Slashdot Mirror

Just as a matter of basic freshman physics (Rayleigh criterion) humans do not have the optical hardware to see sub-arcminute sized detail.

Yes, they really do. Arcminute resolution is only 20/20 vision (by definition) whereas more people manage 20/15 (corrected, better eye)[1]; that's 45 arcseconds. Almost 1% of people manage 20/10 or 30 arcseconds.

Staying with 45 arcseconds, viewing distance to see the pixels on this display is then 9". If it were a 4K display of the same size the number would be 18".

Newly installed cooling towers deal with this, as this search shows.

That search clearly isn't showing me what it's showing you, because all I'm getting is a bunch of descriptions of the problem. Pathetically, even the CDC page only describes the problem, even though the CDC has renamed itself the centers for disease control and prevention. If you actually drill down a couple of links you get to their page on prevention... which only covers hot tubs! Your tax dollars at work! No, wait. They're on vacation.

Newly installed cooling towers deal with this, as this search shows.

That search clearly isn't showing me what it's showing you, because all I'm getting is a bunch of descriptions of the problem. Pathetically, even the CDC page only describes the problem, even though the CDC has renamed itself the centers for disease control and prevention. If you actually drill down a couple of links you get to their page on prevention... which only covers hot tubs! Your tax dollars at work! No, wait. They're on vacation.

It smells rank. It is brown and slimy. Maybe it isn't harmful, but it is GROSS.

Incidentally, if your body can't absorb it well, then it isn't very good for you. If your diet already includes all the minerals you need (as mine does), then it is neutral at best.

Lastly, tap water has been shown to contain living naegleria fowleri, which has killed people right here in America.

It is true that drinking that bacteria is normally safe...your body just kills it. But I will admit to being a teeny bit squeamish about drinking living brain-eating bacteria.

Distillation kills it, and removes its corpse from the water.

I'll take distilled, thanks.

Considering the regularity with which school shootings occur in the US, it would seem that no time is a good time to discuss gun control.

Actually the number of school shootings has been declining. The media just likes to hype it up every time one happens because think of the children! Statistically your kids are more likely to be shot by someone else outside of school than at school. (And they're more likely to kill themselves than be killed by someone else. Table 11 - 1.0 suicides per 100,000, 0.7 homicides per 100,000 for ages 5-14; and 11.1 suicides vs 9.8 homicides per 100,000 for ages 15-24.) But "Your child may be thinking of killing himself!" doesn't elicit as much nail-biting among parents as "Someone is trying to kill your child!", so the media hypes up the latter.

The number of mass shootings OTOH has been increasing. Curiously, that hasn't gotten much press until this incident.

As for gun control, it isn't the pro-gun side which has a problem with discussing it. I'm somewhat pro-gun. I don't use them myself, but I don't have a problem with other people owning or using them. The right to own a gun is explicitly mentioned in our Constitution. If we want gun control, then it's obvious what needs to happen - amend the Constitution to remove that right. I'd probably even support that just because I'm curious what would happen to the statistics if we did it.

But instead we have all these gun control advocates trying to do a run-around of the Constitution just because it's really, really hard to pass a new Constitutional amendment. That's why the gun control debate always goes nowhere: the gun control advocates refuse to tackle the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the Second Amendment. Instead they resort to laws which restrict some types of gun ownership, or makes gun buyers jump through more hoops. It's possible their attempts are even counterproductive - gun ownership is at an all-time high, and gun and ammo sales spike every time politicians start talking about making it harder to get guns.

Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself?

Most people are irrationally scared of radiation, full stop. It's not even a rational fear, based in a sound knowledge of radiation--that would mean people were not operating on the quaint notion that they're not being exposed to radiation pretty much all the time, with some sources of radiation more or less entirely unavoidable given that there's this really huge fusion reactor about eight lightminutes away that we kinda need.

Stop talking rubbish. There is no connection between the natural radiation from the sun and being given a lethal dose of radiation from an atomic bomb, causing you to die a slow painful death. Fear of the latter is entirely rational.

Offhand, I'd say it's because like you most people wrongly estimate precisely how easy it is to get sufficient radiation from a nuclear bomb to die from it, though your comparison falls apart given that currently radiation from the sun is more likely to kill you. How many people worrying their little heads over a slight spike in their daily radiation dose don't take basic precautions against the sun's output?

Not only that, but if we're only talking about receiving a lethal dose of radiation very quickly, the same group of people don't show the proper levels of concern about other events that are as likely--if not more likely--ranging from a dirty bomb (google it) to things like the Goiânia accident. A lot of the data on radiation poisoning from nuclear bombs--which mostly comes from very old versions and the patterns with modern nukes would likely end up being very different because as I recall there was some effort to limit fallout since it's a touch hard to control its geographic spread--seems to indicate that the thermal radiation is still more likely to off you anyway.

Source from CDC (as of 2011).

Source from IIHS (as of 2013).

This will save lives. Even with excellent drivers behind the wheel.

Maryland just abolished the parallel parking requirement, because of the growing moron population. Automated safety systems can come none too soon.

Citations needed.

Very well, citations you shall have.

http://www.skincancer.org/heal...

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin... ("A tan does not indicate good health. A tan is a response to injury, because skin cells signal that they have been hurt by UV rays by producing more pigment.")

http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise... ("Tanning...also puts you at risk. A tan is your skin's injury response to excessive UV radiation.")

And for perspective, up to 2011only about 15 people had actually died of their thyroid cancer, out of a possible 10,000 affected. In fact, more people died in the initial explosion.

For even more perspective, twice as many people killed by guns in the US every day than died to thyroid cancer caused by Chernobyl in the entire time since the disaster.

Today I heard yet another bonehead talking about the alleged "Rape Culture" at college which uses a 40 year old bullshit study for it's statistics. Not because we can't do better studies, but because the numbers in that particular study favor the bullshit they want you to believe.

There is a possibility that people who want to do those studies actually CAN'T do better studies.

CDC did a phone survey study on rape. Spent tens of thousands of work hours and several million dollars on it.
http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre...
And got "rates of sexual violence in the United States...comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo".
Their methodology was tainted at several steps, from framing the questions, through all survey takers being female (which totally can't alter their approach to asking questions after first couple of cases of women reporting rape), to paying for answers (paying more for taking part in the rape-related part of the "health" survey).

So, they did another one.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss...
This one not only had numbers once again shooting through the roof, this time you didn't even have to look up methodology to see glaring errors.

Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey.
The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences.

If dad forces mom to have sex - that's rape.
If dad forces dad to have sex - that's also rape.
If mom forces dad to have sex... that's not rape. That's "other forms of sexual violence".

It's the old "It's only the guy who's GIVING the blowjob that's gay" logic.
Along with the "men can only be raped by other men" logic - i.e. "women can't rape".
I.e. All rapists are men.

Could it be that people doing these studies simply can't give up their confirmation biases, and that they are taking existence of "rape culture" as a foregone conclusion?

When about 1 in 5 (or more) of population reports being raped... which is about 63 million people in USA...
That either means that there are tens of millions of rapists out there, working overtime to meet their rape quotas while everyone, INCLUDING VICTIMS, is just going with it and shrugging their shoulders without a care for themselves or others - or that the people doing the studies have serious issues with the methodology of their studies.

Today I heard yet another bonehead talking about the alleged "Rape Culture" at college which uses a 40 year old bullshit study for it's statistics. Not because we can't do better studies, but because the numbers in that particular study favor the bullshit they want you to believe.

There is a possibility that people who want to do those studies actually CAN'T do better studies.

CDC did a phone survey study on rape. Spent tens of thousands of work hours and several million dollars on it.
http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre...
And got "rates of sexual violence in the United States...comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo".
Their methodology was tainted at several steps, from framing the questions, through all survey takers being female (which totally can't alter their approach to asking questions after first couple of cases of women reporting rape), to paying for answers (paying more for taking part in the rape-related part of the "health" survey).

So, they did another one.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss...
This one not only had numbers once again shooting through the roof, this time you didn't even have to look up methodology to see glaring errors.

Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey.
The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences.

If dad forces mom to have sex - that's rape.
If dad forces dad to have sex - that's also rape.
If mom forces dad to have sex... that's not rape. That's "other forms of sexual violence".

It's the old "It's only the guy who's GIVING the blowjob that's gay" logic.
Along with the "men can only be raped by other men" logic - i.e. "women can't rape".
I.e. All rapists are men.

Could it be that people doing these studies simply can't give up their confirmation biases, and that they are taking existence of "rape culture" as a foregone conclusion?

When about 1 in 5 (or more) of population reports being raped... which is about 63 million people in USA...
That either means that there are tens of millions of rapists out there, working overtime to meet their rape quotas while everyone, INCLUDING VICTIMS, is just going with it and shrugging their shoulders without a care for themselves or others - or that the people doing the studies have serious issues with the methodology of their studies.

The EPA recommends no more than .001 mg/kg/day of cadmium in food. The average male adult in the US weighs 195 lb (88.5 kg). For that person the limit translates to .09 mg/day.

It is an open question whether that is really a safe long term limit, as these things do tend to accumulate in the body.

Soylent 1.5 has 21.39g (.021 mg) of cadmium per 500 calorie serving. So, as per the EPA standard, if that person ate mostly soylent, 4 servings per day (2000 calories), you would have .084 mg of cadmium, right below acceptable limit.

Note the definition of mg/kg/day is how many mg of something you can consume per kg of body mass. The soylent guy's google spreadsheet reports mg/kg of the toxic substances in the soylent itself, which is irrelevant. This suggests that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. What a surprise.

The EPA recommends no more than .001 mg/kg/day of cadmium in food. The average male adult in the US weighs 195 lb (88.5 kg). For that person the limit translates to .09 mg/day.

It is an open question whether that is really a safe long term limit, as these things do tend to accumulate in the body.

Soylent 1.5 has 21.39g (.021 mg) of cadmium per 500 calorie serving. So, as per the EPA standard, if that person ate mostly soylent, 4 servings per day (2000 calories), you would have .084 mg of cadmium, right below acceptable limit.

Note the definition of mg/kg/day is how many mg of something you can consume per kg of body mass. The soylent guy's google spreadsheet reports mg/kg of the toxic substances in the soylent itself, which is irrelevant. This suggests that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. What a surprise.

The reason I'm starting with toxicity, is that I can state with a high degree of certainty that you can ingest as much cannabis as you want, and you'll still be here to talk about it in a few days. The same cannot be said for alcohol, oxycontin, or xanax. If the toxicity and risk from use of cannabis are so low, why do you feel a need to have it so restricted?

If there was a system in place to provide actual education around use and abuse, and a regulated market place, the cannabis related "deaths" would be expected to go down even further. I guess I think people should have the freedom to alter their mind and body in the way they see fit, assuming they aren't infringing on someone elses rights when they do it.

Don't you think it would be a better use of our collective time and money to go after the more dangerous drugs?

The reason I'm starting with toxicity, is that I can state with a high degree of certainty that you can ingest as much cannabis as you want, and you'll still be here to talk about it in a few days. The same cannot be said for alcohol, oxycontin, or xanax. If the toxicity and risk from use of cannabis are so low, why do you feel a need to have it so restricted?

If there was a system in place to provide actual education around use and abuse, and a regulated market place, the cannabis related "deaths" would be expected to go down even further. I guess I think people should have the freedom to alter their mind and body in the way they see fit, assuming they aren't infringing on someone elses rights when they do it.

Don't you think it would be a better use of our collective time and money to go after the more dangerous drugs?

The reason I'm starting with toxicity, is that I can state with a high degree of certainty that you can ingest as much cannabis as you want, and you'll still be here to talk about it in a few days. The same cannot be said for alcohol, oxycontin, or xanax. If the toxicity and risk from use of cannabis are so low, why do you feel a need to have it so restricted?

