Yes, but how would you know how to clean the water, how to distribute it, how to estimate the size of the population, how to drive the water trucks to the places that need them the most, etc. without Wikipedia?;)
Yeah, I wrote an article about all of that, but it was deleted as "original research" because didn't include an external link.
Before deleting the Torchic page, you should have to prove that the information is false.
Otherwise everything that is not referenced would be deleted! Wikipedia never used to be like that.
If something happened on an episode of Pokemon, it happened! It's a fact. Why does it need a reference?? Really the reference should be the show, and before deleting the article you should have to view the show to disprove the points of the article. Why should a secondary source be used?
Deletionists are the reason Wikipedia has turned to shit. Imagine if back in the early days everything was deleted. People barely referenced anything originally - if all that info was deleted automatically Wikipedia would never have got off the ground.
Well, most people aren't worried about people making millions off flicks of their friends lip-syncing.
And if you're happy with the tiny audience you can get on your own server, and paying for the bandwidth, then you can do that.
Normal people don't really worry about things that have an infinitesimal chance of happening, it's really a wacky scenario. (Assuming you're not an awesome film director)
If people make much money off it, you'll probably make some too. If you don't put it on youtube (or similar), there's less chance of making anything. (Plus, it's only money)
There are groups that can help pedos. There is specific psychotherapy, but this is available mostly to people in prison as a treatment.
But there are community groups, similar to the non-violence groups, that can give some help. But i'd agree that it would be very difficult for a pedo to turn up at one.
Yes, I know it's a dead-end. I know it's not gonna be the most compatible thing in the world. I know it has buggy shell-extensions that crash.
But, my parents use Windows ME with no problem at all. They didn't buy it separately or anything, it came preinstalled, and it's actually much better than Windows 98.
Since i've installed Firefox as default browser, AVG Antivirus and AdAware, there have been no problems at all with spyware, crashes and slow loading times.
I run Win2000, and consider myself to be very security conscious. (I'll leave the obvious joke-line open.) I'm always up-to-date patchwise, but I've had at least two or three viruses just from being on the net (this was with dialup).
WinME runs Word, Excel and Firefox, and let that bitch of a Kodak program pull pictures off their camera. It does everything they need to do.
Would I use it? No. But i'd take it any day over win98 or even winXP!
Who has actually used it and found it to be shit? It sounds like most people just spread the goss about how crap it is, without actually trying it. I don't advise trying it... but really, give some evidence if you're gonna bitch about the OS.
School has never been supportive of children's right to freedom. My school would act on a student if the student was caught doing something 'bad' in a public place (usually a mall).
This was good in some ways; if the police caught a student committing a misdemeanor after school, often school-level punishment is more appropriate. Of course, any right to a fair trial is ended, but that's something you learn at school: (i think one of life's most important lessons) that life isn't fair.
Think how ridiculous it is to have 17 and 18 year-old adults, sitting in a classroom, and having to ask (and gain) permission to go for a piss. For those who are working, imagine if your boss had the ability to deny whether or not you could take a dump. (They can deny where though!:-P)
But yeah, for anyone who is in school now... Life doesn't get any fairer, there are still bullies, idiotic rules, teacher's pets, narks, show-offs and absolute cunts outside of school -- but at least you're not trapped in a room with 30 of them.
Of course there is such a thing as carpal tunnel syndrome!!
There's a bunch of tendons, and one nerve, that run through a confined space in your wrist (the carpal tunnel). Inflammation of these tendons causes pressure within the space, that compresses the nerve, and causes a tingling sensation in the 'thumb' side of your palm, and weakness (and sometimes atrophy) in the muscles it supplies (the bulging muscle muscle below your thumb).
Do you disagree with any of that?
The tendons that run in the carpal tunnel come from muscles in the forearm, and attach to places in the hand. Moving your wrist around a lot (especially constant pressure) will cause the tendons to rub together, and get inflammed.
It's more often seen in people who do repetive hard manual work. A freezing worker, who holds a heavy knife, and cuts through 200 carcasses a day, is more likely to have problems that a spindly geek typing.
But obviously, they move their wrists, and both have potential to get this inflammation, and the syndrome.
It's 'cured' by slicing through the tendonous sheath that forms the anterior (the palm side of your wrist) wall of the carpal tunnel. (The other walls are bone). This is called decompression. It's very safe to do.
Please explain why the syndrome does not exist. I don't get you.
Seriously, what's more important to the company: people logging in as another employeee, or actually having employees with morale!
Who cares if people use the same password. I've worked in a hospital where everyone shares passwords, and in a lab where everyone's password was the same. (Won't say where, but it happens everywhere)
There's nothing worse than a stupid nerdy geek telling people off for following some geekhole paranoid rule that has only minimal risk in real life. Like the telltale at school who takes all the rules literally, without trying to understand their purpose and the spirit behind them.
Surely the calculations that they do are not done in farenheit (probably kept in Kelvins). I don't see how millions of degrees Farenheit is easier to understand than the equivalent in Celcius (or even Kelvins).
It's not like it's a weather report or anything! Keep it scientific!
If there is a state of equipoise (i just learnt the word, showing off) then it can be ethical. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can only be done if the researchers are not really sure whether the treatment or control group would be better off.
In this case, there's no benefit to having a cellphone strapped to your arm, but arguably no harm.
But it's actually a pretty bullshit study anyway. You're right, it could be done with animals.
Case-control studies have never shown evidence of an increased risk of primary brain cancers with cellphones. They're apparently doing a RCT using shielded cellphones (half actually shield the radiation, the other half have fake shields). I don't imagine it will show any evidence.
The immensely small risk of primary brain tumours makes it a difficult area to study anyway. You're much more likely to die in a car crash. (And i'd guess that most people on slashdot will die from heart attack or stroke, so we should probably exercise more and eat better rather than worry about the cellphone in our lap!)
Well yeah, if it is proven through thousands of studies that cellphone radiation will cause cancer, and if the cellphone companies deliberately lie to you about the risks of using a cellphone.
That's sort of like getting a drop of water from the river, and wanting it to tell you everything about the surrounding land. Sure you will be able to determine things like whether the area is farmed, any chemical plants nearby, and probably things about general pollution and soil type. You can't tell that your neighbour just installed a swimming pool in their backyard.
Blood can tell you an awful lot about what's happening in the blood. Something like a leukemia will be obvious when there are way too many white blood cells. But even with hematological problems, a bone marrow biopsy may be needed to reach a definitive diagnosis.
Blood can tell you things about hormones, because blood is the distribution system for hormones, but it can't necessarily tell you the exact source of a problem. It can tell you about renal function, as the kidneys remove waste from blood, but it can't tell you what the exact problem with the kidneys is.
Other enzymes and chemicals are released when there is damage to an organ. Enzymes released during liver damage can tell you that there is damage to liver (even specific cells within the liver), but really don't tell you what is causing the problem. Enzymes testing for heart attacks exist, and these are pretty specific, and they're excellent for confirming if someone's pain was a heart attack. The cardiac enzymes can't tell you if you're gonna have one though!
Blood's also good as a source of cells for DNA. (Just the white cells, as the red ones don't have nuclei). But really this is because it's easy to get a big sample of blood. The changes that happen in blood with certain diseases often happen in other tissues, but getting a big chunk of brain or fat to mash up an test is not that easy.
Many things that happen to people have no affect on the blood, and fewer have a specific effect. So I doubt it will ever be possible. I believe 'autodiagnosis' is a long long way off, and if possible will be more of a 'whole body scanner' than a blood sample.
I agree. I use a camera to take snapshots, e.g. family and holiday photos and other crap. I use a cheap, fixed lens 2MP camera that i can take out to town drinking with me, and not worry about losing, dropping or breaking it. The low res means I can take lots of photos on a small 128MB SD card.
While on holiday, I borrowed a friend's Sony 7.1MP camera. Obviously the picture was much higher quality. When i got back home it was useful to be able to crop, rotate and otherwise adjust the picture without producing artifact visible that would be visible in a 6x4 print.
I did notice though, that about 3.5 million of the pixels were wasted capturing motion blur and other problems. (Especially in low light, when the exposure time was increased)
I'm going to wait til IS is standard before getting my own good camera.
Doctors have been looking at retinas for years! It's well known they're a (relatively) easy way to get a look at small blood vessels.
