PLease click on button in line just above to read article:
Also, the water melting from the North Pole and Greenland is already reshaping the earth even without Antarctica melting too. Ice builds vertically but when turned to water through earth heating it raises sea levels and moves all over the earth reshaping what earth looks in many different ways. Also, this changes the weight displacement of the earth so the earth rotates and wobbles differently too because the earth is a big spinning top out in space.
Of course alcohol, tobacco and caffeine aren't safe either. For example, try drinking 4 to 6 cups of coffee which for some people would give them either a heart attack or stroke. Even my wife if she now drinks even one really strong cup of coffee or more no one wants to be around her because she just gets too wound up. So she switched to Chai Lattes at Starbuck's instead.
But, Marijuana when adults vote for it they are thinking about Marijuana in college which mostly was about 1/300th as strong as what is sold now. Some marijuana is about as dangerous as taking LSD which can be fatal for some people.
There
are at least 10 drugs that are more deadly than marijuana, including
some that are legal, such as alcohol and nicotine, a new study by
researchers in Germany and Canada finds. In fact, drinking alcohol — the
deadliest drug on the list — is about 100 times more dangerous than
using marijuana,…
The margin of exposure, a ratio that calculates the likelihood of lethal drug overdose, for daily drug use.
There are at least 10 drugs that are more deadly than
marijuana, including some that are legal, such as alcohol and nicotine, a
new study by researchers in Germany and Canada finds.
In fact, drinking alcohol — the deadliest drug on
the list — is about 100 times more dangerous than using marijuana, the
scientists concluded in the study, which was based on data from animal
studies and published Jan. 30 in the journal Scientific Reports.
Marijuana is labeled as a Schedule I drug in the United States, meaning
that under federal law, it is illegal and cannot be used for medical
purposes (although some states have legalized its use).
The new findings echo the results of previous studies, and lawmakers
should take this research into consideration when drafting new policies,
the researchers said. [Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which Is Really Worse for Your Health?]
The low risk that marijuana poses to people's health suggests that the
drug should be strictly regulated but not prohibited, the researchers
wrote in the study.
But other experts say more analysis is needed
in order to make a conclusion about marijuana's full impact. For
instance, studies should consider the effects of the drug on people's
behavior, as well as the impact it has on society, some researchers say.
"Lethality is not the only form of dangerousness," said Jonathan
Caulkins, a professor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, who was not involved with the study. "The lethality of a
substance is absolutely relevant to the making of public policy, but it
is only one part" of the bigger picture, he said.
In the study,
the researchers calculated the health risk of each drug by looking at a
measure called the "margin of exposure" (MOE), which is a ratio that
compares the approximate amount of a drug needed to kill a person to the
amount that people usually take. In essence, the MOE rates the
likelihood that someone could take a lethal overdose of a drug: When the
ratio is low, the drug is deadlier.
But tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, had an MOE higher than 100,
meaning the chances of a lethal overdose are slim, the researchers
said.Alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine are considered high-risk
drugs because their MOEs are less than 10, the researchers found. Other
drugs — including MDMA, methamphetamine, methadone (a narcotic often
used to treat heroin addition), amphetamine (a stimulant that treats
narcolepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and diazepam
(brand name Valium) — were a little less risky, with MOEs between 10 and
100.
However, there are several caveats to the findings. First,
the numbers for the MOE are based on animal data, as it's not ethical or
safe to test drug lethality in people. Also, the MOEs are calculated
based on the use of each drug individually, whereas in real life, it's
common for people to use several drugs at the same time, the researchers
said.
Moreover, the MOE doesn't factor in other health risks
associated with drugs, such as infections from unclean syringes, the
researchers said in the study.
For the most part, the new study
supports earlier work on the risk of death from drugs, Caulkins said.
It's surprising that heroin is less dangerous than alcohol, but not that
marijuana is relatively low-risk, he said.
But policymakers need
to factor in dependence and addition, Caulkins said. Drugs can also
impair decision making, driving ability and productivity, and children
may experience abuse and neglect if their parents are dependent users of
legal drugs, he said.
Emerging evidence also suggests that marijuana use may be associated with heart problems. For instance, two young men in Germany
died after taking marijuana, according to a 2014 study in the journal
Forensic Science International. Other research has found that marijuana
use can change brain structure, and it's unknown what effects these changes might have.
