🔥 | Latest

electro: chikaden thinksquad Here is a Science fair project presented by a girt ina secondary school in Sussex. In it she took fitered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling In a microwave. Then ater cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difterence in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by class mates a number of times and had the same resut It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to wory about, it's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not it. Microwaves don't work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave sutfers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the oniginal make-up of the substance. i results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these Safe appliances What about the nurse i Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it's safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANTASSWIPES SOME KID'S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. YOUVE HEARD OF DOUBLE BLIND", RIGHT? CALL ME WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED IN NATURE or energy of the water what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it t isn't water anymore and you would fucking notice the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the difterent types of THE ELECTRO/VAGNETİC SPECTRUM CANCER Microwaves l nuclear reactors, so calm your tits ts how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more ceils. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not The chemicals it cares about are things lke vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like satl (You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is ike what happens when you try an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein-the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cooll) I MAJUwaves dyuase uite îINeLuES เบา.IUve lastei diiu idslei I. just. .that is heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don't need to use as much heat Water boils at 100 C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam, but that's like the kwest setting on your oven. Oven-or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is way This movement causes friction That's not what friction is It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature Let's take these one at a time Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B's). Just plain heat doesn't do that, s0 Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is stl nutritious that's why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements) Which brings me to the radiolytic compound" bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron-you're talking about breaking down the ron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays-the O0OH SCARY NUCULAR radiation-which we've already established do not come from your microwave things that are not found in nature What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells That's right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long Tons of shit that occurs naturaly is hornibly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you- like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications. PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES ANDIOR DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK OUR FUCKING PLANET LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you so much for sciencing achieved I found this somewhere and just had to share
electro: chikaden
 thinksquad
 Here is a Science fair project presented by a girt ina
 secondary school in Sussex. In it she took fitered water and
 divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boling in
 a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling
 In a microwave. Then ater cooling she used the water to
 water two identical plants to see if there would be any
 difterence in the growth between the normal boiled water and
 the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the
 structure or energy of the water may be compromised by
 class mates a number of times and had the same resut
 It has been known for some years that the problem with
 microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to wory
 about, it's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can
 not
 it.
 Microwaves don't work different ways on different
 substances. Whatever you put into the microwave sutfers the
 same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules
 to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction
 which denatures the oniginal make-up of the substance. i
 results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and
 generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things
 that are not found in nature
 So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead
 food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating
 up milk in these Safe appliances What about the nurse i
 Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and
 accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the
 makers say it's safe. But proof is in the pictures of living
 plants dying
 NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANTASSWIPES
 SOME KID'S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC
 RESEARCH. YOUVE HEARD OF DOUBLE BLIND", RIGHT?
 CALL ME WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED IN NATURE
 or energy of the water
 what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water
 molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it
 t isn't water anymore and you would fucking notice
 the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation
 Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the difterent types of
 THE ELECTRO/VAGNETİC SPECTRUM
 CANCER
 Microwaves l nuclear reactors, so calm your tits
 ts how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not
 do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is
 a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in
 that particular organism how to make more ceils. Your body does
 not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not The
 chemicals it cares about are things lke vitamins and sugars, as
 well as inorganic shit like satl
 (You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea.
 It is ike what happens when you try an egg, which is basically a
 big glob of protein-the strands break apart and it looks like tiny
 white strings. Very cooll)
 I
 MAJUwaves dyuase uite îINeLuES เบา.IUve lastei diiu idslei
 I. just. .that is
 heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the
 Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water
 molecules in your food and they don't need to use as much heat
 Water boils at 100 C, which is just about as hot as water can get
 before it just turns into steam, but that's like the kwest setting on
 your oven. Oven-or stove-cooked food tastes different partly
 because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is
 way
 This movement causes friction
 That's not what friction is
 It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and
 generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things
 that are not found in nature
 Let's take these one at a time
 Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble So
 cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble
 vitamins (C and all the B's). Just plain heat doesn't do that,
 s0
 Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins
 (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured
 protein is stl nutritious that's why you can meet your
 protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken
 Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic
 table sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are
 very complex combinations of elements)
 Which brings me to the radiolytic compound" bullshit. When you
 talk about breaking apart, say, iron-you're talking about breaking
 down the ron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different
 than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation.
 You need shit like gamma rays-the O0OH SCARY NUCULAR
 radiation-which we've already established do not come from your
 microwave
 things that are not found in nature
 What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive
 elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells
 That's right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU
 You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long
 Tons of shit that occurs naturaly is hornibly bad for you. And tons
 of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you-
 like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications.
 PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD
 DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES ANDIOR
 DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES
 ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST
 TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE
 THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK
 OUR FUCKING PLANET
 LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your
 This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you so much for sciencing
 achieved
I found this somewhere and just had to share

I found this somewhere and just had to share

electro: SENSATIONA $1.50 US SOMETHING WOT FRivOLOUS ITS NOT FAIR TO ACCUSE ME OF VANITY! BECAVSE IAM A MAN JUST THRIVE 3OTw siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwitch: 100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women. She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world. Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green. Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated. Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image. “For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books. The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative. Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one. Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just- LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT. Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit. This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original. There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong. The artist also completely failed to get the joke: August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales. In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover. tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork. I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better. Comepltely unrelated to the story Entirely nude Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk) I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.
electro: SENSATIONA
 $1.50 US
 SOMETHING
 WOT FRivOLOUS
 ITS NOT FAIR
 TO ACCUSE ME
 OF VANITY!
 BECAVSE
 IAM A MAN
 JUST THRIVE
 3OTw
siryouarebeingmocked:

darkado:

mornington-the-crescent:

mightyoctopus:

siryouarebeingmocked:

cisnowflake:

anti-capitalistlesbianwitch:




100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers



An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women.
She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world.
Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green.
Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated.
Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image.
“For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books.
The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative.



Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? 

The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one.
Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the 

self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just-

LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.
Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit.
This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original.

There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong.

The artist also completely failed to get the joke: 
August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales.
In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover.
tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork.


I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single  issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better.
Comepltely unrelated to the story
Entirely nude
Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk)
I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony.

Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. 

People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.

siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwit...