segnosaur

That reminds me of a quote from the movie Dogma. An angel has appeared to one of the main characters to pass on a message. He's trying to explain who he is, and talking about various parts of the bible. "Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly. Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar." Sometimes the facts don't make for a compelling-enough story. Or sometimes there are other practical reasons, such as too much complexity. (For example, sometimes multiple real characters will be combined into a 'composite'.) Lets say they did make a more factual account of the 'Canadian caper'. Not only would it be less appealing to Americans in general (since it would put less emphasis on American actions), but you'd loose a lot of the tension involved with the fictional confrontations in the airport and market. You'd also miss some of the personal conflicts that can help make 'good drama'. What would be left would be a movie about a bunch of guys hanging out at someones house and then going to the airport. Not exactly captivating cinema. Not that they couldn't make a good movie based on the real events... just that I can see how it might have suffered as a result. (And I'm certainly not using it as a blanket statement to give all such flawed historical movies a pass... it should be discussed in a case-by-case basis.) Well, it certainly does distort history. Not sure if I'd necessarily label it "dangerous" though. You're assuming people are smart enough to actually remember many of those fake details. I'm assuming that in a year or 2, when people think back to Argo most people will quickly forget about details like the market scene and will be left will just the broad details... Americans fled embassy during revolution, they hid with Canadians, and got out by posing as a fake movie crew.

Yes, a nuclear disaster could be difficult to clean up. But that's an issue of risk management... All forms of power generation have risks. The question is, do you accept the risk of Nuclear power (where a big disaster could kill hundreds, even though we've never had a disaster that big in the west in over half a century since the first nuclear plant went on line), or do you stick to coal, oil, and/or renewables, which have shown to have killed many times that number in the same time period. Define 'a lot'. Here's a chart from XKCD that kind of puts the amount of radiation in context: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ In a 2-week time, Fukushima was exposing people to an average of 1mSv of radiation in the 'exclusion zone'. The amount of radiation that's been statistically linked to Cancer is 100mSv. In other words, you could spend almost an entire year in the Fukushima "exclusion zone" and still not get enough radiation to cause death. Into what? There is only one thing that the waste seems to be good for. Warheads. No, as other posters have stated, nuclear waste can be reprocessed. Un-fissioned material can be removed and fed back into the reactor. Some of the 'depleted uranium' can be used to manufacture things like tank armor, although there are also some civilian uses (radiation shielding, ballast, etc.) Once reprocessed, the volume of extremely hazardous material is greatly reduced. Yes but how much resources does a solar panel needs after it is manufactured? Same question regarding wind turbines? That's not the question you should be asking (at least not if your concern is the environment.) You should be asking how many resources something needs all the way from raw material extraction (prior to manufacturing), all the way through to final disposal after the end of its lifetime. Yes, a solar panel doesn't need any material input once its installed, but overall (once the complete life cycle is taken into account) it will probably need more resources per kwh.

A couple of things from the article that you should keep in mind: - The article points out that a good chunk of the cost from new fossil fuel plants is from banks wanting to charge more for loans to construct them. That doesn't sound like an argument based on pure economics - The article also points out that wind/solar are cheaper than NEW fossil fuel plans. However wind/solar can't compare with plants that are already constructed. Of course, ultimately, the article is irrelevant. Yes, there will eventually come a day when fossil fuels don't make economic sense anymore. Wind/solar might be part of that mix (although there are other technologies that might end up being more significant.) If they've found that wind/solar is cheaper now, then great.. build away. It makes economic sense. But not every place will have the same characteristics that make wind/solar the "best choice". The fact that germany provides subsidies to wind/solar projects suggests that the conditions aren't right to make alternative energy cheaper there, regardless of what the case is in Australia.

