Peridot is actually gem quality variety of the forsteritic olivine. The name of this semi-precious stone is believed to have been derived from the Arabic word ‘faridat’ which means “gem” or from the French word ‘peritot’ which means “unclear.” Peridot is just one of the very few gemstones
With this gemstone, the depth of green basically depends on the amount of which is contained in its crystal structure. This varies from a yellow-green hue to an olive shade to a brownish green hue. It is also often known as the “poor man’s emerald”. Now, olivine, where peridot is derived, is a actually a very abundant mineral; however, gem-quality peridot is quite rare. Peridot crystals were collected from several Pallasite meteorites.
It is a volcanic gemstone and has a hardness of 6.5 with a luster that is vitreous to oily. It is the birthstone of people who were born in the month of August. It has many holistic properties including the ability to help in the stimulation of personal awareness and growth. It is also believed to have the power of protecting the wearer from cynicism and assistance in garnering assertiveness.
In folklore, Romans were said to have prescribed administering medicines in goblets that have been made with Peridot. They believed that doing so actually strengthens the remedy. The peridot was also referred to as the ‘evening stone’ because the color of the semi-precious stone does not fade during nighttime or under lamplight.
This stone can be mined in Brazil, Burma, the USA, St. John’s Island, South Africa, Norway and China.
The importance of vitamins and minerals to our health is recognised by all people who are conscious of their well-being. Confusion surrounds what is actually required, from not taking enough in our diet to overloading our bodies with the wrong supplements and including other questions such as how much or when these supplements should be taken.
Are Mineral Supplements Necessary?
Many questions are asked by the health conscious. Are we getting enough vitamins and minerals from our diet? Should we take supplements? Should these supplements be herbs, pills, powders, capsules and or liquid colloidal minerals? How do we know if a certain supplement or combination of additives is necessary? How can we be certain of optimal health?
Research has proven that the human body can produce certain vitamins, however it cannot manufacture minerals. Therefore it is essential that we receive these minerals either from our diet or from supplementation in order to have our body functioning correctly. Minerals are vital to maintain proper nerve responses, contractions of the muscular system, to assist in the balance of bodily fluids, to regulate electrolyte and hormone balance as well as maintaining our metabolism. Found in most bodily tissues, minerals are vital for the majority of most physiological functions.
Obviously, the most proficient way to obtain our mineral requirement is by eating a wide variety of healthy foods from each of the five main food groups every day. These groups include grains and legumes; meats, eggs and fish; dairy; fruit and vegetables; sugars and oils.
Unfortunately, the stress and ever increasing pace of today’s lifestyle makes it difficult for the majority of people to partake daily in these nourishing foods which ideally would be organic unprocessed ingredients and prepared immediately before eating.
Instead, we often opt for fast foods, reheated simple meals of foods either frozen or coming from tins and time saving dinners that require little or no preparation. Convenience has led to the reduction in natural vitamin and mineral intake through well balanced healthy nutrition. As well as this, many foods are now grown in areas where the soil has been depleted by years of intensive farming. It seems little wonder that it is becoming more difficult each day to achieve a healthy balanced diet.
With the added factors of stress, cigarettes, alcohol as well as a diet lacking in the vital nutrients, excessive burden is placed on our bodies further depleting its mineral stores and therefore additional supplements are more often necessary.
Which Minerals are necessary?
Minerals come in two types, firstly trace minerals which are present in the diet, although only in small amounts and include Iodine, selenium, copper, manganese, fluoride, chromium, nickel, silicon, cobalt, boron.
Secondly, major minerals are ones that the body requires in larger amounts and include calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, phosphorus, chloride, sulfur.
Types of Supplements:
Supplementary forms may generally be of two types, firstly organic mineral compounds which are more easily absorbed and include amino acid chelates, ascorbates, asparates, carbonates, citrates, fumarates, gluconates, gycinates, lactates, orotates and picolinates.
Secondly, inorganic forms which include chlorides, hydroxides, oxides, phosphates and sulfates.
In mineral supplements marketed as colloidal and chelated, escorting substances such as amino acids are attached to the mineral to allow for more proficient absorption. These supplements carry a much higher price tag, but it is not conclusive that the more expensive price gives a better product. The decision is entirely up to you, the consumer to decide.
At the end of the day, supplementing with any form of vitamin or mineral should be discussed with your medical practitioner. Individual bodies require individual treatment as the requirements depend on any other medications being taken, each diet, each lifestyle, each one’s genetics, each one’s metabolism and each one’s age.
(July 2008) What are the methods used by scientists to date archeological finds? And do those methods tell the true age of buried organisms?
The method used by scientists to determine the age of archaeological finds is called radiometric dating. It involves measuring decayed radioactive elements and, by extrapolating backward in time, determining the age of an organism.
One element commonly used, in what’s referred to as “radiocarbon dating” or “radiocarbon reading,” is C-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. All living organisms absorb an equilibrium concentration of this radioactive carbon. When organisms die, C-14 decays and is not replaced. Since we know the concentration of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, and we also know that it takes 5,730 years for half of C-14 to decay (called a “half-life cycle”), and another 5,730 years for half of what’s left to decay, and so on, by measuring the remaining concentration of radiocarbon we can tell how long ago an organism died.
Since C-14 can only give dates in the thousands of years, elements with longer half-life cycles (such as Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, to name a few, with half-life cycles in the billions of years) are used to date what are believed to be older archaeological finds. The procedure is roughly the same; the amount of decay is measured against the initial amount of radioactive material, giving the object’s supposed age.
One obvious flaw in this technique is that we don’t really know the level of radioactive concentration acquired by an organism which lived before such recorded history. Scientists make a bold assumption that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive material — carbon or any other element — being measured has not changed since the organism’s death.
Another bold assumption made by scientists is that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant throughout history.
Are these valid assumptions?
In 1994 Otto Reifenschweiler, a scientists at the Philips Research Laboratories in The Netherlands, showed that the radioactivity of tritium could be reduced by 40 per cent at temperatures between 115 and 275 Celsius. That is, under certain conditions, the environment can effect radioactive decay.
In 2006 Professor Claus Rolfs, leader of a group of scientists at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, in an effort to reduce nuclear waste radioactivity, has come up a with a technique to greatly speed up radioactive decay. Rolfs: “We are currently investigating radium-226, a hazardous component of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of 1600 years. I calculate that using this technique could reduce the half-life to 100 years. At best, I have calculated that it could be reduced to as little as two years … We are working on testing the hypothesis with a number of radioactive nuclei at the moment and early results are promising … I don’t think there will be any insurmountable technical barriers.”
Reducing 1600 years to two years is a phenomenal 98 percent reduction. This means that an archeological find that has gone through environmental conditions similar to those in the lab could appear to be 300,000 years old when in fact it’s only six thousand years old.
What’s more, if scientists, with relatively limited resources, can speed up radioactive decay 800 times, the violent upheavals of earth’s history could certainly have sped up radioactive decay by far greater numbers. Thus, if radioactive decay increased, say, 1 million fold, an organism thought to be 4 billion years old, based on today’s rate of radioactive decay, would be no more than 4,000 years old.
What’s interesting is that earth’s history of cataclysmic events is not questioned by anyone — scientist or Biblical scholar. They may differ in their accounts of what occurred, but not necessarily in the severity of the events.
The Bible’s account of The Flood, of course, would have been the mother of all catastrophes. It entailed heat, pressure, and an unimaginable mixture of elements. This would certainly have far exceeded any extreme conditions created by scientists in a lab.
The scientific account of earth’s formation and development is no less catastrophic:
Earth formed of the debris flung off the sun’s violent formation about 4.5 billions years ago. Being a molten planet in it’s initial stages, earth’s dense materials of molten nickel and iron flowed to the center, and its lighter materials, such as molten silicon, flowed to the top. Eventually, earth cooled and solidified into a core, mantle and crust.
Earth’s original atmosphere consisted of Hydrogen and Helium. This atmosphere subsequently heated to escape-velocity by solar radiation and escaped into space. It took about 2 billion years for oxygen to appear in earth’s atmosphere, eventually resulting in an atmosphere consisting of 78% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen.
Our planet has been pounded by meteorites throughout history. One such impact, in Mexico, around 65 million years ago, was so intense that it resulted in mass extinctions, including the extinction of the dinosaur.