If there was a system in place to provide actual education around use and abuse, and a regulated market place, the cannabis related "deaths" would be expected to go down even further. I guess I think people should have the freedom to alter their mind and body in the way they see fit, assuming they aren't infringing on someone elses rights when they do it.

Don't you think it would be a better use of our collective time and money to go after the more dangerous drugs?

It wouldn't take long for an airline to be sued for instituting this practice on the grounds of racial discrimination. According to the CDC

• Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%)
• Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults.

Dealing with these lawsuits and instituting a way to account for ethnic "discounts" would make this program more trouble than its worth.

10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.

Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE. From the CDC, backed by these data, deaths per year in the USA:

* heart disease, 611,105
* cancer, 584,881
* chronic respiratory disease, 149,205
* accidents, 130,557
* stroke, 128,978
* alzheimer's disease, 84,767
* diabetes, 75,578
* influenza and pneumonia, 56,979
* kidney disease, 47,112
* suicide, 41,149

The suicide figure includes 21,176 by firearms.

The numbers of homicides is way down the list at 16,121, including 11,208 by firearms.

The total annual number of deaths by all causes is 2,596,993. This includes 11,208 homicides by firearms, which is 0.43% - less than one percent - of the total. For the average rational person, if he possesses nominal intellectual capacity, that is not even on the radar. Yes, for those unlucky or stupid enough to live in downtown detroit, especially engaged in gang activities, they have a little more worry. But the fact is, they are all 100% certainly going to die, and much more likely of disease - even those.

10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.

Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE. From the CDC, backed by these data, deaths per year in the USA:

* heart disease, 611,105
* cancer, 584,881
* chronic respiratory disease, 149,205
* accidents, 130,557
* stroke, 128,978
* alzheimer's disease, 84,767
* diabetes, 75,578
* influenza and pneumonia, 56,979
* kidney disease, 47,112
* suicide, 41,149

The suicide figure includes 21,176 by firearms.

The numbers of homicides is way down the list at 16,121, including 11,208 by firearms.

The total annual number of deaths by all causes is 2,596,993. This includes 11,208 homicides by firearms, which is 0.43% - less than one percent - of the total. For the average rational person, if he possesses nominal intellectual capacity, that is not even on the radar. Yes, for those unlucky or stupid enough to live in downtown detroit, especially engaged in gang activities, they have a little more worry. But the fact is, they are all 100% certainly going to die, and much more likely of disease - even those.

About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.

Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.

But it has 100 percent everything to do with someone whining about 10,000 people getting killed by drunk driving.

Allow me to explain, since you are having a little trouble.

Person A says OMFG! 10,000 people are being killed By reason 1. We must not allow this to happen, If we have to spend every last dollar, we must!

Person B says, people all die of something. If we eliminated every ethanol fueled death, you'd be yapping about something else, and demanding every resource be appplied to eliminating that.

You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.

10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.

Oh, fuck me. I know that in today's America, people are all lined up, thinking what they are going to tell the reporter on their 100th and 150th birthday's. Because today, everyone thinks they are immortal. But we all do die.

But it isn't about a lack of humanity and/or compassion. It's about unealistic expectations - the idea that if we can only get tougher on it, we can eliminate it. We can't.

And I'm not even talking about no enforcement. Drunks on the highway are true menace. And they need removed from the highway. But anyone who isn't looking at it in emotion only mode has to know that you could throw all the money in the world at it, and it will not reduuce the number of DUI deaths to zero.

I'll end with some statistics.

Let's play a game. I love games. if you dare, we have a certain amount of money. Enough to fund ten of the top ten causes of death mitigation. . But there is 11 causes on the list! We'll use the top ten causes of death in the US, and one more. Given that driving under the influence deaths are not in the top ten, we will give special dispensation to remove money from research on of any of those top ten causes of death, and apply it to catching, and punishing anyone who drinks and drives, including people who have not actually caused harm. So it's like a top ten list, with DUI deaths added for the purposes of the game Who do you take the money away from? Remember, it's just a little thought game about priorities and money.

