Cell towers= Deathtowers?

[Faber]

Those synthetic elements are created using natural materials.  You can't create something from material that does not appear in nature.  It's like metals: is iron okay, but steel an abomination of nature?

[John Edward Mercier]

Understood.

[MaineShark]

From Wikipedia:
As of 2006, the table contains 117 chemical elements whose discoveries have been confirmed. Ninety-two are found naturally on Earth, and the rest are synthetic elements that have been produced artificially in particle accelerators. Elements 43 (technetium) and 61 (promethium), although of lower atomic number than the naturally occurring element 92, uranium, are synthetic; elements 93 (neptunium) and 94 (plutonium) are listed with the synthetic elements, but have been found in trace amounts on earth.

We were speaking of Teflon, which is not made from "synthetic" elements.

Joe

[John Edward Mercier]

It took a while for me to understand that personification was taking place.
That the terms 'natural' and 'synthetic' were being substituted with 'good' and 'evil'.

Correct, Teflon is not made from synthetic elements... it is a synthetic material. My post on the synthetic elements was to show not all atoms are naturally occurring, mostly do to stability.

[mvpel]

The fact that we keep the children away from things that will trigger their immune systems to function properly might have something to do with them getting sicker also.

My son was raised in a Russian orphanage for the first two and a half years of his life, and when they did an allergy panel due to a skin condition he came up completely negative across the board.  As it turned out, the skin condition was scabies, which is all but unheard of in the US except as a venereal disease.  When we get a full-blown head cold, he gets the sniffles.

[Faber]

It took a while for me to understand that personification was taking place.
That the terms 'natural' and 'synthetic' were being substituted with 'good' and 'evil'.

Right, that was kola's point, that there were "laws of nature" we were breaking with technology and synthetics, which set this whole discussion off.

[MaineShark]

It took a while for me to understand that personification was taking place.
That the terms 'natural' and 'synthetic' were being substituted with 'good' and 'evil'.

Right, that was kola's point, that there were "laws of nature" we were breaking with technology and synthetics, which set this whole discussion off.

Excepting, of course, that our ability to produce that technology is a result of our natural evolution.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

The beaver can not create materials unknown in nature... or it doesn't want to.

What materials are created?  All things are just atoms, and those occur naturally.

But when atoms are combined in novel ways, into compounds that didn't previously exist in nature* before man created them, they can affect living organisms in unexpected ways, and in many cases negative ways.

[* This is what I believe most people mean by unnatural: It didn't exist in nature until man created it. If one were to use the definition of natural you're using, the word becomes purposeless because, as you said, everything becomes "natural."]

[MaineShark]

But when atoms are combined in novel ways, into compounds that didn't previously exist in nature* before man created them, they can affect living organisms in unexpected ways, and in many cases negative ways.

[* This is what I believe most people mean by unnatural: It didn't exist in nature until man created it. If one were to use the definition of natural you're using, the word becomes purposeless because, as you said, everything becomes "natural."]

There are no toxic chemicals.  Only toxic doses

Certainly, chemicals have been created which are harmful to us, and are present in the environment in quantities sufficient to harm us.  But that doesn't mean that anything "artificial" is bad, like kola certainly appears to think.  Anything we do is "natural" in its own way.  Modifying our environment is a natural product of our evolution.  Only when those modifications actually harm us can they be said to be a bad thing, as they are then acting counter-evolutionarily.

Kola's comments about "violating natural laws" are just silly, though.  You cannot violate a natural law.  If you could, it wouldn't be a natural law.  Natural laws (eg, "for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action") are those things which do not realistically have exceptions.  Being a scientist, I certainly cannot say that no exception will ever be found, but the odds are pretty good that the natural laws will remain essentially inviolate.

Producing radio waves does not "violate natural law," even if kola seems to think it does.  And being able to communicate rapidly and conveniently while traveling is a definite survival advantage.

Joe

[kola]

Joe, do you always invent your own definitions for words?

puzzled,
Kola

[MaineShark]

Joe, do you always invent your own definitions for words?

puzzled,
Kola

Have you stopped beating you wife?

Passive-aggressive phrasing of claims as questions aside, your claim would be more believable if you actually provided an example of the claimed behavior.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

But when atoms are combined in novel ways, into compounds that didn't previously exist in nature* before man created them, they can affect living organisms in unexpected ways, and in many cases negative ways.

