Slashdot Mirror

OK. Confirmed CO deaths from car exhaust just from before 1989. Notice 67 deaths, with at least 43 with no unique cause. It shows more people died while outside but in cars from CO poisoning. Table 2 on page 329.

People are NOT getting silenced.

Correct. What they are shutting down are the bots and fake accounts.

People can still spout their paranoid conspiracy theories and can still troll for lulz, they just have to do so from one account linked to their own name, not 1000 accounts linked to 1000 fake names,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mollie-tibbetts-death-russia-bots-alliance-securing-democracy-trump-cohen-manafort-a8505241.html
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spot-russian-bot-social-media/
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spot-russian-bot-social-media/

Results. No clear differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted. These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).

Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.

http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

Oh,don't forget, you are much more likely to die by your own gun than stop a crime in progress

In what meaningful ways has the clean air act of 1970 or 1990 (for example) reduced our standard of living? Consider that estimates have them saving hundreds of thousands of lives: http://thenationshealth.aphapu...

What would not having those regulations mean for health care costs? I'm sorry, a polluted environment does have a negative effect on ones standard of living.

Back in the 60's there were rivers so polluted that they'd literally catch on fire. People in Beijing walk around wearing air masks. That's what it would be like in many of our cities without the regulations. That does not sound like a great standard of living to me.

Workplace suicides are on the rise — why is one at Amazon considered particularly newsworthy? Are not Bloomberg and Slashdot encouraging some poor slob to do it, by promising them a bit of post-mortem glory, however fleeting?

It's probably somewhat correct. It's probably also somewhat incorrect. It differs from my personal experience.

Well, I'll certainly trust an anecdote of 1 versus this:

"Methods. We drew a sample of individuals aged 20 years and older from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004 to 2014. We analyzed data for 76,704 obese men and 99,791 obese women. We excluded participants who received bariatric surgery. We estimated the probability of attaining normal weight or 5% reduction in body weight."

It cites self-help books, not scientific studies.

You didn't even read the article, did you? Nevermind the fact that the summary's first link is to the scientific study in question.

These types of articles seem to consistently confuse hunger and appetite with eating. Hunger isn't eating. Appetite isn't eating. Only actual eating is eating. A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house. It doesn't even take much "will power". Just don't buy snacks (or cereal, or anything else that's edible without preparation) when you shop.

The first link is a scientific study that looks at long term weight trends after an initial weight loss. Not "hunger" or "appetite." Food consumption over as much as 10 year is "actual eating." It doesn't even take much "will power" to locate the study and read it, versus cherry-picking a mass media commentary that itself cites seven studies and a metaanalysis.

Apply a version of your own philosophy. It doesn't even take much "will power." Just don't spew an "opinion" without reading each of the hyperlinked articles to check that little things like "it cites self-help books, not scientific studies" are not so egregiously incorrect that you appear to be a complete moron.

It's based on this scientific study: http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

Press release from the college here, a bit easier to read: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevent...

A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house.

There is more to it than just that. Even if you switch to a carefully managed, calorie counted diet you can still gain weight or at least fail to keep it off. After the initial weight loss period your body goes into starvation mode, reducing the idle calorie burn significantly (500 kcal/day is not uncommon). So if you were on 2,200 kcal/day and drop to 1,800, you will be gaining weight. Going below 1,800 starts to get dangerous for other reasons and you need to be extremely careful to get enough nutrition. Meanwhile you feel tired and stressed and hungry, and you feel that way forever because your body never corrects even after many years of sticking to your extreme diet.

That's why the contestants on shows like The Biggest Loser mostly regain all the weight afterwards. Dieting works in the short term, but once the body's set-point is too high the only known way to lower currently is a faecal transplant.

The article about the survey notes of the 33,599 people who died from guns in 2014 more than 21,000 were suicides.

How will smart gun technology prevent suicides?

Here's a link you might be interested in:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303041Then click on the "PDF" link.

$22 to read the research before commenting on the summary? Fuck no.

By the way, you need to pay to read their methodology, so there's no point in debating whether or not their findings are valid.