Earth has gone through several ice ages. The last one ended around 10,000 years ago, after lasting roughly 60,000 years. At one point 97% of Canada was covered in ice.
Given scientists’ belief of earth’s chaotic and turbulent past — the formation of the planet itself, the development of its atmosphere, the transformation in its atmosphere, the ensuing geological upheavals — it is grossly dishonest of them to then claim to be able to determine the age of an organism or fossil based on the remnants of radioactive elements in the atmosphere. The assumption that their saturation levels remained constant for billions or even millions of years is simply preposterous.
Not only must radioactive dating be wrong, but it can’t even be consistent, since earth’s violent past oscillated so dramatically.
The problem goes even deeper. With the recent discovery (as described earlier) that the rate of radioactive decay can be altered so drastically in a mere lab, we cannot trust, for dating purposes, the radioactive reading of any material in the universe. The entire universe, not just earth, has been undergoing constant cataclysmic events since the beginning of time.
So after years of telling the public that the rate of radioactive decay is constant, you’d think scientists would now go back to the drawing board and at least entertain the thought that radioactive dating might not be an accurate dating method. But that hasn’t happened. At least not in a public way.
It seems, the way evolutionists work is they make public declarations about things that give the slightest hint of supporting evolution and then completely suppress everything that totally undermines that same theory. In legal circles, I believe this is called “suppression if evidence.” With such a flagrant disregard for truth and honesty, you could “prove” that parking tickets grow on windshields.
Who knows how many other findings have been deliberately suppressed because they contradicted what evolutionists have been trying to prove for years. And who knows how many otherwise honest scientists are being lead to false conclusions as a result of the unethical and dishonest ones.
The fact is we don’t debate the existence of Mars because it’s provable. We don’t debate the existence of bacteria because it’s provable. After 150 years, we continue to debate evolution, not because it “controversial,” but because it’s not provable and not science.
Evolution has all the markings of a religious cult. The vast majority of people who believe in evolution give lip service to the catch phrases “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” without having a clue as to what they entail. This is, they have faith in their “gurus” (scientists) about a concept they don’t comprehend, a concept for which there is not a shred of evidence.
For evolution to be considered science it should be as provable as Mars or the Moon or bed bugs. Evolution is a pseudo science that’s being kept alive by zealots. Indoctrinating school children with this utter nonsense is not that far removed from totalitarian governments that force fanatical views on their young ones.
We must give scientists a deadline — let’s say a year or two — to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, the way many other scientific concepts are provable beyond debate. If they can not, evolution needs to be completely eliminated from all public educational curriculums and all institutions supported by the government.
Apple has advertised the iPod and iTunes brands in several very successful promoting campaigns. The first iPod advertisement, featuring the tagline “A thousand songs, in your pocket” was launched in November 2001. The ad can be viewed on Apple’s web site. In April 2003, Apple stated its new advertisement campaign to promote the new product â€“ a line of the iTunes Music Store. The advertisement campaign was rather successful and gave some profit. The commercials featured a wide range of music, including The Who’s My Generation, Sir Mix-a-lot’s Baby Got Back, The Caesars’ Jerk It Out, Pink’s There You Go, and Eminem’s Lose Yourself.
In October 2003, Apple company showed its first TV advertisement of this silhouette campaign, which had already been presented in periodicals. It showed silhouettes dancing to music and listening to iPods. These advertisements promoted pop songs such as The Vines’ Ride, The Caesars’ Jerk It Out, Gorillaz’ Feel Good Inc., Steriogram’s Walkie-Talkie Man, Jet’s Are You Gonna Be My Girl, Propellerheads’ Take California, Ozomatli’s Saturday Night, Jason Nevin’s Mix, Franz Ferdinand’s Take Me Out, Daft Punk’s Technologic, and many more. To commemorate the launch of the U2 iPod, Apple released an ad featuring a music video of Vertigo, featuring the band as characteristic iPod silhouettes. One can see these Ads in quite a few places now.
The iPod shuffle was released alongside TV advertisements featuring silhouettes dancing on a green background with Apple’s shuffle symbol moving under them, displaying their intention on using their silhouette campaign with each of their products. At the release of the iPod nano, a commercial was aired depicting pairs of hands turning over and examining the device, emphasizing its small size, and fighting over it.
