I have been collecting them and putting them om CD ROM's and giving them as little gifts to my friends and family. They are so spectacularly beautiful they take your breath away. I have printed many out and posted at my place of work.
grows1
JoinedPosts by grows1
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
grows1
Here is the Hubble site for the Hourglass Nebuls-The eye of God. If one of you could post the actual picture here you'd be doing me a favor. I don't know how. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1996/07/
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
grows1
The Eye of GOD is the Hourglass Nebula, not the one you have posted. Go to the APOD site (Astronomy Picture of the Day) by using any search engine-Google. On the picture of the day there is an archive selection at the bottom of the page. Click on there and it will take you to EVERY pic NASA has posted as an APOD since beginning to post them. Go down the list and look for the Hour Glass Nebula. They are all georgeous. Have been collecting them for years.
-
6
Bush Admin stacking the deck
by Phantom Stranger inbush replaces advisers on cloning, medical issues
1 hour, 14 minutes ago
by maggie fox, health and science correspondent
-
-
grows1
It's his board. He can choose to appoint anyone he wants to. That's the trouble with the federal gov taking and assuming power beyond what the Constitution allows. The decisions are hailed as forward thinking and progressive as long as YOUR (I'm talking about both sides here, no one in particular) presidential choice sits in the president's chair. When someone we don't like makes choices we don't agree with it becomes a problem. It was never a problem when "our" man wielded the scepter of power. Stacking the deck has occurred as long as politicians have been alive. And as long as we are willing to tolerate Constitutional abuses when it furthers OUR cause and not some one elses it will continue.
-
22
Splenda, the low cal sugar substitute
by Sirius Dogma inmy roommate brought home this new ice cream last night, dreyers no sugar added, fat free chocolate fudge sweetened with splenda.
i was intrigued.
chocolate ice cream with no fat and low cal, how good could this taste?
-
-
grows1
Taken from a web site............. The Potential Dangers of Sucralose Sign Up for the Free Mercola.com Newsletter You want straight information on health topics that matter to YOU? Over 200,000 people, including 25,000 health professionals, receive the free Mercola.com e-newsletter twice a week, and 2 million Mercola.com pages are viewed every month to answer people's many health questions. Sign up for the newsletter now with your email address below -- it's free, and you'll quickly find it can really help you improve your health. Just Enter Your Email Address: Your Email Address: See What Others Are Saying About the Newsletter There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in a wide range of products (CLICK HERE to see list), some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies. But is it proven safe? Does it provide any benefit to the public? Does it help with weight loss? Are there any long term human studies? Has it been shown to be safe for the environment? The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO. The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name Splenda?, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 tp 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness. How it is Manufactured Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups. History Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest health care company, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose. In 1991, Canada became the first nation to approve the use of sucralose. In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food products (CLICK HERE for complete list of products using sucralose). Diet RC cola was the first US product with sucralose, introduced in May 1998. Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review. Safety Concerns Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes. Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as: * Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) * Enlarged liver and kidneys. * Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus * Increased cecal weight * Reduced growth rate * Decreased red blood cell count * Hyperplasia of the pelvis * Extension of the pregnancy period * Aborted pregnancy * Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights * Diarrhea According to one source (Sucralose Toxicity Information Center), concerning the significant reduction in size of the thymus gland, "the manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses and that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. [Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. (New Scientist 23 Nov 1991, pg 13)" A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown these effects. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay." The FDA aslo reported many other tests as having "inconclusive" results. Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides the following table illustrating this fact: Sweetener # of Studies* Saccharin 2374 Aspartame 598 Cyclamates 459 Acesulfame-K 28 Sucralose 19 *Number of studies determined by MEDLINE search. In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose) that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer." Is There Any Long-Term Human Research? None. According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown." According to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use." Is Sucralose Absorbed or Metabolized? Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed. Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours. About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans." Chlorinated Pesticides According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed." Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid. According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research." Contaminants The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as: * Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead) * Arsenic * Triphenilphosphine Oxide * Methanol * Chlorinated Disaccharides * Chlorinated Monosaccharide Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met. Environmental Concerns Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose is metabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucralose is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the product, it may not be so great for the environment. Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale, what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. I know of no studies showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment. * Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds? * Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment? * How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals? * Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found. Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, "the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment." One study did find that sucralose is metabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil (Labare 94). However, the ecological impact of this new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown. Is There a Benefit for Consumers? According to Consumers' Research Magazine, sucralose provides some benefits for the corporations making and using it, but not for consumers. They state: But are such foods truly beneficial and desirable? Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples, rather than turnovers; or plain, rather than sweetened, dairy foods. They note that non-caloric artificial sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing conventional sweeteners. They note that as of 1990 Americans were consuming an average of 20 pounds (sugar sweetness equivalency) of artificial sweeteners, and as consumption of sugar-substitutes has risen so too has consumption of sugar. Does Sucralose Help with Weight Loss? According to Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite." Where is Sucralose Found? In the United States, the FDA has granted approval for the use of sucralose in 15 food and beverage categories: (For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE) * Baked goods and baking mixes * Chewing gum * Confections and frostings * Fats and oils (salad dressings) * Fruit and water ices * Jams and jellies * Processed fruits and fruit juices * Sweet sauces, toppings and syrups * Beverages and beverage bases * Coffee and tea * Dairy product analogs * Frozen dairy desserts and mixes * Gelatins, puddings and fillings * Milk products * Sugar substitutes For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE Comparison to Other Sweeteners Its promoters cite several benefits over other sweeteners, such as: * Unlike saccharin, sucralose leaves no bitter aftertaste. * Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it remains stable at high temperatures. * Unlike sugar, it does not raise blood glucose levels As a comparison to sucralose's 600-fold sweetness increase over sugar, consider the other artificial sweeteners on the market: * Saccharin (Sweet-and -Low) - 300 to 500 times sweeter * Aspartame (NutraSweet and Equal) - 150 to 200 times sweeter * Acesulfame K (Sunette) - 200 times sweeter. Big Business A 1998 report in Chemical Week states that the high-intensity sweetener market is about $1.5-billion/year. About 70%-80% of that market is made up of soft drink sweeteners, of which aspartame has a near monopoly. They note that although sucralose is 50% sweeter than aspartame, it will be difficult to persuade many soft drink producers to give up NutraSweet (aspartame) since it is widely accepted by consumers. Is Anyone Monitoring Post-Approval Reactions? Apparently not. With no established system for monitoring and tracking post-approval adverse effects, how can it ever be established whether large-scale and long-term consumption of sucralose is safe? Technical Information Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process. Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF), The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS Reg. No.) for sucralose is 56038-13-2. Science Behind Sucralose Toxicity Here are some of the specific biochemical reasons why you will want to give serious consideration to consuming sucralose. Much of the concern is related to the fact that the manufacturer of sucralose claims that it is derived from sugar that contains the monosaccharide sucrose. Look at the chemical name of sucralose: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. One would have expected that a product "made form sugar" as they say on the box, would be called: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranoside. Why does this molecule contain a chlorinated galactose moiety rather than a chlorinated glucose moiety if it is made from sucrose? When the molecule is hydrolyzed, chlorinated monosaccharides are produced from the product. Could it be that sucrose is not used due to the toxicity of chlorinated glucose? Should Sucralose be Avoided? The Holistic Medicine Web Page cites the following reasons to avoid sucralose: * Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity of sucralose. * There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame). * There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects. * There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed. Do Products with Sucralose Carry Any Warning Labels Or Information Statements? No. The regulatory agencies and scientific review bodies that have endorsed the safety of sucralose have not required any warning information to be placed on the labels of products sweetened with sucralose. Conclusions The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center concludes that: While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders................
-
8
What's your verdict?
by ozziepost innotice the points emphasised by me in red.
is the wts telling the truth about their beliefs and practices?
when his turn came, brother margaryan testified that minor children who attend meetings of jehovah's witnesses do so with their parents' permission.
-
-
grows1
I wonder if the Armenians know about the JW who was recently DF'ed because he was in the Coast Guard Reserves and was recently called to active duty?
-
34
The Passion of the Christ (Movie)
by Golf inafter hearing the pro's and con's about the movie, i went to see it this afternoon.
i know we all have differing views, but i'm interested in knowing what impression it left you.
for me, i went in with a critical eye and i was emotionally detached from the movie.