[* This is what I believe most people mean by unnatural: It didn't exist in nature until man created it. If one were to use the definition of natural you're using, the word becomes purposeless because, as you said, everything becomes "natural."]

There are no toxic chemicals.  Only toxic doses

Certainly, chemicals have been created which are harmful to us, and are present in the environment in quantities sufficient to harm us.  But that doesn't mean that anything "artificial" is bad, like kola certainly appears to think.  Anything we do is "natural" in its own way.  Modifying our environment is a natural product of our evolution.  Only when those modifications actually harm us can they be said to be a bad thing, as they are then acting counter-evolutionarily.

My general attitude is to not automatically assume "artificial" chemicals are bad for you, but to treat them with suspicion until proven otherwise. Chances are, if a chemical didn't exist in our environment while we were evolving, our bodies are going to react unusually to it, and in many cases, badly. I actually apply this caveat not only to artificial chemicals, but also to perfectly natural chemicals that we weren't exposed to until we started digging them up, e.g., lead and mercury. 2,000 years from now, of course, there'll probably be lead- and mercury-tolerant human beings.

Kola's comments about "violating natural laws" are just silly, though.  You cannot violate a natural law.  If you could, it wouldn't be a natural law.  Natural laws (eg, "for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action") are those things which do not realistically have exceptions.  Being a scientist, I certainly cannot say that no exception will ever be found, but the odds are pretty good that the natural laws will remain essentially inviolate.

I agree that you wouldn't be able to violate natural laws, insofar as any such things actually exist. But I thought scientists stopped describing new theories and equations as "laws" a long time ago, because most of these so-called laws have in fact been shown to be false, or rather, not entirely accurate. For example, the seemingly simple F=ma "law" breaks down at sufficiently high velocities and in other extreme conditions. Are there actually any natural laws that haven't required eventual modification as as new discoveries occur?

[MaineShark]

Kola's comments about "violating natural laws" are just silly, though.  You cannot violate a natural law.  If you could, it wouldn't be a natural law.  Natural laws (eg, "for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action") are those things which do not realistically have exceptions.  Being a scientist, I certainly cannot say that no exception will ever be found, but the odds are pretty good that the natural laws will remain essentially inviolate.

I agree that you wouldn't be able to violate natural laws, insofar as any such things actually exist. But I thought scientists stopped describing new theories and equations as "laws" a long time ago, because most of these so-called laws have in fact been shown to be false, or rather, not entirely accurate. For example, the seemingly simple F=ma "law" breaks down at sufficiently high velocities and in other extreme conditions. Are there actually any natural laws that haven't required eventual modification as as new discoveries occur?

I'm trying to keep this simple for kola, since he seems to have trouble grasping these things, or even speaking to others in a civil manner, for that matter.

I'm unaware of any "natural laws" which are not subject to at least some caveats.

We still tend to use the term to describe things that apply under typical circumstances, for convenience.  I use the term "btu" in describing heating systems, even though there are many definitions of that unit, depending on the purpose to which it will be applied.  However, most of them average out close enough for it not to matter in practical applications.  Similarly, we still refer to "Newtons Laws of Motion," even though they are not wholly accurate... they're close enough for most day-to-day applications.

Joe

[kola]

ok,,looks at ho I have to play "SPOON FEEDING TIME"   

What are natural laws and what is "violating natural laws. Try to take 5 minutes to read it BEFORE commenting.

http://www.natural-law.org/ideal_administration/ch01.html

a few quotes:

"The misapplication of natural law, with all its negative repercussions, is what we will term a "violation of natural law." We will see in subsequent chapters that all problems of the individual and society can be traced to the violation of natural law by the whole population."

"...Therefore, when we refer to "violations of natural law," we are simply referring to actions that not only fail to take maximum advantage of the laws of nature, but where the functioning of natural law results in negative consequences for the individual. For example, smoking cigarettes introduces known carcinogenic compounds which cause DNA mutation, and cancers to form in the bronchii and lungs. Smoking is thus an example of an action that "violates natural law," an action that stimulates certain laws of nature to produce undesirable consequences.."





This really doesnt touch on NA Indian beliefs but hopefully a person can get the gist of it.

burp! 
Kola

[kola]

I do not agree with some of their views but overall I think this is good reading material.

http://www.natural-law.org/ideal_administration/ch02.html

http://www.natural-law.org/ideal_administration/ch03.html

Kola