Laughing Gas Is Major Threat To Ozone Layer 306
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that according to new research, nitrous oxide, the colorless, sweet-smelling gas with a long history as a medical and dental anesthetic is the next big threat to Earth's protective ozone layer. Its role in destroying ozone has long been recognized, as well as its role as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas but the new study puts nitrous oxide's ability to deplete ozone into numbers comparable to those used for other ozone-depleting gases covered by the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The researchers note that the health of the ozone layer has been improving since the adoption of the protocol and that nitrous oxide looms large today as an artificial destroyer of the ozone layer, in part because the emissions of other harmful chemicals have been so sharply reduced." (Continues.)
"Globally, Earth's ozone layer has thinned by 5 to 6 percent since 1980, before CFCs and their ilk came into wide use, according to Akkihebbal Ravishankara, who led the study. He and his colleagues note that 6 percent may appear to be a small number, but it still can lead to significant effects on organisms at Earth's surface. The researchers did not make any policy recommendations in light of their finding. 'It is not for us to gauge how much risk there is,' says Ravishankara. In any event, Ravishankara says, at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'"
April Fools (Score:2, Funny)
Did April 1st come early this year?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it seems to have come twice in the same year.
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone depletion... (Score:5, Funny)
Turns out it *is* a laughing matter.
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:4, Funny)
(pointing at the sky) (Score:4, Funny)
Ha-Ha!
Re: (Score:2)
Only Americans use it nowadays, it has not been used nowhere in Europe for ages to my knowledge.
What about the rest of the planet?
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:5, Interesting)
European here,
I've had a couple of minor procedures requiring anaesthesia for the past 8 years, last one this spring.
I have resistive trypanophobia, a fancy term for a fairly extreme phobia towards needles and restraint (if I know there's a needle heading my way to inject me with something my heart starts racing and my body goes into "fight or flight" mode), which happens to be rather inconvenient when you're about to get a needle stuck in your hand to administer anaesthesia.
So in order to prevent me from entering this basic survival mode my anaesthesiologists have given me a nice and healthy dose of laughing gas which leaves me without a care in the world.
The fact that it seemed fairly routine for the anaesthesiologist to give me laughing gas seemed to indicate that they do use it fairly often for situations like my own.
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:4, Funny)
I have never used nor been on any type of "mind altering" drug in my life (yes, that includes alcohol, recreational drugs, etc) with the exception of once when a dentist used N2O on me to extract four teeth in preparation for braces..
What a *horrible* experience. I fell into a type of paranoid dilution and was absolutely sure they were trying to kill me. I remember it vividly, even though it was 25 years ago. It did do its main job, however... what little pain there was, was kind of "removed" and happening to someone else, in my mind.
Anyway, based on that experience, I fail to understand why ANYONE would call it "laughing gas". To me, "hell gas" or "paranoid gas" would be a better likening. Seems that my experience, while not common, is not all that unusual, either. One thing is for sure, I will never let them use that stuff on me again. I would much rather have the risks carried with being knocked out completely (and that is what was later done when I had my wisdom teeth extracted).
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:4, Insightful)
No mind-altering drugs? Ever? Really?
You've never drunk coffee? You've never taken a prescription or OTC sleep aid? Never taken an antihistamine allergy medication?
What are you, amish?
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no, I have never dunk coffee. Medications, yes. But those are hardly what most people would think of as "mind altering drugs".
No, not Amish, I just have no interest in distorting reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I had my wisdom teeth out years back....was one of the best afternoons of my life, I got full blown gas going....he threw on the headphones and I jammed out to Dark Side Of the Moon, some Zeppelin and Klaatu....good 'spacey' music. It was great....at least, until I got
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many medications ARE mind altering, especially allergy drugs. Benadryl puts me out like a light, and leaves me groggy when I wake up. Beats the hell out of a bad sinus headache!
Re: (Score:2)
>I've definitely never heard of anyone being knocked out for something as simple as wisdom teeth extraction before you.
Well, it was certainly not simple. They (all 4) had not emerged and had to be broken and cut out... it was pretty extensive. Afterwards was miserable. I have heard of people being gassed, knocked out, or just local injections. Seems to depend on the dentist and the exact procedure needed, and the patient.
Interestingly, that was (and still is) the only time I had ever been chemically
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break. Spelling has never been my strong point... so I clicked on the wrong word in the spell checker, big whoop.
Seems to me that your posting as an "Anonymous Coward" certainly boots YOUR credibility to new heights.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the short response.
Re: (Score:2)
Only Americans use it nowadays, it has not been used nowhere in Europe for ages to my knowledge. What about the rest of the planet?