Microhaemorrhages (bleeds) and aneurysms (a bulging section of a vessel) may be present due to hypertension in the vessels because of diabetic changes to the retinal vessels, or systemic hypertension. Having more blood vessels than usual indicates that the existing ones are not supplying enough oxygen, as will be the case in advanced diabetes. Changes in the macular (the part of the eye that sees most detail) can be apparent if the diabetes is causing problems with vision.
Stroke, heart disease, hypertension and atheroscelerosis are all intimately linked anyway - people at risk of one are often at risk of others. And it's difficult to characterise the changes to a specific cause. But they're still an important thing to look at.
Another time a doctor will look at the retina, is in an emergency situation where the is a blow to the head, they'll look for papilloedema (a swelling behind the retina due to increased pressure inside the skull). This also happens with other causes of high intracranial pressure, such as tumours.
haha,
you got me there. I don't know where 40MB came from. Pulled it out of somewhere i guess.
A random (low detail) photo taken with a 7.1MP camera (at 3072x2304 pixels), takes up about 20MB of memory loaded in photoshop (using 24bpp). This can be saved as a lossless PNG at 7.5MB, or as a high-quality JPEG (85 PS 'Save for Web' quality) at 2MB.
I'm not a photographer, and i realise that JPEG saving will decrease quality. And I know that an image should be compressed lossily only at the last step. There is a point of having lossless compression, but using 3x the filespace for and image that you're not going to do anything further with, seems like a waste of space.
Comparing the difference between a raytraced PNG version and a 85-quality JPEG of the same picture shows a few minor changes around some edges, but even at a high zoom, it is impossible to tell which was the original.
Since most low-to-mid range consumer digital cams store files as jpeg anyway, it's best to leave it in that format. Converting to PNG isn't going to improve.
Remember though, the phage most likely to survive isn't going to be the one that kills its host the fastest: it's gonna be the one that can reproduce the most without decimating its local population of bacteria.
As others have mentioned, bacteria become resistant to phages too, and a human patient's immune system will produce antibodies against the virus, rendering it much less effective.
This study is investigating "applying sound waves" as well as quercetin (a bioflavonoids which are common dietary supplements) to treat cancer.
Now google "quercetin" and you'll find the sort of market this substance has.
Sound waves have long been used by quacks to swindle cancer patients out of their money when they're vulnerable.
The experiment is done in vitro. It involves growing a thin layer of cells in a petri dish (well test tubes in this case). It's not too surprising that sound waves can affect such a small layer of cells. In real life, we are exposed to 20kHz sound all the time! It can destroy the cells in your ears, that's called industrial deafness, but is otherwise harmless.
The reason they're using skin cells, is that it's easy to grow in culture. It forms a nice thin layer, and will keep growing.
Cancerous cells also keep growing, so they are often easier to culture than normal cells.
The treatment apparently harms malignant cells more than normal ones. But due to the nature of the research, I really cannot trust their findings just yet. It's semi-interesting, but really pretty meaningless.
In terms of harming skin.. it would probably harm other cells too. If it only harmed skin, it wouldn't matter, we'd need a probe to get the soundwaves close to the prostate, sound wouldn't transmit far through a beer gut.
PNG isn't really designed for compression of photography. It's great that it's lossless, but this is not rarely necessary in real life.
At 90% JPEG compression, (which is pretty high quality) you'll have a.jpg file less than half the size of a 24-bit PNG.
PNG is good for diagrams, and things with large patches of solid colour. It doesn't use the "eye-trickery" of JPEGs, so will never get as good a filesize.
File size is still important. Even though diskspace is cheap, pictures are getting bigger. The 7 MP cameras now on the market will create 2.5MB JPEGs, this must amount to 40MB as PNGs.
That's a lot of wasted space, and if you want to share photos, it's a lot of wasted bandwidth. Most photos weren't accurate enough to begin with to justify using lossless compression.
The enamel on our teeth consists of hydroxyapatite. This is a very strong substance, both in terms of low solubility and physical strength.
As any chemistry geek knows a fluorine ion (F-) can replace a hydroxyl ion (OH-). In teeth, fluoride causes formation of hydroxyfluoroapatite, where some of the OH's have been replaced with F's.
The compound with the fluoride is slightly stronger physically, it also has better pK values. The pKa and other values tell us about the solubility of a compound in acids or bases. Fluoroapatite is less soluble in acid. This means cavities will not form as easily when bacterial start producing acid in the teeth.
