Prime-Evil

Whatever you do, avoid the Group W bench. .

They are rather naughty little plants, aren't they? .

It would be interesting to study the functions of the hairs themselves. 1. To cause immediate and direct physical discomfort. 2. To carry and release the chemical irritant irritants. 3. To break the surface of the target skin to increase contact and penetration. 4. To physically(nervous senses) as well as chemically stimulate an earlier anti-histamine response which leads ultimately to a more enhanced but still directly associative learning response. I find the last one very interesting, almost erotic, in a strictly academic sense of course. .

Interesting. So if I am 220# say, with a lean body mass of 150# say, how long would it take me to starve if I could only scavenge and average of say 100kcal/day of bugs and 100kcal/day from plant material. Let's assume 3200 kcal/day in staying warm and scavenging and learning to hunt (unsuccessfully). I'm thinking I might lose a pound a day, but my energy level would probably drop within a few weeks so I would only burn 1700 kcal/day and lose maybe 1/2 pound a day. I would guess that I would lose muscle as well as fat, unless I learned to hunt more successfully. I'm guessing my weight might drop to 120# in about 200 days before I freeze to death as the days get colder and food more scarce. Is that more or less the way it works? . So if I did learn to hunt and gather more successfully, what might it be? We are talking Northern Boreal forest here. What if I averaged 1 kill/day for 1500kcal of Grey Squirrels, Red Squirrels, Varying Hare, Seagulls, and got my Vitamin C from tea made from rose hips or Eastern White Cedar (Tree of Life). What else would I need, food and nutrition wise. This is still a very low carb diet. Would I eventually need to focus more on carbohyrates? Traditional sources of carbohyrates here in New Brunswick: Spring - Maple & Birch Syrup, Fiddleheads & other shoots Summer - Shoots, Roots, Berries Fall - Late Berries, Fruits, Nuts ( also harvest of Corn,Squash,Beans ) Winter - Hunting and living off stores and body fat I think you might have to get up to the peoples of the Canadian Shield before you get away from some forms of agriculture as the primary means of sustenance, but of course isolated or uprooted individuals always had to do without now and then. Corn,Squash,Beans and other forms of agriculture provided most of the diet right up to the beginning of the Canadian Shield, where not just growing season but also soil conditions forced people to spread out more and depended more on berries, lichen, and of course the caribou, and geese. I think the reason that the caribou were not herded, as such, the way the Sammi and others do in Europe and Asia, is because the climate and soil conditions force the caribou to range over larger areas, and so it is better to wait for them than to keep them or follow them. Same with geese. The only place you need to raise fowl is in the south, since they naturally summer in the North. But the Inuit, they ranged even farther North, and were as much a Maritime people as a Nomadic Herding people. I wonder just how little carbohydrates they lived on most of the time, and to what degree they were genetically adapted. I think it was more a matter of adaptation than evolution. I am guessing, but I think most populations would be able to adapt to a low carbodrate diet within a few generations. The cultural and technological aspects of adjusting to a new land and climate were probably always more limiting to people than genetics, and intermixing was probably always just as important for sharing and acquiring local knowledge as for acquiring and maintaining local genetic diversity and adaptability. .

These questions are naive, as it is way out of my area, as most things are, but they popped into my head so here goes: 1. In the context of a 50 year half-life, are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with? 2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals? 3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly? 4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible? .

I am curious about how much food you need to survive in the woods? What sources of food might be most useful? How many calories you might actually get from different sources such as bugs, bark tea, grasses, flowers, etc.? Also, they say you cannot survive on lean meat like rabbits because they have no carbohydrates, except in the liver, and very little fat, like 5% maybe. Is this true? How long could you survive on a no carb diet? I understand that all of the cells in your body can metabolize fatty acids except your brain cells, but that your body can make glycogen from protien. My own feeling is that you have some fat and muscle on you to begin with and stay warm have enough water and move slowly and deliberately you can survive a long time on very little, like 100 calories a day just by chewing on this and that as you stay put or slowly trudge your way out of the woods. Also, where did most indigenous peoples get there carbohydrates? I think the Inuit might be the most extreme low-carb adaptation. But where did they get their carbohydrates from? Interesting read: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3h.shtml "My host was the seal-hunter whom we had first approached on the ice (...). [His wife] boiled some seal-meat for me, but she had not boiled any fat, for she did not know whether I preferred the blubber boiled or raw. They always cut it in small pieces and ate it raw themselves; but the pot still hung over the lamp, and anything she put into it would be cooked in a moment. When I told her that my tastes quite coincided with hers--as, in fact, they did--she was delighted. People were much alike, then, after all, though they came from a great distance. She would, accordingly, treat me exactly as if I were one of their own people come to visit them from afar... When we had entered the house the boiled pieces of seal-meat had already been taken out of the pot and lay steaming on a side-board. On being assured that my tastes in food were not likely to differ from theirs, my hostess picked out for me the lower joint of a seal's fore leg, squeezed it firmly between her hands to make sure nothing should later drip from it, and handed it to me, along with her own copper-bladed knife; the next most desirable piece was similarly squeezed and handed to her husband, and others in turn to the rest of the family.... Our meal was of two courses: the first, meat; the second, soup. The soup is made by pouring cold seal blood into the boiling broth immediately after the cooked meat has been taken out of the pot, and stirring briskly until the whole comes nearly (but never quite) to a boil. This makes a soup of thickness comparable to our English pea-soups, but if the pot be allowed to come to a boil, the blood will coagulate and settle to the bottom..." How much carbohydrates is contained in seal liver, seal blood? Are there any other organs than might contain any carbohydrates? How far north could you get berries and lichen? Did the Inuit traditionally store any carbohydrates for the long winter? What about pure carnivours like wolves? Do they eat any carbohydrates other than blood and liver? CATS: http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/04/060304-2.html "Cats utilize protein for energy, even in the face of large amounts of carbohydrates in the diet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit "The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists entirely of souls." - Traditional Inuit saying "We don't believe. We fear!" - Knud Rasmussen .

