John Cuthber

You could look at the experimental data and plot the log of the rate versus the log of the concentration. Looks like a straight line to me, and physical chemists like straight lines on their graphs. From the slope of the line you can calculate a.

"They mostly use the bovine strain today, Propionibacterium shermanii, it produces a lot more B12 since cows are bigger animals, hence require more B12" Cows are big so bacteria produce more B12 That's one of the most preposterous non sequiteurs I have heard in a while. Even if you assume that the bacteria are making the stuff for the benefit of the cattle, there's the fact that cattle, being big, have lots of bacteria in their big guts. They don't need the bacteria to be better at making B12- they just harbour lots of them. And, if this "Sure.. animal products contain enough B12 to keep you alive. Not thrive." were true there would be obvious consequences. One such would be that I would be some sort of superhero. I don't like most vegetables or fruit so I get a lot of my calories from meat. So I get lots of B12 (particularly compared to my vegetarian friends). Have a look at the death rates. I don't expect to outlive the veggies. The ones eating less B12 are the ones who thrive.

If the equipment is not real then you can't do experiments with it because it doesn't exist Still, I was right about the illogical appeals to authority..

It's slightly confusing that they use a twice If the expression was ....+ ln ([a]b) what would you do to it?

Just to clarify, I was making the point that there are a lot of people out their who do not know who their biological father is. So it's entirely possible that of of your ancestors "chose to adopt" because they didn't realise they were making that choice. Anyway, to get back to the original point This "Me raising your child does nothing for my biological purpose of perpetuating my genetic material." simply isn't true. Any child is going to have DNA that is very nearly identical to yours. Adopting them means that they and their DNA continues and , since that's almost identical to yours, most of your DNA is also preserved for future generations. The effect is more obvious if you are adopting the children of a relative, but it's a real effect no matter who you adopt. Adoption makes evolutionary sense, especially if you can't have children of your own.

There is one interesting idea that can be developed from this: The universe must be finite in phsyical or temporal extent or there must be something very odd about our bit of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox Since the universe is "only" about 14 billion years old, you only have to consider photons from stars within 14Bn light years. Also, the inverse square law means that most of the more distant stars don't provide us with many photons. So, there really are not many photons. It is the equivalent of star light on a moonless night. That's pretty dark.

"ok, nobody believes it, but it really happens around me.." What happens? As far as I can tell, it's not against the rule to say which brands you believe are causing problems- provided that you have some sort of evidence which explains why you believe it.

Thanks for that reassuring confirmation that B12 deficiency is very rare. "In large surveys in the United States and the United Kingdom, ≈6% of those aged ≥60 y are vitamin B-12 deficient (plasma vitamin B-12 < 148 pmol/L), with the prevalence of deficiency increasing with age." So, even among the elderly, who are at greatest risk, 94% of the UK population are not deficient. Similarly, in the US "The prevalence of deficiency (serum vitamin B-12 < 148 pmol/L) varied by age group and affected ≤3% of those aged 20–39 y, ≈4% of those aged 40–59 y, and ≈6% of persons aged ≥70 y. Deficiency was present in <1% of children and adolescents but was ≤3% in children aged <4 y (the youngest age group reported)." The only group where there's a significant incidence of deficiency are the elderly. It's slightly disappointing to see that deficiency diseases are still common in the developing world., but I guess that's a political problem, rather than a scientific one. B12 isn't very expensive so supplementation would be reasonably cheap and might be a good investment for those engaged in providing help to the poorer people of the world.

From wiki "The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal." — Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild. Still not a bingo club.

OK, one at a time Have you ever, while doing a jigsaw, put a piece in and then realised it was in the wrong place? I certainly have and I'm sure most others will too. So, in fact people do make assumptions (We assume that a piece goes in a particular place) while completing jigsaw puzzles. However jigsaw puzzles are not science ( though they might sometimes be a nice analogy). So, even if you had been right about puzzles (and you were not) it would have been a strawman because it's not the same as science. Fundamentally, science thrives on getting things wrong so it can get better. that's only possible because it makes assumptions. Probably the best known examples is that science assumed Newton was right until Einstein showed that he wasn't. The fact that physicists can make assumptions about things like air resistance is so well known that there are jokes about it (The perfectly spherical horse in a vacuum). "Agreed but same applies to chimps and gorillas in zoo's. Poor animals had or still have to eat their own feces for B12." ​ Interesting point: what did they do in the wild? My guess is they did pretty much the same as in zoos. The idea has been put forward as an explanation of the lack of vitamin B12 deficiency in very young vegan children whose ideas of hygiene are limited. "I can neither confirm nor deny since I don't know if the mystery stimulating molecule is found in the colon juices or if B12 is produced after the fermentation process." Here's a hint, to the best of my knowledge, Marmite has never been near anyone's colon. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production it's made industrially by fermentation They use Pseudomonas denitrificans which is a soil bacterium, rather than a gut bug and they don't ferment it in an enormous arsehole, so it's clear that it's the bacterium that makes the B12. I didn't say that I believed that " putting it in public domain is more important than a journal?" That would have been silly since putting it in a journal would have put it in the public domain and I wouldn't have said "putting it in the public domain is more important than putting it in the public domain " Try reading what I said. "If it's genuinely valuable to society then putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal." And you still haven't explained why you think there's an epidemic of B12 deficiency.