We do? I have been under a general anesthetic several times since the mid-sixties, and have never been given nitrous oxide. Not once, and I don't know anyone that has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nitrous in cars is used in Europe all over the place. Your ricer kids use it as much as our Ricer Wannabe kids use it. In fact it seems you guys are starting to pass up our Ricer posers in the use of it. Nitrous is a useful thing, but Honestly most use is some nimrod adding a 50 shot to his 86HP Hundai with stick on vents and hood scoops, then cranks it up to a 100 shot, then a 150 shot and then wonders why he blew his motor up. Real tuners use nitrous in addition to their mods like turbo or Superchargin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next time you are at your supermarket, pick up an aerosol can of whipped cream. Check the label: the propellant is probably Nitrous Oxide.
And the biggest source of Nox is automotive exhausts, or anywhere where oxygen-depleted air gets very hot.
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I've read the summary correctly (RTFA? What?), laughing gas isn't becoming an increasing problem, it's just becoming an increasing proportion of the problem because we're reducing the use of other harmful gases. In fact, the situation is actually improving. We've drastically reduced our use of CFCs in recent years, so the 5-6% thinning of the ozone layer is actually being reversed.
Therefore the suggestion that this is actually a problem is laughable.
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:4, Informative)
I mean really, there was never any real doubt about the impact on the ozone layer by CFC's, and the scientists are saying that some of the damage to that layer is repairing itself. You can doubt what the end result of a damaged ozone layer would be, but the fact that ozone levels began to rapidly deplete isn't in doubt. Neither is the fact that the ozone layer insulates the surface of the planet from UV-B radiation.
Sorry, but the scientists weren't making it up, and the fact that you are so filled with ass-hat ignorance as to be certain of some bullshit conspiracy among scientists should help to convince anyone on the fence about global warning that people like you are just idiots without a freaking clue.
Re:Ozone depletion... (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't directly say the CFC issue was bogus. He did highlighted a major problem with science in the US. The only way to get grant funding is scare tactics, or to blindly support a political agenda that's willing to pay to have their pet theories proven.
Besides, there is still some lingering doubt about the effect of CFCs. There's actually a stronger correlation between the ozone densities in the lower stratosphere and things such as solar outputs. Some contradictions that have not been explained are the ozone "hole" (not really a hole) getting smaller before the atmospheric CFC levels declined. The upper stratosphere is generally unaffected even though most current CFC theories say it should be. The initial baseline we keep comparing too was probably the high point of a cyclic process. We see the size of the hole cycling up and down through the year, its reasonable to assume it also has a long cycle.
The next scare tactic out there is carbon emissions. That's certainly a politically charged arena. Just ask Al Gore who's getting rich off it. The global temperature change tracks quite nicely with solar output levels, which happen to be cyclic. The politicians and scientists are making the tragic assuming that the earths temperature is supposed to be constant, and ignoring that it probably cycles up and down over a hundred year cycle. Are we affecting it? Possibly, but we are certainly not the dominant or controlling factor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but the scientists weren't making it up, and the fact that you are so filled with ass-hat ignorance as to be certain of some bullshit conspiracy among scientists should help to convince anyone on the fence about global warning that people like you are just idiots without a freaking clue.
The case for global warming really is not open and shut the way you present it -- there are mountains of conflicting data that one could draw any number of conclusions from. Yes, the Earth is warming for the time being. Nobody really knows if humans are causing this change, or if the upward trend is going to continue. The Earth's climate is always in flux and is far too complex of a situation for us to accurately model.
That being said, I think the probability that human carbon emissions are causing glob
only one solution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:only one solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On a German autobahn?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's perfectly safe: German made cars are immune to the laughter-inducing effects of nitrous oxide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't need a very active imagination to imagine how "is" got conjugated to "was" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that gets tied to the old joke.....
My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep. Much unlike the passengers in his car who were screaming the whole time. :)
But if grandpa needs NOS to do 120, he needed a better car. It must be a bit late to review his other options. I was watching crash test videos of the "G-Whiz" electric car. I don't think there's a better suicide machine on the road. Even a 40mph front end impact is sure to be fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pickups (Score:2)
Research dilemma (Score:3, Informative)
...at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'
That would probably be because it isn't regulated. It's actually legal to own despite its recreational properties. As an oxidizer it has many industrial uses. And like all oxidizers, yes, when it gets into the upper atmosphere Bad Things Happen(tm). We may need better methods of containing it (it is a gas at room temperature, of course) when used in an industrial setting, but that's about the extent of what we can do to contain the problem -- it's a very basic chemical with a wide range of applications, many of which aren't amiable to being changed to using another agent.