Yes, such externalities are valid issues for discussion. As long as you recognize that: - Even 'renewable' energy sources will have their own secondary costs (everything from extra natural resources needed for manufacture, plus the costs associated with having 'backups' available, missed opportunity costs.). Its even possible that such secondary costs might make fossil fuel more expensive. Frankly, given the complexity of the situation, its probably beyond the ability of us mortals to actually DO a coprehensive comparison, taking all direct and secondary costs into effect. - The issue of such externalities is a different issue than that the issue of direct subsidization, which was supposedly the only reason why this German town was able to go "off grid" Here's the problem with that particular graphic... Nobody here was claiming that Fossil fuels weren't getting larger subsidies in terms of overall dollar values. The issue was was whether they were getting more subsidies ON A PER-KW basis, which is a more important measure. You attempted to hand-wave away the issue (by claiming oil/gas was 'established'). However, Solar and wind are both relatively established technologies. Yes, there may be improvements, but at this point they should be able to survive or die based on their own merits.

Yes, radioactive waste is something that has to be dealt with. However, there are a few points to consider: - Much of that waste can be reprocessed. - Many of the problems regarding the handling of waste are political problems rather than engineering problems. The U.S. government cancelled the Yucca Mountain project (which would have been a safe disposal site) - If you want to consider secondary types of pollution in considering whether a technology is "green", remember, wind and solar also require resources to construct... Copper/aluminum/steel/etc. for electronics, possibly rare earth metals, etc. All this must be extracted through things like mining, and then smelted (which of course also causes environmental problems.) . And since they're generating capacity is less than for nuclear, you'll probably have to dig more mines to produce the same amount of power.

Ironically though, in the Western world, there are more deaths caused by wind and solar power than by nuclear power. Yes, nuclear power can be dangerous, but there are usually very tight controls, and nuclear power plants generate a HUGE amount of power for a given installation. On the other hand, while a solar panel might seem rather... harmless, the fact is people do get killed from their use (industrial accidents during manufacture, heck, even falling off the roof during instillation). Since you need a whole lot of solar panels to make up for the output of one nuclear plant, it ends up being more dangerous (per killowat generated) than nuclear. Things like 3 mile island and Fukushima get a lot of attention in the press, but for all of the horrors, deaths are very rare (nobody died during the incident of 3 mile island, and long term it might cause one or 2 additional deaths due to cancer, over multiple decades.) Meanwhile, a couple of years ago, 3 people died in California during solar power installations, and over 100 might be occurring every year. (http://scienceray.com/technology/solar-panel-hazards/) http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Actually there may be a scientific explanation behind many ghost sightings... Infrasound. This refers to very low frequency sounds (below 20 Hz). These sounds can be produced through things like malfunctioning fans, rattling pipes, etc. When humans are around those sounds, it can cause the eyeball to resonate at that frequency, which distorts the vision. The sound has also been known to cause a heightened sense of fear in individuals (probably a throwback to our evolutionary past, when those same sounds could have been produced by certain predators, but now tends to freak people out, making them more prone to panic and see things that aren't there.) http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Suggested_relationship_to_ghost_sightings

Even if companies were as efficient as possible with electricity, there would still be variations throughout the day... more stores are open between 9am-5pm (which means more lights), most offices hours are open at that time too. In addition, air conditioning use in the summer is higher during the day (for both companies and home users) simply because its, well, warmer. Indirectly it does. Each type of electrical generation has different characteristics. Nuclear power and coal tend to be fairly cheap to operate, but it is difficult to modify their power output (and a Nuclear power plant cannot be started/stopped instantly). On the other hand, gas-fired generating stations are more expensive to operate, but they can be started and stopped fairly quickly as need arises. So, what happens now is that we use nuclear/coal to provide "base load", and bring up gas fired plans throughout the day as the need arises. On the other hand, if we could smooth out the variations in power usage (i.e. get people to delay doing laundry, or using their stove, until after 7 when demand for things like air conditioning or office lighting is less) then the utility company wouldn't have to construct as many gas generating stations (which, as I mentioned, are more expensive to operate and often sit idle at periods of low demand), and could rely on the cheaper base power generating stations (nuclear and coal). Also, by smoothing out variations in power usage, you make the grid more stable (reducing the chance of blackouts, etc.) A couple of things need to be kept in mind: - I don't think they were ever supposed to save every customer money. They were instead supposed to make the cost to the customer more closely related to actual generating cost. (As I pointed out before, the cost of generating electricity can vary during the day depending on what type of generating stations are used.) For some people, that will end up in smaller electrical bills. For others that will increase their bills. - Keep in mind that some of the claims of increased bills may not be due to the smart meters themselves. As other posters have noted, other things were happening at the same time smart meters were installed.... Ontario was investing in 'green energy', fossil fuel prices have increased (which might increase the cost of gas/oil power plants), and utilities might have invested more in infrastructure to handle growing populations and/or prevent blackouts. At least some of the added costs people see on their electric bill may be due to these other factors. Plus, some governments may have eliminated certain subsidies which were making electricity prices artificially low.

