Slashdot Mirror

Negroes will surely welcome this progress, because after homosexuals, Negroes carry more AIDS than any other group.

Blacks are 30 times more likely to have Gonorrhea than whites and 11 times more likely to have it than Hispanics. A large majority of all Americans infected with Gonorrhea are black, despite making up only 13% of the population. Source: CDC

Black women are 7 times more likely to have Chlamydia than white women and 2 times more likely than Hispanic women. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 5.4 times more likely to have Syphilis. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 15.7 times more likely to have congenital Syphilis than whites. Source: Source CDC

Black women are 24 times more likely to have AIDS than white women. Source: OMH

Black men (including gays) are 8 times more likely to have AIDS than white men (including gays). Source: OMH This disparity approximately doubles when gays are excluded. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

Blacks in general are 10 times more likely to have AIDS than whites, and the disparity is growing each year. Among teenagers diagnosed with AIDS, 66% are black. A staggering 67% of new AIDS cases among women are among black women. A study found that 2.2% of all blacks in the US were HIV positive between 1997-2002. AIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death for young African Americans. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

In 2002, AIDS became the #1 leading cause of death for young black in the US. Femicide is another leading cause of death among young black women. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

Negroes will surely welcome this progress, because after homosexuals, Negroes carry more AIDS than any other group.

Blacks are 30 times more likely to have Gonorrhea than whites and 11 times more likely to have it than Hispanics. A large majority of all Americans infected with Gonorrhea are black, despite making up only 13% of the population. Source: CDC

Black women are 7 times more likely to have Chlamydia than white women and 2 times more likely than Hispanic women. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 5.4 times more likely to have Syphilis. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 15.7 times more likely to have congenital Syphilis than whites. Source: Source CDC

Black women are 24 times more likely to have AIDS than white women. Source: OMH

Black men (including gays) are 8 times more likely to have AIDS than white men (including gays). Source: OMH This disparity approximately doubles when gays are excluded. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

Blacks in general are 10 times more likely to have AIDS than whites, and the disparity is growing each year. Among teenagers diagnosed with AIDS, 66% are black. A staggering 67% of new AIDS cases among women are among black women. A study found that 2.2% of all blacks in the US were HIV positive between 1997-2002. AIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death for young African Americans. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

In 2002, AIDS became the #1 leading cause of death for young black in the US. Femicide is another leading cause of death among young black women. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

Negroes will surely welcome this progress, because after homosexuals, Negroes carry more AIDS than any other group.

Blacks are 30 times more likely to have Gonorrhea than whites and 11 times more likely to have it than Hispanics. A large majority of all Americans infected with Gonorrhea are black, despite making up only 13% of the population. Source: CDC

Black women are 7 times more likely to have Chlamydia than white women and 2 times more likely than Hispanic women. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 5.4 times more likely to have Syphilis. Source: CDC.

Blacks are 15.7 times more likely to have congenital Syphilis than whites. Source: Source CDC

Black women are 24 times more likely to have AIDS than white women. Source: OMH

Black men (including gays) are 8 times more likely to have AIDS than white men (including gays). Source: OMH This disparity approximately doubles when gays are excluded. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

Blacks in general are 10 times more likely to have AIDS than whites, and the disparity is growing each year. Among teenagers diagnosed with AIDS, 66% are black. A staggering 67% of new AIDS cases among women are among black women. A study found that 2.2% of all blacks in the US were HIV positive between 1997-2002. AIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death for young African Americans. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

In 2002, AIDS became the #1 leading cause of death for young black in the US. Femicide is another leading cause of death among young black women. Source: Kaiser Foundation.

It's also worth reflecting on the leading causes of death in the USA as reported by the CDC: accidents of all kinds are only in the middle of the list.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Science: Cigarettes cause cancer.
Politics: Federal and State governments cannot afford to lose the tax revenue or kill the tobacco industry.

The Result: Incremental instead of sweeping changes, because there are other factors to consider besides "the right answer."

The the CDC must be wrong, along with every other medically-qualified resource that has shown a causal effect between glass manufacture and silicosis.

Admitting defeat is far more manly than hurling unwarranted insults.

Reasearchers ... have discovered that two drug kill and short-circuit the 'sex life' of antibiotic-resistant bacteria blamed for nearly 100,000 hospital deaths across the country each year.