Why are you afraid of getting a ticket?

Are we going around in circles? You seem to equate probability with irrational fear? Hint, they aren't the same thing.

Yes, I believe the risk of an accident is greater than the risk of needing a gun. I also believe the risk of being in another fire is less than either of those things, and yet I still keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's about the risk-to-consequences ratio.

Now we are making progress. So to quantify that risk (using made up numbers purely to demonstrate a point), if probability if a serious car accident is 1:10000, and probability of act of crime where having a gun improves the situation is 1:1000000, and you act on the 1:1000000 risk but don't act on the 1:10000 (ie don't wear a helmet while driving), unless there's other information I'm not aware of, it can only be because you've overstated the 1:1000000 risk for no logical reason. This is what irrational fear is.

Your thinking is unclear. People are killed by fires when they don't have a fire extinguisher, just like some people are killed by criminal assault when they don't have a gun.

Those people are also killed by fires and guns even when they do have preventative measures (eg it's hard to use your gun when you're asleep).
Unlike a fire though, a fire extinguisher NEVER increases your risk of being in a fire, whereas owning a gun does increase you chance of being shot.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ma...
http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

Note: don't take this an anti-gun post, I'm fine with people owning guns, along with appropriate regulation, I just think the reason people think they need guns are somewhat misplaced.

Please excuse me, I had a bit of trouble when adding the URL for the article summary. It's at http://ajph.aphapublications.o... .

> No you are wrong, almost certainly because you are addicted and in denial.
0- Ad hominem. Off to a strong start I see.

> Sensible diet and exercise WILL reduce weight in someone who is obese.
1- Moving the goal posts. The cure rate is negligible. I didn't say "reduce weight". Don't move the fucking goal posts to something you CAN get a weak kick in. That's not the fucking topic.

> your 2% figure, which of course we understand is pulled out of your arse,
2- I think it's 2% for some groups, I'm pretty sure it can get that high. It's 1% in general.
Article:
http://www.seattletimes.com/ne...
Based on study:
http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

> is of course a silly form of self denial.
3- Second ad hominem. I guess if you don't have evidence on your side, you need that sort of scintillating distraction!

DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).

Nope.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...

>10 21–35 yr old male moderate drinkers were tested on divided-attention and information-processing tasks at blood alcohol levels (BALs) of 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 mg/dl. All response measures showed evidence of impairment beginning at 15 mg/dl and increasing impairment with increasing BALs. Findings provide no evidence that low BALs improve performance on driving-related skills, as has sometimes been suggested

http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

>CONCLUSIONS: It all states adopted 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...

>There is no evidence of a threshold blood alcohol (BAC) below which impairment does not occur, and there is no defined category of drivers who will not be impaired by alcohol....These more sophisticated studies show that significant impairment occurs at very low BACs ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

>results from the pooled analyses were clear and consistent. Changes in legal BAC limits significantly affected alcohol-related fatal crash involvement for both the SVN and BAC test result measures, and the laws affected drivers at all drinking levels.

Read the abstract of the actual study. The abstract results summarize that the telomere length issue was not correlated with non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages, or carbonated non-sugar-sweetened beverages. It's only when both traits are present that this happens.

Sadly there are no more detailed results to look at HFCS or Sucrose. My guess is the study used HFCS pops, but bear in mind that numerous juice brands use HFCS as a sweetening additive, which would count here as a non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverage. The next question is what's the interaction that causes this from these two traits?

The actual study only applies to sugar-sweetened drinks.

An important piece of information.

Of course, other articles and studies are telling me that my diet pop is messing with my brain and making me crave more sweets anyway. So who knows.

The actual study only applies to sugar-sweetened drinks.

Here's a link to the study: study. They performed a cross-sectional study across some 5000 adults, looking at the effect of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), non-carbonated SSBs, diet soda, and fruit juices. They adjusted for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, and found that SSBs are correlated with shorter telomeres (b=–0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.020, 0.001; P=.04); fruit juice with longer telomeres (b=0.016; 95% CI=0.000, 0.033; P=.05), and no difference for diet sodas and non-carbonated SSBs.

