Home » , , , , , , » Funny Face Portrait [EXPLORED FRONT PAGE]

Funny Face Portrait [EXPLORED FRONT PAGE]

A few nice facts about animals images I found:

Funny Face Portrait [EXPLORED FRONT PAGE]
facts about animals
Image by charliebarker
Best viewed in Lightbox.

I was actually just messing about with this and I ended up really liking it so here you go my friends...a funny portrait of me.

Name: Charlie Clark.
Age: Not telling you!
Languages: English, a bit of BSL & a little French.
Career Aspiration: Teacher
What are your passions: Photography, Art, Music & Words (Language).
Hobbies: Flickr, Art & Writing.
Goals in life: To travel, get a degree in Teaching, Marriage & start a family.
Favorite books: I love all of Karen Rose's novels and a lot of crime/thriller novels.
Favorite movies: 500 Days of Summer, Love & Other Drugs, Toy Story 3, Monster's Inc & Funny Face.
Favorite animals: Penguin!! Red Pandas & Giraffes.
Favorite song: Umm...I don't have one. I like lots of songs.
You watch: Law & Order, Dexter, Criminal Minds, Lie To Me, House & How I Met Your Mother.
One random fact about you: I have a strange love for feet.
One thing you wish you could change about the world: For it to be in the hands of the right person. Soon.


© All rights reserved

No Photography, These Animals Are Highly Sensitive
facts about animals
Image by Thomas Hawk
One of the things that annoys me to no end is when I see "no photography" policies that are put into place in order to restrict flash photography. Recently I encountered an example of this at the new California Academy of Sciences, a wonderful and remarkable museum where my family has purchased a family membership and which I've already shot pretty extensively so far.

I have to give the Academy high marks for allowing photography in the entire museum for the most part. It's an incredible architecturally significant (and actually living) structure. The exhibits really are first rate and the fact that you can shoot there (and even wear a backpack) are really great. But I was disappointed recently when I visited and saw several "no photography" signs in the basement aquarium of the new museum.

People were ignoring these signs pretty much and shooting anyways, but that's beside the point. I sat and watched one of the "no photography" exhibits for a while and saw several altercations between photographers and museum patrons. One patron chided another for taking a non-flash photograph, "can't your read," she curtly said to the photographer, "it says 'no photography' why do people like you always think they're above the law."

The photographer said that they thought that the museum meant no "flash photography," (they were using an iPhone without a flash). The woman got agitated with the photographer and continued the altercation, "if they meant no 'flash' photography then it would say 'no flash photography'," she continued. "People like you are so rude," she chided the photographer again.

After seeing a few altercations like this I decided to investigate this policy a bit so I went to talk to one of docents. I asked her why the signs were there and asked if it had to do with flash photography. She told me that actually it did not. She said that cameras have lasers in them and that when the shutter opens the laser in the camera can shoot out and harm the fish. Now, I know that there are not lasers in cameras, at least not in my new Canon 5D M2 that I was shooting with that day," but I left it at that.

When I returned home from my trip I contacted the museum aquarium staff and inquired about the policy by email. The response that I got back was pretty much exactly as I expected. The museum staff confirmed what I assumed the reason why they had the "no photography" signs on certain exhibits was. They said it was to "be on the safe side, lest someone forget to turn off his/her flash."

Now while I can see why the museum staff has this policy in place, I still don't agree with it. My Canon 5D M2 doesn't even have a flash on it. I couldn't use flash on their exhibit even if I wanted to. And it sort of drives me crazy when people try to prohibit all photography based on arguments about flash.

So what's the alternative? Well, they could easily replace the "no photography" sign with a sign that says "no photography without museum permission, or museum permit," and point people to the staff offices for a permit. Here if there were photographers like me who really wanted to shoot those animals they could reconfirm and stress (if it's indeed that important) that any photography must be done *without* a flash. I could then return with my simple paper permit in hand and when that batty woman who won't mind her own business starts to chide me I could pull out my "permit" and show her that indeed I do have permission.

Of course as people mostly were just ignoring the sign anyways, while I was there at least, they could also just consider changing the sign to a more photographer friendly, "no flash photography," with an explanation that flash really stresses the animals out to put extra emphasis on it.

They also might want to consider telling their docents that digital cameras don't shoot laser beams. This is not Buck Rogers in the 21st Century -- it's a science museum, where it's probably better that policies be based on real actual science, not science fiction.

facts about animals
Image by tankgirlrs
While reading up on Florine I found out some alarming things dealing with the disposal of the of one of Florine's byproducts, Fluoride. When most people think of Florine or Fluoride they think of teeth and dentists.

However, it is primarily used for insecticides and poisons, etching glass like the markings on a light bulb, and the production of other materials like nuclear fuels, Aluminum, low friction plastics, and haloalkanes such as chlorofluorocarbons, which are used extensively in air conditioning and in refrigeration. (They have been banned for these applications because they contribute to ozone destruction.)

Some United States and Soviet space scientists in the early 1960s studied elemental fluorine as a possible rocket propellant, due to its exceptionally high specific impulse when used as an oxidizer. The experiments failed because fluorine proved difficult to handle, and its combustion product (typically hydrogen fluoride) was extremely toxic and corrosive.

Other uses in History of Florine was in the Manhattan Project which was the development of the atomic bomb, Hitler and Stalin were said to use it to keep prisoners docile and tame... then in the 1940's they started Water fluoridation.

This is where it gets scarey, Water fluoridation is the dumping of Fluoride into our drinking water and was presented to the public as a way to fight tooth decay, when in actuality it was NEVER conclusively proven to help at all. Not to mention that it is used, with results, for a lot of destructive and harmful things(see above uses) and it was also used in pharmaceuticals like anti depressants and mood stabilizers. SO why would the public, after just being told that Fluoride was in all of the newest and best insecticides for their crops, believe that it is also safe to be in there drinking water, in their children's water?

Why was it being put there at all?

In the 1930s, a lot of law suits were coming up for villages and farms that were down stream or down wind of a factory that used Florine to refine Aluminum and other products, claiming that their crops and animals were dieing and many of the people themselves suffered some sort of health issue including tooth decay. To avoid the lawsuits the companies quickly tried to find something that said it was safe to dump it, forging scientific reports to their favor. Allowing them to not have to pay for the proper disposal of the waste, and even get paid by the government TO dump it in the drinking supply because of its "helpful effects on teeth".

Some Facts about Fluoride (F-)
~low concentrations of F− in drinking water protect against dental caries (originally investigated in the 1930s by H. T. Dean et al (some literature refs here, at the bottom)
~below 1 ppm F−, there are no adverse effects, short term or long term
~2-3 ppm F− can turn teeth brown
~at 50 ppm F− harmful toxicity occurs
~150 mg of NaF causes poisoning, but this can be easily reversed with appropriate treatment

Unknowns that make me wonder... water suppliers CAN NOT accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor can they monitor the response in people drinking it. Our intake of Florine is from not just water, but also the air, since the factories also burn off the waste that way, and it is in toothpaste and other dental products. How do we know how much we are getting?? How do we know that the long term affects of low does of fluoride over generations isn't affecting us? Making us more docile? Affecting our development?

More and more scientist are coming forward speaking against Water fluoridation, urging the government to put a stop to it all.
Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water
The Truth About Fluoride and Drinking Water

If you have time google or Youtube "Water fluoridation" you will be alarmed at what you find... well once you sort through the conspiracy theories and such. :-)

Other sources:
wiki - Fluorine
wiki - Fluoride
wiki - Water_fluoridation_controversy

Support : Copyright © 2015. Animals Breeding - All Rights Reserved