This is appalling, and something the CDC won't tell you (ha). In the US, Doctors/Healthcare are the third leading cause of death. That's about 250,000 deaths a year (~100,000 are from negative side effects of "legitimate" treatment).

I've always distrusted doctors (however well intentioned they may be). Now I avoid them like the plague! My advice -- stay healthy if at all possible and avoid these crazy drugs they say they understand!

I used to work in the prevention field for a state agency. It's interesting to see how slowly change comes around. The "gold standard" for this kind of data is the Youth Risk Beahvior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS), done every two years by the CDC. Many states also run their own prevention needs assessments.

While I was never directly involved with these surveys, my understanding was that there was a decent amount of statistical research put into them to try and get the most accurate data possible, so ideally your example of coke use among the impoverished would be thrown out.

Your description of DARE isn't really fair, as that could be any old school, health terrorism type approach (think of the "This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" or aspects of the current Montana Meth Project). DAREs model focussed upon getting police into classrooms, as well as peer role models. Police departments liked it because it let them connect a bit more with the community.

DARE's an interesting program that got a lot of attention, but it's actual impact upon encouraging youth to make healthy decisions has no scientific standing. Hell, some of the studies actually showed that drug use went up after exposure to DARE. One could argue that there was some beneficial aspect, as it stressed to the prevention community that evaluation of programs is as vital as good program design.

say it with me... Correlation does not imply causation

You're saying the ban on semi-automatic weapons stopped mass shootings. OK just for fun I'll buy that for the sake of argument. Now that may stop the crazy people who want to go postal from taking a bunch of people out with them. However as the saying goes, now only the criminals have guns. Sure it may stop the crazies but it doesn't stop crime, and now the entire populace is more or less unarmed.

The result (for the sake of argument since again, correlation does not imply causation)? Less headlines about mass shootings (which kill what, maybe 100 people a year, world wide?) and "an increase in armed robberies in Australia in the last 11 years"

How is this better? Knee-jerk reactionist politics disarm the entire population because some lunatic killed 35 people and now the criminals know that no one is packing. I don't know about you but I feel SO much safer. And in addition, the population that enjoys things like hunting or skeet shooting or just plain old target shooting, can't.

And just another thought, the chart on your first link shows that "the risk of dying from a gunshot" was already trending downward PRIOR to the ban. And at the risk of sounding uncaring, at the time of the ban that risk was at 2 deaths per 100,000 people, which by my rough calculations means you're about 100 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's than a gunshot (data based on CDC mortality rates in the US assuming a population of 300 million).

So the gun ban did practically nothing to save any lives, not that all that many lives were taken anyway in the big picture (112 people in 11 mass shootings in 10 years according to the article). All the money spent (according to the article, "a half a billion dollars") creating, enacting, and enforcing the law could have been better spent on something useful like helping curing a disease which statistically is much more likely to kill you. And it infringed on what over here is a constitutionally guaranteed right that a large number of people enjoy.

Population of China: 1,321,851,888
Population of America: 301,139,947
Average weight of American males: 190 lbs
Average weight of American females: 165 lbs

Ballpark figure of human biomass in america: 26,349,745 tons.
Average chinese weight needed to break even with america in human mass: 39.86 lbs.

Yeah, I know I just screwed up the joke... blame the science channel and their seemingly endless commercial breaks. ;)

Population of China: 1,321,851,888
Population of America: 301,139,947
Average weight of American males: 190 lbs
Average weight of American females: 165 lbs

Ballpark figure of human biomass in america: 26,349,745 tons.
Average chinese weight needed to break even with america in human mass: 39.86 lbs.

Yeah, I know I just screwed up the joke... blame the science channel and their seemingly endless commercial breaks. ;)

"They're using a different technique to avoid needing line of sight"

No, they are not. Radio antennae transmit more than just line of sight; the wavelength determines the directionality. Radio transmitters have been transmitting power over hundreds of miles for a century.

"or be harmful to humans (the article even mentions the microwave beaming, and how you can also use it to cook a chicken - not really something you'd want in the home powering up those speakers, is it?)"

