Видео

bluddy not everything is a pokemon reference😭

"-ite" would make it a mineral - a geology term.

So “yum yum”?

I feel like we should make a new name (like tantalum) or a classic name (like newtonium)

@@kathvg ee-yoom-ee-yum

I have always put my periodic table with elements 119 and 120 and now there here!

Saturnium goes hard

100% right, my own mispronunciation makes my skin crawl! Thank you for helping to ensure that’s a mistake I NEVER make again!!

G is on the table many times. Gallium, Germanium just to name a couple

“g” brain fart

​@@tezzytezlaalso Gadolinium

I think he means just a "G" on its own... *scratches chin and rubs belly perplexedly*

Jermanium

I shall likely like this comment

Better than spending BILLIONS on a Military that cannot pass an Audit to save the lives of all it’s personnel

@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 I agree, give all those money to me instead

ITS FUN.

GregoriusT waiting for unicosium to make GregTech 7

its fun

ye

For kids to learn more

yeah we need more elements

New elements might have unexpected practical uses.

I respect your decision to want to avoid glyphosate or any of those other nasty chemicals. But I need you to recognize that you don't have enough information to do that. This is in two ways. 1) Although a relatively large fraction of the GMO foods are modified to resist being harmed by glyphosate, those are the ONLY GMO foods that increase, in any way, the use of any artificial chemicals. Taken all together, GMO foods overall reduce the use of chemicals. This happens several ways: a) the Bt crops, which let the crop produce its own insecticide (cry proteins, using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis), which is not a nasty chemical, but an actual nutrient for everything but a lepidopteran larva. b) Virus resistant GMO crops require substantially less spraying of insecticides because viruses usually attack a plant through lesions caused by insects eating the plant. c) Same as (b) but for fungus or bacterial diseases. 2) Glyphosate is not only used for herbicide resistant crops. Another use is to KILL crops like wheat or oats shortly before harvest, so that they can be harvested with less moisture content. And this use results in much higher levels of glyphosate residue than the spraying for herbicide resistant GMOs. I'd like to explain this. The use of glyphosate for the herbicide tolerant GMOs is sprayed to kill weeds, rather than with the purpose of dousing the crop, and the time when a farmer wants to kill weeds is when the crop is small, nowhere near harvest time. So the amount of glyphosate that gets into the plant gets onto a tiny plant, rather than one which has grown to full size*, (so the amount is diluted when the crop subsequently gets larger) and since it is months before harvest, rather than a week, the glyphosate also has more time to break down more before the harvest. This is just the opposite for the moisture control application. The glyphosate is purposely sprayed on the very part of the crop (usually grain) to be eaten, at its full size, and the grain is harvested only a few days after the glyphosate is applied. I am not qualified to give you actual numbers, but I am quite sure that the grain sprayed for moisture control caries a much larger glyphosate content than do the crops sprayed for weed control. And don't miss the fact that herbicide tolerant GMO crops are NEVER sprayed for the moisture control application because, of course, it wouldn't work. * except for alfalfa, which is a perennial crop. 3) There are many other herbicides besides glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used, because of its use in GMO herbicide tolerant crops. But if enough people decide to avoid GMOs, or if they are restricted from growth, a lot of farmers will switch to using other kinds of herbicides. Are these herbicides better or worse than glyphosate? I don't claim to have the expertise to answer this question, but I am suspicious. The controversy over glyphosate began and continues because groups which are anti-GMO have spread claims about glyphosate for the last thirty years. They have mostly ignored other herbicides. There are many studies in the scientific literature about dangers from other individual herbicides. I can give you an example. Glyphosate is now the most widely used herbicide in the world, but before the GMO Roundup-ready crops existed, the most widely used herbicide was atrazine. And atrazine has many problems. First, it is much more toxic (acute toxicity) than glyphosate, so if a farmer switches from glyphosate back to atrazine, it means several times more toxic stuff released into the environment. Besides that, glyphosate is rather sticky so it doesn't flow freely through soil, but atrazine is not sticky so it quickly makes its way into rivers and into ground water - which is drinking water for many people. Wouldn't it be ironic if protests about GMO food ended up making things worse? I try to follow the anti-GMO controversy, which has now became an anti-glyphosate controversy, and during the last year, a lot of oat cereal companies have been criticized for having glyphosate levels at or near the legal limits for food. Oats are not glyphosate tolerant, so any glyphosate found in oats most likely comes from using glyphosate in the pre-harvest moisture control application. I hope you find this comment helpful.

cant look at a woman without analyzing how unaroused she makes your 4 millimeter defeater feel. Pity.

If you cannot digest knowledge without getting boner, your loss. Exposes more about you than the host

GMOs are technically “natural”only genes are played with therefore requiring less pesticides or fertilisers to achieve the same results; bio vegetables and fruits are the only true natural vegetables and fruits, however those are much more expensive for the average human; not to mention that the vegetables and fruits that we know today have been carefully selected throughout our history

I wonder if your definition of natural stuff is the same as mine. Imagine that you are at the supermarket, in the fruit aisle, and there are lots of apples for sale. They all have variety names, like Granny Smith, Honey Crisp, Macintosh, etc. Any apple with a variety name was originally the result of a seed planted to grow a tree that made fruit. But if the seeds that were in those apples were, themselves, planted, you's get completely different kinds of apples, probably not as good. So what do the apple breeders do? First, they select a tree with vigorous roots. They let it grow a few feet high and make a cut in the stem. At the same time, they take a branch from the tree that grew the good apple, make a careful cut and insert the cut branch into the cut stem, and probably bind it so that the cut wooden pieces grow into one another. We've known of thousands of years that this can result in the good-fruit producing stem will eventually produce the same kinds of apples that we likes, and that we gave a variety name. Is that something you would consider natural? This is a tree with two different genomes, one in the root and trunk of the tree, and the other in the branches. There is a name, from mythology, for a creature with two distinct genomes. It can be a centaur (part man, part horse), or a lion with a man's head (the Sphynx). But these are just stories, or carved statues. Does this ever happen in nature? Maybe rarely. If it does happen rarely, does it ever lead to something good and desirable? I doubt it. But it is the way every single tree fruit with a name is grown. If you reply and are interested, I can give you example after example of things that are routine in breeding and that are completely unnatural. And they are probably things you eat and drink without even thinking about it.

Lehrer, therefore lehrerium. No capitalization.