With the release of video iPod, a new commercial was aired showing the new iPod’s video playing capabilities. The ad featured U2′s Original of the Species from the Vertigo: Live From Chicago DVD. Two more ads were released featuring Eminem and Wynton Marsalis. Although the ad still featured the silhouettes, the backgrounds were more textured and had patterns or identifiable backgrounds as opposed to the flat colours used previously. An orange ‘urban’ theme was used in the Eminem version, and a ‘cool’ blue jazz look to the Wynton Marsalis variant.
On March 17, 2006, Apple released another new iPod ad. This ad departed from the traditional silhouette style, and featured thousands of CD covers pouring into an iPod nano. The ad again uses the tagline “1,000 Songs in Your Pocket”, in reference to the original iPod launch ads. This commercial features the song Cubicle by the French electro rock band Rinocerose.
The Company’s future work and success depends on the work of distributors and other resellers of the Apple’s products. The Company has invested and will continue to invest in various programs to enhance reseller sales, including staffing selected resellers’ stores with Company employees and contractors. These programs could require a substantial investment from the Company, while providing no assurance of return or incremental revenue to offset this investment.
Over the past several years, an increasing proportion of the Company’s net sales have been made by the Company directly to end-users through its online stores around the world and through its retail stores in the U.S., Canada, Japan, and the U.K. Several resellers perceived the expansion of the Company’s direct sales as conflicting with their own businesses and economic interests as distributors and resellers of the Company’s products. Perception of such a conflict could discourage the Company’s resellers from investing additional resources in the distribution and sale of the Company’s products or lead them to limit or cease distribution of the Company’s products. The Company’s business and financial results could be adversely affected if expansion of its direct sales to end-users causes some or all of its resellers to cease or limit distribution of the Company’s products.
The Company relies on third-party digital content, which may not be available to the Company on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The Company contracts with third parties to offer their digital content to customers through the Company’s iTunes Music Store. The Company pays substantial fees to obtain the rights to offer to its customers this third-party digital content. The Company’s licensing arrangements with these third-party content providers are short-term in nature and do not guarantee the future renewal of these arrangements at commercially reasonable terms, if at all.
Third-party content providers and artists require that the Company provide certain digital rights management solutions and other security mechanisms. If the requirements from content providers or artists change, then the Company may be required to further develop or license technology to address such new rights and requirements. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to develop or license such solutions at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner, if at all, which could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s operating results and financial position.
Mineral water is considered a health tonic by so many people because of these naturally occurring minerals. Some doctors also say that because the minerals are dissolved in and delivered into the body by water, this makes their absorption by the blood that much faster and more efficient and therefore mineral water is a wonderful way of getting needed minerals into the body while also hydrating yourself.
However, the purported health benefits of bottled water remain unproven to any sufficiently scientific degree. There are not many scientists or doctors who claim that mineral water will harm anyone (although there have been some concerns raised about the possibility of getting excessive metals or sodium from mineral water), but there are a great many who say that it seems to simply be any other water except with a greater degree of cleanliness and an unusual taste (which some like and some hate). There are also researchers who claim, contrary to the others mentioned above, that the minerals contained in mineral water are not organic minerals and therefore the human body won’t absorb them anyway. (However, there seems to be a great deal of evidence against that assertion, especially given the fact that we are made up 80% of water and water is called “the universal solvent.”)
There are synthetic mineral waters, meaning waters that were not naturally occurring mineral waters when collected but have since been “enriched” with minerals. Once again, there seems to be no sufficient scientific evidence that these waters add anything of significant value into a person’s body chemistry except the water itself. These synthetic mineral waters are not supposed to be labeled “mineral water” so the are often called vitamin water or enhanced water.
Some researchers have published studies that conclude there are health benefits from drinking mineral water that has been additionally fortified with vitamins.
There is, however, much better scientific evidence that bathing in mineral water can have health benefits including easing rheumatoid arthritic pains and helping to heal an array of skin ailments. Proponents of mineral water’s health benefits say that if bathing in mineral water has health benefits then it only makes sense that consuming it should, too.
It’s hard to track game if you can’t see it. Therefore, one of the most important accessories for hunters is a good pair of binoculars.