I'm not sure how to interpret the results, as the study does not explain what the effect size is, or how impactful it is to general health. If there are any biologists in the crowd who can explain this, that would be super helpful.

From the study abstract: "After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter telomeres (b=–0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.020, 0.001; P=.04). Consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (b=0.016; 95% CI=0.000, 0.033; P=.05). No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length."

More: http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

1) What is the name of the paper?

Found it: http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
"Soda and Cell Aging: Associations Between Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Leukocyte Telomere Length in Healthy Adults From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys"

Objectives. We tested whether leukocyte telomere length maintenance, which underlies healthy cellular aging, provides a link between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and the risk of cardiometabolic disease.

Methods. We examined cross-sectional associations between the consumption of SSBs, diet soda, and fruit juice and telomere length in a nationally representative sample of healthy adults. The study population included 5309 US adults, aged 20 to 65 years, with no history of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, from the 1999 to 2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Leukocyte telomere length was assayed from DNA specimens. Diet was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls. Associations were examined using multivariate linear regression for the outcome of log-transformed telomere length.

Results. After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter telomeres (b=–0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.020, 0.001; P=.04). Consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (b=0.016; 95% CI=0.000, 0.033; P=.05). No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length.

Conclusions. Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence metabolic disease development through accelerated cell aging. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 16, 2014: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302151)

First of all, the level of firearm ownership in an area does have an effect on the firearm homicide rate. It correlates -

http://ajph.aphapublications.o...

Violent crime has gone down in most of the industrialized world over the past 3 decades, regardless of whether a country restricts firearms or not -

http://rgambler.com/2013/11/03...
http://jpo.wrlc.org/bitstream/...
http://www.economist.com/news/...

However, America's violent crime rate is much higher than most developed countries -

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The growing consensus (in public policy circles at least) these days is that it is not gun ownership that is causing this violence, but the American gun culture -

http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
http://world.time.com/2012/12/...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/t...

The problem is that we keep looking at gun ownership rates The Swiss has high levels of gun ownership, but they also have a very strict culture of gun safety and training. Men are required to undergo military training and be in the reserves for 10 years, keeping their sealed army-issued firearm at home or in the Zeughaus, for use in case of invasion. Thus, they have lots of guns, but little gun crime.

Now, the question is how do you measure gun culture? In America you have this issues with two main groups poisoning the culture - the gangs and the "don't tread on me" types. How can you design a study to measure the effect of this culture on gun crime?

Well, if we're going to do the stats, if you get a decent sample size, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.

I don't believe I ever made any comments about a wild west shoot out... I do, on the other hand, find it hard to understand how anyone could think that an amateur with only a few hours of training is in any way capable of using their weapon safely in a situation where they are staring down a bomber or a fanatic with an automatic weapon. Adding more guns to the mix, IMHO, only makes the situation even more volatile.

I don't dispute that CCW holders have a low crime rate however, your assertion regarding weapons convictions does not appear to be valid... I recognize this is but one study, but results published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) seem to show that “in those rare instances when they committed crimesthey [CCW holders] were more likely to be convicted for serious weapons-related offenses.” - - i.e., they had a higher proportion of convictions for sexual offenses, weapons offenses, deadly conduct and offenses involving the intentional killing of a person than non-CHL holders.

Other than the sexual assaults, I'm not particularly surprised by this... if they commit a crime, it's more likely to involve a weapon because they have one with them.

Read the full article for more details: When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009

Objectives. We explored differences in criminal convictions between holders and nonholders of a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas.

Methods. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) provides annual data on criminal convictions of holders and nonholders of CHLs. We used 2001 to 2009 DPS data to investigate the differences in the distribution of convictions for these 2 groups across 9 types of criminal offenses. We calculated z scores for the differences in the types of crimes for which CHL holders and nonholders were convicted.

Results. CHL holders were much less likely than nonlicensees to be convicted of crimes. Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.

