Now Playing Tracks

thehogwartsjedi:

projectunbreakable:

A friend of mine shared this post on Twitter today about something one of her friend’s witnessed in NYC last night, and I felt it was important for us to post it on here - as a way of both getting the word out and seeing if anyone has any way of helping the situation (blogging, writing an article, knowledge of a missing person, etc.) Please share if you can - there has to be something we can do to help. It is possible to get in touch with the original source - please first email it to projectunbreakable@gmail.com and we will forward it to her. 

This makes me want to cry.  I hope the lady is safe.  

dumb-science-jokes:

chikaderp:

wildunicornherd:

thinksquad:

Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . In it she took filtered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boiling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difference in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by microwave. As it turned out, even she was amazed at the difference, after the experiment which was repeated by her class mates a number of times and had the same result.

It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about, it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it.

Microwaves don’t work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave suffers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the original make-up of the substance. It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.

So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these ‘Safe’ appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it’s safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying!

NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES.

SOME KID’S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. YOU’VE HEARD OF “DOUBLE BLIND”, RIGHT? CALL ME WHEN IT’S PUBLISHED IN NATURE.

the structure or energy of the water

what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it it isn’t water anymore and you would fucking notice

the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about

Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the different types of radiation:

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Cheat Sheet

Microwaves != nuclear reactors, so calm your tits.

it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it

…do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more cells. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not. The chemicals it cares about are things like vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like salt.

(You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is like what happens when you fry an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein—the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cool.)

Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster.

I…just…that is the fucking definition of heat, whether you’re heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don’t need to use as much heat. Water boils at 100°C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam; but that’s like the lowest setting on your oven. Oven- or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is transferred in a different way.

This movement causes friction

That’s not what friction is.

It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.

Let’s take these one at a time.

  • Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble. So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B’s). Just plain heat doesn’t do that, so microwaving veggies—which keeps the water in—is actually a healthier option.
  • Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is still nutritious—that’s why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken.
  • Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table—sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements.)

Which brings me to the “radiolytic compound” bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron—you’re talking about breaking down the iron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays—the OOOH SCARY NUCULAR radiation—which we’ve already established do not come from your microwave.

things that are not found in nature

What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells. That’s right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU. You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long ago something died by how much of it is left.

Tons of shit that occurs naturally is horribly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you—like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications.

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES AND/OR DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK OUR FUCKING PLANET.

LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your veggies.

This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you so much for sciencing.

Science achieved

moonblossom:

chenisthebestkitty:

geekdonnatroy:

castayel:

fuchsimeon:

viperpilot:

Well, this is embarrassing

Left: Adrianne Palicki promo shot for NBC’s Wonder Woman.

Right: Kimberly Kane promo shot for ‘Wonder Woman XXX: An Axel Braun Parody’.

….is it just me or does the porno version outfit not only look WAY BETTER crafted and prettier, the actress also has more muscles, a nicer fitting chest piece and a waaay more fitting body type and skin tone. 

Also the porno version doesn’t look more “feminine”/more sexy whatever.

That… is EMBARASSING

the “official” one looks like a really bad Halloween costume

I mean fuck the porno one has bigger wrist cuff I REPEATE: BIGGER WRIST CUFFS PORNO WOMAN IS BETTER DRESSED TO KICK ASS *cries*

can someone contact the designer of the porno 

clearly he/she knows how a womans body works.

It’s embarrassing when the official looks a like a porn and the porn looks like the official thing.

The thing that makes me stunned the most is that even the boobs of the porn version are cupped and held in better by her clothing than those of the official thing…

The moment a porn movie treats the boobs of a woman with more subtlety than a big name production, some staff changes are in order.

What both fascinates and disturbs me the most about these is the body language and facial expression.

The “official” TV version looks passive, slightly confused, her pose is sort of ambiguous and floppy. She’s waiting for the viewer to do something before she reacts. The XXX version looks determined and fierce, and is taking literally 0% of your shit.

One of these Wonder Women looks like a sex toy, and it’s not the pornographic one.

quimbycub:

willow-wanderings:

nedahoyin:

queenqueerqutie:

Martin Bauendahl

Real life vs Societal expectations

Wow..

Yeah, news flash people, boobs generally only look “perky” while in a bra. A few are super lucky and have naturally perky boobs, most don’t. And this is because, SURPRISE, boobs are intended to feed babies and it’s hard for a baby being cradled in mum’s arm to reach a nipple that’s on the other side of the boob from where its mouth is.

Think of a soda fountain machine. The spouts are all pointing down, right? So you can put soda in a cup being held under the spout? If the spout was sticking straight out, it would be really hard to get a soda out of it.

Babies need to be able to reach a nipple easily so they can eat. Ergo, nipples are usually lower and angled more downward on a naturally hanging boob, both so it’s easier for a baby to reach and so gravity can do its part in pulling milk toward the nipple.
So there you go, outright ANATOMICAL proof that boobs are not there for the benefit of men.

Thank you for that. I never realized. Thanks.

(Source: denicedenice)

We make Tumblr themes