This is execution.

With the armoured car, they could have driven up next to the car, shined a freaking high powered halogen light inside and seen if there was a gun with zero danger to anyone... That takes about 15 seconds.

How dafuq do you feel threatened with an armoured vehicle, that much backup, vests/shields and automatic firearms? It is fucking beyond me...

At the very least this is voluntary manslaughter.

And seriously, these people were too fucking moronic to think through that executing two sleeping people was perhaps a bad idea, and yet we let them wield the guns and dispense the lawn??!?!?

*promote
(you were poppin' 8 months ago pard, Halogenated agents at work!!)

BC Canada had these photo-radar cars several years ago but finally got rid of them

First of all, they can't prove who is driving the car.
Second, a dirty license plate, get's you pass.
Three, a halogen license plate bulb leaves an over exposed photo of the license so those are also void.

As well, it's just a money grabbing mechanism and didn't ever stop the fast drivers from speeding. By the time you even know the camera-vehicle is there, you've already had your photo taken, then you are off and speeding again. no one stops you. they just collect the fines.

Then you had highways getting clogged. Every time a car was on the side of the road, every one slows down - just in case - then speeds up again after they pass the vehicle.

It got so that, when traveling or driving on the highways, you just drove as fast as you wanted while keeping your eye out for cars parked on the side of the road. Then once you pass the car, you know you are free to speed.

>> ^marinara:

No question that the active part of the molecule is the F.
http://saturn.med.nyu.edu/files/mylab/wang/pdf/Zhou-LeuT-SSRIs-2009.pdf

"All SSRIs possess halogen atoms at specific positions, which are key determinants for the drugs’ specificity for SERT"
"The SSRI halogens all bind to exactly the same pocket within LeuT."
That said, Fluoride isn't a drug. Putting fluoride in the water to make people happy is just crazy.


Seriously, just because a chemical has some fluorine atoms, does NOT make it the same as sodium fluoride. Every study (a massive three of them) mentioned on that page is talking about sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride. There has never been any legitimate evidence that Flouxetine has anything remotely similar to the behavior of either of those. Look for actual peer-reviewed research, not the crap you get from conspiracy sites.

No question that the active part of the molecule is the F.
http://saturn.med.nyu.edu/files/mylab/wang/pdf/Zhou-LeuT-SSRIs-2009.pdf
"All SSRIs possess halogen atoms at specific positions, which are key determinants for the drugs’ specificity for SERT"
"The SSRI halogens all bind to exactly the same pocket within LeuT."

That said, Fluoride isn't a drug. Putting fluoride in the water to make people happy is just crazy.

I bet you in terms of heating a whole room this heats the volume of the room at near to or exactly the same speed it takes a heater of the same wattage to fill the room with heat.

In the end the hot air will rise and its only until the room is full of heat from top down.

if you just want a jet of air in your face or to feel warm then sitting right next to a classic heater or a lighting / halogen heater will do better and cost less.

If its cool to the touch and not noisy then that's fair enough , but 90% of what dyson market is bullshit over hype its the apple of housing goods.

Here's a study referenced off Wikipedia.
I know chlorine evaporates from water pretty quickly. Fluorine and chlorine are both halogens gases and both exist as salts in water so since studies say it doesn't build up I'm guessing something takes fluorine out of the equation like it does for chlorine. Pharmaceuticals on the other hand are complex compounds, not just salts so I think that's why they stick around. I took 2 chemistry classes in college so take that with a grain of salt ;-)

>> ^ButterflyKisses:
This article brings up a good point and raises a few more questions:
How is mass water fluoridation affecting the water table?
Not to mention that studies have shown that we now take in various levels of pharmaceuticals due to waste water recycling. Doesn't this also compound and ever more increase the amount of fluoride in the water as the water is continually recycled and fluoride is continually added? This same water is also used in products like soda pop, fruit juices, etc.
I wonder if any studies of this aspect have been done.
This is a very interesting topic in my opinion because it directly affects us all.

