September192014
tastefullyoffensive:

The 6th Spice Girl. [via]

tastefullyoffensive:

The 6th Spice Girl. [via]

lol 

4AM

jkane6988 said: I have a firm beleif that certain stones have healing properties, do you agree? If so, what would you suggest for energy?

ifuckingloveminerals:

The way people present rocks& minerals as if they had healing properties is merely a nuisance. The people who perpetuate that mythology and treat it as fact annoy me. The people who use this to get some poor sap to buy their often overpriced tumbled quartz piss me off to no end.

I have seen no reason to believe that rocks themselves have any intrinsic healing properties(outside of being crushed, purified, and used as a medical ingredient). There is no evidence to suggest that placing rocks on yourself while you lay down has any effect other than having rocks on you. The effects experienced are due to the fact that you are meditating and the rocks are a psychological tool to that end.

I will say this though, for me going out and digging up rocks has a cathartic effect. I feel so much better after I go camping and smash a few boulders, dig a few holes, and get horribly filthy after a rainstorm drenches your dig site. That 4” pitch black smoky quartz from Colorado is a souvenir and a reminder of how much fun going up to 8000’ from 600’ and digging in thick muddy water for what I hoped was a big damn crystal. Every time I look at it I’m reminded of how fun that was and that is always soothing.

I’m going to revisit this train of thought at some point.

3AM
September182014
7AM

socialjusticekoolaid:

Protesters from across St Louis turned up and turned out for the first St Louis County Council Meeting since Mike Brown’s Death. (Part IV)

And now for the side show… the STL County Council/police fail at being empathetic, and tone deaf white people are tone deaf (and white). #staywoke #farfromover

(via shychemist)

September172014
sciencesoup:

Badass Scientist of the Week: Rosalind Franklin
Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958) was a biophysicist and X-Ray crystallographer who made important and controversial contributions to our current understanding of DNA. She graduated from Cambridge in 1941, then went to study carbon and graphite microstructures for the British Coal Utilization Research Association before returning to Cambridge to earn her doctorate in 1945. Franklin then worked in Paris for a period, where she learned X-ray diffraction techniques, then she returned in 1951 to work as a research associate at King’s College, London. It was here she began to solve the mystery of DNA’s structure. Scientists knew that DNA was a genetic material, capable of storing the information needed to create a living being, but its structure and inner workings were still largely a mystery. Franklin worked with Maurice Wilkins, who at first thought she was his assistant—he was quickly set straight, but the university environment was not a friendly one for Franklin, with male-only dining halls and pubs. Still, Franklin persisted with her work, applying X-Ray diffraction techniques to create crystallographic portraits of DNA, which J. D. Bernal called “the most beautiful X-ray photographs of any substance ever taken.” Franklin discovered that DNA has two forms, and invented an ingenious method to separate them. She discovered that the helical structure of DNA has two strands, that the backbone of DNA lies on the outside, and noted details about its shape and size. But she before she could discover how the bases paired inside the helix—the secret to heredity—James Watson and Francis Crick figured it out first. But not entirely on their own. Maurice Wilkins, who had a tense relationship with Franklin, showed Watson one of Franklin’s crystallographic portraits. Watson at once saw the solution to their question, and he and Crick published their findings—Franklin didn’t realise the slight, assuming they had fairly beaten her to the discovery. She later moved to J. D. Bernal’s lab to work on the tobacco mosaic virus and polio, but became ill with ovarian cancer in 1956, and died two years later. In 1962, Watson, Crick and Wilkins were awarded a Nobel Prize for their work on the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick made it clear that Franklin’s work played an essential role in their discovery, but since the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, Franklin—despite her tenacity, ingenuity and badassery—was not even acknowledged.

sciencesoup:

Badass Scientist of the Week: Rosalind Franklin

Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958) was a biophysicist and X-Ray crystallographer who made important and controversial contributions to our current understanding of DNA. She graduated from Cambridge in 1941, then went to study carbon and graphite microstructures for the British Coal Utilization Research Association before returning to Cambridge to earn her doctorate in 1945. Franklin then worked in Paris for a period, where she learned X-ray diffraction techniques, then she returned in 1951 to work as a research associate at King’s College, London. It was here she began to solve the mystery of DNA’s structure. Scientists knew that DNA was a genetic material, capable of storing the information needed to create a living being, but its structure and inner workings were still largely a mystery. Franklin worked with Maurice Wilkins, who at first thought she was his assistant—he was quickly set straight, but the university environment was not a friendly one for Franklin, with male-only dining halls and pubs. Still, Franklin persisted with her work, applying X-Ray diffraction techniques to create crystallographic portraits of DNA, which J. D. Bernal called “the most beautiful X-ray photographs of any substance ever taken.” Franklin discovered that DNA has two forms, and invented an ingenious method to separate them. She discovered that the helical structure of DNA has two strands, that the backbone of DNA lies on the outside, and noted details about its shape and size. But she before she could discover how the bases paired inside the helix—the secret to heredity—James Watson and Francis Crick figured it out first. But not entirely on their own. Maurice Wilkins, who had a tense relationship with Franklin, showed Watson one of Franklin’s crystallographic portraits. Watson at once saw the solution to their question, and he and Crick published their findings—Franklin didn’t realise the slight, assuming they had fairly beaten her to the discovery. She later moved to J. D. Bernal’s lab to work on the tobacco mosaic virus and polio, but became ill with ovarian cancer in 1956, and died two years later. In 1962, Watson, Crick and Wilkins were awarded a Nobel Prize for their work on the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick made it clear that Franklin’s work played an essential role in their discovery, but since the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, Franklin—despite her tenacity, ingenuity and badassery—was not even acknowledged.

(via shychemist)

10PM
mindblowingscience:

Artificial sweeteners linked to obesity epidemic, scientists say

Artificial sweeteners may exacerbate, rather than prevent, metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, a study suggests.
Calorie-free artificial sweeteners are often chosen by dieters in part because they are thought not to raise blood sugar levels.
In Wednesday’s issue of the journal Nature, researchers report that artificial sweeteners increase the blood sugar levels in both mice and humans by interfering with microbes in the gut.Increased blood sugar levels are an early indicator of Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease.
The increase in consumption of artificial sweeteners coincides with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and his co-authors said.
"Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight."
Link to gut bacteria
The study included a series of experiments.
Mice whose drinking water was supplemented with glucose and a sweetener developed glucose intolerance compared with mice drinking water alone, or water with just sugar in it. The effect occurred both in mice fed normal chow and those on a high-fat diet.
When antibiotics were used to kill off gut bacteria, the artificial sweetener effect on glucose intolerance in mice fed either diet was restored to normal.
Taken together, the data indicate that artificial sweeteners “may contribute to, rather than alleviate, obesity-related metabolic conditions, by altering the composition and function of bacterial populations in the gut,” Cathryn Nagler and Taylor Feehley of the pathology department at the University of Chicago said in a journal commentary.
In the human part of the research, gut bacteria were analyzed from 381 non-diabetics averaging age 43 who were participating in an ongoing nutrition study.  They found differences in the gut bacteria among those who consumed artificial sweeteners compared with those who did not.
Artificial sweetener consumers showed “markers” for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance.
More research needed 
In the final portion of the study, seven human volunteers who didn’t normally consume artificial sweeteners added it to their diets for seven days. After four days, blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment.
To confirm the findings, the researchers also transferred feces from people who consume artificial sweeteners into mice that were bred to have sterile intestines and never consumed it before. The mice who had saccharin became glucose intolerant, which suggests that the artificial sweetener caused the unhealthy effect.
It could be that artificial sweeteners lead to an expansion of bacterial species that extract energy from food that often gets stored as fat, contributing to obesity, Nagler said. It’s also possible the sweeteners could suppress the growth of other bacteria that seem to stave off insulin resistance, she said.
The commentators suggested studies to identify specific bacterial populations that promote resistance to weight gain or improve glucose tolerance could be useful as treatments.
Other experts who were not involved in the research called the findings intriguing, but noted that the human findings in particular were very preliminary in terms of considering changes to nutrition recommendations.
"This research raises caution that [non-caloric artificial sweeteners] may not represent the ‘innocent magic bullet’ they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, but it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice," said Nita Forouhi, program leader at the Medical Research Council’s epidemiology unit at Cambridge University.