Assuing you'll even play the game - which I doubt, because cognitive dissonance will have you scrambling for a wat to say the game isn't relevant to real life, But if you do, then I'll tell you that you are inhuman and lack compassion. But you won't play the game, will you? In your world, you pick a cause, and it emotionally overrules every other consideration,I suspect.

Here's those stats I promised. Use those top ten, and DUI deaths, and let me know which one you knock out of the water.

USA Leading causes of death and those numbers - top ten 2013:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

Heart disease: 611,105

Cancer: 584,881

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978

Alzheimer's disease: 84,767

Diabetes: 75,578

Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112

Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

The stats for 2010:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...

TEll me which one you would take research money away from, and put into law enforcement actions.

About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.

Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.

But it has 100 percent everything to do with someone whining about 10,000 people getting killed by drunk driving.

Allow me to explain, since you are having a little trouble.

Person A says OMFG! 10,000 people are being killed By reason 1. We must not allow this to happen, If we have to spend every last dollar, we must!

Person B says, people all die of something. If we eliminated every ethanol fueled death, you'd be yapping about something else, and demanding every resource be appplied to eliminating that.

You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.

10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.

Oh, fuck me. I know that in today's America, people are all lined up, thinking what they are going to tell the reporter on their 100th and 150th birthday's. Because today, everyone thinks they are immortal. But we all do die.

But it isn't about a lack of humanity and/or compassion. It's about unealistic expectations - the idea that if we can only get tougher on it, we can eliminate it. We can't.

And I'm not even talking about no enforcement. Drunks on the highway are true menace. And they need removed from the highway. But anyone who isn't looking at it in emotion only mode has to know that you could throw all the money in the world at it, and it will not reduuce the number of DUI deaths to zero.

I'll end with some statistics.

Let's play a game. I love games. if you dare, we have a certain amount of money. Enough to fund ten of the top ten causes of death mitigation. . But there is 11 causes on the list! We'll use the top ten causes of death in the US, and one more. Given that driving under the influence deaths are not in the top ten, we will give special dispensation to remove money from research on of any of those top ten causes of death, and apply it to catching, and punishing anyone who drinks and drives, including people who have not actually caused harm. So it's like a top ten list, with DUI deaths added for the purposes of the game Who do you take the money away from? Remember, it's just a little thought game about priorities and money.

Assuing you'll even play the game - which I doubt, because cognitive dissonance will have you scrambling for a wat to say the game isn't relevant to real life, But if you do, then I'll tell you that you are inhuman and lack compassion. But you won't play the game, will you? In your world, you pick a cause, and it emotionally overrules every other consideration,I suspect.

Here's those stats I promised. Use those top ten, and DUI deaths, and let me know which one you knock out of the water.

USA Leading causes of death and those numbers - top ten 2013:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

Heart disease: 611,105

Cancer: 584,881

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978

Alzheimer's disease: 84,767

Diabetes: 75,578

Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112

Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

The stats for 2010:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...

TEll me which one you would take research money away from, and put into law enforcement actions.

Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.

Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem? Roughly 1/3 of all accidents in the US involve alcohol according to eh CDC. That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.

You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?

According to your first link, there are about 589G air Passenger-Miles per year compared to 4 230G highway Passenger-Miles.
Let's say 10x more for road.

From 2000 to 2015, there has been about 630 death in (air carrier) plane crashes in the US, that includes 9/11 but not people on the ground. Hell, from 2006 to 2015 there's been something like 5 deaths! That's about 42 per year. (Counted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
In 2013, there was 32 000 killed in road accidents, let's say it 30k now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.

As for your second link, I'm pretty sure car accidents (and plane accidents, but they are negligible) are included in "Accidents (unintentional injuries)", which is fourth. Moreover, if you're between 20 and 40, heart disease and cancer are going to be much lower on the list, the 65+ skew too much the data. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/imag...

We now have more black babies being aborted than being born.

That's dopey. You've got to get information from places other than pro-life websites.

But even if you use the numbers cited by the pro-life websites (and cited NO WHERE ELSE), you'll see that live births outnumber abortions by at least 6-1. If you use census data for births, you'll see that it's more like 10-1. And that's if you accept the total number of black abortions the pro-life websites have pulled right outta their ass.

