Phi for All

It may seem like an obsessive perspective, but in this case it would seem to be the wisest course. Focus on shoring up regulations to reduce corruption, or any other "biggest problem", and you move towards an economy that favors more people evenly. It doesn't have to be a utopia, it just has to be a lot better. America's smallest problem is where to hang all our Corporate Integrity awards. I don't see how fixing that problem helps more than regulating banking and pollution.

A statement that sounds so innocuous and reasonable, until you realize it has kept you from understanding things taught by mainstream science, which is simply the methodology that produces the best current explanations for various phenomena we have. You're tossing the textbooks for your own "point of understanding", when it's clear you've cobbled it together with tenuous strands of misinformation and popsci shallow reasoning. The blueprints are there, you should study them instead of trying to re-write them in crayon.

This is definitely one of those situations where doing something about your problem is good, but you can easily go overboard and get obsessive about it. If you don't get severe reactions like headaches, and you're mostly worried about your looks, I'd say the suggestions offered so far will reduce your exposure by a significant amount. Doing more is going to cost a lot more, with a diminishing rate of return. IOW, the benefits won't be worth the obsessive effort.

George Harrison claims you did exactly that to him. But he got better.

The difference is simple. Any LED lamp that's meant to go in an old-style fixture (with a screw-in Edison base, or fluorescent tube pins) is not going to be as efficient since it's trying to look like the old bulbs, and wasting a lot of resources to do it. A fully-integrated LED fixture is one where the design is fully solid-state based, and uses diodes angled only where the light needs to go (unlike a fluorescent tube that throws light 360 degrees and has to direct half of that back downwards). Parking lot lights are a good example. There are pole fixtures that emulate the old sodium vapor bulbs and other high-intensity discharge lamps, and use Edison-based LED bulbs as replacements. Or there's the fully integrated, thin and sleek looking LED pole fixtures, the ones you see that put out more light with a fraction of the size and profile. There are LED downlights that replace a ceiling "can" fixture (recessed round hole with a bulb in it) with a fully integrated lamp that has no bulb, and only shines light straight down where it's needed, instead of lighting up the "can" like a bulb does. The fully-integrated fixtures use better, more efficient optics to put light where you need it instead of throwing it everywhere and then redirecting it with reflectors.

There is a certain percentage of the population that have problems with UV light. It ranges from an itchy feeling on the skin to migraine headaches to photokeratitis (aka snow blindness). However, UV light is also associated with the production of vitamin D in our bodies, so blocking 100% might be contraindicated.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but it's in our rules that we don't let people advertise here. That includes your YouTube channel. We're a science discussion forum, and you're more than welcome to join in. You can even put a link to your channel in your signature, but please don't start threads to promote it. Thanks for understanding.

This was the literary drug of choice for authors of spy novels in the 80s and 90s. Robert Ludlum used a lot on his spies, getting them to spill their secrets. Literary license strikes again!

! Moderator Note This is a non-mainstream speculation, and has been removed from the topic in which it was posted. Please don't hijack someone else's thread with your own pet ideas. Please take the time to review the special rules for this section. Please provide evidence for your claims. No need to reply to this modnote, unless you want to Report it as unfair.

! Moderator Note Posts hijacking this topic with a non-mainstream declaration that DeBroglie's formula is not correct have been split off to here.

Christmas lights might not be engineered for low/no UV, since that's not their main purpose. I would go with some standard LED bulbs or fixtures where low/no UV is one of the primary concerns. Bulbs are going to fit in the old Edison-base fixtures. If you can, I recommend taking advantage of a fully-integrated LED fixture, one that isn't trying to emulate an incandescent or fluorescent lamp. These are going to give you the best optics for the energy, and while they might be a bit more expensive, they make up for it in longevity and low-maintenance. Maybe floor lamps, so you can move them around easier, without making them a part of the apartment? Color temperature might be a concern for you, since you're sort of spelunking in this space. Warmer temps (2700K-3500K) are cozier and help you wind down after a day spent out in the world. Cooler color temps (4000-6500K) are bluer and give you more of an outdoor "sunny" effect, which doesn't really encourage relaxation, but it's great for focus.

If I was already the lead suspect in a police investigation, I might be more likely to allow a lie detector test, if my attorney can vet the questions and methodology, and it was the only thing that might help me. But in the case of judges being interviewed for the SC, they aren't suspected of crimes. And in my case (and hopefully many others), I happen to know I'm innocent, so if I'm not already a suspect, I don't want to increase the odds of me being one by offering to take a test that might falsely label me a liar. That's a judgment that weighs heavily with any jury, and it's damning because everyone assumes you lied to cover up your guilt. It doesn't matter why or even if you lied at that point. I thought Clarence Thomas was a poor choice for Associate Justice.