While there are literally thousands of different models of binoculars on the market, not all are suitable for hunting. Most are not rugged enough for the woods, marsh or field. Many are not suitable for low-light conditions. Some are too powerful, and others not powerful enough.
Here are some factors you should consider when choosing hunting binoculars.
Hunting is a rugged sport that puts demands on your equipment, including your binoculars.
Hunting binoculars should feature some sort of rubberized exterior armoring to protect them from being damaged if dropped or bumped against trees, brush, rocks and so on.
Because you’ll likely be hunting in extreme weather conditions, you’ll want a pair of binoculars that can withstand such conditions. They should be waterproof, and the lenses should be fog-proof. Another feature to consider are the lens caps. Binoculars with attached caps will protect the lenses, but not require you to fumble in your pockets looking for lens caps if it starts to rain or snow.
Roof prism binoculars are popular with hunters. Light enters the front (objective) lenses, and is then redirected through the roof prism to the rear (ocular) lenses. The roof prism design allows the binoculars to be more compact than binoculars that transmit the light directly from the objective lenses to the ocular lenses.
When it comes to lenses, bigger is indeed better. The larger the objective lens, the more light the lens transmits to your eyes. If you like to hunt at dawn or dusk, you’ll want the largest objective lenses you can get. The objective lens size is the second number in the manufacturer’s description of the binoculars. For example, 10×42 binoculars have 42 millimeter objective lenses. Objective lenses for hunting binoculars range from 40 millimeters to over 60 millimeters in diameter. Again, bigger is usually better.
When choosing hunting binoculars, look for phase corrected lenses. Phase correction is a coating on the lenses that increases the sharpness, contrast and color saturation. When you’re trying to spot game that blends in with its surroundings, you need every edge you can get.
Another feature to look for in hunting binoculars is nitrogen-filled optics. The nitrogen inside the binoculars displaces oxygen, so that moisture cannot form inside the optics, fogging the interior lenses.
The rear (ocular) lenses are another thing to consider when choosing hunting binoculars. If you’re like most people, your eyes aren’t identical when it comes to focus. Therefore, you’ll want to look for binoculars that allow each ocular lens to be adjustable for focus.
Consider, too, the amount of eye relief the binoculars feature. This is the distance from the lens to your eye at which you can still see the view. If you wear prescription glasses or sunglasses while hunting, you’ll need some eye relief. Also, binoculars with good eye relief allow you to bring them up to your eyes quickly, without having to get your eyes perfectly aligned. 15 to 20 millimeters of eye relief is generally considered optimum.
The first number in the manufacturer’s description of binoculars is the magnification. A pair of 8×42 binoculars magnifies the view by eight times.
For long-distance hunting, such as prairie dog hunting, a high magnification may be desirable. But for most types of wood/field/marsh hunting, too much magnification is undesirable. You’ll be viewing too small a portion of the area you’re scouting.
8x or 10x magnification is generally considered ideal for most hunting applications.
Many manufacturers offer zoom binoculars, which allow you to vary the magnification. In practice, though, zoom binoculars aren’t always ideal for hunting. They tend to be more fragile and weigh more than fixed-magnification binoculars. Also, as mentioned previously, high magnifications restrict your view of an area.
The amount of area binoculars allow you to view is called the “field of view.” The field of view (FOV) is referred to in degrees, or in feet at a specified distance. For example, 6 degrees of field of view is common. Expressed in feet, a pair of binoculars with 6 degrees field of view will allow you to see 314 feet of area at 1,000 yards.
Other things to consider when choosing hunting binoculars:
Weight is a consideration for any hunting equipment, including binoculars. 32 ounces may not sound like a lot of weight but, after a full day in the field, it will feel like it. Most binoculars made for hunting weigh around 20 ounces.
When selecting your binoculars, pay attention to the warranty the manufacturer offers. You’re going to be exposing your binoculars to some pretty rough treatment, so you’ll want the best warranty you can get. Many manufacturers offer warranties that last twenty years or more. Some even offer lifetime warrantees.
Properly cared for, a good pair of binoculars will serve you for decades. When you consider the cost of a single hunting trip, quality $300 to $500 binoculars are a great investment.