Magnetic induction is not necessarily any safer to human health than microwaves are. It could even be more dangerous; the medical community does not have enough information, yet. But, the CDC does have a FAQ sheet on it:

"Many studies report small increases in the rate of leukemia or brain cancer in groups of people living or working in high magnetic fields. Other studies have found no such increases. The most important data come from six recent studies of workers wearing EMF monitors to measure magnetic fields. All but one study found significantly higher cancer rates for men with average workday exposures above 4 milligauss. However, the results of these studies disagree in important ways such as the type of cancer associated with EMF exposures. So scientists cannot be sure whether the increased risks are caused by EMFs or by other factors. A few preliminary studies have also associated workplace EMFs with breast cancer, and one study has reported a possible link between occupational EMF exposure and Alzheimer s disease.

The data from all of these studies are too limited for scientists to draw conclusions. However, a national research effort is under way, and more study results are expected in a few years."

CDC: EMFs In The Workplace

"'How cute they lit a light bulb.' Right. Its exactly the same because the end result is the same."

The end result is not the same. Several decades ago, engineers were able to beam 500 times more energy a distance 750 times greater and with twice the efficiency as this experiment at MIT.

"That could go for pretty much any story here, right?"

No.

"Faster processor? 'Bah, we were crunching numbers in the 50s. Whats the big deal here?'"

Yeah, we were crunching numbers a *billion times slower* in the 50s. The advance in processor technology is obvious. You and everyone else have failed to show any advance in this design in terms of power transmission. It is wonderful that they were able to make magnetic inductance work so well across such a distance, but that merely makes this a lab curiosity, of no more than academic interest.

Referring to this?

If you were to have looked at the submitter's info on his web site, and if you knew the demographics of the area, you would have seen that he definitely doesn't come from that deep in Da Parish.

...than to addressing a curable disease that kills the same number of people.

Even if you wanted to give 2 orders of magnitude (a factor of 100) more money to preventing deliberate deaths than disease deaths, terrorism prevention is still vastly overfunded. Cancer kills 183 times more people than the 9/11 attacks, and it does so every year--even by your standard, we'd be putting 1.83 times as much as we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan every month towards cancer research.

Even that's being generous to antiterrorism funding, because if we annualize the 9/11 deaths out over the intervening years, every which of one saw ~500K cancer deaths, we'd be putting 9 times more money towards cancer than we do terrorism--and that's using your 2 orders of magnitude standard. And we aren't even getting to the other diseases yet, or things like auto or firearm deaths.

On top of all this, I don't even agree with your 2 orders of magnitude standard--why is the life of one who died from diabetes worth 100 times less research money than the person who got a plane flown into them by a Saudi with a boxcutter?

Oh, please. Organic farming and organic foods, while not perfect, are regulated by the US and are considered a healthier alternative to heavily processed, artificially fertilized, pesticide-coated foods large agribusiness industries push on everyone. Food production is COMMERCIAL in the US and they look for the cheapest method to get it to the store. This entails a good number of practices that are not very good for people in the long run. Take a look at these cites:

From the International Federation of Organic Agriculktural Movements: http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/index. html

From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on pesticides and kids: http://www.ehponline.org/press/childexp.html

From the Center for Disease Control and prevention, some background on the food industry: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/apr/06_0097.htm

Here is the Wiki cite about Organic vs. Non-organic foods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

Eat whatever you want. Just be intelligent and informed about it.

BTW, organic food does not taste weaker than non-organic food. In some instances organic food tastes FAR better. Which would you eat, an organic tomato or an orange, hard, rubbery one that large farms claim is one? And if you can't make the correct choice, you need to get out more or stop being a troll.

And it dihygrogen MONoxide, moron (here's a Wiki cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_h oax). If you're going to quote parodies, at least quote them right.

"Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale."

Top 20 Hazardous Substances from the 2005 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances
1 ARSENIC
2 LEAD
3 MERCURY
4 VINYL CHLORIDE
5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
6 BENZENE

"What is benzene?
Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke."

"How can benzene affect my health?
Eating or drinking foods containing high levels of benzene can cause vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, and death. The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection."

"Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale."

Top 20 Hazardous Substances from the 2005 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances
1 ARSENIC
2 LEAD
3 MERCURY
4 VINYL CHLORIDE
5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
6 BENZENE

"What is benzene?
Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke."

"How can benzene affect my health?
Eating or drinking foods containing high levels of benzene can cause vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, and death. The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection."

That can also be attributed to clean water, an abundance of food of any description, and significantly better healthcare.

While pumping yourselves full of processed crap, and over sterilize your environment, you pump yourself with scientifically advanced other crap to cope with your suffering immune system.

