Slashdot Mirror

On the contrary. Short-sightedness consists in the assumption that future generations won't have a use or a need for all the weird stuff we toss out right now. For example, think of all the effort that people went through to compost their food and yard waste. Composting is simply ultra-low-speed bacteria-assisted combustion, releasing all the carbon back into the air (much of it as greenhouse-causing methane). Whereas now we have landfill-powered generating stations that harness the bacteria-produced methane and generate power from it. The composting movement was wasteful because it was stupidly premature.

BS! Composting is not only not waste but actually returns nutrients to soil. I love to garden and I always compost, I even compost food scraps. Living soil" is not only needed for healthy vegetation but also eliminates the need for added inputs whether they be fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. And get what is used to make each of these? Petroleum. When all the petroleum is used up what will replace these chemical inputs? Organic compost. The so called Green Revolution was only possible by mechanization and the use of petroleum and it led to the depletion of nutrients in the soil, some of which were replaced by petrochemical based fertilizers. However using said fartilizers don't replace all of the trace minerals plants need, such as selenium which is toxic in large amounts. Heck even humans need trace amount of selenium to properly utilize vitamin E. Fact is is composting reuses and recycles nutrients needed for life. And it does not release all of the carbon into the atmosphere, all that organic matter left after composting is rich in carbon.

That particular problem has been solved.

Can you prove this? Fact is is potable water is not safe in many parts of the world. Even in the US there has been E Coli in water causing outbreaks. Compleatly, thoroughly, composting though destroys E Coli. Then there's other toxins to deal with. Arsenic, though found in most water in South Asia in also found in US drinking water.

Yes, it does. The second half of the CDC's reasoning for getting vaccinated likely points to the primary reason.

"Even with uncomplicated chickenpox cases, lost time from school and work and the cost of medications or treatment that may be needed can result in a significant cost for the family."

Most parents are crappy, and would gladly risk their child's life to save a few bucks. Others are sheep, and just do what they are told. Schools push for it because if a kid is out for a week with chicken pox, the school looses revenue, and the welfare of the students are not nearly as important as a consistent revenue stream. They can rest at night telling themselves that they are preventing kids from dying. They just don't risk asking what the actual odds of a kid dying of chicken pox is. The doctors are people too, and some of them just go along with what is recommended to them without asking questions. Others are also just people, and are looking after their bottom line. We see the same thing with Ritalin. Then there are people from all three groups that are just afraid to buck the status quo.

There is money to be made by doctors, pharma, schools, and parents (a penny saved is a penny earned after all) and all of them can tell themselves and each other that they doing it "for the children". Now, I have linked to the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine to support my numbers, but you stall state "if the numbers clearly show". So, are you doubting these organizations as legitimate sources, are you just trying to be contrary, are you in denial, or do you see a different set of number being presented by sources as reliable as the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine? I don't ask you to take my word for the numbers. I would ask you to go verify my facts, and THEN if you disagree, point out where you disagree with my analysis instead of just giving a big Nuh-Uhh.

I didn't find any specific numbers about re-infection, but we know it is extremely rare with infection/immunity, and the documentation that 2 different pediatricians gave me both stated that frequently the children will still get the pox, but with much milder symptoms. We also know that given only 12 years of immunization data, we have no idea what is going to happen with this in the long run. This means that even when immunized there is a countable chance that you are not actually immune, and as less and less of the virus is around, the chances of you getting infected as an adult become greater and greater.

I would say that the doctors are not even giving good advice on an individual level. Given that the chances of immunization saving you from death are 1 in 3,000,000 it can be effectively considered a useless procedure for the purposes of protection. If half of the effort that is put into convincing parents to get their kids vaccinated was put into stopping just high school football, we would see far greater results, given that a child who plays high school football is in the range of 100 times more likely to die. I also dispute that a pediatrician that recommends a procedure today that has a greater chance of killing the child as an adult than it does in saving the child as a child, is not doing their job. Remember, we are talking about a less than 1 in 3,000,000 mortality rate. This is almost identical to the number of people that die of lightning strikes each year.