Okay, here are some figures.

National Vital Statistics Report. Table 1, page 15. In the year 2000, among black women aged 15-44, birth rate was 70 per 1000 women.

From Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar; 202(3): 214–220., "in 2000 Black women had a[n abortion] rate of 49 per 1000 women."

So in 2000 there were more black babies being born than aborted, but the ratio was 7:5, and certainly not 10:1. Two (Bush) recessions later, and I would not be surprised to see the ratio flipped the other way.

Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.

There are a lot more car miles that air miles traveled in the US per unit time.

The most recent 2013 data

If you consider the risk per trip, it is higher for planes, but less per mile. So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well. The difference isn't big and it may be the other way around right now because planes have had a good few years. But I don't have 2014/2015 data.

But as far as risk goes, these are small numbers. There are things that are much more likely to kill you. Cars and planes don't even make the top 10.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

And you aren't going to fly to work, unless you're this guy..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/...

This has resulted in the black population growing at a very slow rate, costing blacks political power, influence, and economic success.

Um, you know black birth rates are still higher than white birth rates, right?

http://www.childtrends.org/?in...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...

To be fair to the idiot you replied to, there is a cancer vaccine for one type of cancer, HPV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/...

However, trying to tie every cancer together as one cause is absurd. Implying someone is sitting on a cure for cancer is much worse.

if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them

Ignoring the shear absurdity of your suggestion, that's not the point. For the life of me, I cannot understand people who refuse to listen to science. The CDC is your friend. Seriously, please read this.

You need to learn about "hurd immunity". Here, I'll quote the NIH (another friend) for you:

When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."

We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has been thoroughly debunked. By advocating for non-immunization, you're putting innocents at risk.

My son got his first vaccinations at 1 month... By the time he was 2 years old he had over a dozen... We *did* choose to stretch out the vaccination schedule a bit (to avoid giving 4 vaccinations at once, etc.) and we've been very careful to screen which drug company's vaccines we use as many contain "non-medical' ingredients that are actually drugs (below the minimum dosage for adults) that are not otherwise approved for use in children.

You did read the post you were replying to, right? It was talking specifically about the measles outbreak at Disneyland. My son is 10 months old, so I'm going through this right now. Different vaccines are tested as "safe" for different ages. We have been following the CDC's Recommended Immunizations for Children from Birth through 6 years old. The first vaccine (HepB) is given within days of being born. MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) is not recommended until the infant is 12 months old.

There is plenty of evidence that the "minimally invasive" nature of robotic surgery means fewer infections and faster healing. Overall it's significantly better, but there's obviously still room for improvement.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
Occupational Fatality Associated with a Robot -- Michigan
On July 21, 1984, a 34-year-old male worker in Michigan was operating an automated die-casting system that included an industrial robot. At approximately 1:15 p.m., he was found pinned between the back end of the robot and a 4-inch-diameter steel safety pole used to restrict undesired arm movement by the robot. The robot stalled, applying sustained pressure to the chest of the operator, who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest..... ... Based on information available to NIOSH, this is the first documented case of a robot-related fatality in the United States. In two cases reported in Japan, the workers sustained extensive crush injuries

Good plan for the Baby Boomers and older Gen-Xers.

The rest of us have slight problem because we're below replacement rate on kids, have been for decades, with the exception of '06 and '07. Mexicans bailed us out in terms of population growth in the past few decades, but that isn't happening anymore, partly because their birth rate is way down.

I'm from the rust belt. My hometown of Detroit's in a region that's had a slowly declining population for decades, and pretty much the only way to make money in housing is a) be a slum-lord, b) buy in a gentrifying neighborhood downtown before everyone notices, or c) buy when an exurb is first developed for $200k and then sell four years later for $500k to somebody with three kids about to enter the excellent elementary school. I'm in Cleveland now, and real estate prices are not going up. My stepmom insists on buying, because she has incredibly strong nesting instincts, and she's broken even on both houses, in one case after putting a quarter million into the house.