Normally, fluoride gets into our teeth through diffusion. Fluoride is in reasonably high concentrations in saliva anyway, but topical application of fluoride (for instance brushing your teeth) will increase the amount of strong fluoroapatite in your enamel.
This method uses a current to influence the exchange of OH for F in tooth enamel. It is nearly similar to the copper plating experiments you may have seen in high school.
Fluoride is only bad if ingested in large quanties. Fluorosis, a discoluration of the teeth, is caused by problems with the enamel producing cells in childhood. It can happen if children habitually eat toothpaste. It will not happen with topical application.
Skeletal bones can be adversely affected by fluoride, but this also requires high internal F- levels. It is unlikely to happen with topical application of toothpaste.
Slashdot Mirror
How many lives could be saved with $50 million per month? Is it really more important to keep Wikipedia ad-free than to save those lives?
How many lives could be saved with the money we spent on flat-screen TVs and Blu-ray players? Or with the money spent on the Iraq war.
Really, you could ask that question about anything.
Yes, but how would you know how to clean the water, how to distribute it, how to estimate the size of the population, how to drive the water trucks to the places that need them the most, etc. without Wikipedia? ;)
Yeah, I wrote an article about all of that, but it was deleted as "original research" because didn't include an external link.
Otherwise everything that is not referenced would be deleted! Wikipedia never used to be like that.
If something happened on an episode of Pokemon, it happened! It's a fact. Why does it need a reference?? Really the reference should be the show, and before deleting the article you should have to view the show to disprove the points of the article. Why should a secondary source be used?
Deletionists are the reason Wikipedia has turned to shit. Imagine if back in the early days everything was deleted. People barely referenced anything originally - if all that info was deleted automatically Wikipedia would never have got off the ground.
And if you're happy with the tiny audience you can get on your own server, and paying for the bandwidth, then you can do that.
Normal people don't really worry about things that have an infinitesimal chance of happening, it's really a wacky scenario. (Assuming you're not an awesome film director)
If people make much money off it, you'll probably make some too. If you don't put it on youtube (or similar), there's less chance of making anything. (Plus, it's only money)
But there are community groups, similar to the non-violence groups, that can give some help. But i'd agree that it would be very difficult for a pedo to turn up at one.
it looks like the ad was made with openoffice.
But, my parents use Windows ME with no problem at all. They didn't buy it separately or anything, it came preinstalled, and it's actually much better than Windows 98.
Since i've installed Firefox as default browser, AVG Antivirus and AdAware, there have been no problems at all with spyware, crashes and slow loading times.
I run Win2000, and consider myself to be very security conscious. (I'll leave the obvious joke-line open.) I'm always up-to-date patchwise, but I've had at least two or three viruses just from being on the net (this was with dialup).
WinME runs Word, Excel and Firefox, and let that bitch of a Kodak program pull pictures off their camera. It does everything they need to do.
Would I use it? No. But i'd take it any day over win98 or even winXP!
Who has actually used it and found it to be shit? It sounds like most people just spread the goss about how crap it is, without actually trying it. I don't advise trying it... but really, give some evidence if you're gonna bitch about the OS.
This was good in some ways; if the police caught a student committing a misdemeanor after school, often school-level punishment is more appropriate. Of course, any right to a fair trial is ended, but that's something you learn at school: (i think one of life's most important lessons) that life isn't fair.
Think how ridiculous it is to have 17 and 18 year-old adults, sitting in a classroom, and having to ask (and gain) permission to go for a piss. For those who are working, imagine if your boss had the ability to deny whether or not you could take a dump. (They can deny where though! :-P)
But yeah, for anyone who is in school now... Life doesn't get any fairer, there are still bullies, idiotic rules, teacher's pets, narks, show-offs and absolute cunts outside of school -- but at least you're not trapped in a room with 30 of them.
Dumb.
There's a bunch of tendons, and one nerve, that run through a confined space in your wrist (the carpal tunnel). Inflammation of these tendons causes pressure within the space, that compresses the nerve, and causes a tingling sensation in the 'thumb' side of your palm, and weakness (and sometimes atrophy) in the muscles it supplies (the bulging muscle muscle below your thumb).
Do you disagree with any of that?
The tendons that run in the carpal tunnel come from muscles in the forearm, and attach to places in the hand. Moving your wrist around a lot (especially constant pressure) will cause the tendons to rub together, and get inflammed.