Is Pole Dancing a competitive sport? Yes, there are actually poll dance 'competitions', with actual scoring. From: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/pole-dancing-recognized-sport-headed-olympics-article-1.198909 The strip club mainstay pole dancing - known as much for its sensual moves as its rigorous athletic side - may be headed for the Olympics. A group of pole-dance advocates is hoping for a "test" event in 2012 and a more formal pitch four years after that, in Rio de Janeiro, according to The Associated Press. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_dance#Pole_dance_competitions A wide range of amateur and professional competitions are held in many countries around the world. They are strictly non-nude and focus on pole dance as an athletic and artistic form of dance and fitness....A group of advocates are even pushing for pole dance to be represented as a test event in the 2012 London Olympics. But because this is a relatively new trend, scoring for competitions is not standardized, while names of the techniques vary among different clubs in different regions.

Perhaps Wrestling should have gone the way that Olympic hockey was... let professional wrestlers compete. I'd be all for that, for no other reason than I'd be able to hear the anthem for "Parts Unknown".

First of all, keep in mind that you're the one who's making the assertion (i.e. "senseless killings on the rise"). In general, those who make the assertion are the ones that are required to provide proof. You have not done so, only made assumptions. Secondly, you really seem to be grasping at straws here. Spree killings of 4+ people are down, overall murders are down, but you're assuming that there are more 'monsters' because there could be murders killing exactly 3 people, or murders only killing 1 but injuring others. This is where you should be applying Occam's razor (to paraphrase the concept, the simplest concept is usually the correct one.) So, what makes more sense: - Since killings involving 4+ people have decreased on a per-capita basis, and the murder rate overall has decreased, that all such events (and all "monsters") have likewise decreased Or - The number of people killing exactly 3 people has somehow managed to buck the trend of decreasing mass murders and individual killings. You know, there might be a valid discussion regarding what causes someone to become a spree killer or serial killer. Unfortunately, you kind of torpedoed your own thread by: - Making claims (without any evidence) that mass killings are on the rise (which of course has diverted the discussion) and - Making a reference in the opening post to someone who was claiming (more or less) "We would have prevented this problem if we had prayer in schools" (an argument which deserves ridicule).

You depend too much on statistics. Yet if you are going to claim "mass killings are on the rise" you have to rely on statistics. First of all, where exactly did you get that quote from? I followed the link to the FBI site, and there appeared to be dozens of tables and sub pages. I don't really feel like wading through all that stuff to find the data. Secondly, its possible that both statistics are actually correct... the one quoted by the previous poster (drop in killings of 4 or more) may be referring to a decrease in number of events (i.e. the number of 'monsters'), while yours is showing an increase in number of actual deaths... which is possible if there are fewer 'monsters', but they are becoming more effective at killing. However, this says little about what actually contributes to someone being a spree killer. Lastly, if you look at your statistics, they actually debunk your own claim. Your reference stated an average of 2 more deaths annually between 2006-2008 over the 1980s. That's an increase of around 1.2%. On the other hand, the population of the U.S. went from 248 million to over 281 million, an increase of over 13%. If the number killed in mass killings increased at the same rate of population, you'd be looking at over 180 deaths (rather than the 163 you actually see.) So even by your own reference, the death rate (people killed per capita) for mass killings are down. I suspect that they've been concentrating people killed in clusters of '4 or more' because there needs to be some way to differentiate between mass shootings like in Columbine (those that tend to spark mass media and political attention) and those that are often glossed over. I find it ironic that you criticize the statistics for concentrating on people killed in clusters of '4 or more', yet you ignore the fact that overall murders are down seems to be lost on you. If you're going to argue that there is a rise of violence, why ignore the fact that murders as a whole are down? In that case you have to include things like serial killers, a problem that has plagued mankind probably since the dawn of time.