For you up in Alaska things will probably stay fine. You've got a small population base, a large potential market of outdoorsey-types, and much improving weather due to global warming. But in the lower 48, tho, the economy has changed. There are fewer people, they prefer newer housing stock; so demand for the house you bought 40 years ago is down. Supply of houses people want that are not like your house is up because the Great Recession tanked construction costs. The debt load on the people you;d be selling to (generally college-educated adults, because most people who buy homes are college-educated adults) is way up so their ability to make mortgage payments is way down, etc.

Once more with feeling
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

CDC disagrees with you.

Me, I support your right to smoke (Tobacco or Wacky Tobacco), Drink, and probably pop most kinds of pills, I also support the concept that virtually no drugs should require a prescription. So I really don't care if it's the dangerous item of the week or not.

"Overall, males consume an average of 178 kcal from sugar drinks on any given day, while females consume 103 kcal."

(Nutritional calories (the kind listed on food labels) are equivalent to kilocalories (of the thermodynamic type). I'll use the more coloquial "cal" for the nutritional measure rather than the thermodynamic measure.)

For the purposes of estimating, let's call is 140 (nutrional) cal/person/day.

From a weight loss standpoint, you generally need a caloric deficit of 2500 cal to burn off one pound of fat (approx 500 g). If the consumption of sugar drinks (their definition includes sports drinks, sweetened juices, Kool-Aid, etc.) were cut in half, that would be 70 fewer calories per day per person, or about 25000 cal/year. That represents a weight loss of about 10 pounds per person in the first year.

As for the other aspect of it, soda consumption today versus the 1960s, here at least is one datapoint (Fig. 1): in the 1967, soda production was about 200 12-oz can equivalents per person per year; in 2004, it was about 400.

I stand by my earlier point: if soda consumption today were more like the 1960s, a lot of people would lose a lot of weight, and about as much as I estimated. So, yes, unlike many Slashdotters, I am not merely speaking hyperbolically out of my ass because I want the world to be that way.

For USA specifically try this (no historic data i am afraid, but you can have them by state and some other critiria), plus this nice "Overweight and Obesity (BMI) - 2013" by state table

For USA specifically try this (no historic data i am afraid, but you can have them by state and some other critiria), plus this nice "Overweight and Obesity (BMI) - 2013" by state table

Yeah, they linked to the wrong page. 2010 data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
1960 data comes from a 2004 study here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/a...

Yeah, they linked to the wrong page. 2010 data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
1960 data comes from a 2004 study here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/a...

Maybe you ought to check out the CDC. They provide citations, which surely an intelligent person, such as yourself, can follow. Why name one person when there's multiple thousands?

Health Effects in Adults

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

        Heart disease
                For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,3
                It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
        Lung cancer1,6
                Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
        Stroke1

Smokefree laws can reduce the risk for heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers.1

Secondhand Smoke Exposure Has Decreased in Recent Years

        Measurements of cotinine show that exposure to secondhand smoke has steadily decreased in the United States over time.
                During 1988–1991, almost 90 of every 100 (87.9%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine. 6
                During 2007–2008, about 40 of every 100 (40.1%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine.6
                During 2011–2012, about 25 of every 100 (25.3%) nonsmokers had measurable levels of cotinine.7

        The decrease in exposure to secondhand smoke is likely due to:7
                The growing number of states and communities with laws that do not allow smoking in indoor areas of workplaces and public places, including restaurants, bars, and casinos
                The growing number of households with voluntary smokefree home rules
                Significant declines in cigarette smoking rates
                The fact that smoking around nonsmokers has become much less socially acceptable

Many People in the United States Are Still Exposed to Secondhand Smoke

        During 2011–2012, about 58 million nonsmokers in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke.7
        Among children who live in homes in which no one smokes indoors, those who live in multiunit housing (for example, apartments or condos) have 45% higher cotinine levels (or almost half the amount) than children who live in single-family homes.8
        During 2011–2012, two out of every five children ages 3 to 11—including seven out of every ten Black children—in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke regularly.7
        During 2011–2012, more than one in three (36.8%) nonsmokers who lived in rental housing were exposed to secondhand smoke.7

Most people die, prior to 67.