! Moderator Note Protip: Follow up a statement like this with what you're really trying to say (perhaps using standard definitions, maybe break down the details). It saves lots of posts asking you what you're really trying to say. Just sayin'. No need to respond to this note. You know what you have to do.

You're using one example of an instance where guilt is revealed due to refusal. If I refused, it wouldn't be because I was guilty. Others have given reasons why they would refuse that didn't include guilt. We're being realistic by taking the system into consideration. Simply threatening a lie detector test and badgering suspects doesn't work in the majority of cases. There are far too many variables with this technology, and when you take the other agendas involved (cops who want the collar, prosecutors looking for wins), you probably aren't going to see anyone who really cares about justice until the trial. The technology clearly offers false results even for store clerks. How much more problematic would it be for a judge that works in nuanced details and life/death decisions? Especially one being considered for the SCOTUS?

I'd just use some kind of blackout curtain like hotels use, along with your normal curtains. Then use LED bulbs and fixtures that advertise little to no UV. You don't have to go too crazy with this to protect your skin. This is probably cheapest. It will also have the advantage of protecting any colors in cloth from fading due to UV light. You might want to check to see how much it would cost to use a transparent UV film on your windows. They make them so they don't even have a tint if you don't want it. This way you get light and sun without the harmful part of the spectrum. You can also get daylight harvesting controls for your LED lighting so they dim when the sun is out, and come up to full as clouds or dusk change the ambient light.

I'm probably one of the most law-abiding people I know, and I would never agree to taking a lie detector test, unless I could read the questions first, and probably not even then. I had an experience similar to the one I described earlier, and lost a job unfairly. I never stole money or products from the company, but the lie detector test said I was lying about that. It lied. Further, knowing the laws in my state in the US, I won't talk to the police without a lawyer, even if I'm completely innocent of wrongdoing. There is nothing about testimony you give to the police that can ever help you. It can only be used against you, so why would I volunteer information that might make me look like a viable suspect?

Do we know yet exactly what this room is for? Why the need for blocking UV light, since it's not for a darkroom?

That's the beauty of solid-state. You can make LEDs that have custom properties for the purpose they fulfill. I saw an LED array in IR for a CCTV camera, 48 LEDs arranged in a circle around the lens, for $3. Most bulbs and fixtures for the home and office aren't going to emit much UV, that's one of their selling points.

Incandescent bulbs do emit some UV, but not as much as compact fluorescent bulbs. Stay away from those if you can. LEDs are probably your best bet, although long tube fluorescents are coated well enough usually to reduce UV to a minimum. I'd still go LED, since your options are broader. If you use an LED fixture that isn't trying to emulate an Edison-base bulb, you'll probably get a more efficient light with almost no UV at all.

What was the effect of having a bigger-than-normal amygdala? Were there any other manifestations in your daily life, besides the agoraphobia and the bi-polar disorder?

It was already forced to leave it's last home, and now it's working retail clothing part-time. God of the Gap, as it were.

Then accept the default position, which is that, until we see evidence in support of god(s), we assume they don't exist (like unicorns, and Santa). And we're always ready to change our minds when that evidence becomes available. You can't get more objective than that. So far, we've been able to explain everything we know about without needing anything supernatural.

You're wrong about this, and I hope you're sorry as well. I've always found smart people can usually accept being corrected when it's appropriate, and valid, and obviously improves on their own information. I don't know how smart I am, but I've grown capable of acknowledging when someone can improve my own knowledge. Unless you're talking about people who only think they're smart. Folks like that can't ever be wrong.

All prisons have huge underground military bases underneath them, to deal with alien threats. That's why they don't like it when prisoners dig tunnels.

Because the mechanism we understand is actually easier to support than "divine commanding forces". Can you explain gravity to the degree science does, with the preponderance of supportive evidence, using only divine forces? You can't, not without waving either your hands or a magic wand. You can breed fruit flies and set up evolution experiments since they have such short generations, so it's very easy to see evolution with your own eyes. Or you can look at your dog or cat, and see how they've evolved from their own ancestors. Also, if you "believe" in the ToE and physics, why are you arguing against them "for the sake of the argument"? IOW, why put forth these easily refutable arguments if you already accept (much better concept than "believe") them as our best current explanations?