There are plenty of places in the world (Okinawa being one of particular note) where they eat healthy fresh organic food every day, lowest heart disease rates, and have some of the longest and highest quality of life through old age, without any of that crap.

This is becoming an increasing problem in the western world though, as the crap in our food increases, the sterility of our food and environment, and both our bodies, and the bacteria/viri or whatever the drug is designed to fight, build up greater drug tolerance (MRSA etc).

life expectancy at birth has gone from about 50 years [...] You think that 25 used to literally be "mid life". Half your life was likely over by 25.

Life expectancy at birth includes child diseases that killed about 20% of the children before the age of 5. See page 6, fig 3 of the US life tables. Once you survived the first few years of your life, your life expectancy would increase considerably. See page 30 of the report: at the age of 25, your life expectancy was 65. Your midlife would be around the age of 34. Nowadays, the life expectancy only increases from 77.5 to 78.5 years between the age of 0 and 25 years.

As I pointed out to the other responder, I think it is somewhat ridiculous to try to compare: Jihadist believer who kills people for his beliefs. to Anti drug beliver who snitches on drug dealers for his beliefs.

I do too. That wasn't the comparison I was making. Try instead: Jihadist who dies for his beliefs vs. DEA agent who dies for his beliefs. If you put your life on the line in the belief that a better good will be the result, without empirical evidence to support that belief, then you are a fool, and deserve what's coming to you.

Finally, your claim that fewer people would die under an all-drugs-legal regime is probably incorrect. More people would die from the long-term impacts of extended drug use, and from greater drug use due to legality.

Do you have any support for that? Many, if not most, who die from illegal drugs, die because (a) the drug was more concentrated than they thought, or (b) the drug was contaminated with more harmful substances. Read up on it here. Much of that could be corrected through legalization and regulation.

To claim that you can't legitimately justify the war on drugs due to fears about the consequences of those drugs to society is just ridiculous.

You're twisting my words again. Remember, you brought up the point about people involved in drug enforcement ... believe they are saving lives. So, let's back up to fatalities:

How many people died in Hurricane Katrina? ~1500? Let's outlaw living on the coast.
How many people die each year in the U.S. because of taking aspirin? 10,000? Let's outlaw Aspirin.
How many people die in automobile accidents in the U.S. each year? 43,000? Let's outlaw automobiles.
How many people die of cigarettes in the U.S. each year? 400,000? Folks, we have a winner!!!

Once again, anyone who resorts to body count as a justification for the war on drugs is liar and a fraud.

Hopefully, they will also have either a battery recycling program or batteries that don't have such nasty stuff in them...

I bet you didn't know most cars have a good sized lead acid battery in them. I believe the rates of lead poisoning far exceed nickel poisoning:

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/surv/database/State_C onfirmed_byYear_1997_to_2005.xls

Considering how (relatively) common school shootings have become, I'm not against the idea of drilling kids on what to do in such a situation.

I dislike this line of thinking, because I think it is fundamentally flawed and treats climate as the single major cause of malaria.

The heat and humidity in Africa may be part of the factor in malaria deaths, but it isn't the only factor.

Right now, I'm looking at a chart of malarious areas in the US. And yes, malaria was once common in the southern US and in southern Europe. Now it is relatively rare. Why? Not because of climate change, but because of healthy economies, active public health policies, prevention and treatment.

You want to reduce malaria cases in Africa? Don't concentrate on preventing any climate change, concentrate on prevention and treatment. Concentrate on improving Africa's economy. Sure, Africa has tropical diseases, but they are major problems because of the horrible poverty in Africa.

PS: Speaking of diseases, measles is one of the major killers in Africa. Yet measles is no longer native to the western hemisphere. Why? Stronger economies and a better focus on public health has lead to measles eradication in North and South America.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Science... Medical science... statistics... a million alarm bells go off in my head.

With the limited data that the article gives, I tried to do the math.

US cancer incidence statistics for 2003 are available here: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/npcrpdfs/US_Cancer_ Statistics_2003_Incidence_and_Mortality.pdf (PDF)

Age-adjusted cancer incidence in females in 2003 was 0.4036%. In favour of the article's publishers, I assume there was no control group to reduce the numbers. ~4.8 women on average would have gotten cancer in one year. The study was done over a time of four years, so it would have been 20. Now reduce that by 60% and you arrive at 8 women with cancer, or a difference of 12.

We see that we have probably been fooled by the percentages. A lower incidence of 60% sounds high, but 12 cases less?