Given that the number of deaths each year due to lack of immunization for chicken pox is less than 100, there is clearly some other factors involved.

I just looked up another piece of information. Per the CDC, one in ten people who have the vaccine end up with chicken pox anyway. From this link you can also see how an unrealistic fear of death, and the desire to save some money are the two factors being used to convince parents to get their small children vaccinated instead of waiting until they reach the age of 13 or 14 when the risk of the vaccine would equal out to the risk of not being vaccinated. Can you think of even one other medical procedure that only has a 1 in 3 million chance of saving your life, a 1 in 10 chance of failure, and increases the likelihood of adult death that we try to mandate?

Remember, the reason people haven't been dying in droves form chicken pox is because we almost all got it as children when it is not even close to being as dangerous as the flu, who's yearly death toll is estimated as ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 annually. So, lets say the immunization continues, and the amount of chicken pox in the wild decreases dramatically due to immunization. This would lead to the 10% of the population that the vaccine fails on being susceptible to the virus. With the reduced amount of wild chicken pox, these people are far more likely to reach adulthood before they run into the pox. So, even in the best case scenario, with us not needing a booster, we are faced with the eventual point where 10% of our adult population is not immune to an extremely contagious, air born, deadly disease. If we get to that point, and an outbreak occurs, we are royally screwed. If 10% of our population goes down, there won't be enough hospital beds to treat them. I highly doubt that our infrastructure could handle 10% of our population not being well enough to work for 2 or 3 weeks. The mortality rates among those that end up infected would skyrocket as the medical community wouldn't have the resources to treat them. If only half of them die from the disease, we are screwed in the long term, as it would take generations to recover from a 5% loss of our population in just one year. This isn't even counting the hysteria and violence that would ensue when people could start counting the number of neighbors that have died that year from the pox.

Yes, this sounds bad, and might never come to pass, but it isn't entirely unlikely either. The chicken pox vaccine is a little like making sure your kid doesn't get a steam burn by sealing up the holes in your tea kettle. Remember, we are talking about a mortality rate of 88 out of 300,000,000.

Did you even read your source? YOUR source said that there were 88 less deaths per year in the entire US. That is 88 people out of 300,000,000. When someone says that you have a 1 in a million chance, they are talking about this. That 1 in a million is even including those who are severely ill with other things, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and whatnot. The reason there was a 92% drop in childhood deaths is because a child dying of chicken pox is so rare that 1 less death shows up as a huge percentage. Using percentages with such low numbers is the "desperate" argument. Here are some death numbers to ponder before claiming that the chicken pox vaccine is even worthy of notice:

Estimated deaths due to no chicken pox vaccine: 88
Deaths due to lightning strike: 82
Alzheimer's: 60,000
Assault: 17,500
Driving: 40,000
Flying: 200
High School Football: 30
Traveling to and from school: 800

The numbers of possible lives saved by this vaccine is so low as to be under the radar. You could get almost half as good results by just banning high school football. Heck, you could get just as good results by having 10% of the current school kids moving to home schooling. Using risk of death by chicken pox as an excuse for the vaccine is simply FUD, so that the parents who don't want to take a week off work can feel good about their decision. It is also entirely possible that the numbers of deaths due to chicken pox has actually been increased dramatically, but pushed off for 20 years. Ask your pediatrician. They will tell you that the vaccine might not last into adulthood, and we all know how much worse that will be.

So, if you are really interested in reducing the risk of death for your child, you would take your kid to a pox party, and start home schooling immediately. Heck, just not letting your kid play football is better protection than the chick pox vaccine.