Conclusions. Our results imply that expanding the settings in which concealed carry is permitted may increase the risk of specific types of crimes, some quite serious in those settings. These increased risks may be relatively small. Nonetheless, policymakers should consider these risks when contemplating reducing the scope of gun-free zones.

Have a good day.

Oh gee, guess what, you're wrong again. Following through the HuffPo link to the actual study, page E86, we find that the leading cause of death among ages 15-24 is, yes, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash. Not suicide.

Seriously, you need to try reading before posting.

Well, DST might causes depression and stress to some particularly sensitive individuals, but what about the 400% increase in fatal traffic accidents involving pedestrians when coming out from DST?

Your first source was a crock.

Well, obviously. It's from the Family Research Council. But regardless of its conclusions, the statistics it quoted were the important part.

Third... another abstract to a $50 article. ... Fourth: getting cheaper, only $34 to read it.

Welcome to the world of scholarly research. If you really wanted to research it, you could find a university, library, or other entity that subscribes to the scholarly journals those were published in. Faculty, staff, and students generally can access them in the university library, or in online catalogs.

Fifth: That source is more suspect than the first.

My bad. I should have linked to its source, from the American Journal of Public Health. Unfortunately you'll have to find that issue in a library (try your nearest university), or find someone that subscribes to an online edition of it. Such is life.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1964

Did you actually spend the $137 to read those articles, or did you just do a quick search for abstracts?

I did the first 5 minutes worth of the research you should have done to prove or disprove your theory, "rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples is less than that in heterosexual couples": I searched it on Google and got a half-dozen or so links. In fact I actually did more than that, since I actually visited the links and made sure they seemed to be somewhat applicable. Other than that, I'm not doing any more of your homework for you.

If you were in my composition class and wrote a paper on that, I'd give you an F. You might have managed to come up with a theory based on your anecdotal evidence, but you failed to do any research, and when someone does do some research everything they find seems to contradict your theory.

Wow, your very emotionally invested in this... Why is that?

Someone on the internet was wrong.

Here's an abstract of the study sachamm's article cites:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

and here's an extract to the counter: "FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT"

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/extract/100/6/967

From extract:

"Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied."

So, anyone who was assaulted and successfully defended themselves/avoided getting shot were not counted. It is a built in bias, as since only counting circumstances that someone got shot there had to be at least 1 gun there, probably in the hands of the perpetrator. I'd be more interested in knowing the statistics relating to numbers of weapon carriers having their weapon used against them and also statistics of assault where a weapon was present regardless whether someone was shot at all.

Here's an abstract of the study sachamm's article cites:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

and here's an extract to the counter: "FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT"

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/extract/100/6/967

From extract:

"Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied."

So, anyone who was assaulted and successfully defended themselves/avoided getting shot were not counted. It is a built in bias, as since only counting circumstances that someone got shot there had to be at least 1 gun there, probably in the hands of the perpetrator. I'd be more interested in knowing the statistics relating to numbers of weapon carriers having their weapon used against them and also statistics of assault where a weapon was present regardless whether someone was shot at all.

While people are going back and forth on whether city girls or country girls are more likely to rot your dick, we have numbers. It appears to differ state to state and disease to disease. In NC rates of syphilis are high in rural areas. In GA gonorrhea rates are higher in urban areas. http://faculty.mercer.edu/thomas_bm/documents/jgpha/documents/Archive/Raychowdhury,%20STD,%202008.pdf http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/85/8_Pt_1/1119.pdf Whether it is in a barn or a warehouse wrap it up.

Research supports parent, suggesting ads, rather than the TV programs, are responsible for obesity.

My own theory is the effectiveness of those ads can be greatly reduced by parents who watch TV with their children and discuss how the ads are trying to manipulate them. Even little kids will understand that Mt. Dew won't make you a better skateboarder when you explain it to them. They'll still ask for soft drinks at every opportunity. When my 7yo son asks for junk food, I sometimes reply with the question: "what would a good father say?". He always chooses the healthy option when I do this. Sometimes I say yes, because the forbidden fruit is always the sweetest.