Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
Otherwise it's just a way to screw with the cat. But I can get Mr. Wake to do that without the remote. #rctissuebox
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
05/01/09
[gizmodo.com]
I understand it's not up to snuff on everyone's sense of "morality", but no doubt it'll get the job done.
05/01/09
05/01/09
In the end though, I'll use the same thing issued to the members of Police Squad:
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
Or, just let the weak be culled from the herd.
05/01/09
Please stop saying pork is related to swine flu. It was from pigs at some point, but it can't infect them anymore and thus won't spread through them to more of us (it's not the same connection like avian flu had to chicken). Even if it were, it turns out flus aren't prions (that cause mad cow), they get cooked and denatured. So unless you're eating raw pork, or touching your face with raw pork juice, you're in no risk.
If the media keeps villainizing pigs in every flipping broadcast and post, the senseless masses will stop buying pork, and then I'll have to pay more for it. Not cool!
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
I remember seeing the development of allergies and immune system video in high school. It was pretty much saying: let your kid eat food that falls on the floor, make him/her run outside in allergy season, get stung by common bugs, eat every kind of food, never wash their hands, just to make sure he's exposed while his/her immune system is top notch. Sounds like a fun and free (and often sick) childhood, but also sounds a bit like poor parenting by today's standards.
05/01/09
Roll in the dirt kids - and maybe eat some of it. It's for your own good.
05/01/09
Wasn't that the whole point of posting it on here in the first place?
It wasn't?
I ate canned chicken for nothing?
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
[www.smh.com.au]
05/01/09
"OVER 160 PRESUMED DEAD!!!"
*days pass*
"the actual death toll is 13."
thanks media, for promoting national hysteria.
infomania had a great section about this:
[current.com]