Did you even read your source? YOUR source said that there were 88 less deaths per year in the entire US. That is 88 people out of 300,000,000. When someone says that you have a 1 in a million chance, they are talking about this. That 1 in a million is even including those who are severely ill with other things, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and whatnot. The reason there was a 92% drop in childhood deaths is because a child dying of chicken pox is so rare that 1 less death shows up as a huge percentage. Using percentages with such low numbers is the "desperate" argument. Here are some death numbers to ponder before claiming that the chicken pox vaccine is even worthy of notice:

Estimated deaths due to no chicken pox vaccine: 88
Deaths due to lightning strike: 82
Alzheimer's: 60,000
Assault: 17,500
Driving: 40,000
Flying: 200
High School Football: 30
Traveling to and from school: 800

The numbers of possible lives saved by this vaccine is so low as to be under the radar. You could get almost half as good results by just banning high school football. Heck, you could get just as good results by having 10% of the current school kids moving to home schooling. Using risk of death by chicken pox as an excuse for the vaccine is simply FUD, so that the parents who don't want to take a week off work can feel good about their decision. It is also entirely possible that the numbers of deaths due to chicken pox has actually been increased dramatically, but pushed off for 20 years. Ask your pediatrician. They will tell you that the vaccine might not last into adulthood, and we all know how much worse that will be.

So, if you are really interested in reducing the risk of death for your child, you would take your kid to a pox party, and start home schooling immediately. Heck, just not letting your kid play football is better protection than the chick pox vaccine.

Did you even read your source? YOUR source said that there were 88 less deaths per year in the entire US. That is 88 people out of 300,000,000. When someone says that you have a 1 in a million chance, they are talking about this. That 1 in a million is even including those who are severely ill with other things, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and whatnot. The reason there was a 92% drop in childhood deaths is because a child dying of chicken pox is so rare that 1 less death shows up as a huge percentage. Using percentages with such low numbers is the "desperate" argument. Here are some death numbers to ponder before claiming that the chicken pox vaccine is even worthy of notice:

Estimated deaths due to no chicken pox vaccine: 88
Deaths due to lightning strike: 82
Alzheimer's: 60,000
Assault: 17,500
Driving: 40,000
Flying: 200
High School Football: 30
Traveling to and from school: 800

The numbers of possible lives saved by this vaccine is so low as to be under the radar. You could get almost half as good results by just banning high school football. Heck, you could get just as good results by having 10% of the current school kids moving to home schooling. Using risk of death by chicken pox as an excuse for the vaccine is simply FUD, so that the parents who don't want to take a week off work can feel good about their decision. It is also entirely possible that the numbers of deaths due to chicken pox has actually been increased dramatically, but pushed off for 20 years. Ask your pediatrician. They will tell you that the vaccine might not last into adulthood, and we all know how much worse that will be.

So, if you are really interested in reducing the risk of death for your child, you would take your kid to a pox party, and start home schooling immediately. Heck, just not letting your kid play football is better protection than the chick pox vaccine.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

Unlike many other issues which are unimportant but are trumpeted as essential for the safety of the public, mandatory vaccination is not one of them. Even when there are side-effects, e.g., the smallpox vaccine (whose side effects include death), the amount of suffering and death that a vaccination campaign can prevent makes it worth the cost. Civil rights do not apply here. If my white neighbor marries a black person, and I don't like it, while I may have the right to hold that [retarded] opinion, the matter doesn't really affect me, and I can piss off anyway. That is the purpose of civil rights. But if my neighbor contracts smallpox because he refused to accept vaccination, that *is* a problem for me. That is a matter of public health.

When a half-dozen legitimately evil people use our aviation infrastructure as a weapon, people go completely ape-shit and will accept any draconian measure put against them. But when we have a drug that has 8 1/2 years of safety trials behind it, that can prevent CANCER, people are opposed to "mandatory" vaccination that you can OPT-OUT of! Let me ask you-- which does more harm: subjecting everybody who passes through an airport, bus terminal, and even some schools to X-ray screening, or a vaccination that prevents cancer? Have you done the epidemiology? This isn't some purported threat that your power-hungry congressperson thought up-- we have data that shows this will improve the quality of people's lives.

