Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Any "germs" that might harm the child are killed in the normal cycle of a dishwasher. A teaspoon of beach does wonders in a sink full of hot soapy water too.
AND the kid will get addicted to the little light and he wont ever take anything else. This mom votes no. #pureray
UV light could also create free radicals, causing the same problems we all eat anti-oxidants to avoid. Free radicals are typically short-lived but could react with formula to form new, reactive species as well.
This baby bottle looks like something agent Ethan Hunt would be trying to secure. #pureray
@CAVEperson: Nice try bill nye but that is heat, not UV. If there was enough UV radiation in sunlight to sterilize things, our ponds would be sterile. #pureray
@The Lab: Read it again, friend: "UV rays and heat have killed off the bacteria..." This is just one of many, many reports on this subject--Google it.
"...our ponds would be sterile." 'Tis an all or nothing world you live in, it seems. A pond contains a LOT of bacteria. The solar UV does not reach far below the surface. Bacteria at the surface can be killed, but constantly replaced by nasties from the depths.
In any case, your point was that UV exposure can "create free radicals". Nowhere did you say that this requires the same amount of exposure as does sterilization.
Free radicals, mandatory flu shots, alien abduction... It's a dangerous world we live in! #pureray
@CAVEperson: I don't need Google, I am a PhD chemist. You can't trust everything you read on worldchanging.com. Not the best source for science info.
It may seem like a dangerous world if you don't know enough science. Then again, it may seem safe. Either way, you don't know unless you actually go to school and learn this stuff. Until you do, stop commenting on stuff you don't know about. #pureray
@The Lab: My master's is in physics, which perhaps doesn't make me as qualified to discuss free radicals as a PhD chemist, but I do know a thing or two or three about radiation spectra, intensity and absorption.
You're awfully defensive about your theory. It's not very scientific to be out-of-hand dismissive of possibly-conflicting data. Are you absolutely certain that sunlight is not intense enough to generate free radicals in organic matter? That possibility was, after all, my point, though you seem to have overlooked that in your kneejerk reaction. Again, my initial comment said nothing about the sterilizing efects of solar UV--that was YOUR take on it.
The "dangerous world" comment was sarcasm, directed at the nutcases who see conspiracies all around them.
@CAVEperson: The issue is the number of free radicals produced. They kill by mutating DNA. Organisms can fix a certain amount of damage but if the load gets too high - death. Sun produces a small load, this thing produces a large load. That's why this sterilizes while the sun only gives sunburns. #pureray
@The Lab: "Sun produces a small load, this thing produces a large load."
This is the point we're actually debating. What evidence do you have for this assertion? Have you read the Pureray specs? Do they specify the UV intensity and spectral distribution? Have you compared this to sunlight? You, sir, are speaking out of your arse.
MY (semi)joking point was/is that much of the food we eat is already exposed to high-intensity UV, whether or no that is sufficient to generate a dangerous quantity of free radicals. To fart a kneejerk dismissal of this silly Pureray thing for that reason is unscientific. #pureray
@CAVEperson: I kept a handheld UV lamp on my desk and used it every day for 10+ years. I sterilized water with a UV light for use in a tissue culture incubator. When I say that the amount of UV light generated by a machine designed to sterilize is far greater than that produced by the sun, it is because I have used these devices on a daily basis and understand the math. Farting this out I am not. #pureray
@The Lab: Okay, let's drop the humorous hostility for a second and consider this rationally. Now we're talking about three different UV sources: the Pureray [sic], the sun, and your handheld sterilizer. Each of these without a doubt produces significantly different intensities and spectra of UV. Yet, you are claiming that you are intimately familiar with "a" (your word) UV-generating device designed to sterilize, and suggesting that this gives you a specific knowledge of the output of an entirely different device. Moreover, you are claiming, without any substantiation *whatsoever*, that both of these devices produce a more intense UV flux than the sun (at the Earth's surface). You claim to "understand the math".
A mathematical calculation requires known inputs. You clearly do not have these--at least, not for all three sources that you purport to compare. How could anyone who claims to be a scientist make such preposterous statements?
I do not know the relative outputs of the three sources in question, and do not claim to. But you most definitely also do not know. You keep making claims about your superior knowledge, but have yet to back them up with even the slightest numerical data.