Yeah but you kinds just said, you dont like it. I mean it "seems" something. But it's a recognized news source, ran on AP. You said you believe in evidence. There is some. Keep in mind that I didn't outright dismiss the article. I believe the phrase I used is "take it with a grain of salt". Which means there could be some validity, but it could also be a case of reporters misinterpreting what the scientists were saying. Yes its a recognized news source. Usually they're trustworthy. But, they do make mistakes. After all, most journalists go to school to take, well, journalism. (Well, it was Fox News, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.) My suggestion... find a good skeptic web forum and post the article there, asking if anyone can give more information or suggestions on what's happening. (I regularly read/post in the James Randi web site. They have a 'science' subforum, and many of the people there are more knowledgable about the stuff than me.) I wouldn't know if its feasible myself. Maybe virus A somehow prevented virus B from flourishing, and when A got wiped out, the more rare but deadlier B came to the foreground. Or the presence of virus A would activate the immune system, some of which was capable of giving it a head start on beating virus B if it invaded. Remove virus A, no immunity, no warning. Now bring on virus B. A couple of points: - The article was regarding bacteria instead of viruses (small point, hope you don't think I'm nitpicking) - I don't think that bacteria B (the 'superbug') was deadlier than bacteria A (the one the vaccine protected against.) It may be more resistant to antibiotics, but that doesn't mean it has a greater chance of causing mortality. (That was the impression I got from the article anyways) - Maybe it's possible that infections from one strain were providing immunity for other strains. (I know that happens with some influenza strains but I'm not sure if its happening here.). But its also possible that its just a natural shift in bacteria populations, and we just happened to notice it when the vaccine was rolled out. Remember though, for this to have actually happened, there would have had to have been a very wide-spread infection rate with the original strain to give immunity, something the second strain hasn't achieved yet

There are a lot of reasons why we might be seeing more "monsters" among us... - Could be simply that there is more news coverage (i.e. in the past, shootings might have been 'regional' issues.) More news channels, better/faster communication, etc. means that stuff becomes front and center - There are actually more people overall in North America. More people=more opportunities for mass shootings - Greater personal freedoms. Rightly or wrongly, society and the legal system have changed. It becomes more difficult for the police to incarcerate people without certain 'due cause'. While this is a good thing in that it prevents abuse by the police, in theory it could limit the ability for the cops to deal with real threats - Improved technology makes it easier for people to do things like research bomb-making, communicate with like-minded individuals, etc. So, this increases the chance for tradgedy Any of those could contribute to us seeing "more Monsters". And none of them involve a lack of "prayer" in anyone's lives. Here are a couple of other things to consider: - Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. In the year after bombings he expressed a "belief in god". Now, I don't believe his actions were motivated by religion; however, his religious beliefs didn't stop his actions either. (http://en.wikipedia....ligious_beliefs) - Lanza (the one involved in the Sandy Hook school shootings) had attended a Catholic school (which I assume involves at least some prayer). His mother had also home-schooled him; I'm not sure how much religion he was exposed to in that time, but given the fact that she had sent him to a religious school in the first place, its possible that he had further exposure to religion there too. (http://en.wikipedia....ing#Perpetrator) - Oh, and speaking of school shootings, did you ever hear of the Bath School disaster? It actually resulted in more deaths than Sandy Hook. And it happened way back in the 1920s. And the person who was responsible (Kehoe) had actually attended church. (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Andrew_Kehoe).