The cops wouldn't have taken their time or effort if they didn't think there was weed in there house. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that seeing a set-up like that was reason enough to justify a warrant on "probable cause."

In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
MGR, you can't be serious. They put fucking Christmas trees under halogen lights in an empty house. The cops are the ones who wasted taxpayer money by breaking the law.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I'll tell you what's terrible :

Wasting a local police department's time and money for a fucking tv show. Whether or not the cops were wrong - I don't care. But don't waste tax payer money for your fucking show.

MGR, you can't be serious. They put fucking Christmas trees under halogen lights in an empty house. The cops are the ones who wasted taxpayer money by breaking the law.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I'll tell you what's terrible :

Wasting a local police department's time and money for a fucking tv show. Whether or not the cops were wrong - I don't care. But don't waste tax payer money for your fucking show.

Outstanding. Keep 'em running in circles chasing their tails.

Y'know if EVERYONE would use a halogen light it would render the helicopter InfraRed sweeps useless since EVERY house would glow "hot".

Have a friend that was having a major manipulation done to her shoulder, sort of a pre-surgery relocation or something that entailed the doc putting his knee in her chest and tugging or whatnot. They gave her a drug, I think maybe orally administered that allowed her to be sentient and conversant and cooperative, but she didn't remember a thing. Struck me as something from a science fiction movie or spy thriller. I think it also dulled the pain, but I remember thinking "if you caused a lot of pain to the patient, but they don't remember it, were they ever in pain" I don't remember what it was called. Forgettitol^tm? [edit:] It's called Versed.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

a little more

Fluoride Pesticides

The concern centers on the fluoride ion's toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation in humans, wildlife, and soil. The main pesticides are:

• Cryolite: (sodium aluminum fluoride) - mainly used on grapes, fruits, and potatoes. EPA allows fluoride tolerances of 7 ppm, except for kiwifruit, which has a residue tolerance of 15 ppm.

•Sulfuryl fluoride is the most immediate and important pesticide issue for the FAN Pesticide Project. This acutely toxic fumigant received its first-time approval for use on stored food commodities (raw and processed) in the US in January 2004. This approval allows the highest levels of fluoride residue levels in food in the history of the EPA. FAN, together with Beyond Pesticides, submitted formal objections to EPA on this approval (see press release). See the food tolerances approved and petitioned for as of July 15, 2005.

• Sodium fluoride - its only known use is in wood preservatives(railroad ties and utility poles). However, sodium fluoride was used as a "List 4 Inert" until USEPA revoked that use in September 2005. Prior to its revocation, sodium fluoride, as a "List 4 Inert," was approved for use in the US National Organic Program administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In 2000, approximately 125 individuals contacted USDA requesting that the use of sodium fluoride be denied in organic agriculture - all to no avail. UPDATE: On October 10, 2007, USEPA released a series of documents in preparation for a final risk assessment.

Fluorinated Pesticides

• The majority of the pesticides in our data base are fluorinated. We had used the term "organofluorine" to describe organic pesticides containing fluorine in their chemical formula. However, this term is not precise, as the majority of pesticides contain other halogens, primarily chlorine. Seven pesticides in our data base contain three halogens in their chemical formula: fluorine, bromine, and chlorine.

• The toxicity of the fluorinated compound is not due to the release of a free fluoride ion, but to the particular molecular structure of the compound. From our research to date it appears that fluorinated pesticides intensify pesticidal and biological activity. Animal studies available on pesticides with fluorine + bromine in their chemical formula consistently report severe brain effects.

the lighting matches someone holding a halogen ssunspotter over his head. The acoustics match, I cna hear the echo of the empty hall. the camera obviously was on a tripod. I see no white fringe. At all. I see alittle reflection of light on the back of his head and shoulders which woudl synch with th elights behind him.

I would have never even thought it was green screened. But looking closely at it, I have to disagree: doesn't seem that way at all to me. Maybe it's a failing of someone's monitor - yours or mine?