Checking the significance level isn't really possible unless you have the complete setup and data of the study (statisticians, please correct me if I'm wrong!). However, I suspect that the answer in a detailed analysis would have to be "maybe". I guess I'll have to wait for the final publication of the results until I begin to sunbathe during lunch break.

There is a unloved theory that toxoplasma is a contributing factor for schizophrenia in humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no11/03-0143.htm

Just one more reason to literally skin all the cats. (The other reasons being a. their horrible effects on song birds b. the fact that they are fucking annoying and lash out at you when you pet them, c. if there were no more my wife couldn't ask for one.)
Which makes me think... hmm the bees and dying, the birds are dying, and there seems to be way fucking too many fucking humans around doing way too many really bad things. I wonder if they are related?

In actual practice, abstinence involves denying urges until they become overwhelming and you do something reckless, actually increasing risk.
Abstinence/Prohibition efforts have a long history of making problems worse, not better. Doesn't matter whether you are talking about Alcohol, Drugs,
or Sex.

A healthy attitude that accepts sexuality as a good thing and involves understanding the risks and how to mitigate them would be far more effective.
If the majority of the population simply engaged in standard safe sex practices, they could have twice as much sex and I seriously doubt that HIV could
sustain itself as an epidemic. A tenfold reduction in risk offset by a 2 fold increase in activity is still a 5:1 reduction in total risk. People with
HIV would, on average, die off long before they could transmit it. Except perhaps for concentrated black populations such as in Africa or urban areas that are apparently five times more susceptible to start with (lack of a gene present in people who descended from Bubonic Plague survivors).

The anti-sex people do far more to contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. An study showed that in the eight years (at the time of the study) since safe sex rules were instituted in the legal brothels of Nevada, not a single sex worker there contracted HIV. HIV/AIDS was largely ignored due to the anti-sex people when it primarily affected the gay population instead of nipping it in the bud. And gay people were told not to have gay sex (i.e. Abstinence) which significantly delayed safe sex practices in the gay community. And rather than distribute clean needles, IV drug users are told to abstain. The anti-sex folks oppose sex education in schools (which reduces the risk of both pregnancy and diseases).

While MSM (gay male) still has the highest incidence of new cases, the growth rate has started to level off even though 30% had not been HIV tested in the last year, 34% had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner in the last year, and 47% did not know the HIV status of their last casual partner. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1. htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e

I could say that about violence. The guy always gets shot in the shoulder with no pain or permanent injury. The person knocked unconcious always wakes up without even a headache. The cop always kills without repercussions.

Really? Who are all of these people constantly getting laid and unable to control themselves? You must have some unusual friends. Most folks I know are picky about who they sleep with. And even if they are maybe it is because they both enjoy it as opposed to someone stabbing someone else which is generally not enjoyed by both people? I can watch sex scenes without feeling the need to rape someone or run off to a nightclub to get laid.

Remember, unlike violence, sex is considered a good thing by most normal people.

Guys get pregnant? Again, this is a bogus statement because very few people ever act this way. People may have many partners but spread over the course of years. There is no guarantee you'll get an STD or pregnant (with the pill pregnancy is virtually nil).

By the way, the national trend is a drop in abortion rates, and slight decrease in divorce, not a rise.

I could say that about violence. The guy always gets shot in the shoulder with no pain or permanent injury. The person knocked unconcious always wakes up without even a headache. The cop always kills without repercussions.

Really? Who are all of these people constantly getting laid and unable to control themselves? You must have some unusual friends. Most folks I know are picky about who they sleep with. And even if they are maybe it is because they both enjoy it as opposed to someone stabbing someone else which is generally not enjoyed by both people? I can watch sex scenes without feeling the need to rape someone or run off to a nightclub to get laid.

Remember, unlike violence, sex is considered a good thing by most normal people.

Guys get pregnant? Again, this is a bogus statement because very few people ever act this way. People may have many partners but spread over the course of years. There is no guarantee you'll get an STD or pregnant (with the pill pregnancy is virtually nil).

By the way, the national trend is a drop in abortion rates, and slight decrease in divorce, not a rise.