Not exactly correct... Different municipalities use different fluoride compounds in their water. Many use hexafluorosilicic acid, some use Sodium Fluoride or other compounds. Likewise the chemicals used by your dentist or toothpaste manufacturer can vary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Implementation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste#Fluorides Of course, all that is irrelevant, because none of the Fluoride compounds currently used have solid evidence suggesting that there are significant health problems associated with their use. Yes, and so? I think the most important part of that above sentence is "my view". I hope you recognize that it is just a very uninformed opinion, with no solid science behind it. All you've seem to have done is refer to: - People who are completely unqualified to comment on the issue (such as the person you referenced who said they had "unimpressive credentials" but then went on to write about the evils of fluoridation) - Lots of irrelevancies and downright bad science - Studies that are irrelevant because they aren't dealing with water fluoridation (like the study you referenced that dealt with levels far and above what are used in Canada.) On the other hand, those in favor of fluoridation can point to peer reviewed studies by experts in the field to support their views.

The other thing you seem to be overlooking is that the bulk of the data used in that study came from China, where fluoride levels are much higher than here in North America. From: http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/11/2485561/harvard-scientists-data-on-fluoride.html Two of the scientists who compiled the Harvard study on fluoride said it really doesn’t address the safety of fluoridation levels typical of American drinking water. “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S." ... Larry Hund, a pediatrician and leader in the pro-fluoride group Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, said he had taken the Harvard study with a grain of salt even before the researchers acknowledged that it didn’t address American fluoridated water. “They’re looking at fluoride levels 10 times what we see here in the U.S.,” he said. In addition, he pointed out that most of the studies were done in China and didn’t account for other factors that can influence IQ scores such as poverty, exposure to heavy metal pollution and dietary deficiencies. So, again, dosage is everything. It should also be noted that many of the studies used in the paper were incomplete. Oh, and then there's this: ...the researchers also found the IQ differential didn’t appear to last to adulthood.“The IQs of adults in the area were also measured and the intellectual ability and even life expectancy of people in the (high-fluoride) endemic region appeared to be higher than the non-endemic region... So, adding fluoride might actually make people smarter and live longer in the long run.

What about the link I provided? That news article was about a vaccine. I already addressed your link in post 60. While the title of the article was something like "vaccines spur superbug", it appears to be rather sketchy. The vaccine itself was not involved in creating antibiotic resistance. Instead, it was suggesting that stopping disease A through vaccines somehow was allowing disease B to thrive. Problem is, I can't see why a child could not contract both disease A and B (sequentially), so that the vaccine may not have made a difference.

You might not understand this concept, but when dealing with hazardous chemicals, there is often a concept called 'dosage'. Yes, going swimming in a vat of hexaflurosilic acid is dangerous. But at the concentrations you will be exposed to in drinking water is far below that which would be considered risky. Wow.... just, wow. Who wrote that review? Someone named Delcan Waugh. Who actually owns the 'enviro.ie' web site? Same guy... Delcan Waugh. Industrious guy that Waugh... both writes reviews and sets up web sites to hold that information. However, that doesn't make his views legitimate. It just means that he has $100 to buy a web domain and pay a company to host his data. http://whois.domaintools.com/enviro.ie Another very questionable source... While this "study" appears on a government web site, it was not done by government scientists. It wasn't done by scientists at all. Instead, it was a submission to the "National Toxicology Program", by someone named Janet Reed Pettit, who stated right at the top she was "a citizen of unimpressive credentials". I could find no indication that this individual has any sort of knowledge of science whatsoever, and didn't just cherry-pick random quotes from various anti-fluoridation sources. Unless people are taking in water through Osmosis through the skin, I'm pretty sure that whatever drinking water you ingest will probably come into contact with your teeth at some point. Possibly. The problem is... not everyone does brush (or at least not as often as they should). And at least some that brush may not be using flouride toothpaste. Sadly, many of the people who don't brush properly are often poor. Some can end up with serious dental problems (which, of course, can cost our health care system.) Yes they are. Now, whether the good of better dental health outweighs the almost purely psychological aspects of "OMG! I'm being medicated without consent" is up for debate. Real scientists (i.e. not some no-name citizen, or some goofball who writes his own reports on his own website) hold differing opinions. http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf Again, dosage is everything. The concentration of fluoride in the substances used by dentists range from 9000 PPM up to 22,500 PPM. (See: http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_fluoridetherapy.pdf). Water fluoridation is typically in the 1PPM range. In other words, the fluoride treatment you get at your dentist can be tens of thousands of times stronger than what you get in drinking water. Oh, by the way, here's something to consider: They did a study in South Africa, where they compared children who drank Fluoridated tap water with those who drank bottled water without fluoridation. Result? Those who drank the bottled water had 52% more cavities than those who drank fluoridated water. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011702905.html