Although the MOE values are interesting, more research is needed to
determine the full impact of marijuana on health and society, Caulkins
said.
A drug's lethality "has to be part of an analysis that considers these other things also," he said.
If you think Marijuana is safe you are likely young and naive of both the short term and the long term things that can happen to you. However, if you asked me does Marijuana Make you violent?
This is usually: NO!
which is the opposite of Alcohol which gets people killed every day either with fists, guns, knives or cars or motorcycles or trucks.
However, you might not ever get a degree or get anything done in your life if you smoke Marijuana also, unless you are already successful. So, if you want to have a real life in the future Marijuana isn't usually a way to get there.
The Republicans are fragmented into too many groups. The Tea Party people hate the Conservatives, moderates and liberals and each of the groups sort of hate each other too. You cannot govern with such a fragmented party. So, my thought is that either the Republican party splits off into 2 or 3 parties or they have to find a way to compromise with each other. Otherwise, like now, the American people are just going to give up on them if they can't come together for the higher good for the whole country.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are losing some skirmishes over
the Department of Homeland Security, but many feel they are winning a
political war that will haunt Republicans in 2016 and beyond.
Democrats lacked the votes Friday to force
Republicans to fund the department for a year with no strings. Still,
even some Republicans say party leaders are on a perilous path with a
very public ideological struggle only highlighting the GOP's inability
to pass contested legislation and possibly worsening its weak
relationship with Hispanic voters.
Worst of all, numerous
lawmakers said, Republican leaders have offered no plausible scenario
for a successful ending, so they simply are delaying an almost certain
and embarrassing defeat.
Conservatives defend their doggedness.
They say they courageously are keeping promises to oppose President
Barack Obama's liberalization of deportation policies, which they
consider unconstitutional. Several said their constituents support their
stand, while others said the issue transcends politics.
As a
deadline fast approached Friday night, the House agreed to extend the
department's funding for a week. But some in both parties said the
Republicans were losing political ground.
"It's bad policy and bad
politics," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who once
oversaw his party's House campaigns. The short-term fix, he said,
"doesn't help the country, and it just shows that they're incapable of
governing" despite holding House and Senate majorities.
As for an
important voting group in presidential elections, Van Hollen said: "Any
effort to earn the support of Hispanic voters has been torpedoed by
these antics."
Some Republicans are nearly as pessimistic.
"Bad
tactics yield bad outcomes," GOP Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania told
reporters. Republican leaders, he said, have engaged "in tactical
malpractice, and at some point we're going to vote on the negotiated
Homeland Security appropriations bill," a bipartisan plan that most
Republicans oppose but cannot kill.
In this Feb. 27, 2015, photo, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., stands outside the House chamber holds a proc …
Weeks ago, Republicans embarked on a strategy that targeted
Obama's executive order protecting millions of immigrants from
deportation. They voted to cut off the department's money flow after
Feb. 27 unless the order was rescinded.
But they never figured how
to overcome Democratic delaying tactics in the Senate that, as many
predicted, blocked the GOP plan. Stymied, Senate Republican leaders
agreed to fund the department for the rest of the budget year, through
September, and to deal separately with immigration.
House
Republicans rejected that approach. Shortly before Friday's midnight
deadline, the House extended funding for a week without resolving the
larger dispute.
"We all know how this is going to turn out," said
an exasperated Republican, Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho. "Politically,
it's devastating."
Democrats turned up the heat, saying short-term extensions will damage morale at the agency.
"It's
a staggering failure of leadership that will prolong this manufactured
crisis of theirs and endanger the security of the American people," said
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
But
Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona said he and his fellow
conservatives are taking a principled stand against Obama's
"unconstitutional" action. The president, he said, has forced lawmakers
to choose between "potential short-term national security threats and
almost inevitable long-term damage to the constitutional foundation of
the nation."
He and his allies will "do the right thing, even if it doesn't make us look good," Franks said.
Lawmakers
from strongly Republican districts tend to closely track the fiercely
conservative voters who can dominate GOP primary elections. Rep. Kenny
Marchant of Texas said he tried to persuade some of his Dallas-area
constituents that a federal judge's order to freeze Obama's move
lessened the urgency to use Homeland Security funding as political
leverage.
"But they don't have the confidence back home that some
of us do" about the likely longevity of the judge's order, Marchant
said.
He said his supporters see reversing Obama's order as more
important than preventing a partial and temporary funding lapse at
Homeland Security. He noted that most agency employees are considered
"essential" and would stay on the job.
After Obama won 71 percent
of the Hispanic vote in 2012, a Republican National
Committee-commissioned report said the party must embrace "comprehensive
immigration reform" to win future elections, including the 2016
presidential contest.
Democrats say Republicans are heading in the wrong direction.
Pelosi
hinted at possible Democratic campaign themes next year when she said
of the funding fight: "This crisis exists only because Republicans
prioritize anti-immigrant extremism over the safety of the American
people."
Republican Rep. Peter King of New York said his party's wounds are self-inflicted.
"Politically
it's going to kill us," he said of conservatives' demands to link
Homeland Security funding with Obama's immigration policy. "Morally,
you're equating an immigration order with the lives of American
citizens."
"I've had it with this self-righteous delusional wing of the party that leads us over the cliff," King said.
I was walking through one of the big Gambling Hotels Friday night. And as an intuitive it was one of the more creepy things I have done in my life. I was pretty happy to get up to my room. People there all often in very strange motivations sort of in a life or death mode. I'm not a gambler (at least with money). Most of my risk taking is of a different sort most of my life. I have been a rock climber, someone who likes to ride motorcycles, fly planes, (and in my youth) before I married, often date somewhat dangerous women, so on one level I understand gamblers from this point of view. However, gambling always seemed "not safe" to me. So, if I ever have gambled this is what I allowed myself ($20). When I would gamble in the 1980s I allowed myself $20 which is about what a meal might cost then for one person. (two people at a fast food place) to see if I could win something. What I found was that I might win about 10 or 20 dollars in the process but if I kept doing whatever i was doing eventually long enough I could also lose it all. So, I imagine this is most other people's experience too. So, in this sense I have compassion for people who gamble, but I can't really understand the thrill of it.
People have always been important to me but not money and what is interesting about this is that as long as I took care of everyone and helped them life and God always took care of me too. So, I attribute wealth to (always putting people first) in my own life.
So, my point of view is this:"If you want to have every good thing make sure you take care of others too. Because I have discovered this is how to be wealthy in all ways spiritually, mentally physically, and emotionally".
The Creators who built this Galaxy said there was no beginning because time only exists in Matter Galaxies and not elsewhere. So, this likely is the truth.
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
by Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | February 27, 2015 10:52am ET
1117
134
73
Submit
23
Reddit
This graphic shows a timeline of the universe based on the Big Bang theory and inflation models. Credit: NASA/WMAP
If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an
infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the
universe may have no beginning at all.
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,"
said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the
University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
According to the Big Bang theory,
the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that
exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely
tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. This tiny fireball then
exploded and gave rise to the early universe.
The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity,
which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called
Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of
something will converge or diverge over time. Going backward in time,
according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a
single point — the Big Bang singularity.
But that's not quite true. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of
physics actually break before the singularity is reached. But scientists
extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said
Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in
Montreal, who was not involved in the study.
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really
have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most
dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be
reconciled. Quantum mechanics says
that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally
uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is
deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the
future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.
And neither theory explains what dark matter,
an invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on
ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes, is made of.
Quantum correction
Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these
problems. To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum
mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs
the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations
of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a
particle.
Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers
calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's
theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen
in deep time. [8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life]
The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.
A way to test the theory
One way of interpreting the quantum correction term in their equation
is that it is related to the density of dark matter, Das said.
If so, the universe could be filled with a superfluid made of
hypothetical particles, such as the gravity-carrying particles known as
gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostlike particles known as axions, Das said.
One way to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is distributed
in the universe and see if it matches the properties of the proposed
superfluid, Das said.
"If our results match with those, even approximately, that's great," Das told Live Science.
However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum
mechanics and general relativity. For instance, a part of string theory
known as string gas cosmology predicts
that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other
theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe
first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began
expanding, Brandenberg said.
Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.
"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is
confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science. "When you try to go back all
the way to the singularity, that's when the problems arise."
The new theory was explained in a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv. Follow Tia Ghose on Twitter and Google+. Follow LiveScience @livescience,& Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science.
The idea that these craters are caused by Methane explosions caused by melting permafrost is an interesting one. Also, the fact that many of these have become lakes too. I suppose it would be possible that someone is walking over an area smoking a cigarette and then suddenly disappears in Siberia and later a Crater is found where they were?
A Siberian hole that opened up mysteriously and was reported in July 2014.
Last summer, the
discovery of several new giant craters in Siberia drew worldwide
interest, launching wild speculation that meteorites, or even aliens,
caused the gaping crevasses. And now, scientists have found even more of
them.
In July 2014, reindeer herders discovered a 260-feet-wide (80 meters) crater
in northern Russia's Yamal Peninsula. Later that month, two more
craters were discovered in the Tazovsky district and Taymyr Peninsula
(also spelled Taimyr), respectively.
Now, satellite images have revealed at least four more craters, and at least one is surrounded by as many as 20 mini craters, The Siberian Times reported. [See Photos of Siberia's Mysterious Craters]
"We know now of seven craters in the Arctic area," Vasily
Bogoyavlensky, a scientist at the Moscow-based Oil and Gas Research
Institute, told The Siberian Times. "Five are directly on the Yamal
Peninsula, one in Yamal autonomous district, and one is on the north of
the Krasnoyarsk region, near the Taimyr Peninsula."
Now, two of
the craters have turned into lakes, satellite images reveal. A crater
called B2, located 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) south of Bovanenkovo, a
major gas field in the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous district, is now a large
lake ringed by more than 20 smaller water-filled craters.
But
Bogoyavlensky thinks there may be many more. He called for further
investigation of the craters, out of safety concerns for the region. "We
must research this phenomenon urgently, to prevent possible disasters,"
he said. Trapped gases
Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious, many scientists think they were created by explosions of high-pressure gas released from melting permafrost, or frozen soil, due to the warming of the climate.
"In my opinion, it definitely relates to warming and permafrost," said
Vladimir Romanovsky,a geophysicist who studies permafrost at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Romanovskythinks he knows how
this occurs: Pressurized gas — mostly methane, but possibly carbon
dioxide as well — exists beneath the permafrost. Since warming
temperatures thaw the permafrost from
the bottom up, an underground cavity forms, Romanovsky said. As the gas
gets close to the surface, it deforms the ground above, creating a
small hill. Finally, the pressurized gas erupts through the surface,
forming a crater, he said.
In November 2014, scientists went on
an expedition to study the Yamal crater, snapping some stunning photos.
Vladimir Pushkarev, director of the Russian Centre of Arctic
Exploration, actually climbed down into the crater on a rope to observe
it from the inside.
"You can see from the photographs a very
different structure," where most of the hole is caved in, but only the
upper 16 to 23 feet (5 to 7 m) looks like a crater, Romanovsky told Live
Science. "Only the upper several meters [of ground] was thrown away,
but most of the hole was actually there before the eruption." Dangerous explosions
The erupting methane may have even caught fire.
Residents near the crater in the town of Antipayuta reported seeing a
bright flash in the distance, according to The Siberian Times.
"Probably the gas ignited," Bogoyavlensky told The Siberian Times.
Investigating the craters will be dangerous, because scientists don't
know when the gas emissions will occur, he added.
How the methane would have caught fire is somewhat of a mystery,
Romanovsky said. "It seems like it happened during wintertime, so there
should be no thunderstorms, no lightning," he said. He thinks the
methane probably erupted without igniting, just due to high pressure.
These craters should only form when the temperature is warm enough to melt the permafrost. "If the warming continues,
we will see more and more of this phenomenon," Romanovsky said. It
could happen anywhere there are enough sources of natural gas, including
parts of Alaska and northwestern Canada, he added.
Egypt is really pissed with ISIS because of beheading it's Coptic Christians there. 25,000 Egyptians have now left Libya to keep their heads. Now Egypt is bombing ISIS in Libya along with the recognized Libyan Government. This is what is going on so far:
However, all these events in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Ukraine, Yemen etc. are why I'm concerned this is turning into another world war slowly, this time over oil within the next few years. Please click on Word button in next line to read Article:
BEIRUT (AP) - Backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes, Kurdish fighters fought their way Friday into a northeastern Syrian town that was a key stronghold of Islamic State militants, only days after the group abducted dozens of Christians in the ...
This graphic shows a timeline of the universe based on the Big Bang theory and inflation models.