Re: (Score:2)
...at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'
That would probably be because it isn't regulated.
It's regulated. It's not scheduled or listed.
Regulated in the power industry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not.
nitrous is N20 not NOx.
Did we fail chemistry?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually legal to own despite its recreational properties.
Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but this statement just sums up everything I hate about the 'war on drugs'. Despite its recreational properties? Despite?!
</rant>
I blame Starbucks. (Score:2)
After all, where else does a sudden uptick in nitrous oxide emissions come from?
The ricers and rocketry enthusiasts burn it up in their engines. The hippies and dental patients metabolize it. So where else would more nitrous in the environment be coming from except from the relatively recent proliferation of gourmet coffee shops?
Re: (Score:2)
The sad, empty lives of liberals (Score:5, Funny)
Even laughing gas is no fun.
Oblig (Score:2, Funny)
Why so serious?
Oh no (Score:2, Funny)
I'm really sorry for all those whip-its I did in college.
Re:Oh noes (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Planet Earth:
I'm really sorry for all those whippets [wikipedia.org] I did in college.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, those were for scientific purposes. You were observing the expansion of gasses into a flexible container. You observed when a compressed gas is released rapidly, it causes dramatic cooling of the container. You observed the freezing effects will burn your skin. You also observed the anesthetic effects of inhalation of a readily available product when applied in off-label uses.
If you should apologize for anything, it would be for using your parents money to pay for your
Mislead much? (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody's talking about laughing gas, the anesthetic and geek enhancer. They're talking about artificial and natural shit -- let the new round of hilarity begin.
Re: (Score:2)
So, tell me the difference between N2O, the Laughing Gas, and N2O, the nitrous oxide created for instance in internal combustion engines by while burning gas with air at high temperatures.
They are actually exactly the same stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure what Perp is refering to... but
N2O, aka laughing gas, is used as an oxidizer on some racing engines (curiously, AFAIK, mostly allowed only by amateur level drag). When it enters a hot combustion chamber, the N separates from the O and the O is then available to support the burning of more fuel. N2O is typically injected as a high pressure liquid - almost immediately turning to gas when it his warm engine parts. This is Nitrous Oxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide [wikipedia.org]
NOx is a smog for
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrous Oxide is N2O
Nitrogen Oxide is NOx
Not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They put enough sulfur-oxides in the racing stuff that people will not huff it, only difference.
There goes the whip its! (Score:2)
Not a problem. No action required. (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA says that the ozone layer is improving anyway. So it appears that NO, while bad for the ozone layer, is not present in sufficient quantities to actually be causing a problem. No action should be required.
Or in different terms, it may be the most significant cause of damage to the ozone layer, but it is not a cause of significant damage to the ozone layer.
Re: (Score:2)
New Tag: ONOZWEREALLGONNADIE (Score:2)
At this point, we need to start tagging stories with such doom and gloom scenarios as "ONOZWEREALLGONNADIE," (Ticker symbol: ONOZ) or perhaps in this case, "OZONEWEREALLGONNADIE."
I'm beginning to wonder if armageddon science isn't becoming more appealing because it gets the big grants, and we are looking more frequently at doomsday scenarios as a function of marketing.
This is not to belittle the work. This may well be the big one. CFCs were certainly a problem, but I'm just about worn out by all the dire wa
It's the worst case scenerio! (Score:2)
It's worse than I had ever thought possible!
Time to call Batman AND Captain Planet!
Number one emitter of CFC 114 in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the Montreal Act, CFC114, which is also a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02, is leaking from Paducah Uranium Enrichment facilities into the atmosphere through hundreds of kilometres of cooling pipes. The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms (8 Megatons) of CFC114 *since* they were banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah.
One thing that is not immediately obvious from the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer is the eventual effect on Phytoplankton [wikipedia.org] which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon. The assertion is examined in these links production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more [ecology.com]
and Field studies indicate a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation [ciesin.org]
and Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment [columbia.edu]. Sure it's 10 years old, but that's an extra 10 million pounds of CFC114 resultant from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.
Going after nitrous oxide emissions is the proverbial trying to plug a hole in a dam with your fingers while it is bursting elsewhere. CFC 114 is still used for enrichment today, and the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's in the United States. We can expect up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere per year whilst enrichment continues.
Re:Number one emitter of CFC 114 in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began.
You say that like it's somehow significant, yet give no indication whatsoever that it is in any way significant. Your entire post consists of "OMG LOOK REALLY BIG NUMBERS!!!!"