That article seems a little... strange. I would certainly take it with a grain of salt. Keep in mind that the article doesn't really say that the vaccine itself causes the 'superbug'. Instead, it says that kids protected from one infection (via vaccine) are coming down with these other related strains of bacteria. However, that doesn't seem to make much sense... there's no reason I can think of why a child (even if not vaccinated) can't have sequel infections by the different strains.

I notice you left out a few quotes from the article you referenced, including: Sweden's mass vaccination saved between 30 and 60 people from swine flu death.. So, 200 people with Narcolepsy vs. up to 60 people dead. I wonder how many of those 60 people would have preferred narcolepsy to death? Also, here's an article that covers some of the same info: From: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/jan3013narco-jw.html lthough the signals in Finland and Sweden matched the background data they found, mismatches with age-specific diagnostic rates and pandemic vaccine coverage rates indicates that factors apart from the vaccine might also have a connection to the rise in narcolepsy cases that health officials detected. So, at this point, despite your eagerness to condemn the inflenza vaccine, we do not have solid evidence that the vaccine was the cause. It should also be noted that that so far the problem with narcolepsy seems to be concentrated in only a few countries. We haven't seen any evidence that North America was affected.

No, it is not. Just a strong interest that I have. (At one point I was thinking of going into microbiology as a profession, but I ended up going into Computer Science.) Here are the qualifications that I do have: - Both a B.Sc. and and M.Sc. (Having the M.Sc. gives me experience dealing with peer-reviewed articles, where I get at least some information from) - University-level courses in Zoology, Microbiology, chemistry, and genetics. (the university I went to had a curriculum that had fairly broad requirements. Still, I went above the basic requirements to take more than I needed because I was interested in the stuff) I also took multiple courses in statistics, which helps at least understand some of the discussions about probability, statistics, etc. that many articles mention - Experience with skeptic groups (Such as the JREF), which has helped me greatly tune my B.S.-meter - I have attended conferences where I've talked with various scientists doing research into biology, astronomy, etc. I have to admit, I'm not exactly an expert (and I'd gladly defer to any immunologist or microbiologist out here), but to be honest, much of the science that has been discussed is not at an expert level. Of course, nobody should ever trust anyone just because they appear to be an expert. (And I assume nobody is trusting me because of what I've written here.) What they should trust in the evidence. I've done my best to back up most of what I've claimed. Consider that in this thread: - I have posted multiple articles, from sources like peer-reviewed journals, mainstream media, etc. On the other hand, how many times have we seen anti-vax posters here try to justify their positions by "hand waving"? (Hey, the flu's no big thing!) - I have done my best to deal with all the issues/questions raised here (well, as I had available time), and have attempted to do so by addressing concerns with logic, science, and when possible, references. On the other hand, look at the number of people here who have ignored points I've raised. Heck, look at the people who have accused me for being an employee for "vaccine-manufacturers". What does that say about the quality of their argument if they have to resort to such accusations?