mindblowingscience:

Artificial sweeteners linked to obesity epidemic, scientists say

Artificial sweeteners may exacerbate, rather than prevent, metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, a study suggests.

Calorie-free artificial sweeteners are often chosen by dieters in part because they are thought not to raise blood sugar levels.

In Wednesday’s issue of the journal Nature, researchers report that artificial sweeteners increase the blood sugar levels in both mice and humans by interfering with microbes in the gut.Increased blood sugar levels are an early indicator of Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease.

The increase in consumption of artificial sweeteners coincides with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and his co-authors said.

"Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight."

Link to gut bacteria

The study included a series of experiments.

Mice whose drinking water was supplemented with glucose and a sweetener developed glucose intolerance compared with mice drinking water alone, or water with just sugar in it. The effect occurred both in mice fed normal chow and those on a high-fat diet.

When antibiotics were used to kill off gut bacteria, the artificial sweetener effect on glucose intolerance in mice fed either diet was restored to normal.

Taken together, the data indicate that artificial sweeteners “may contribute to, rather than alleviate, obesity-related metabolic conditions, by altering the composition and function of bacterial populations in the gut,” Cathryn Nagler and Taylor Feehley of the pathology department at the University of Chicago said in a journal commentary.

In the human part of the research, gut bacteria were analyzed from 381 non-diabetics averaging age 43 who were participating in an ongoing nutrition study.  They found differences in the gut bacteria among those who consumed artificial sweeteners compared with those who did not.

Artificial sweetener consumers showed “markers” for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance.

More research needed

In the final portion of the study, seven human volunteers who didn’t normally consume artificial sweeteners added it to their diets for seven days. After four days, blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment.

To confirm the findings, the researchers also transferred feces from people who consume artificial sweeteners into mice that were bred to have sterile intestines and never consumed it before. The mice who had saccharin became glucose intolerant, which suggests that the artificial sweetener caused the unhealthy effect.

It could be that artificial sweeteners lead to an expansion of bacterial species that extract energy from food that often gets stored as fat, contributing to obesity, Nagler said. It’s also possible the sweeteners could suppress the growth of other bacteria that seem to stave off insulin resistance, she said.

The commentators suggested studies to identify specific bacterial populations that promote resistance to weight gain or improve glucose tolerance could be useful as treatments.

Other experts who were not involved in the research called the findings intriguing, but noted that the human findings in particular were very preliminary in terms of considering changes to nutrition recommendations.

"This research raises caution that [non-caloric artificial sweeteners] may not represent the ‘innocent magic bullet’ they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, but it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice," said Nita Forouhi, program leader at the Medical Research Council’s epidemiology unit at Cambridge University.

(via shychemist)

10PM

francislare:

and remember kids its never too late to become a raging degenerate homosexual

(via whowasntthere)

whoooo 

10PM

mo-mtn-girl:

That’s my exact reaction when I find this out about someone new.

(Source: nevermindtheb0ll0cks, via shychemist)

lol yes 

10PM

breelifts:

socialjusticekoolaid:

Protesters from across St Louis turned up and turned out for the first St Louis County Council Meeting since Mike Brown’s Death. (Part I)

The St Louis County Council wasn’t as bad as Ferguson’s Council, but still very few answers and virtually no accountability from the folks who unleashed unholy hell on the residents of Ferguson, following Brown’s murder. #staywoke #farfromover

KEEP POSTING I NEED TO KNOW! DONT STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS. IT IS NOT OVER!

(via shychemist)

← Older entries Page 1 of 241