These polybrominated diphenyl ethers are compounds that are thought to cause damage to the environment at higher levels than today but this could change. the long term health effects of these chemicals isn't as well known as we would like but is's probably a good idea to go on the side of caution [thalidamide and t-butyl methyl ether to name a few that went horribly wrong] although right now industry won't like it because they can't make money off of their sale, it is much better to be alive and healthy because of the ban and lose money than the alternative. US gov PBDE faq http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs68-pbde.ht ml canadian PBDE faq http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/documents/subs_li st/PBDE_draft/PBDEfaq.cfm

are you fucking serious serious?! A HELL of a lot higher.

There are less that 100 accidental deaths a year from firearms in the US. You are more likely to drown in your bathtub.

I think your numbers are way off. From the CDC:

Table 18, Number of deaths in the U.S. in 2003, by Firearms:

Unintentional - 730
Suicide - 16,907
Homicide - 11,920
Undetermined - 232
Legal intervention / war - 347
TOTAL FIREARM: 30,136

By that, I see 730 Unintentional deaths by firearms in 2003.

By comparison, Drowning (Unintentional) is 3,306. I don't see any available statistics about bathtubs, but I suspect it's nowhere near as high as 730 per year (which would be 22% of all drownings.)

Hmm, I thought it was in the national news as well that the recent shooting in the Trollet Square mall in Salt Lake City was more or less stopped by a CCW holder, an off-duty police officer.

I never heard about that. I just searched Google News and live.com news for "Trollet Square" and came up empty.

There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html, I couldn't find more recent figures quickly - I would be glad if someone could post a link for both more recent figures and a more authoritative source)

How about the Center for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control? The below link takes you to a form, and using that form I pulled up the numbers for 2004: 649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy. html

I am strongly convinced that many of the "crimes of passion" murders (husband killing wife) would not happen if there wasn't a weapon around in the household.

Sadly, a firearm isn't the only way to kill somone, and there are lots of weapons in a household. You can check the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and find murders cross-indexed by weapons, murderer/victim relationship, etc. You will find that firearms were used in most murders, but also used were knives, "blunt instruments", "pushed or thrown out window", and "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)". It's depressing reading, really.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_in formation/data/shrtable_10.html

I dunno, if some of the worst of the current political trends continue, we'll end up being the Vorlons instead.

Vorlons? More like Vogons. You know, the fat, bureaucratic bullies who write horrible emo poetry and eventually demolished the Earth in order to build a useless bypass.

Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

      Funny, these guys seem to disagree with you. Specifically: "Clinical misuse of antibiotics may be more common among private practitioners than among public health personnel--private practitioners charge higher fees, the demand for antibiotics seen in private patients is higher, and more drugs are available in private clinics than in public hospitals "

      Oh look, so do these guys. My search returned over 100 hits and it's really not my job to educate you, so I won't go on. But there IS a causal link. Ask any infectious disease specialist and s/he will cite a lot more articles for you.

Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

      Funny, these guys seem to disagree with you. Specifically: "Clinical misuse of antibiotics may be more common among private practitioners than among public health personnel--private practitioners charge higher fees, the demand for antibiotics seen in private patients is higher, and more drugs are available in private clinics than in public hospitals "

      Oh look, so do these guys. My search returned over 100 hits and it's really not my job to educate you, so I won't go on. But there IS a causal link. Ask any infectious disease specialist and s/he will cite a lot more articles for you.

Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't

Well you should. Rates of male victimization for all crimes other than rape are considerably higher than female victimization. The rate of rape in males is very hard to estimate, but is reported at about 1/4 of the rate in females. Given that males are much less likely than females to report themselves as victims of rape, it is quite possible that the rate of rape in males is comparable to that in females. It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.

This is because we as a society do not care two figs about violence against males. We do not value our young males, and we do not teach them to take care of themselves. Quite the opposite: we teach them to be careless of their own safety, and we teach them they are cowards or worse if they take reasonable precautions like giving a thought to being attacked when walking to their car in a dark parking lot.

This is not to say that violence against females is acceptable. It is obviously not. But any time I hear anyone decrying "violence against women" as being particularly bad I have to wonder if they think violence against men is OK? Or at least not so particularly bad? And if they do think that, I really have to wonder why. If they are even remotely decent and humane it certainly cannot be the fact that most violence is committed by men, because it is also the case that, for example, in the United States most violence is committed by black people, and there is a word for people who think that that fact makes violence against black people OK.

If your contention is that diseases are mistakes, then can you
explain the ones that aren't our fault? Did your God accidentally
create them? And if so, doesn't that put the lie to his supposed
infallibility?