Is there any reason to believe that a mere 0.5 Mg of this stuff is in any way bad for the atmosphere, which is after all 5e15 Mg?
Big numbers aren't scary. Stupid people are. You kinda scare me.
Please come back when you have an actual argument. In the meantime, please note the fact that the ozone layer is thickening just now, so the eventually damage this stuff might do is less than whatever damage was done by the original problem with CFC's, which is no surprise given North American emissions are down to a few percent of their peak values.
Oh, and I'd also recommend putting things in grams rather than kg, as that will make the numbers BIGGER, and apparently you think that is important for some reason.
Re:Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
I am quite sure that the use in the medical and racing field are of no threat to the ozone layer. Those are intentionally created sources. The major threat is from general pollution that creates N2O. It is interesting to note, also, that according to Wikipedia, 70% of N2O is created naturally in soil and in/from the ocean.
Re:Haha (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the political response will be to pass a bill that places it on a restricted-chemicals list. Industry has a blanket exemption, but no personal/recreational use allowed...
and natural CO2 production is 20x mans (Score:3, Funny)
but it damn well won't stop the "consensus" train.
The only good thing about N2O is that its not something you can tax the population over, at least directly. Can't wait to see who the N2O bogeymen are going to be.
Re:and natural CO2 production is 20x mans (Score:4, Funny)
Natural absorption is also 20x man's production
Re:and natural CO2 production is 20x mans (Score:5, Interesting)
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article [dumbscientist.com] showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. There seem to be an endless number of internet ninjas promoting claims like this, despite the fact that CO2 hasn't risen above 300ppm in the last 650,000 years. But then we come along and the concentration skyrockets [www.ipcc.ch] to 380ppm in a matter of decades, which is 35x faster [wordpress.com] than any increase in the last 650,000 years.
As other posters have remarked, natural CO2 production and absorption aren't relevant to the current CO2 problem because they balance each other. Our emissions and volcanoes are the only sources of CO2 that aren't balanced, and humans emit 100x more CO2 [newscientist.com] than volcanoes.
Re:and natural CO2 production is 20x mans (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Single-celled life may be ~3 billion years old, but multi-cellular life is ~600 million years old.
We're still searching, but the current level is higher than at any point in at least the past 2 million years [sciencedaily.com]. Furthermore, as I mention in the article, the Sun was dimmer in the distant past, and the biosphere was totally different so the sources/sinks of CO2 weren't the same as today. Also, the positions of the con
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait to see who the N2O bogeymen are going to be.
Rocketry hobbyists, perhaps?
Some of us use N2O as an oxidizer in hybrid rocket motors, and I suspect that the government is looking for revenge after we sued the ATF and won earlier this year, then hauled them back into court to sue for our legal fees back! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CARB and EPA both regulate NOx so that cars only emit a few thousandths of a gram per mile. Their main concern is not the ozone layer, but the effects of ground-level pollutants on human lungs.
Re:NOx is not N2O (Score:4, Informative)
NOx == nitric oxide - this stuff, when hit with sunlight, causes smog - or low level ozone.
N2O == Nitrous oxide - the stuff we are talking about
Re: (Score:2)
--that according to Wikipedia, 70% of N2O is created naturally in soil and in/from the ocean.--
Damn that's a funny story.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, what other gasses do we have to do the same job(s)?
We can always replace gaseous anesthetics with injectable ones, like propofol. Heard of that one?
Re:Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how much medical usage really can effect the ozone layer, because it is contained by the anesthesia machine and metabolized by the body, meaning it isnt released into the atmosphere. I don't know a lot about its other uses though. I'm just familiar with it in the operating room.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So like 99% of the nitrous you breath in, you end up breathing back out
You waste your $5 that way. Take small breaths, mix it with some air so you can hold it it in longer. SIT DOWN before you fall down. Wrap the balloon end around your finger so you don't slip and lose any. Don't breathe out until you have to.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, nitrous is almost totally consumed when used in racing
On a real track by professionals? yes. you are correct.
In the street with rich kiddie wannabes with neon all over and bright yellow headlights and a Skyhook wing? Nope. They spray 1/2 of it into the air as it looks cool.
I see those idiots spraying their Purge lines all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how much medical usage really can effect the ozone layer, because it is contained by the anesthesia machine and metabolized by the body, meaning it isnt released into the atmosphere
Nope, it appears it's barely metabolized [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haha (Score:5, Interesting)
propofol is already one of the most widely used anesthetics (if i remember correctly, its actually a hyponotic, but thats beside the point). Using a mixture of gases and injection reduces the dosage required for any individual drug drastically, meaning less of a reaction to any given drug. It spreads it around so to speak.