It's more often seen in people who do repetive hard manual work. A freezing worker, who holds a heavy knife, and cuts through 200 carcasses a day, is more likely to have problems that a spindly geek typing.
But obviously, they move their wrists, and both have potential to get this inflammation, and the syndrome.
It's 'cured' by slicing through the tendonous sheath that forms the anterior (the palm side of your wrist) wall of the carpal tunnel. (The other walls are bone). This is called decompression. It's very safe to do.
Please explain why the syndrome does not exist. I don't get you.
Seriously, what's more important to the company: people logging in as another employeee, or actually having employees with morale!
Who cares if people use the same password. I've worked in a hospital where everyone shares passwords, and in a lab where everyone's password was the same. (Won't say where, but it happens everywhere)
There's nothing worse than a stupid nerdy geek telling people off for following some geekhole paranoid rule that has only minimal risk in real life. Like the telltale at school who takes all the rules literally, without trying to understand their purpose and the spirit behind them.
You mean: They're too easy to crack...
Everyone loves a grammar nazi.
It's not like it's a weather report or anything! Keep it scientific!
In this case, there's no benefit to having a cellphone strapped to your arm, but arguably no harm.
But it's actually a pretty bullshit study anyway. You're right, it could be done with animals.
Case-control studies have never shown evidence of an increased risk of primary brain cancers with cellphones. They're apparently doing a RCT using shielded cellphones (half actually shield the radiation, the other half have fake shields). I don't imagine it will show any evidence.
The immensely small risk of primary brain tumours makes it a difficult area to study anyway. You're much more likely to die in a car crash. (And i'd guess that most people on slashdot will die from heart attack or stroke, so we should probably exercise more and eat better rather than worry about the cellphone in our lap!)
Then you can join the bandwagon.
But i doubt that will happen.
Blood can tell you an awful lot about what's happening in the blood. Something like a leukemia will be obvious when there are way too many white blood cells. But even with hematological problems, a bone marrow biopsy may be needed to reach a definitive diagnosis.
Blood can tell you things about hormones, because blood is the distribution system for hormones, but it can't necessarily tell you the exact source of a problem. It can tell you about renal function, as the kidneys remove waste from blood, but it can't tell you what the exact problem with the kidneys is.
Other enzymes and chemicals are released when there is damage to an organ. Enzymes released during liver damage can tell you that there is damage to liver (even specific cells within the liver), but really don't tell you what is causing the problem. Enzymes testing for heart attacks exist, and these are pretty specific, and they're excellent for confirming if someone's pain was a heart attack. The cardiac enzymes can't tell you if you're gonna have one though!
Blood's also good as a source of cells for DNA. (Just the white cells, as the red ones don't have nuclei). But really this is because it's easy to get a big sample of blood. The changes that happen in blood with certain diseases often happen in other tissues, but getting a big chunk of brain or fat to mash up an test is not that easy.
Many things that happen to people have no affect on the blood, and fewer have a specific effect. So I doubt it will ever be possible. I believe 'autodiagnosis' is a long long way off, and if possible will be more of a 'whole body scanner' than a blood sample.
While on holiday, I borrowed a friend's Sony 7.1MP camera. Obviously the picture was much higher quality. When i got back home it was useful to be able to crop, rotate and otherwise adjust the picture without producing artifact visible that would be visible in a 6x4 print.
I did notice though, that about 3.5 million of the pixels were wasted capturing motion blur and other problems. (Especially in low light, when the exposure time was increased)
I'm going to wait til IS is standard before getting my own good camera.
Microhaemorrhages (bleeds) and aneurysms (a bulging section of a vessel) may be present due to hypertension in the vessels because of diabetic changes to the retinal vessels, or systemic hypertension. Having more blood vessels than usual indicates that the existing ones are not supplying enough oxygen, as will be the case in advanced diabetes. Changes in the macular (the part of the eye that sees most detail) can be apparent if the diabetes is causing problems with vision.
Stroke, heart disease, hypertension and atheroscelerosis are all intimately linked anyway - people at risk of one are often at risk of others. And it's difficult to characterise the changes to a specific cause. But they're still an important thing to look at.