My contention is that creating cross-species life between sheep and
humans is an unbelievably reckless thing to do that could only be done
by arrogant people who do not respect all life as God's creation.
  The disease called 'E. Coli' disease in the media is caused by a
strain of Escherichia coli (0157:H7)
created in the laboratory and accidently released into the wild that
produces a deadly toxin causing severe illness in humans. Deaths and
illness from the strain were first observed in 1982.

Humans create enormous amounts of disease every day by poor sanitation,
inadequate nutrition, poor living conditions, war, exotic species
migration, releasing toxic substances into the environment, letting
greed guide our use of antibiotics, etc. The reckless creation of
cross-species life between humans and sheep is just one more in a long
list of human-caused misery driven by our failure to love our
neighbors.

I certainly agree that a car accident isn't the most likely way I'm going to die, but depending on the demographic it is more important. According to CDC and TSF data for someone 15-24 30% of the deaths are car accidents. It goes down in both directions from there. That seems to be a fairly high percentage.

In 2004, your chances of dieing from some other cause then an automobile accident was so much greater.

The page you listed showed figures of 43,354 people dies form injuries sustained ion a car crash. I have figure for 2003, or 2004. Assuming they are the same (and I don't believe the war deaths are counted because they are overseas and not in the US.) or similar in 2004, the totale number of deaths in the US was 2,398,343. This means that 2,354,989 Died from other causes. Thats a pretty big number compared to automobile accidents. 61,472 people died form the Influenza and Pneumonia alone in 2004. That is roughly 40% more then those who died from a car crash.

Do you realize how small of a number this is? When more people catch a bad cold, developer Influenza/Pneumonia and die from it is greater then the total number of deaths related to car accidents in 2000?

I'm not saying that those 43,354 people are insignificant or anything. I'm just saying we have better ways to spend out money. We have better places to concentrate on reducing deaths. Some day I would like to say less people dies from car accident but even less died from cancer or heart disease. Those two alone account for 1,204,362 deaths in 2004. That is about thirty times the amount of car accidents. And most car accidents deaths can be reduced if people simply followed the rules of the road and took caution during dangerous conditions.

Did you know you could be cited for speeding if you didn't even go the posted speed limit in most states? It is called too fast for road conditions and usually accompany a loss of control citation after an accident. According to this site the most common causes of accidents is driver not paying attention. This includes not following the posted speed limits or following to close and so on. Check it out.

And this information came from where? More people I know have been severely injured or killed in automobile accidents than anything else. As a matter of fact, I can't think of anything that even comes close. As to your personal experience, that's what I call luck. Here's some data to back it up. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/about/about.htm

The current minimum level for a oxygen deficient atmosphere is 19.5% at sea level. I wonder if they will be handing out SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) to the employees. I would also be a little worried about "decreased mental effectiveness, visual acuity, and muscular coordination" in a data center (which occurs at 16% oxygen at sea level (even higher at higher altitudes)). But then again, "Sorry Boss, I think the lack of oxygen is getting to me," does sound like a good excuse.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-100/chapter5.ht ml

I guess they have never heard of a "nitrogen package", but most likely is not good choice for their needs.

But then again, I do NOT work for a safety department.

[Being o]verweight is a serious health concern for children and adolescents. Data from two NHANES surveys (1976-1980 and 2003-2004) show that the prevalence of [being] overweight is increasing: for children aged 2-5 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 13.9%; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from 6.5% to 18.8%; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 17.4%.

I don't know about what your nutritionist friend considers a problem, but an almost 200% increase in obesity rates in a population over the course of three decades to comprise 14-19% of children seems like a major problem to me. But, maybe she is looking at it in comparison to adult obesity rates - which makes it seem like the kids are doing a good job keeping their weight down.

During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 1985 only a few states were participating in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and providing obesity data. In 1991, four states had obesity prevalence rates of 15-19 percent and no states had rates at or above 20 percent....In 2005, only 4 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent, while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with 3 of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia).

Sure, there are ways to manage weight, like the Hacker's Diet, but it is also clear that people aren't doing it in the U.S.

[Being o]verweight is a serious health concern for children and adolescents. Data from two NHANES surveys (1976-1980 and 2003-2004) show that the prevalence of [being] overweight is increasing: for children aged 2-5 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 13.9%; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from 6.5% to 18.8%; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 17.4%.