I wouldn't be surprised if the comment PopeRatzo was replying to struck a nerve. No, saying that anthropologists can't accurately describe life thousands of years past does not involve race. But the comment started by guestimating that in thousands of years people will think Africans populated America first. And then goes on to say that the dumbest people have the most kids. It's pretty obvious what is implied. Even without race involved, the idea that 'dumb' people have more kids is offensive. But that's a whole other discussion.

Also, I thought it was common knowledge that Hispanics have the highest birth rate in the States. But here you go (pdf). Never heard about the evangelical christian thing though.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

"The people" have been infected with HPV for a long while now. In fact, the CDC says 80% of women will be infected by age 50.

That's an epidemic.

We have a chance to stop this disease, or at least cut it down by quite a bit. Why the hell is this an issue?

When the polio vaccine came out were we all wanting to go out and get infected with polio? Of course not! People celebrated the end of a debilitating disease. Why can't we see it like that now?

Oh yeah, that's right. Polio didn't involve sex. And God knows anyone who has sex without procreation in mind is just plain wrong.

Guys, it's the 21st century. Shouldn't we be past this shit?

Let's get real. This is life, not religion. If religion cured warts I'd be all for it.

Hey, that's not cool. Lead poisoning is a very serious. It's not the kid's fault they are exposed to it, but they get to deal with the damage for the rest of their life.

Some links for your educational pleasure:

http://www.todaysparent.com/healthsafety/allages/a rticle.jsp?content=20040206_103527_3540&page=4
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_lead.htm l
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/lyh/govtdo. htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/lead/biologic_fa te.html
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/geology/lead/
http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/ldac/00000367.htm
http://www.nsc.org/library/facts/lead.htm

feel free to mod this up, mods, lead poisoning is underrecognised.

As noted above, you're proceeding from the faulty assumption that vaccines are only utilized for a limited period of time. Some vaccinations are maintained in use pretty much permanently, like MMR, DTP, and others.

Additionally, it's well and good that children who get chicken pox are only sick for a short time and very rarely have long-term problems from the disease, but take a look over yonder and find out some more before you dismiss it as being no big deal. Specifically, it notes that even amongst children, about one in ten who contract the disease will suffer complications serious enough to see a doctor, and, yes, it's possible for chicken pox to kill. Why take the chance if people can be vaccinated against it?

I just heard a lecture on this subject today, so I can assure you that there has *NEVER* been any reputable study that showed a link between autism and childhood vaccinations. The entire argument is based on a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: children get their vaccinations while around 1 years old, and the first signs of autism are noticeable about 6 months later, therefore the vaccinations cause autism.

What have the studies shown?

1) There is no difference in the rates of autism between vaccinated and un-vaccinated children.

2) Rates of autism have increased even though thimerosal was removed from the vaccines.

3) The increased rate of autism diagnosis is due to better identification and broader criteria, not due to a new cause.

Regardless, this has generated so much controversy that thimerosal has been removed from nearly all vaccines.
Don't get me wrong: vaccines do have a risk associated with them. But as far as the best science shows, autism is not one of them.

Stop trolling.

The first known case of HIV was in 1959, determined posthumously by samples taken from an exhumed body. The virus is older than that, and like ebola is thought to have crossed over from an animal vector due to the ingestion of bush meat. In the late 1970's unusual symptoms began manifesting themselves in certain populations.

You are correct that the virus was not officially "discovered" until the 1980's, but its effects were first noticed in the 1970's, and tests have determined it was active in the human population long before that. :) Giving the original poster the benefit of a doubt, perhaps they meant to state that the effects of HIV were first discovered in the 1970's?

Peace,

-Joe G.

A liver is a physical part of a person, but that does not stop over 60% of the adult united states population from drinking... point is, physical extension of our body or not, a good portion of people just don't care about the filth they live in and the dangers they pose to themselves or the planet.