I made the sun comparison to poke fun at the silly idea that only the baby bottle was a "free radical threat" in relation to food. I suggested nothing about relative intensity levels of the sources, though I am quite certain that solar radiation generates significant quantities of free radicals in organic matter (is this not believed to be the ultimate source of its carcinogenic effect? Free radicals causing damage to DNA and related molecules?) So, how do you justify your apparent claim that *any* manmade UV sterilizer is a greater threat than solar radiation? That's patently ridiculous!
Perhaps you're actually trying to claim that your boss's degree is your own, and you are in fact a lowly undergrad lab technician. You certainly don't reason like someone who has earned a PhD. #pureray
@CAVEperson: There is no humorous hostility, this is actual hostility. It is fine if someone with no knowledge asks questions. However you are acting entitled, like you expect to be treated as an equal when you clearly don't even know the basics.
Here is some PhD-level reasoning: you know too little to offer anything of value and it is not my job to educate strangers in the comment section so you are on your own. You can science troll elsewhere. #pureray
@The Lab: No facts to back up your theories, just unsupported (and unlikely, given your profound lack of reasoning ability) claims of superior knowledge.
If you were ever a candidate for an advanced degree, you could not possibly have successfully defended your dissertation.
You've proven my point that you are, at best, a lowly lab tech with delusions of grandeur. And a mind prone to conspiracy theories.
So, fellow readers of this blog, do you buy "The Lab"'s argument that this little plastic baby bottle is more dangerous than that humongous nuclear fusion reactor in the sky?
@The Lab: BTW, it would be a pretty pathetic PhD who spent 10+ years sterilizing water. Where I work, we have lowly lab techs like you to do that level of work (in our case, assembling prototypes of the instruments that I and others design).
@CAVEperson: I don't mind being challenged, I just don't like being challenged by someone who hasn't done their background reading.
Your ideas about UV light are just as flawed as your ideas about me being a lab tech. Go ahead, send me a message on LinkedIn [bit.ly] I think this about settles the question of exactly how full of shit I am. Now go read a book.
@The Lab: "I think this about settles the question of exactly how full of shit I am."
Indeed. You have demonstrated that you are completely full of shit. You have no data available and are unable to address points that challenge your fantasies. Simply saying "I know more than you" is not a meaningful argument. Perhaps you tried it during a thesis or dissertation defense, and that's why you're now washing bottles?
"It is not my job to educate" is the usual pathetic copout that people take when they do not, in fact, have the ability and/or data required to substantiate their arguments. So, go back to sterilizing water and cowering in fear of baby bottles. #pureray
@CAVEperson: The fact is that there can be no meaningful conversation about science between someone who knows science and someone who doesn't. If I explain something, you will just keep asking "why" and asserting that if I can't explain further, it shows I don't know what I'm talking about. To convince you, I'd have to teach you and that would require going through a lot of material. Then you have the audacity to ask that I provide citations! Why would I do that? It is simply not efficient to teach one person at a time through a medium like the comments section.
Perhaps I am trying to support my point to the anonymous readers of Giz but 1) no one is reading this anymore and 2) I called your bluff and proved that I am more than qualified to comment on issues of chemistry. I'm feeling confident that anyone reading this would trust my opinion over some anonymous doubter who tries to make his point by assassinating the character of his opponent rather than debating the issue at hand. #pureray
@The Lab: To get back to the issue at hand, one way to prove the UV generated by the sun is weaker than the UV generated by a lamp is to take a TLC plate that has a phosphor backing and expose it to sunlight. The phosphor won't glow. Now expose the plate to any UV lamp, you'll see it glow a bright green. The intensity of the glow is proportional to the intensity of the UV light. #pureray
@The Lab: "I called your bluff and proved that I am more than qualified to comment on issues of chemistry."
Proved? Where? When? I have seen only empty claims. You "explain" nothing, only make claims. You assert your supposed superiority as a "PhD" as if 1) you have proved that you possess it, and 2) holding an advanced degree automatically makes one well-informed.
I can assert (just as emptily, but with more logic) that my Master's in physics makes me more qualified to discuss radiation than your (claimed) PhD in chemistry.
"I'm feeling confident that anyone reading this would trust my opinion over some anonymous doubter"
You are less anonymous than I?