I think the main thing is to restore natural biomass and biodiversity levels and then cut back on the amount of shit we through at it every year. The more biomass and biodiversity the more robust the ecosystem, I think. I understand there in naturally less of both as you go further North. But I am not sure if it is less robust just because it is less complex. The solution to polution is dilution. Except I'm not sure we should mix so much human waste with so much fresh drinking water. What's up with that? Gotta be a better way. .

No I agree. I am sure there are enzymes and bacteria and some plankton that just love the stuff. It's just those pesky sea birds and otters and so forth that seem to have a rough go of it. .

That layer of dead cells and stuff that SkepticLance is refering to is really cool. It is very similar to lanolin that comes from sheep. His precautions about the vulnerabilities are a very good point also because our "thick skin" can lull us into a sense of invulnerability. I think the stuff on our skin or in our skin is called Stratum Corneum and some other names, and the outer layers of skin itself offers protection. I am not really sure where one ends and the other begins. Anyhow, it is made up of oils and fats and waxes and alcohols and acids and alkylines and salts and all sorts of stuff, and protects our hair, and skin, and even clothing like wool. Well I am sure some of the stuff is doing damage and some is doing protecting, but which is doing which is probably quite complex and a matter of perspective. I am not sure how all of our resident alien micro-organisms fit into the picture either but they are very much involved in the whole affair, both in the production and in the destruction of our skin and our grease and each other. Even if we wash every day with way too much soap and 'skin care' products we still hold up very well because of this protective layer. Comparison between the lipid groups of Lanolin and Strotum Corpeum http://www.merinousa.com/lanolin.htm LipidGroup StratumCornem Lanolin Triglycerides - yes - no FreeFattyAcids - yes - yes FreeAliphaticAlcohols - no - yes FreeSterols - yes - yes Ceramides - yes - no Alkanes - yes - yes Squalene - yes - no AliphaticAlcoholEsters - no - yes SterolEsters - yes - yes CholseterolSulphate - yes - no .

A better way to put it might be that on average all 6.5 Billion people in the world are dumping the equivalent of 1 litre of motor oil in the oceans every year. Of course North Americans would be responsible for about 25% of the total, or about 5 litres per person. .