I live near where a recent 'outbreak' of Avian Flu has occurred in England. Forgive me for perhaps not seeing the bigger picture, but what's the big deal? regular flu kills more people every winter in the UK alone than Avian Flu has the world over - ever. AFAIK anyway.

You know I had to do some research. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19 .pdf
This is US CDC data for Death rates for 2004. I don't know what half these things are, but the end number is the raw count of deaths.

  33,464 Septicemia
157,218 Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung
  40,880 Malignantneoplasmofbreast
  54,485 Malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, hematopoietic and related tissue
  65,829 Alzheimer'sdisease
862,800 Major cardiovascular diseases
  61,472 Influenzaandpneumonia
123,884 Chronic lower respiratory diseases
  42,762 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
  43,947 Motor vehicle accidents
  61,761 Nontransportaccidents
  31,647 Intentional self-harm (suicide)

It has some tables of top ten causes of death for selected age/sex groups. It seems that until you hit the 25-44 age group that accidents, assaults, and suicides were generally in the top 5. I was surprised that assualt was 4th leading cause of death for the 1-4 age group. In the 46-65, accidents drop to 3 and assaults and suicides don't rank in the top ten that's mainly medical causes of death. In the over 65 group, accidents drop to number 9 on the chart and all the top reasons for death are medical. Diseases of heart, Malignant neoplasms, and Cerebrovascular diseases seem to where we need to spend our medical R&D dollars to really extend the average life expentacy. I'm surprised tha suicides, assualts, and accidents rank so highly through most of your life. So if you can avoid killing yourself, and avoid dieing by accident, and avoid some one else killing you when you are young, odds are its a medical health thing that we kill you.

"Do a little research on the subject first, will ya."

OK, I'll start. Your turn.

Oh, and that figure I quoted earlier of 11,000 tests already? It's actually over 25,000 according to a more recent source. My bad.

"Since there is no such thing as a 100% safe vaccine, and this vaccine is relatively new, a person would be gambling with their daughter's life either way."

Really? This vaccine hasn't killed any of the 11,000 women involved in testing. Cervical cancer kills one woman for every five who die in automobile accidents in the United States. Where, exactly, is this "gamble?"

"Of course, we could just educate the girls and parents and let them make the decision as to yes/no and if yes, when, themselves."

Or we could just, you know, eradicate the disease from the population as quickly as possible. What exactly is your point?

Contains the phrase (in Italian), ``Il fumo uccide.'' Translated into English, that reads, ``Smoking kills.'' Can you imagine something that bold and straightforward being printed on a carton sold in the U.S.?

Yes. Each pack of cigarettes has one of several warnings on it, one of which is "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy." That's quite straightforward and bold, in my opinion.

How much does a human life cost, exactly?

Can you trade them on the stock market?

Does the value depreciate with time?

[T]he United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries. ... The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04) Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries (1990-1995) ___ Where firearms are tightly regulated, firearms are insignificant as a cause of death among children.

First of all, i would like to know the source of all these statistics... And check out the methodology....

Second: The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Yeah, but how much living space could they afford in those cities... Hell, I bet the average poor has more living space then people living in downtown Manhattan, that comparison is completely absurd.

According to this, 15% of Americans don't have Medical Care Coverage... so if 35 million people are poor in the US and 15% don't have Medical Coverage which is about 45 million people, how on earth can the average "poor" person "able to obtain medical care". I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're little fact sheet sounds a lot like bullshit to me.

I think a couple of false positives would be acceptable in helping curb a 99% false negative rate. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

perhaps I was too general. Pharmaceutical companies (especially in this day and age) would be less apt to allow something eat into their profits like that.

I'm sorry but I find that way too cynical of an argument. Let's say that a company found a cure for cancer that was a single use injection (we should be that lucky). They'd make a friggen fortune off that cure -- even if it wasn't a lifetime therapy. Obviously there's incentive to do this type of research or people wouldn't be bothering.

The diseases you mention have long been vaccinated against. Name the last major disease that was "cured", and when it was. I assure you it was not only a couple years ago.