Or they could get it from any of a few hundred million other people. Forgive me for not looking too guilty. Perhaps you should feel guilty. If someone died from something I had done, then I'd certainly feel at least some sense of guilt, even if the death couldn't be directly attributed to me. But then, I'm not an amoral psycopath. Well, at least not much anyways. By your reasoning, I should feel no guilt about throwing lit matches in the forest, even if a forest fire occurs (that desolates huge areas of forest) just because "The fire could have started from other ways (like maybe arsonist squirrels.). And how many people die every year from car accidents? Mostly killed by idiots that thought they could drive without crashing. So... because people people die from one cause, we should ignore people dying from other causes? Hey, more people die from heart disease an cancer than they do from car accidents! Should we immediately eliminate all efforts to reduce deaths from car accidents? Get rid of all laws (like seatbelt laws)? You know, if getting vaccinated actually caused significant hardship then yes there would be a moral difference. However, given the fact that the vaccine is: A: Overall beneficial to the vaccinated person (i.e. even with the risk of potential side effects there is still less risk than catching a full-blown flu), B: low cost, and C: relatively easy to get in many locations (where I live they had open, and free flu-shot clinics all over the city) then not acting should be harder to justify morally. If I saw someone that was on fire, I would call 911. I'd consider it the moral thing to do. It would take little effort, wouldn't put me at risk, and wouldn't really cost me anything. Unlike you, who would consider it just as moral to break out the marshmallows to roast over their burning corpse. Because it's not so much to risk. Do most people enjoy colds? Nope. And yet they still go to work, still go to school, even though they might be infected there. Ummm... you missed the actual question. I never asked "can you continue living your life if you come down with the flu". The question is Do you like the feeling when you're sick. Actually the flu vaccine is actually a very good investment for society. You see, what you seem to forget is that while many people will shrug off a flu and continue life, not everyone does. Some people end up taking time off work (which harms productivity in the economy). Some people end up taking various drugs (which may thrill the people who make aspirin, but those who have to pay... not so much). People also end up taking trips to see either their doctors (which clogs up our health care system) or even get admitted to hospitals, some even having to spend time in the ICU. In 2009, there were 15,000 admitted to hospital due to the flu in Canada. It was estimated that it cost hospitals an estimated $200 million to deal with those admissions. And this was just for hospital admissions... doesn't include the costs for people visiting their family doctor, nor the cost to the economy in terms of lost productivity. (See: http://www.cihi.ca/c...release_23nov10) Want more evidence? Here's a study where they compared a group of vaccinated individuals with a group of unvaccinated individuals. All were adults, all were working. The result? Not only did the vaccinated group end up loosing fewer days of work (less than half that of the unvaccinated group), it was estimated that for every dollar that was spent on vaccination saved the company $2.58. (See: http://journals.lww....ine_in_a.6.aspx) Yet more evidence: Here in Ontario, they've expanded the flu-vaccination program. Instead of targeting just those who are 'at risk', (e.g. the elderly, children, etc.) they've decided to target everyone. A recent study showed a net economic benefit to Ontario because of that. From: http://www.plosmedic...al.pmed.1000256 A study published in 2008 showed that, following the introduction of the UIIP (universal influenza immunization program), vaccination rates in Ontario increased more than in other Canadian provinces. In addition, deaths from influenza and influenza-related use of health care facilities decreased more in Ontario than in provinces that continued to offer a TIIP (targeted influenza immunization program). ... ...the introduction of the UIIP reduced the number of influenza cases by nearly two-thirds and reduced deaths from influenza by more than a quarter compared with what would have been expected had the province continued to offer a TIIP.... Furthermore, the reduction in influenza cases halved influenza-related health care costs... So, Ontario is getting more people vaccinated against the flu, and we're seeing medical costs decrease as a result. (Plus there's that little issue of fewer people dying.) Edited to add: Just wanted to add one little caveat. Yes, I do realize that there are a lot of factors that can go into just how cost effective a vaccine is... the match of the vaccine to the circulating strains, the virulence of the circulating strain, the timing of the vaccine launch with the peak of the flu season, the demographics of the innoculated population, etc. Some years, vaccinating as many people as possible will be a good thing. Some years, it may not be such a good investment. However, on average its likely an economic benefit to vaccinate as many as possible. Yes, its true...the development cycle for the influenza vaccines is very short... However, as I pointed out before, there is very little variation in the process from year to year. The method of manufacture is well known, the various additives have been tested in other versions of the vaccine, etc. Yes, in a perfect world, it would be great if we could test vaccines completely. Set up 100-year studies to ensure a baby vaccinated before their first birthday has no bad side effects when they're in their 90s. But such through testing makes no sense in the real world. Not only would it be cost-prohibitive to run such a study, you will end up with thousands of people dying in the mean time while you attempt to run such comprehensive tests. So, just with most vaccines or new drugs, they do generalized tests. They do the tests on thousands of individuals. They run them on so many people that, even if there are problems somewhere down the road with small populations, the end result will still be a net benefit.