Good question when you think of all the tonnage that went down in the Battle of the Atlantic. Still, when you think of how much fossil fuels are used today compared to the 1940s, even during the war, I would guess that some of the supertanker catastrophes of today might have caused comparible environmental damage then all of WWII, not counting the land battles. First Battle of the Attlantic 1914-1918 - 5,000 Allied merchant ships sunk - 178 U-boats sunk Second Battle of the Attlantic 1939-1945 - 5,150 Allied ships lost = 21,570,720 tons - 785 U-boats sunk - Many other British and German Naval Ships, Auxilliaries, Landing Craft Battle of the Pacific - Japanese lost 1178 Merchant Ships = 5,053,491 tons. - American Naval Losses were 214 ships = 577,626 tons. - Many other Japanese and Allied Naval Ships, Auxilliaries, Landing Craft This is not all the maritime losses in WWI and WWII, but perhaps most of it. Let's say 50 Million Tons as a good round number. Not sure how much would be: 1. People 2. Food, Textiles, Wooden Crates 3. Metals 4. Ammunitions 5. Petroleum Products By Comparison: 1967 - Cornwall, Eng: Torrey Canyon ======== 38 million gallons 1976 - Buzzards Bay, Mass.: Argo Merchant === 7.7 million gallons 1977 - North Sea: blowout Ekofisk oil field ===== 81 million gallons 1978 - Portsall, France: Amoco Cadiz ========= 68 million gallons 1979 - Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc = 140 million gallons 1979 - Tobago: Atlantic Empress, Aegean Captain = 46 million gallons 1980 - Barbados: Atlantic Empress will under tow == 41 million gallons 1983 - Persian Gulf, Iran: Nowruz Field platform ==== 80 million gallons 1983 - Cape Town, South Africa: Castillo de Bellver = 78 million gallons 1988 - Saint John's, Newfoundland: Odyssey ====== 43 million gallons 1989 - Prince William Sound, Alaska: Exxon Valdez == 10+ million gallons 1989 - Las Palmas, Canary Islands: Kharg-5 ======= 19 million gallons 1990 - Galveston, Tex.: Mega Borg ============== 5 million gallons 1991 - Southern Kuwait: Persian Gulf War ==== 240–460 million gallons 1991 - Genoa, Italy: Haven =================== 42 million gallons 1991 - Angola: ABT Summer ================ 15–78 million gallons 1992 - Fergana Valley, Uzbekistan =============== 88 million gallons 1993 - Tampa Bay, Fla.: three ships collided ======= 0.34 million gallons 1994 - Russia, Kolva River tributary: oil dam ======= 4-84 million gallons 1996 - Milford Haven, Wales: Sea Empress ========== 20 million gallons 1999 - Britanny, French Atlantic coast: Erika ======== 3 million gallons 2000 - Rio de Janeiro: ruptured pipeline ============= 0.34 million gallons 2000 - Mississippi River, New Orleans: Westchester ==== 0.57 million gallons 2002 - Spain: Prestige ========================= 20 million gallons This works out to as much as 1500 Million Gallons ~ 5 Million Tons So 50 Million Tons of General Tonnage during WWI and WWII vs 5 Million Tons of Oil from Major Oil Spills since 1967 BUT: http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html "Oil spills account for only about five percent of the oil entering the oceans. The Coast Guard estimates that for United States waters sewage treatment plants discharge twice as much oil each year as tanker spills." "The amount of petroleum products ending up in the ocean is estimated at 0.25% of world oil production: about 6 million tons per year." So at 6 million tons of oil now entering the oceans every year, it might be possible to argue that we are now causing more environmental damage to our oceans every year, than all of the years of WWI and WWII combined. As much as all the major oil spills since 1967, every year. To visualize 6 million tons of oil, any oil slick roughly 100 km x 100 km x 1 mm thick. This doesn't cause any real serious damage except when it goes aground in a thick slick, and even then only temporary, except that you also have to remember that we are doing this year in and year out, and probably will continue for at least another 100 years. Then again, maybe some enzymes and bacteria love the stuff. .

Good question. You would most likely end up with iron oxide powder. Maybe grind wrought iron in an oxygen free environment and then use a magnet to separate the iron from the other particles. A chemical rather than mechanical process would be interesting though. Perhaps some sort galvanic thing so you get a bunch of iron ions disolved in an acid, and then maybe drop the temperature quickly and have the iron precipitate without growing into large grains. Perhaps you could spray it the way they make instant coffee. Find out how engineers make powder for "powder metalurgy". .

I think it might be partly a matter of perception. We are judging how we thing these cold blooded animals think and feel based on how they appear and behave and our standards of human and mammal behaviour. Not sure about the birds. Are they really any easier to tame than a lizard? What is tame? What is play? What is play to a reptile, or a flower? How do we know a croc, or a crocus, is not in a playful mood? Good question though. Nicely worded. Lots of scope for investigation. .

Maybe we are already back in time !!! ( sorry I just woke up )

I am 43. A couple of years a go I got back into running an hour a day, twice on Sunday. I got down to 180 pounds again and felt great for an old fart. Anyway, it occured to me since I was spending the rest of the day on my ass that that the running I was doing was just enough to bring me up to a 'normal' lifestyle. Anyhow, couldn't keep it up. Walking is the thing. Everyone should walk to work. I wish I worked in the woods.

A Mi'kmaq Legend "In the land of Kluskap many years ago there lived two sisters who loved to watch the stars. One day when they were walking in the forest they became lost and in the evening they watched the stars as always. In two bright stars, one sister saw Eagle and the other sister saw Hawk. These birds carried them up into heaven. They were very lonesome, for they were away from their own people and they prayed to Kluskap to have them returned to their homes. He said, "If I do this, you must not look back once we start on our journey". But the younger sister could not resist looking back to see if her older sister were following. As she did, she was immediately turned to flame. You can see her today. Look for a shooting star, it is the younger sister still trying to come back to her people in the old land of Kluskap." .

