knoodelhed on May 29, 2012, 01:17:20 am

ContraryGuy on May 29, 2012, 01:33:53 am
Just a footnote.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/magnesium/

But what Good and Dutiful Anarcho-Capitalist wouild believe something put out by a Government funded institution staffed by people by dependent on that governments good graces.

If you cant believe Government records and histories, why would you believe government science?

ContraryGuy on May 29, 2012, 01:36:09 am
This just goes to show the ignorance of the average person in a group.  No respect for an apparent expert. 
Because Science is Bad.

Andreas on May 29, 2012, 02:05:12 am
Does this complaining women say how much magnesium? One (lay) person's contamination is another person's trace amounts.

Nothing is more of a downer than a voice of reason while drumming up a lynch mob.

myrkul999 on May 29, 2012, 02:13:46 am
Chelation isn't really the right word, TeamGirl has that right. Perhaps "leech"?

Tucci78 on May 29, 2012, 02:41:00 am
Does this complaining women say how much magnesium? One (lay) person's contamination is another person's trace amounts.

Nothing is more of a downer than a voice of reason while drumming up a lynch mob.

Chelation isn't really the right word, TeamGirl has that right. Perhaps "leech"?

Perhaps more like "dilute."  A certain amount of Mg++ is needed in dietary intake lest deficiencies develop.  

What I'm wondering is whether or not there's enough magnesium in that bottled water for this complaining cow to taste.  Have her blind-taste the suspect supply against distilled water and see whether that amount of Mg++ is really the causative factor. Might be something not at all in the water, perhaps some pathological taste perversion due to a disease process ongoing in the woman herself.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 02:42:47 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

myrkul999 on May 29, 2012, 04:55:45 am
Might be something not at all in the water, perhaps some pathological taste perversion due to a disease process ongoing in the woman herself.

Well, there's definitely some pathology going on, but I don't think statism is in the DSM4 just yet. ;)

Andreas on May 29, 2012, 05:53:10 am
See, that's what was wrong with Warren Zevon, he had contracted Statism!
Here he sings about it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHDdqubE7zQ

Azure Priest on May 29, 2012, 07:06:32 am
As I recall, this colony forms a panel to investigate the water, and the panel finds a problem, needs authority to fix it, and becomes a government.

ContraryGuy on May 29, 2012, 08:56:58 am
Might be something not at all in the water, perhaps some pathological taste perversion due to a disease process ongoing in the woman herself.

Well, there's definitely some pathology going on, but I don't think statism is in the DSM4 just yet. ;)

No, but rumor has it theyre going to include it in the upcoming DSM 5.  I think it will be listed under "Pathological need for Safety, Security and Stability."

SandySandfort on May 29, 2012, 09:04:18 am
What I'm wondering is whether or not there's enough magnesium in that bottled water for this complaining cow to taste.

No, she just said it "tasted funny." I assume comet water--even after some treatment--would taste "different" and the presence of magnesium would be purely coincidental. The reason that we know there is not excessive magnesium or any other  harmful substance in the water is that the market would put them out of business faster than Bon Vivant vichyssoise soup. You do remember Bon Vivant vichyssoise soup, don't you?


GaTor on May 29, 2012, 11:01:16 am
Fine, don't drink the water.  On the other hand if one (as in the 'ahem' Lady)  MUST drink water (as most of us do although beer plays an important part of my liquid dietary intake), the lady should have asked the water analysis lab/technician if the magnesieum contained in the water was at toxic or otherwise unhealthy levels.  We can assume that she ran out of the lab in a blind enraged panic vice asking a rather important question.  
Go forth and do good.

macsnafu on May 29, 2012, 11:04:54 am

She does, however, also demonstrate the inherent flaw with relying solely on concerned citizens. Most will be laymen, and so won't know how to proceed properly. Some will jump to conclusions like the woman and single out one source, or others may only focus on a few obvious sources, and so could miss the real source. Still others won't know how to properly collect the samples, and may thereby produce false positives or false negatives that would mislead them. And someone has to pay for all that testing. One colonist may not be able to afford it, and the rest may demand someone do something but refuse to help support it with their own money. Unless a testing company is willing to waive its fee for the public good, the needed testing may never get done and the source will continue to be unknown.

Plus, the samples should be tested by at least three companies to protect against mistakes and false results. That will triple the costs. Would all three companies waive their fees?

Well, see, if someone isn't willing to put up their own money, then what are their demands worth?  And if a large population is being affected, I fail to see why everybody would need to pay for testing, unless people just want to share the costs--if a thousand people are affected, for example, do you really need a thousand tests run?  Wouldn't a hundred tests provide enough evidence of what's going on?   If so, I don't see why anybody needs to waive a fee "for the public good".
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

macsnafu on May 29, 2012, 12:39:45 pm


She does, however, also demonstrate the inherent flaw with relying solely on concerned citizens. Most will be laymen, and so won't know how to proceed properly. Some will jump to conclusions like the woman and single out one source, or others may only focus on a few obvious sources, and so could miss the real source. Still others won't know how to properly collect the samples, and may thereby produce false positives or false negatives that would mislead them. And someone has to pay for all that testing. One colonist may not be able to afford it, and the rest may demand someone do something but refuse to help support it with their own money. Unless a testing company is willing to waive its fee for the public good, the needed testing may never get done and the source will continue to be unknown.

Plus, the samples should be tested by at least three companies to protect against mistakes and false results. That will triple the costs. Would all three companies waive their fees?


Well, see, if someone isn't willing to put up their own money, then what are their demands worth?  And if a large population is being affected, I fail to see why everybody would need to pay for testing, unless people just want to share the costs--if a thousand people are affected, for example, do you really need a thousand tests run?  Wouldn't a hundred tests provide enough evidence of what's going on?   If so, I don't see why anybody needs to waive a fee "for the public good".


But part of my point was, what happens if enough people refuse to help pay for it and the rest can't afford it? Do we just let people keep on getting sick or dying? The number of afflicted doesn't matter; either someone(s) has to pay for the testing or the testing companies waive the fee for the public emergency (good public relations that), otherwise the testing won't get done.

See, you're playing "what if" games again.  The beauty of our current system is that some people get to be concerned about an issue and force the costs of that concern on other people who are not concerned, through government taxation and regulation.

But if you're not concerned enough to expend your own resources, then why should you be able to force other people to pay for your concerns?  Arguing that it's for the greater good doesn't really justify the coercion involved.

Also, it's a matter of the particular circumstances involved.  Perhaps those who "can't afford it" simply can't afford to pay for it all by themselves.  If several people who can't afford it pool their resources, they may well be able to afford it.  The number of affected can certainly provide greater incentives for the unaffected to be concerned, as well as affecting the relative cost per number of people affected. 

Again, we're not arguing for utopia.  Having an unlikely event or tragedy happen once in a blue moon still sounds preferable to the tyranny and unintended consequences of consistent and continual coercive actions and regulations.

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Killydd on May 29, 2012, 12:44:19 pm
Well, if the company feels responsible for its own employees(as most small businesses do) it would run its tests for its own benefit, thus giving you the testing for public good.  Of course, at this point, it's hard to say whether it's a short term problem of a filter not being changed even though it was logged, some form of broader negligence in the water company, or the fact that she bought contaminated supplies back on Terra that are leaching into her personal water, but nowhere else.  Of course, there's also the question of whether the water tastes funny because it's not contaminated, and her eye just picked up on a number that seemed large as she was scanning the report, since a tasteless mineral that takes very high doses to result in negative effects would be ignored by a company unless it was considered a signal that something might be wrong in the purification process.  
As far as coercing a company to do something for the public good, that sounds distasteful even to my statist self.  I see coercing them to avoid doing something, or to mitigate the impact of something they are doing, but forcing someone to give a service for free is bad.  If you want that, give some rhetoric out and you'll be able to pass the hat for the cheap services quickly enough.

 

anything