Not why. In surgery, some drugs are "background" drugs to keep you always anesthesized. Some are stronger and shorter-acting, and are meant to keep you actually half-dead, requiring closer monitoring. But the background drugs ensure that you're still on something when they back off of the serious ones.
Nitrous and Propofol are in the 'background' drug category. Longer acting and less strong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually both nitrous and Propofol are valued because they are fast acting and clear very quickly once stopped. Nitrous is generally used pre-mixed 50:50 with oxygen making it quite safe for use in a dentists or doctor's office. Propofol requires much closer monitoring and has higher potential for adverse reactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how your measuring 50:50 but most Dentists typically administer at 5L/Min O2 and 2L/Min N2O. occasionally kick it up to 4L/minO2:3L/minN2O for induction then back down to 5:2 for maintenance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Commonly the N2O cylinder itself contains a 50/50 mixture so that even if no additional O2 is mixed in (clogged valve, cylinder goes empty, etc) the patient will be safe. That allows an inexpensive minimalist setup to be perfectly safe.
A similar thing is often done with Helium for balloons so kids won't asphyxiate while changing their voices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of which are more difficult to use, have more serious potential side effects, and are more dangerous so require much more involved monitoring. Fine for an OR (where deeper anesthesia is necessary anyway), but not at all acceptable for a dentist's office.
And actually, those are liquids at STP.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article [dumbscientist.com] showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Cl
Re: (Score:2)
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot without cashing in, so I made a blog full of ads and posted there. Now I can repeat myself multiple times in the same article, but at least I'll be shamelessly self promoting at the same time.
Fixed that for you.
Oh, and that version of the Vostok ice core graph you included is horrendously misleading. If you don't overlay the two graphs on top of each other you can easily be fooled into thinking the data suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 lead to higher temperatures. When you do overlay the charts [wunderground.com], it becomes clear that the increase in temperature slightly preceded the increase in CO2 in each cycle, including this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok genious, explain why the present Swedish government has implemented a cap and trade system for CO2 and SIMULTANEOUSLY lowered the overall tax burden, precisely as they promised during the election.
Yup, you got that right, a party that went to election with the promise to lower taxes has
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Effectively your argument boils down to "Sweden has a lower population thus it is not as expensive to power it". Problem is that we also have correspondingly less GDP to spend on power egneration.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this bit though:
"We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it..."
Sweden gets 50% of electricity, and a quarter of our energy, from fission which largely explains our much lower CO2 emi
Re: (Score:2)
I can guess who you'd vote for out of Bush (an idiot) and Obama (not an idiot).
Your presuming something that hasn't been clearly demonstrated yet. Lets wait and see when he actually does something that we wouldn't expect from Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not named after a superstition or a religion, it's named after a Church in Boston which started the publication in 1908 after a failed attempt to take the founder's estate and money by relatives in Boston and New York.
Perhaps if you weren't trolling to start a flame, you would have been able to find that information and not appears as a direct intention of this comment. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Since you found the wikipedia article, do a bit more and look at "Christian Science Monitor". Just because the religion sponsors the paper, doesn't mean the papers articles are influence by the religion. I have found at least the political reporting to very very balance. Never thought to get my 'science' from it though.
Re: (Score:2)
I see nothing in the article that I couldn't have guessed from the name.
I wouldn't trust a blind man to tell me what something looks like. I wouldn't trust a deaf man to tell me what something sounds like.
I certainly wouldn't trust a report from a organization with followers that willfully distort their perception of reality to fit within their teachings.
In my personal experience religious people tend to like to stay within their own little groups. It might just be that they happen to know enough people wit
Re: (Score:2)
First, you probably do not know what the christian science movement is. It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of it from your post. Second, there is nothing preventing science and religion in general from co-existing. It would be foolish of your to think there is. Science is the attempt at a explanation of the natural environment around us. Religion is a spiritual pursuit to give it meaning. In other words, they do not cross and except for .00099% of science, religion makes not claims counter to science
Re: (Score:2)
I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article which gives me the impression that it's still requires faith which I'd would be in direct conflict with the scientific method.
Religion is notorious for disregarding scientific fact and crushing all opposition. From my point of view it has a very bad track record.
I merely was stating that the 'Christian Science Monitor' makes me disinclined to believe that the article has anything to with with /real/ science.
I have no doubt that it is possible for someone w
Re: (Score:2)
Homer is amazingly wise. Mmmmmm... doughnuts...
Unfortunately, cherry picking facts will prove almost anything. Statistical information is a wonderful use of it. I'd cite references, but 98% of all statistics are made up, including this one. :)