That shouldn't be a concern. The human body runs across many many germs (bacteria, viruses, etc.) in a year. Your body has to build up antibodies against anything it comes across. The fact that you're introducing a few extra in an occasional vaccine won't be taxing the immune system significantly any more than it already is. Probably not. Usually, when vaccines are given, the viruses used in them is dead. Deactivated. No longer living. There's no real way for 'interaction' (exchange of genetic materials) between viruses in that situation because the're unable to infect cells (where the exchange of genetic material would take place.) The bigger danger is from people who don't get vaccinated, since they could (in theory) be hosting multiple viral infections at once. We've been vaccinating people for various diseases for centuries. Its an imperfect science, but we've had a lot of successes. Yes, there may be occasional screw-ups. But if there were any sort of significant problem, why haven't we seen any sort of wide-spread problems before ? As it has been pointed out multiple times.... no they do not. The bigger danger of creating 'superbugs' are from people who don't get vaccinated, since when they get sick their body becomes a germ factory, producing all sorts of fresh viruses (some of which may contain mutations that make them more dangerous).

Yes, its possible that some people mis-understand what exactly the flu vaccine does and what it protects against and assumes it does more than it does. Sadly you can't force people to educate themselves. But, so what? They're still better off getting the flu shot (with its benefits) than not getting it. Last time I got vaccinated I didn't see too many people running out into the street encouraging strangers to spit on them just because they were protected. No, but it greatly reduces the chance that you will. Inflenza is a communicable disease. Its spread from person to person, primarily through water droplets in the air caused by people coughing. If more people got vaccinated, there would be fewer people coughing and potentially spreading the flu to other people (possibly people who cannot get vaccinated due to medical conditions such as allergies to components in the vaccine.) So yes, getting the flu shot benefits you... but it also benefits those around you. Yes, children are less hygenic and can pass things like flu around more effectively than adults. (All the more reason to get your children vaccinated). But that doesn't mean that adults can't pass the virus onto children. Even if kids are spreading it amongst themselves at some daycare or school, there still had to be a "patient zero", a child who caught influenza from someone other than another child at daycare. So, what makes more sense, that: - The first child to have caught the flu got it from some adult idiot who thought "I don't need to get vaccinated! The flu is no big deal" or - The 2 year old pre-school child is sneaking out at 3 in the morning to party with others? With any communal disease, the more routes you stop from the disease getting passed the better. Yes, there will always be people who should be considered higher priority for vaccinations, but that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't eventually get the shot. Nope, they're not. As I mentioned before, by far the most common method of transmitting the flu is from water drops in the air. While there is a small chance of catching the flu from touching surfaces, it would probably be a very rare thing. (The influenza virus transmits best when it infects deeper tissues.) That doesn't mean that you can't get other diseases from touching contaminated surfaces. And by the way, even if you could easily pick up the flu from things like grocery carts... that's not an excuse to avoid vaccinations. After all, the germs on the carts have to come from somewhere (since the virus only survives a few hours on surfaces)... quite likely an unvaccinated idiot who gets infected then coughs on the handle.

My teachers in school always thought I was going to be an astronaut. They kept telling me I was taking up space.