I don't know about what your nutritionist friend considers a problem, but an almost 200% increase in obesity rates in a population over the course of three decades to comprise 14-19% of children seems like a major problem to me. But, maybe she is looking at it in comparison to adult obesity rates - which makes it seem like the kids are doing a good job keeping their weight down.

During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 1985 only a few states were participating in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and providing obesity data. In 1991, four states had obesity prevalence rates of 15-19 percent and no states had rates at or above 20 percent....In 2005, only 4 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent, while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with 3 of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia).

Sure, there are ways to manage weight, like the Hacker's Diet, but it is also clear that people aren't doing it in the U.S.

The problem is that the site is hardly a parody. It's rather clear from actually reading the words that the intent is not humorous effect, but rather straightforward presentation of an anti-coal campaign. If they want a parody, make a parody. If they want a straightfoward campaign, then lose the pro-coal site layout and get on with it. This is the anti-coal equivelant of an anti-gay campaign dubbing Brokeback Mountain with lines like "The rate of HIV/AIDS infection among homosexual men is almost double that of heterosexuals." That's not parody, it's just being asinine.

Here is a link I found for a previous comment in a different story. CDC chicken pox recommendation The CDC themselves state that the death rate among children from chicken pox before the vaccine was introduced was ~50 a year. That is 1/5 of the number of swimming pool deaths a year. This means that of their two part reason for the vaccine, risk of death is clearly FUD. What does that leave? Only that you should vaccinate your child with a high failure rate vaccine to save your week of vacation for something fun, and so that the schools won't loose a weeks revenue from your child.

You are absolutely wrong in saying that this vaccine has a high failure rate. According to your link, the vaccine is 80-90% successful in totally preventing chicken pox, and nearly 100% successful in preventing serious infections for individuals. The effect for groups is much greater. If the disease's critical immunization threshold is 80-90% or less (unfortunately I can't find this number or R_0 on the web), immunizing the entire population would eliminate the disease. That sort of effect is why many vaccinations are mandatory - the benefits extend well beyond the person being immunized. Conversely, a few anti-vaccination nutjobs increase the risk to the rest of the population.

If you still think it has a high failure rate, you should be comforted to know there is negligible risk of complications worse than not vaccinating. (The worst symptom listed - possible seizure due to fever 1 in 1,000 times - has only occurred in adults and is not statistically significant / likely isn't actually caused by the vaccine.)

It's safe, 7 out of 10 children want it because it prevents a week of misery, it actually saves much more money than it costs, and it reduces the infected pool of a disease that infects 4,000,000 and hospitalizes 11,000 Americans a year, mostly adults. Given the public health benefits, I favor mandatory vaccination of children against this and many other diseases.

While fewer people die from chickenpox than from swimming pools, I think you will find that the swimming pool deaths are not so easy to solve. If you banned all swimming pools in America, I suspect many more than 250 people/year would die from obesity-related diseases instead. And at least tens of thousands would die in the subsequent revolution...mandatory vaccinations are not too big a reduction in freedom, but a swimming pool ban certainly would be.

You speak the truth. I have a 2 year old son, (turns 3 this month) so recently I have been talking to a lot of parents, and watching what other kids and parents do. I am appalled. The problem goes all the way from the parent, through the teachers, to the local, state, and federal governments. Here is a link I found for a previous comment in a different story. CDC chicken pox recommendation The CDC themselves state that the death rate among children from chicken pox before the vaccine was introduced was ~50 a year. That is 1/5 of the number of swimming pool deaths a year. This means that of their two part reason for the vaccine, risk of death is clearly FUD. What does that leave? Only that you should vaccinate your child with a high failure rate vaccine to save your week of vacation for something fun, and so that the schools won't loose a weeks revenue from your child.

We have a system where parents take no responsibility for their children, and point to so called 'experts' to make all of the decisions and to educate their children. These 'experts' often have their own pocket books in mind. My wife and I, this year, actually decided to give up her income for the next decade because we found that preschools will simply not tolerate a 2 year old that can read and write. My school experiences, as well as hers, in both poor and wealthy neighborhoods, combined with what we were seeing in the preschools, and the poor levels we see from other kids in k-3rd grade, convinced us that the American school system is only a step above worthless. This includes the private schools. There may be some specialty or magnet schools that are worth while, but if there are, they are few and far between.

If a parent is counting on the public/private school system to educate their child, they have already condemned their child to a life well below their potential.