloride now and then.

Careful; that stuff stays in your system for a long time.

 

[bilby]

Almost everything I eat is organic; apart from a little sodium chloride now and then.

Careful; that stuff stays in your system for a long time.

It can a salt your system, that's for sure.

 

[thebeave]

Are the animals organic?

Almost everything I eat is organic; apart from a little sodium chloride now and then.

Dude, just stay away from the dihydrogen monoxide. Its like drinking a cup of Roundup!

 

[Kharakov]

I considered putting this in its own thread, but after you read it...

Has there been any consideration of gravity as being linked to the number of particles of certain kinds, instead of the total mass of the particles?

 

[fast]

Is there a quick and easy way to know what goes in the numerator and what goes in the denominator when doing a simple division problem? Like a memory trick. For instance, when it involves price per unit, I simply remember the money part goes first, but for other stuff, I sometimes find myself doing it both ways and just knowing that the stupid result is wrong, but when I'm not focused and not really sure, I find myself having to think longer. I'll know one of the two answers is correct, but without knowing the underlying rules to guide me, I wind up thinking-it-through.

 

[jonatha]

Is there a quick and easy way to know what goes in the numerator and what goes in the denominator when doing a simple division problem? Like a memory trick. For instance, when it involves price per unit, I simply remember the money part goes first, but for other stuff, I sometimes find myself doing it both ways and just knowing that the stupid result is wrong, but when I'm not focused and not really sure, I find myself having to think longer. I'll know one of the two answers is correct, but without knowing the underlying rules to guide me, I wind up thinking-it-through.

I suppose in your case you could replace the word "per" with "divided by" and get what you want....

 

[Uwe]

I considered putting this in its own thread, but after you read it...

Has there been any consideration of gravity as being linked to the number of particles of certain kinds, instead of the total mass of the particles?

Contemplating this is blowing my mind a little. Could gravity only be generated by, e.g., Neutrons? They get credited with Strong force, so why not?

 

[Kharakov]

I considered putting this in its own thread, but after you read it...

Has there been any consideration of gravity as being linked to the number of particles of certain kinds, instead of the total mass of the particles?

Contemplating this is blowing my mind a little. Could gravity only be generated by, e.g., Neutrons? They get credited with Strong force, so why not?

Ohh, you meant quarks, not neutrons.

That's basically what I was wondering about. Number of quarks is closely associated with the mass of normal matter, since protons and neutrons make up the majority of the mass of normal matter.

So.. what if the number of quarks determines the shape of spacetime, instead of the amount of mass?

In this case.. gravity's correlation with mass would be due to the correlation between number of quarks and mass.


What could we use to differentiate between gravity determined by number of quarks and gravity determined by mass?


Neutron stars come to mind, change in mass due to the production of neutrinos at collapse?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do electrons stop moving at 0 kelvin?

 

[fast]

Do electrons stop moving at 0 kelvin?

Hmmm, and does 0 kelvin change if not?

 

[Kharakov]

Do electrons stop moving at 0 kelvin?

Hmmm, and does 0 kelvin change if not?

What's that mean?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmmm, and does 0 kelvin change if not?

What's that mean?

That neither fast nor myself understand what 0 Kelvin means.

The answer is no, the electrons don't stop. At zero Kelvin, entropy equals zero, which doesn't mean electrons stop moving... just that toddlers will stop throwing stuff all over the place.

 

[Bomb#20]

Contemplating this is blowing my mind a little. Could gravity only be generated by, e.g., Neutrons? They get credited with Strong force, so why not?

Ohh, you meant quarks, not neutrons.

That's basically what I was wondering about. Number of quarks is closely associated with the mass of normal matter, since protons and neutrons make up the majority of the mass of normal matter.

So.. what if the number of quarks determines the shape of spacetime, instead of the amount of mass?

In this case.. gravity's correlation with mass would be due to the correlation between number of quarks and mass.


What could we use to differentiate between gravity determined by number of quarks and gravity determined by mass?

The quick answer is, if this were the case, somebody would have noticed by now. A neutron is about a tenth of a percent heavier than a proton, and the ratio of protons to neutrons varies a lot from one substance to another. So if gravity were determined by quark count rather than mass, then the ratio of weight to inertial mass would be significantly different between, say, carbon and lead. We could differentiate between gravity determined by number of quarks and gravity determined by mass with a scale and an accelerometer.

The more complicated answer is, intuition is a poor guide, because this is a relativistic universe, not a Newtonian universe. E = mc². You can't get the mass and weight of an object by adding up the masses and weights of its components. You have to count the binding energy. Split a uranium atom, add up the weights of all the pieces that come out, and you get a little bit less than the weight of the uranium atom. Hence the mushroom cloud.

Neutron stars come to mind, change in mass due to the production of neutrinos at collapse?

Yes, among other things.

 

[Kharakov]

So.. what if the number of quarks determines the shape of spacetime, instead of the amount of mass?

In this case.. gravity's correlation with mass would be due to the correlation between number of quarks and mass.

We could differentiate between gravity determined by number of quarks and gravity determined by mass with a scale and an accelerometer.

Inertial mass doesn't change acceleration due to gravity in this scenario: acceleration is determined by the number of quarks. Weight is still mass * acceleration, but mass isn't what determines acceleration.

111 *10^30 quarks will create a certain acceleration, whether the object has greater total mass or not (due to the amount of neutrons in and binding energy of the object's nuclei).


I imagine a slightly different type of Cavendish experiment, with a second set of smaller balls exactly pi/2 from the other small balls, with the second set of balls the same (very close) mass as the first balls, but containing a different amount of total particles.

Set the 'torsion balance' up so that at rest (without the 4 smaller balls), the big balls lie exactly aligned between the 2 different types of smaller balls that have the same mass, but differing amounts of particles.

The big balls will stay in the same place if the gravitational attraction is exactly the same for equal masses that have a different number of particles.

If despite the fact that the masses of the small balls are the same, there is a difference in gravitational attraction, we know we either have experimenter error, equipment error, a dark matter asteroid passed through us as we conducted the experiment, an evil telekinetic dinosaur is pranking us, or maybe the number of particles is what determines gravitational attraction, and gravity's correlation with mass was just because of the close correlation between number of particles and mass (and nobody checked, because we habitually just assumed the mass-gravity connection was correct, without trying to figure out other stuff, because it's what we were taught... by authority figures... that we don't question... because we're complacent little brainwashed sheep who don't question authority unless our peer group does.. and nobody questioned the mass/gravity connection (unless someone did)).

- - - Updated - - -

What's that mean?

That neither fast nor myself understand what 0 Kelvin means.

The answer is no, the electrons don't stop. At zero Kelvin, entropy equals zero, which doesn't mean electrons stop moving... just that toddlers will stop throwing stuff all over the place.

Ok, well hurry the fuck up and freeze Trump and Palin before shit gets outta hand.