Recently an HPV vaccine was developed and brought to market. Total cost for the full series: $360.00.

What is your bottom line argument here? Do you really think that the pharmaceutical companies aren't researching/won't allow cures for diseases because it goes against their bottom line? Are you really that cynical? Do you really think that "the man" is sticking it to us that badly?

I didn't use the word "odor". Otherwise, see http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet.htm

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV).... The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person-to-person contact... In addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread)."

In 2001, there was a total of 29 573 firearms-related deaths in the US.

The source is the same as before, the CDC har a handy death-o-matic, where you can see who died from what each year: (You can also get newer data than 2001 - up to 2004 at the moment, it seems)

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml

This means that roughly 57% of all gun deaths were accidental in 2001.

802 cases, or 2,7% of firearms related deaths, were accidental. (2001)

11 348 cases, or 38% were homicides. (2001)

In 231 cases, intent was undetermined. (2001)

From the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm

"Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004)."

"In 2001, 55% of suicides were committed with a firearm (Anderson and Smith 2003)."

30622x55%=16842 deaths

They may decrease the actual number of murders though, which would be a better result than just increasing the number of convictions.

Well, if you look at the cited circumstances for homicide, a full third of homicides in the U.S. are due to argument. I don't see that cameras would decrease that. Then you have homicides "committed during a rape, robbery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and violations of prostitution and commercial vice laws, other sex offenses, narcotic drug laws, and gambling laws." Again, I don't see that cameras would decrease homicides in those circumstances. Gang killings? Same thing.

The only category that cameras *may* have an effect are "unknown", which is about a third of the homicides, or about 5,000 people.

Compare that with the fact that in 2003, 13,700 people (at least) died from falling.

Why doesn't everyone make such a big stink about preventing the number of falls in the United States? Why does this country let itself be run by fear?

From http://www.cdc.gov/NCIDOD/dpd/parasites/toxoplasmo sis/factsht_toxoplasmosis.htm, "A Toxoplasma infection occurs by accidentally swallowing cat feces from a Toxoplasma-infected cat that is shedding the organism in its feces."

Call me old fashion, but I think if you are accidentally swallowing cat feces, you have bigger problems.

The article does not mention whether or not you can become infected by intentionally swallowing cat feces. Perhaps the author is assuming that if you swallow cat feces, it is always accidental. As reality shows become increasingly popular, the less confident I become in that assumption.

Clicking on the Hydrogen entry of the periodic table linked in the original post and reading the fine print at the bottom led me to two websites.

52. A. Clymer, "U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On," New York Times, December 27, 2002. A comparison of the two versions of the CDC website about condoms can be seen online. The original website, CDC, Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDS (September 1999) is available at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20 040817143928-82727.pdf/ . the current CDC fact sheet, CDC; Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (October 2003) is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm/.

Those two sites now house the same information. Either someone updated it in response to this report or the UCS was misled. I find the former more likely than the latter.

These numbers are all from the CDC.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml

My queries are for the years 1999-2002 (all they have), the entire U.S., all races, both sexes, all ages. (four year totals)

Unintentional death by falling : 57,760
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079
Unintentional Drowning : 13,739
Unintentional death by burning : 13,642
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099

You can also break it down by age range. If we're worried about the teen years, we can look at ages 12-18. (four year totals)

Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 1,561
Unintentional Drowning : 1,495
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 494
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 453
Unintentional death by burning : 423
Unintentional death by falling : 306

Younger still, ages 1-11: (four year totals)

Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 2,118
Unintentional Drowning : 2,870
Unintentional death by burning : 1,920
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 371
Unintentional death by falling : 292
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 164

Accident-wise, young kids have a lot more to worry about than guns. And teenagers are almost as likely to die on their bicycles. God forbid they're bicycling to the swimming pool... or even worse, *walking* to the swimming pool ... but yes, there are gun accidents.