No, they don't. (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 63 No 7, November 6 2014).

Over half of Americans will not only collect SS, they will do so for longer than a decade.

How often does someone lose their head and there is another head ready to take it's place?

If only there were some sort of search engine which, if you inserted the phrase "yearly deaths by head injury" you might found out that "Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability in the United States, contributing to about 30% of all injury deaths.1 Every day, 138 people in the United States die from injuries that include TBI. [...] TBI contributed to the deaths of more than 50,000 people [in 2010]." And that's just the USA; sadly, most of the world's humans have pretty crap health care, so extrapolate those numbers out...

I see Diptheria toxoid all over the place in this table. other references seem to confirm that the 4 or 5 way vaccine contains the toxin and not components of the bacteria.

The vaccine coverage rate for barcelona is 95%

That would seem to be a nail in the coffin for this herd immunity theory. Where is patient zero?

Other literature indicates that whatever immunity the vaccine confers dissipates after a few years. here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/2/11-0987_article

also in there, it says the largest cofactors for diptheria are: #1 war; #2 unemployment. Spain has a really high unemployment rate now. Also, note that eastern europe has high vaccination rates but a persistent diptheria problem. Seems to me eastern europe has a persistent war problem too.

also in there, it says 75% of the people getting diptheria have already had the vaccine. Sounds like this vaccine has got snake oil as it's active ingredient. reading the product insert i see more than 50% of the people getting the vaccine suffer from side effects, with around 10% having very unpleasant consequences. safe? effective? strike out on both counts.

the numbers there say that the vaccine reduces symptoms, but I suspect they put some lipstick on those stats.

Most (75%) case-patients reported in the European Region were at least partially vaccinated, but most (74%) case-patients and (93%) infants who died were unvaccinated).

they don't appear to have factored for the most vulnerable groups, who are also least likely to be vaccinated - the very old, the very young, and the very sick.

Sure, it's very difficult to find side effect rates. In fact, nobody even keeps track of them! Oh, wait, no it's not:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

The risk from vaccine side effects is very carefully measured against the risk of not being vaccinated and the vaccines are approved only if the benefit very much outweighs the risk.

And who knows how many more forgotten samples are out there?

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Would you support also eliminating the immunity from liability that has been granted to pharmaceutical companies for vaccines? Would you include mandates for things like Gardasil even for boys (which Merck & Co have been promoting)? Who do you hold responsible when a mandated vaccine proves to be defective (like happened with RotaShield), or has manufacturing issues that causes problems, which happens with vaccines more than any other drug). If a parent gets a vaccine for their child that causes a problem, and since you can't go after the manufacturer, would you charge the parents for endangerment then, too?

/sigh... and as I do in every single thread this comes up in: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Further data: 7 of the 8 most vaccinated states went to Romney in '12.

Based on my (layman's) reading of CDC data from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; it would appear that we may have settled on a solution for the middle aged and surplus.

It's just not a terribly nice solution.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. It's appropriate for high schools and colleges to be addressing this problem.

It's not good for them to do "appropriate" and "addressing" things to cover their asses, especially things that make suicide more likely, or that are otherwise bad but don't reduce suicide. As a former American high school student, I remember the hopelessness and humiliation caused by the school's degrading, condescending, warden-like policies inclining me toward suicide. I also remember many ridiculous policies showing me they cared more about their internal politics than me, which made me think, if I ever admit I am suicidal I'll lose even more control of my situation, and compassion will make no part of their reaction, so I shouldn't do it.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. It's appropriate for high schools and colleges to be addressing this problem.

You think that the intertoobz is the cause of teenage suicide? We had a number of teens that offed themselves in the small town I grew up in. Some people just commit suicide. Long before cyberbullies.

Would you accept constant monitoring just to, you know - make sure you are safe? Why not? Adults commit suicide and take drugs, and become unstable all the time.