All of creation is in the creators image, perhaps especially so our brother Sun. "We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures, especially for Brother Sun, who is the day through whom You give us light. And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor, of You Most High, he bears your likeness." Did we and all things not all evolve out of suns rays, and out of star dust? So too, the dinosaurs evolved and lived through them, and live through us. So we too are in the image of our Sun and the stars, and they, of Him. .

I am not sure what time is doing all this time. Does the universe ever actually end? Did it ever actually have a beginning? Or are these points just limits that are never actually realized, like absolute temperature, or a perfect vacuum, or the speed of light? I think you also have to define what humanity is. When did it first come into existence. Were the parents of the first humans not human. Were all of the offsprings of humans human? Will all of the offsprings of future humans be human? Are we still human? I believe the answers to these questions are subjective and arbitrary, and not absolute. Of course, so is everything else. "Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Chief Seattle .

Good to know. Thanks. I guess it does make sense that you can exceed the 'natural' numerical precision of any system through programming and so there will always be a need to come up with an algrithm to compute numbers such as pi to some arbitrary degree of precision. I can see it getting rather complicated, since you are still working within the 'natural' numerical precision of the system incuding any compilers you are using, and within other contraints such as memory and processing time and readability. The best algorithm would take these constraints into account also, but any algorithm is a good algorithm if you are confident that you can understand it and make it work, or even if it is just fun to think about.

I would have guessed that compilers that have it as a function have it stored as a constant. But perhaps the best constant to use is machine specific, so maybe there is still a little computing, at least at compile time. Or as Big Bobby Clobber said, "I don't understand the question."

I think carbon dioxide levels have only reached significant levels very recently, like the last 5 years, so if people really insist on waiting for empirical evidence of global warming they may have to wait, but I think they shouldn't have to wait too much longer. As for evidence of deforestation and charcoal burning and fossil fuel burning causing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase, I am not sure you need much further evidence of that, though more is always good, and it is important to determine how long an extra ton will stay up there, regardless of the source. Life is inherently complex and non-linear however. No two years will ever be the same. The past will never predict the future with certaintly. Some things you will always have to leave to good taste and common sense. The fact that there is a good chance that 1 billion people will die this century of war, famine, and disease should mean something. It's not enough to say we didn't cause it if we can help prevent it. We need to be responsible, and part of that means being very clear about what is scientific discourse and what is political rhetoric. We need to make our intentions and motives clear, and whether we are engaged in one, or the other.

Evolution is subjective. You could argue that evolution is just imperfect replication. You have no choice but to arbitrarily discriminate between biological life, and life in general. So your real question, perhaps, is what is biology? Does it extend to life other than hydrocarbon based life forms. Can it include silicon based life forms. What about information based life forms. How is life confined to a comuter network different than life confined to a petre dish? Unless you include all of creation in your definition of life, you are being arbitrary, not that there is anything wrong with that as long as nobody get's hurt. But you are, after all, not just a monkey's uncle. You are also a rock's uncle.

You can mitigate such losses as follows: 1. Surround your experiment with water, either completely, or as much as possible. Water has a high specific heat and good thermal conductivity and convection so it will capture most of the heat and achieve constant temperature with everything inside. Everything inside, usually your bomb, needs to be of simple materials so as to be of known mass and specific heat also. 2. You can insulate you water tank also, and begin with it at steady state with the room temperature, or even somewhat below so you can graph its temperature rise before you ignite the bomb and use this to account for heat loss to the room once it rise above room temperature. Because of its heat capacity it will not rise that much above room temperature anyway, but you should still be able to quantify heat loss to the environment and reduce your margin of error. Everything else inside the bomb is chemistry. Hope this helps.

Bomb Calorimeter would the best way to go. I mean, how often do you get an opportunity to build a bomb in school these days and get credit for it? 1. Styrofoam cooler. 2. Water initially in balance with room temp/humidity. 3. Thermometer 4. Bomb - small pressure vessel with a removable top, and a valve for pressurizing with air or oxygen, and a fuse wire lead. 5. Small crucible filled with sample of crushed, dried nut. 6. Air or Oxygen Tank 7. Fuse wire 8. Titration kit for NOx Things you need to know: 1. Mass and Specific Heat of Water 2. Mass and Specific Heat of Bomb 3. Mass and Specific Heat of Crucible 4. Mass and Heat of Combustion of Fuse Wire 5. Heat of Combustion of Nitrogen 6. Method for determining Mass of Nitrogen Burned 7. Mass of Nut If you graph the temperature rise after you ignite your bomb you might be able to account for loss through the styrofoam cooler also. Anyhow, what you should be left with in your energy balance is the Heat of Combustion of the Nut. It might not be the same as the calories your body would get if you ate one, but I don't think that was the question.

I understand just a few hits will cause permament brain damage. I am going to wait until my 99th Birthday, then do some neat experiments. I'm thinking LSD while having sex with 3 virgins on the Great Wall of China. I might do the Great Wall before then.