Another time a doctor will look at the retina, is in an emergency situation where the is a blow to the head, they'll look for papilloedema (a swelling behind the retina due to increased pressure inside the skull). This also happens with other causes of high intracranial pressure, such as tumours.
you got me there. I don't know where 40MB came from. Pulled it out of somewhere i guess.
A random (low detail) photo taken with a 7.1MP camera (at 3072x2304 pixels), takes up about 20MB of memory loaded in photoshop (using 24bpp). This can be saved as a lossless PNG at 7.5MB, or as a high-quality JPEG (85 PS 'Save for Web' quality) at 2MB.
I'm not a photographer, and i realise that JPEG saving will decrease quality. And I know that an image should be compressed lossily only at the last step. There is a point of having lossless compression, but using 3x the filespace for and image that you're not going to do anything further with, seems like a waste of space.
Comparing the difference between a raytraced PNG version and a 85-quality JPEG of the same picture shows a few minor changes around some edges, but even at a high zoom, it is impossible to tell which was the original.
Since most low-to-mid range consumer digital cams store files as jpeg anyway, it's best to leave it in that format. Converting to PNG isn't going to improve.
As others have mentioned, bacteria become resistant to phages too, and a human patient's immune system will produce antibodies against the virus, rendering it much less effective.
Now google "quercetin" and you'll find the sort of market this substance has.
Sound waves have long been used by quacks to swindle cancer patients out of their money when they're vulnerable.
The experiment is done in vitro. It involves growing a thin layer of cells in a petri dish (well test tubes in this case). It's not too surprising that sound waves can affect such a small layer of cells. In real life, we are exposed to 20kHz sound all the time! It can destroy the cells in your ears, that's called industrial deafness, but is otherwise harmless.
The reason they're using skin cells, is that it's easy to grow in culture. It forms a nice thin layer, and will keep growing.
Cancerous cells also keep growing, so they are often easier to culture than normal cells.
The treatment apparently harms malignant cells more than normal ones. But due to the nature of the research, I really cannot trust their findings just yet. It's semi-interesting, but really pretty meaningless.
In terms of harming skin.. it would probably harm other cells too. If it only harmed skin, it wouldn't matter, we'd need a probe to get the soundwaves close to the prostate, sound wouldn't transmit far through a beer gut.
At 90% JPEG compression, (which is pretty high quality) you'll have a .jpg file less than half the size of a 24-bit PNG.
PNG is good for diagrams, and things with large patches of solid colour. It doesn't use the "eye-trickery" of JPEGs, so will never get as good a filesize.
File size is still important. Even though diskspace is cheap, pictures are getting bigger. The 7 MP cameras now on the market will create 2.5MB JPEGs, this must amount to 40MB as PNGs.
That's a lot of wasted space, and if you want to share photos, it's a lot of wasted bandwidth. Most photos weren't accurate enough to begin with to justify using lossless compression.
The date on the patent document says October 6, 1987. But I'm sure it's 20 years after filing, not processing.
It seems like a last ditch effort to scrounge for money. Because in 9 months in won't matter anymore.
If you get someone pregnant tonight, you could celebrate the birth of your child on the same day as JPEG becomes free (as in no-threats-of-lawsuits).
Ksp hydroxyapatite=2.34x10-59
Ksp fluorapatite =3.16x10-60
As any chemistry geek knows a fluorine ion (F-) can replace a hydroxyl ion (OH-). In teeth, fluoride causes formation of hydroxyfluoroapatite, where some of the OH's have been replaced with F's.
The compound with the fluoride is slightly stronger physically, it also has better pK values. The pKa and other values tell us about the solubility of a compound in acids or bases. Fluoroapatite is less soluble in acid. This means cavities will not form as easily when bacterial start producing acid in the teeth.
Normally, fluoride gets into our teeth through diffusion. Fluoride is in reasonably high concentrations in saliva anyway, but topical application of fluoride (for instance brushing your teeth) will increase the amount of strong fluoroapatite in your enamel.
This method uses a current to influence the exchange of OH for F in tooth enamel. It is nearly similar to the copper plating experiments you may have seen in high school.
Fluoride is only bad if ingested in large quanties. Fluorosis, a discoluration of the teeth, is caused by problems with the enamel producing cells in childhood. It can happen if children habitually eat toothpaste. It will not happen with topical application.
Skeletal bones can be adversely affected by fluoride, but this also requires high internal F- levels. It is unlikely to happen with topical application of toothpaste.