Non-accidental deaths:

It's interesting to note that more than half of violent deaths attributed to firearms are suicide. Whenever you read an article in the media that mentions the number of gun deaths it's a good bet that they're including suicides.

• Violent deaths by firearm: 113,160 (includes suicides)

• Suicide by firearm: 67,162

Now I, personally, don't mind if people kill themselves. More power to them. I do agree that that there is a lower barrier to entry when using a gun and understand that depressed people might not be the best people to own guns, but gun control isn't really the solution to depression.

So, anyway, taking out suicides leaves us with:

• "legal intervention": 1,192 (cops killing criminals?)

• Homicide by firearm: 44,806 (11.2K per year)

As compared to

• Non-firearm homicides: 26,794 (6.7K per year)

So, more people are definitely intentionally killed by guns than by any other single cause, roughly 11K people per year.

But...

How many times are guns used defensively? Since defensive gun use isn't something that is reported (like an offensive gun use is), numbers are harder to find. Here is the page I have bookmarked with the only numbers I've ever seen. (refers to Gary Kleck's survey and a DOJ-sponsored study, and has a table of the results of 13 other surveys). (Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU - and, no, he's not an NRA member. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-klec k.php)

• http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Summary: Kleck thinks defensive gun use happens 2.5M times per year, other surveys listed range between 770K and 3.6M. The DOJ study thinks it's 1.5M times per year.

Let's aim low and go with 1M defensive uses per year. The question posed at the book club was "when does the ratio become w

Apparently Verizon and whiny liberals are both bad at math.

Don't get me wrong -- I love and respect our soldiers. That so many step up to do their duty gives me hope that America may yet survive. But statistically far more Americans are killed by medical accident, influenza, a host of other causes.

Let's not pretend that for an American going to war is more dangerous than commuting on the freeway. It was so once, but it isn't any more.

If you want to be honest and still win points with Hanoi Jane, argue that it costs money. That at least is true.

It's all about exercise. If everyone who played a lot of games daily took 20 minutes out of their day to stretch and do light, fully body exercise, then we wouldn't be having this problem. It's called muscle atrophy.
Another important thing is posture. Most people don't really care about it and these days parents don't enforce good posture on their kids, but if you sit at a computer or in front of a console in an ergonomic position you will never ever develop arthritis or carpal tunnel or back pains, etc. You can even reduce your risk of those things if they are hereditary.

- http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstatio ns/positions.html
- http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/Ergonomics/compergo.htm

I only expressed my opinion

whereas you attempted to force your viewpoint upon me

That doesn't make me believe that you come from a dissimilar culture to the one that you show such disdain for.

As far as the Freudian slip you mention, well you caught me. I do consider myself to have a high standard of living.

I really wonder wherever you had a shitty day you feel to get defensive, that wasn't my intention.

Here's a link that has the type of thing that I had in mind. I still can't find the iron studies I remember, but the carbon and silica studies are similar.

The researchers weren't sure about the infectivity of the virus...they weren't sure it would be infective at all. This is a virus that was beaten by evolution and became a pet:

In addition, the researchers showed that Phoenix could form particles capable of infecting mammalian cells in culture. Infectivity was very low, presumably because host cells have evolved mechanisms to resist uncontrolled virus propagation, as has been repeatedly observed for retroviruses from experimental animals. -- ScienceDaily

Now, taking the components of this retrovirus and mixing them with, say a pig retrovirus that is known to infect human cells (this is called superinfection)...that's a bit scarier. Unfortunately, it's called "pig farming." Last I checked, pig farming was not a Biosafety Level 4 activity. It's these porcine retroviruses that are holding up using genetically engineered pig body parts as human replacement parts for transplant. Still, think of all the people who get pig heart valves each year...

Why haven't we all died from some strange porcine-HERV virus combination? Human retroviruses (HTLV1, HTLV2, HIV1, HIV2) are all Biosafety Level 2. The hallmark of these retroviruses is that they aren't very good at propagating. By bumping up to Level 3 the virus that is probably recreated naturally every once in a while, and throwing in the disabling trick to permit it to only reproduce once, they took more than sufficiently reasonable precautions.