-
-
grows1
I saw "The Passion of the Christ" today (well, its yesterday, now). It was a very brutal movie. I had to get up and go outside to the lobby for @15 minutes because I could not stand it- I was nauseated and sickened by what I was seeing. Until today I was never able to visualize what I read in the Bible about scourging.I am a very UNimaginative person and the words in the Bible never really meant anything to me because I was unable to visualize those kinds of thing in my mind. Today that changed for me forever. The images of a scourged Christ are FOREVER burned into my memory. I cannot get those images out of my brain. There was audible weeping (including me and my friends) thruout the theater during the movie. It was and is the most accurate attempt to portray Biblical events by anyone in Hollywood, ever, IMHO. And that is why this movie is so hated. Is it 100% biblically accurated? No. Some words and scenes were added that were not in the Bible but I do not think that these additions detracted from the movie. Some things were necessary in an attempt to meld the 4 Gospels. Was the film anti-semitic? I don't think so but then I'm not Jewish so I don't know how Jews will view it. Caiphas was a bad guy in this movie. But I see a LOT of present day religious leader who act just like him- Muslim Imams, race hating "Christian" sects and the GB of the WTBTS to mind. The Roman soldiers came across as brutal mindless sub human Neanderthals. Herod was portrayed as a weird deranged person and Pontius Pilate as a semi-sympathetic ruler caught in a situation he wanted no part of. The Jewish crowds were like frenzied crowds seen during every time period and every age- "packs" of people driven by a mob mentality by manupilating religious (or political)leaders. I didn't see Mary portrayed as some sort of co-redeemer. I saw her as a mother forced to confront what was happening to her son at the time it was happening. Just as ANY mother would. What Jesus endured for us , what He went thru for us will be forever burned into anyone's memory who sees this movie. I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that this movie will forever change how you view Jesus willingly offering Himself for us. It is no wonder He sweated blood in the garden before Judas betrayed Him. This is a great movie and will become one of Hollywood's best movies of all time.
-
33
THEY'RE CALLING MY BOSS!!
by new light ini've been using the walk away, avoid elder contact play for a couple of months now.
my boss (an ms in a different cong.
) leaves me a message saying that the elders from my hall called him at his meeting last night.
-
-
grows1
What your boss is doing constitutes religious harrassment. Tell him that you do not think that it is proper or professional for him to address YOUR religious beliefs of lack of beliefs at work and during work hours. Save ALL correspondence regarding this issue. You will need these when you see a lawyer if he continues to inject his religion into your work environment.
-
9
The Environment, Nature, Wilderness, etc
by asleif_dufansdottir inas i'm leaving in a bit to go have drinks with paul ehrlich (those of you who've heard of him, yes, that paul ehrlich - steven is so excited!
), i've been trying brush up a bit on his writings, research, etc, and i was just wondering.... the main thing that attracted us to the jws was the promise that the earth would be restored and that all the damage done to it would be corrected.
we've always been environmentalists, but environmentalists that wanted to base their views on good solid research.. were a lot of you attracted mainly by the hope that the earth's problems would be 'fixed'?.
-
-
grows1
Here are some of Ehrlich's predictions in the 60's-70's and how they have fared when compared to REAL history.......His Population Bomb began, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1969, Ehrlich added, "By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." The same year, he predicted in an article entitled "Eco-Catastrophe!" that by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million. In the mid-seventies, with the release of his The End of Affluence, Ehrlich incorporated drama into his dire prophesies. He envisioned the President dissolving Congress "during the food riots of the 1980s," followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. That's right, Ehrlich thought that the United States would get nuked in retaliation for killing bugs. As good as they were for the rest of us, the 1980s weren't so kind to Prof. Ehrlich. There were no food riots of 1980, Congress stayed in session (though perhaps Reagan should have taken a hint from Ehrlich when the Senate started wondering why we didn't send the Girl Scouts to deal with the Sandinistas), and in general Americans got richer, fatter, and more numerous. As did the rest of the world. According to the Food and Agriculture, the Third World now consumes 27 percent more calories per person per day than it did in 1963. India is now exporting food, and deaths from famine, starvation, and malnutrition are fewer than ever before. .................Like I said as good at prophecy as the WTBTS 100% wrong 100% of the time!!!!! I do stand corrected about his child. He did only have one child.
-
9
The Environment, Nature, Wilderness, etc
by asleif_dufansdottir inas i'm leaving in a bit to go have drinks with paul ehrlich (those of you who've heard of him, yes, that paul ehrlich - steven is so excited!
), i've been trying brush up a bit on his writings, research, etc, and i was just wondering.... the main thing that attracted us to the jws was the promise that the earth would be restored and that all the damage done to it would be corrected.
we've always been environmentalists, but environmentalists that wanted to base their views on good solid research.. were a lot of you attracted mainly by the hope that the earth's problems would be 'fixed'?.
-
-
grows1
I remember that lunatic- he's one of the chicken little's running around in the 70's screaming about too many people on the earth and everyone had to stop having kids (except himself, of course, being of the self elected elite he allowed himself to have 5 or 6 kids if I remember correctly); about the new coming ice age caused by humans(in the 70's the newest econazi craze was the new ice age, when that didn't happen they started on global warming); about running out of energy by the early 90's (ask him what his energy prediction is this week);about running out of food (that was before the Green Revolution). As a modern day prophet he ranks right up there with the WTBTS-100% wrong 100% of the time.