"...who tries to make his point by assassinating the character of his opponent rather than debating the issue at hand."
This is a pathetically blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black. Making unsubstantiated claims is not "debating"--at least, not in the sense that a scientist should mean it. #pureray
@CAVEperson: Did you not see the link to my LinkedIn profile in which I 1) shed my anonymity and 2) actually did prove that I possess a PhD? Try googling "d. ryan anderson" and chemistry. You'll get a publication or two of mine, the webpage of my old lab and my LinkedIn profile. I suggest that puts the issue of my credentials to rest.
Did you not see the post where I spelled out an experiment that can be done with rudimentary materials that will prove my point?
I am interested to see what you come back with since I have shown qualified credentials and described an experiment I have done and you can repeat that proves the point. #pureray
@The Lab: Let's see, what was the original point of all this... Ah, yes: you asserted that UV from the baby bottle could generate dangerous free radicals in its contents. I mocked the fearmongering by suggesting that food exposed to the sun (i.e., most food) would suffer the same fate. You got off on some irrelevant tangent about sterilization, and credentials (the last refuge of the incompetent), and it went downhill from there.
Neither of us has written anything that reasonably demonstrates one way or another that my mockery was ill-founded.
But, hey, if you can find someone to give you kids [shudder], be sure to keep them away from glowing bottles.
@CAVEperson: Look at the forth hit. That is the cover article in the oldest and most respected chemistry journal. Or maybe you think I made that entire website just to impress you. Admit it, your attacks on my credentials have been proven false.
As for your doubts, you are free to doubt anything when you know nothing but when you start doubting experts, you enter the realm of Sarah Palin, that is, fools who don't trust anyone but themselves. #pureray
@CAVEperson: Fuck off back to your cave. Your commnts across this entire article have shown that you have nothing intelligent to say, you are just trolling. You have the audacity to call it all pseudoscience, and yet you offer nothing more in defense of your assessments of the situation. #pureray
Tip from a Mom: If you dont start warming it in the first place, they get used to it cold and prefer it that way. Pediatrician approved, no ill effects, and a heck of a lot easier, especially at 2 a.m.
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
That extra oxygen atom makes a helluvah difference. #pureray
10/16/09
Adding the water to the acid is always the best way to go! FUN!
Note: Never add water to acid. Acid is always in first due to the differences in density. #pureray
10/16/09
AND the kid will get addicted to the little light and he wont ever take anything else. This mom votes no. #pureray
10/16/09
This baby bottle looks like something agent Ethan Hunt would be trying to secure. #pureray
10/17/09
10/17/09
10/17/09
www.worldchanging.com/archives/004261.html #pureray
10/17/09
10/17/09
"...our ponds would be sterile." 'Tis an all or nothing world you live in, it seems. A pond contains a LOT of bacteria. The solar UV does not reach far below the surface. Bacteria at the surface can be killed, but constantly replaced by nasties from the depths.
In any case, your point was that UV exposure can "create free radicals". Nowhere did you say that this requires the same amount of exposure as does sterilization.
Free radicals, mandatory flu shots, alien abduction... It's a dangerous world we live in! #pureray
10/17/09
It may seem like a dangerous world if you don't know enough science. Then again, it may seem safe. Either way, you don't know unless you actually go to school and learn this stuff. Until you do, stop commenting on stuff you don't know about. #pureray
10/17/09
You're awfully defensive about your theory. It's not very scientific to be out-of-hand dismissive of possibly-conflicting data. Are you absolutely certain that sunlight is not intense enough to generate free radicals in organic matter? That possibility was, after all, my point, though you seem to have overlooked that in your kneejerk reaction. Again, my initial comment said nothing about the sterilizing efects of solar UV--that was YOUR take on it.
The "dangerous world" comment was sarcasm, directed at the nutcases who see conspiracies all around them.
10/17/09
10/17/09
This is the point we're actually debating. What evidence do you have for this assertion? Have you read the Pureray specs? Do they specify the UV intensity and spectral distribution? Have you compared this to sunlight? You, sir, are speaking out of your arse.