Immortal, are you deliberately missing the point? re "There is nothing special about the equipment. Radioactive element--->Detector(your equipment)-->Trigger's Poison-->Schroedinger's Cat(neither Dead nor Alive)-->Wigner's friend. The entire room is treated as a quantum system and it exists in a superposition of states and it is a well established fact that the properties of a system doesn't exist until a measurement is made..." But, if reality doesn't exist then the room and its contents don't exist because they are part of reality. So you are left trying to do an experiment with equipment that doesn't exists. When you say "There is nothing special about the equipment." You are quite right. One of the things about it which is not "special" is that the equipment is real. But you also say that nothing is real. Do yo not see the contradiction there? You say the equipment is real and you say that nothing is real. And re "I didn't defined religion, traditions defined it and I just accepted their definition." you are simply wrong. You said "Only those who are in the right process of Henosis are religious" And you go on "Only those who are divinized means only those who are united with the One can know or knows what the will of the divine is, not some Islamic fundamentalists or Heinrich Himmler or not even those who blindly believe in their scriptures, religion has got nothing to do with belief, religion is about doing not believing, even they are not religious, this concept of henosis exists in all the religions of the world and hence my definition is universal whether you or any mods accept or reject it will not change the facts." (my emphasis). So, you plainly did define religion in a way that's at odds with everyone else's definition and you keep ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself when you say that nothing exists but we can do experiments with things (which do exist). Are you delusional or are you trolling?

"Lets say you decide to do a 1000 piece puzzle.. " Let's not bother, because it's a silly strawman. An important point about science is that it tests its assumptions. It's a non-existent epidemic. There's little doubt that most of the B12 produced in human guts by (or with) bacteria is flushed down the pan. However that doesn't detract from the fact that it is produced there by the combination of people and bacteria. You want me to explain why you should do things which are good for society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logarithmic_identities#Using_simpler_operations

All the photons from everywhere is pretty much the same as starlight at night. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux it's about 8 orders of magnitude less than sunlight so you can divide Swansont's number by 100,000,000 to get a reasonable estimate.

What do you know about ln(ab)?

Still waiting for Immortal to explain his experiments that prove that the experimental equipment doesn't exist. Or, if you prefer, waiting for him to realise that his position is not just wrong, but absurd. I predict that, rather than doing either of those things, he will try to support his bizarre beliefs with an appeal to authority because he doesn't understand that such an appeal is a logical fallacy.

Actually, making assumptions is a vital part of science. Not communicating isn't. Actually, you posed at least one hypothesis. "If animal products did in total fulfill everyone's daily requirements, we wouldn't see a B12 deficiency epidemic." Now, since we don't see an epidemic it's possible that animal products do provide enough B12.

That EWG site is exactly the sort of thing of which the DHMO site is a parody. Lots of things are suspected carcinogens. The fact that, in most cases they are not actually carcinogenic or are so weakly so that you can ignore the risk doesn't get a mention.

The DHMO story is a way of explaining to people that most chemicals are not harmful. The point is that, if you want to, you can make water look so dangerous that it should be banned. The same is true of the chemicals in that skin cream. I'm sure I could find "scare stories" about all of them, but they are pretty nearly harmless. If you ate lots of it you would probably get an upset stomach for a while, but that's all. As for "for example, some products include estrogen/steriod or the like" Well they shouldn't. It would certainly be illegal here in Europe and I don't think it would be acceptable elsewhere. The other thing is that, for example, skin lightning creams are labelled as such. They ought to state what the active ingredient is. They claim to have a real medical effect and, as such should be regulated as drugs. In particular, they should list the possible side effects. If you live somewhere where they are not required to do that then I suggest that you think about telling the politicians.

Yes. That's why I was able to say "Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name." I was being ironic, what did you think I meant?

Since you don't make it clear what yo think, people are forced to make assumptions. In any event, it is difficult to see why you don't accept that human's gut bacteria produce plenty of B12. it's just rather unfortunate for us that they do so in the wrong part of the gut for us to absorb it. Hence B12 can be extracted from sewage sludge It was co- produced by humans and bacteria. (Though it might not be a popular source). There is no such epidemic (except, perhaps, among vegans who don't like Marmite) According to the rules of the site, you are expected to answer questions. Anyway, if it's valid scientific evidence I'm sure that you can post a summary of it here and a link to the rest of it. Since this forum is date stamped there would be no doubt of who published it first so you would get the credit. Also, while it's not formal peer review, I'm sure that some of us would look at it and make comments and criticisms. If it's genuinely valuable to societythen putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal.

So, why did you ask if it was a harmful ingredient?

No

Soap and DHMO