Dear god, why not leave your naked prejudice inside before it leaves your hands? I promise I might take you a little more seriously if you can stop hating people just because of their lifestyle.
If Americans were still fat, but used all electric cars instead of public transportation, would you still hate them so much? Oh wait, I shouldn't ask, you'll probably just find another reason to hate them.
To be pedantic, actually nuclear radiation comes in three types: gamma, alpha, and beta radiation. Only gamma radiation is EM, the others are particle decays.
Particles are waves, and waves are particles.
I could represent your body and soul with a wave, but my noise floor is too high and my frequency resolution too coarse.
..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.
In short, this isn't news, it was expected when you consider how much of the world is still developing quickly.
Chance of measurable exposure to loose radioactive isotopes in the environment after 2 major nuclear accidents in the world: >0.000001%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry from high-school-education-level TSA employees using an X-ray source to see your body before you get on a plane: 100%
...In context with Fukushima and a non-polluting energy source: RADIATION BAD!
...In context with police state enabling technology: RADIATION GOOD!
Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America.
Nearly a hundred people die from automobile accidents in America every day. Do you want to ban the privately owned sportscar because they're built to be driven dangerously?
Freedom is never the problem, but the individual responsibility applied to protecting the freedom of all is. The person who violently murders innocents is sick. Those people don't appear in a vacuum, they manifest over time and interaction with others in our society. When you tease someone you consider a loser instead of getting to know them, you're contributing to the problem. When you bully those you consider beneath you, you're contributing to the problem. When you ignore people who are clearly suffering from a mental problem, you're contributing to the problem. When you entirely neglect and ignore your fellow free man your fellow citizen who may be hurting, you are expecting your freedom to be free. That is a fatal mistake.
Armed communities are often polite communities, but polite communities reduce the need for arms.
"oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
By the problem of induction, nothing in science in certain. Should we teach nothing? We should teach proper, accepted science (facts that have scientific consesus)--evolution is such a fact.
In any case, they aren't forcing science down people's throats, it is for public education.
False dichotomy. I never suggested science not be taught. I simply said that politicians should not be deciding which science will and will not be taught.
This is a horrible precedent. Evolution is likely the correct explanation for life on earth, but what happens when science is wrong? (it often is, that's how we learn) Do we then just say "oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
Find me one piece of credible, scientific evidence for creationism. Go ahead, I'll wait.
I wasn't making an argument for creationism. Re-read my post to see how you misread it.
Politicians should not be involving themselves in science, lest they quickly become little better than a monarchy.
They're not dictating the outcomes of scientific endeavors, they're saying that since there is no credible scientific evidence for creationism -- you can't teach it alongside science as an equally valid view, because there is precisely zero science involved in it.
You've failed to see my point again. I think you got stuck on thinking I hate evolution and just kept writing without thinking.
Ask yourself what happens when a scientific avenue of investigation comes to incorrect conclusions, but oops, legislators have already decreed that it be taught.
Let's suppose that string theory had been legislated to be taught in all physics departments as if it were the ultimate explanation for the universe and its existence. Just suppose that. Now what happens in 2-3 years when we find that only a small tweak to the standard model makes string theory a beautiful but unnecessary mathematical construct for explaining the universe? Do we just say, "Oops, oh well, now we need to change the law that congress passed."
That's RIDICULOUS. Science and Politics NEED TO BE SEPARATE.
The whole point of teaching science is to hope that people will find that things are wrong with it and improve on it. But without a solid understanding on the scientific method, what we observe now, how we interpret that evidence and why the current body of knowledge is accepted, people cannot possibly understand WHY the science is wrong (when it's wrong) and how to fix it.
No, wrong. The whole point of teaching science is teaching kids the proper way to think and approach problems. The appropriate way to think does not include clinging to one particular viewpoint because it's fashionable, whatever that viewpoint may be.
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. A government that controls what you learn is perfectly capable of controlling how you think. If you don't believe me, explain North Korea.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
There's no place for belief in any scientific endeavor, nor is it appropriate to simply tell kids to "accept this, it is fact." You either have evidence that supports an idea, or you don't. Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us. No teacher that tells kids "this is fact, accept it" is worth listening to.
Yes, it means you have politicians doing things they shouldn't be.
This is a horrible precedent. Evolution is likely the correct explanation for life on earth, but what happens when science is wrong? (it often is, that's how we learn) Do we then just say "oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
Politicians should not be involving themselves in science, lest they quickly become little better than a monarchy.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