MY (semi)joking point was/is that much of the food we eat is already exposed to high-intensity UV, whether or no that is sufficient to generate a dangerous quantity of free radicals. To fart a kneejerk dismissal of this silly Pureray thing for that reason is unscientific. #pureray
10/17/09
10/17/09
A mathematical calculation requires known inputs. You clearly do not have these--at least, not for all three sources that you purport to compare. How could anyone who claims to be a scientist make such preposterous statements?
I do not know the relative outputs of the three sources in question, and do not claim to. But you most definitely also do not know. You keep making claims about your superior knowledge, but have yet to back them up with even the slightest numerical data.
I made the sun comparison to poke fun at the silly idea that only the baby bottle was a "free radical threat" in relation to food. I suggested nothing about relative intensity levels of the sources, though I am quite certain that solar radiation generates significant quantities of free radicals in organic matter (is this not believed to be the ultimate source of its carcinogenic effect? Free radicals causing damage to DNA and related molecules?) So, how do you justify your apparent claim that *any* manmade UV sterilizer is a greater threat than solar radiation? That's patently ridiculous!
Perhaps you're actually trying to claim that your boss's degree is your own, and you are in fact a lowly undergrad lab technician. You certainly don't reason like someone who has earned a PhD. #pureray
10/18/09
Here is some PhD-level reasoning: you know too little to offer anything of value and it is not my job to educate strangers in the comment section so you are on your own. You can science troll elsewhere. #pureray
10/18/09
If you were ever a candidate for an advanced degree, you could not possibly have successfully defended your dissertation.
You've proven my point that you are, at best, a lowly lab tech with delusions of grandeur. And a mind prone to conspiracy theories.
So, fellow readers of this blog, do you buy "The Lab"'s argument that this little plastic baby bottle is more dangerous than that humongous nuclear fusion reactor in the sky?
10/18/09
10/18/09
Your ideas about UV light are just as flawed as your ideas about me being a lab tech. Go ahead, send me a message on LinkedIn [bit.ly] I think this about settles the question of exactly how full of shit I am. Now go read a book.
10/18/09
Indeed. You have demonstrated that you are completely full of shit. You have no data available and are unable to address points that challenge your fantasies. Simply saying "I know more than you" is not a meaningful argument. Perhaps you tried it during a thesis or dissertation defense, and that's why you're now washing bottles?
"It is not my job to educate" is the usual pathetic copout that people take when they do not, in fact, have the ability and/or data required to substantiate their arguments. So, go back to sterilizing water and cowering in fear of baby bottles. #pureray
10/18/09
Perhaps I am trying to support my point to the anonymous readers of Giz but 1) no one is reading this anymore and 2) I called your bluff and proved that I am more than qualified to comment on issues of chemistry. I'm feeling confident that anyone reading this would trust my opinion over some anonymous doubter who tries to make his point by assassinating the character of his opponent rather than debating the issue at hand. #pureray
10/18/09
10/18/09
Proved? Where? When? I have seen only empty claims. You "explain" nothing, only make claims. You assert your supposed superiority as a "PhD" as if 1) you have proved that you possess it, and 2) holding an advanced degree automatically makes one well-informed.
I can assert (just as emptily, but with more logic) that my Master's in physics makes me more qualified to discuss radiation than your (claimed) PhD in chemistry.
"I'm feeling confident that anyone reading this would trust my opinion over some anonymous doubter"
You are less anonymous than I?
"...who tries to make his point by assassinating the character of his opponent rather than debating the issue at hand."
This is a pathetically blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black. Making unsubstantiated claims is not "debating"--at least, not in the sense that a scientist should mean it. #pureray
10/18/09
Did you not see the post where I spelled out an experiment that can be done with rudimentary materials that will prove my point?
I am interested to see what you come back with since I have shown qualified credentials and described an experiment I have done and you can repeat that proves the point. #pureray
10/18/09
10/18/09
Neither of us has written anything that reasonably demonstrates one way or another that my mockery was ill-founded.
But, hey, if you can find someone to give you kids [shudder], be sure to keep them away from glowing bottles.
10/18/09
As for your doubts, you are free to doubt anything when you know nothing but when you start doubting experts, you enter the realm of Sarah Palin, that is, fools who don't trust anyone but themselves. #pureray
10/19/09
10/16/09
02/06/09
02/05/09
To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master.
--Cordfucious
02/05/09
wow. fuck my life.
02/05/09
02/05/09