Biosafety 4 is reserved for viral hemorrhagic fever viruses (Ebola, Marburg, etc.) and stuff like that. If Phoenix were deserving a Biosafety Level 4, humanity would have been long dead and no one would be alive to conduct the experiments. Think of it as the biologist's version of the Anthropic principle.

Actually, there is a very similar home treatment recommended here: http://www.fluwikie.com/uploads/Consequences/NewGu ideOct7b.pdf It's called Oral Rehydration Therapy, and I'm getting together the ingredients this week.

Another preparation that's recommended is that you have a surgical face mask to avoid breathing in the virus, and to avoid spreading it if you're infected but not showing symtoms. Here's a reference: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncont rol/maskguidance.htm

I've heard several speakers on this topic recently, including Dr. Michael Osterholm of Univ. of Minn., and it's just a matter of time before avian flu, specifically H5N1, comes to your town (and everybody's). Several city administrations that I'm familiar with (including Plymouth and Minneapolis, MN, and Alameda, CA) are making specific preparations, mainly around "how do we operate the city when 30-40% of our staff are out sick themselves or busy at home caring for their family members". Alameda is preparing centers to distribute vaccine, once one is available.

Here's an interview with Dr. Osterholm: http://effectmeasure.blogspot.com/2005/06/osterhol m-were-screwed.html

I have, with a gun. I couldn't have done the same thing by drinking a beer and then driving my car at him, but the beer/car combo is wildly more dangerous, and results in many more deaths-by-idiots.

A little more context will make your comments seem a little less... shrill.

I think this will also increase the likelihood of these kids becoming very fat adults.

Not to worry. I'm sure they will ban the cafeteria and eating next. A quick search of the CDC's web site reveals this gem about children dying from choking. Since I couldn't find any references to children dying from tag, I have to assume eating is more dangerous than tag and, therefore, is in imminent danger of being banned as well.

Kids can't be kids any more so why bother with the child labor laws? Just let them become drones at an early age and help their family earn enough to make up for the assualt on the Middle Class.

The south (defined as Virginia and below), does have a higher birth rate than the north (above Virginia). You can see a map here. Lower income people definitely have higher birth rates, and the south is definitely lower income than other places. Of course, as you can see, California has a pretty high birth rate too, but that's probably the result of the large number of latino immigrants.

Of course, immigration can't be discounted as a reason for growth either. That's also a very major trend that's happening in the south. It's just not the only trend.

If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.

Did that. Japan has a similar death rate to us, despite having minimal access to guns. Since they have a lower murder rate, they have a higher suicide rate. This imples (but does not prove) that suicide is largely independent of the methods used. According to the CDC, about 16000 people killed themselves with a gun in the past year, which makes up a substantial amount of the total deaths by firearm. It's likely that the majority of the others are due to gang on gang violence.

Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.

Sounds like an argument for concealed carry to me. If someone comes after me desparate for a fix, I'm happy to shoot them instead of dying myself.

Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Lung cancer has killed more women than breast cancer every year since 1987. And the gap is widening: lung cancer deaths in women are increasing. CDC TFK

Lung Cancer kills more women every year than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined. Joan's Legacy

"There are four major cancers that account for over 50 percent of cancer deaths. Far and away, the most important in both men and women is lung cancer." PBS online focus

Yet women's magazines and other media pass out gobs and slathers of information on breast cancer. They hardly ever even mention lung cancer. By an amazing coincidence, they run a lot of tobacco product advertising. ACSH

Oh wait, it's not a coincidence: NIH

According to the CDC, the mortality rate of breast cancer is 1/8 of heart disease for women. So putting any kind of spotlight on breast cancer is merely a way to emphasize women, not a serious attempt to address important health issues.

Go to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_data_for_all_ages. htm), and search on breast cancer.

The CDC has maps breaking down obesity by state.

The 2005 data is here.

Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now