Slashdot Mirror

Loneliness is a significant health risk which causes a person's death risk to increase.

There's that old correlation/causation thing again. A depressed and withdrawn person is going to be lonely. But the cause of the lonliness is alomst certainly the depression. A person such as myself functions better and recharges the mental batteries by being alone. Alone != lonely.

I don't understand how you try to invalidate GP statement. Alone is surely not equal to loneliness. Loneliness is a feeling (mental). Alone is simply a state of being (physical).

Also, depression should not be the cause of loneliness. It should be in reverse. Loneliness MAY LEAD to depression, and it is a symptom of depression. Some people may sometimes feel lonely, but they MAY NOT be depressed (and often they aren't). However, depressed people often times (if not all the time) feel lonely because they tend to (mentally) separate themselves from people/social.

Having kids gives you someone to care about, and someone who cares about you, and someone you see on a regular basis. That does a lot to decrease your loneliness.

You're taking your own mental state and insisting it is everyone's. It isn't. Western society at present favors the extrovert, who needs to be around people, and suffers when they aren't. Present day social pressures have made having wife and children extremely risky for men. So it is completely possible to have a rich life without the present day entanglements of a spouse and children.

This is another part of your reply that is confusing to me. I don't understand why you think GP is shoveling the idea to you. To me, instead, it is a statement which has some merits. If you simply change the word "kids" to something else, such as "close friends," "pets," "partner," etc., you still get the similar meaning.

Loneliness is a significant health risk which causes a person's death risk to increase.

There's that old correlation/causation thing again. A depressed and withdrawn person is going to be lonely. But the cause of the lonliness is alomst certainly the depression. A person such as myself functions better and recharges the mental batteries by being alone. Alone != lonely.

Having kids gives you someone to care about, and someone who cares about you, and someone you see on a regular basis. That does a lot to decrease your loneliness.

You're taking your own mental state and insisting it is everyone's. It isn't. Western society at present favors the extrovert, who needs to be around people, and suffers when they aren't. Present day social pressures have made having wife and children extremely risky for men. So it is completely possible to have a rich life without the present day entanglements of a spouse and children.

Loneliness is a significant health risk which causes a person's death risk to increase.

Having kids gives you someone to care about, and someone who cares about you, and someone you see on a regular basis. That does a lot to decrease your loneliness.

This explains why the effect is stronger for men than women (men tend to have fewer social contacts), and stronger for single than married men.

>> Cancer is NOT among the issues here...

I don't think thats even slightly as clear as you sem to believe.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B Carcinogen, meaning a âoepossible cancer-causing agent,â based on the available research.
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

Also the potential for brain damage such as:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://www.everydayhealth.com/...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

http://www.everydayhealth.com/...

"I observed the obesity paradox in a published study I conducted while studying at the Mayo Clinic. We looked at 226 people who experienced a heart arrest in the community and were resuscitated. What we found was that people that were slightly overweight (BMI from 25-30) had the highest 5-year survival at 78 percent. People who were underweight had a significantly lower survival at 67 percent, similar to people considered morbidly obese."

The redefinition of what is "overweight" by lowering the ideal BMI did more to harm the validity of scientific analysis than any pseudoscience postulation ever could. Overweight people live longer than underweight people. You twiggie admirers can go hump yourselves.

Please educate yourself.

When a drug company has a successful product, they get very concerned when it gets close to the time for patent expiration because it means that cheap generic equivalents will soon appear. There are any number of strategies that companies use to protect their interests in this situation, and one of the most common is to take a look at the drug's chemistry to see if there's anything there to exploit. One possibility is to reformulate the product into something that lasts longer than the original, so you'll see things like extended-release or controlled-release formulations being developed.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/old-drug-with-new-name/

You do really being obese (BMI 25-30) is the range to target for longest lifespan right? So those people who were "morbidly obese" just overshot the desired target range. Not until BMI gets to 35 does risk factors even become again like *normal* weight person

so bottom line is, it's good to be an american lard-ass, at least with BMI under 35

http://www.everydayhealth.com/...

I didnt call them exploitative -- that was some troll AC a few posts up. I'm just saying that not caring if they were, is a bad argument.

Frankly, your post is full of hyperbole too though. It would be nice if we could drop the BS and have a discussion. (I know, I know this is slashdot and all). But if you are going to make specific claims, "48 hour shifts" in (weasel word) "many" markets -- it'd be nice if you had a source. Was just reading at 48 hours without sleep you start having involuntary micro-sleeps followed by disorientation, no matter the activity. Scary thought. http://www.everydayhealth.com/...

will point you in the right direction or just google it.

All payment systems have perverse incentives. Fee-for-service encourages doctors to err on the side of doing procedures. Capitation (per patient) encourage cherry picking the healthiest patients (and moves financial risk from the insurance company to the doctor, which is asinine). Bundled payments (per diagnosis) encourage over-diagnosing (and treating) patients as well as cherry picking. Flat salaries encourage doctors to see fewer patients (and we already have a doctor shortage).

America is all-ears if you have a better idea than these. Very few doctors outright game the system, but humans tend to repeat what they're rewarded for. There's a lot of professional opinion and borderline cases in medicine, and the way one errs is usually consistent with the way one gets paid.

I always carry at least 2 1L bottles of water on the plane and constantly drink from them. Why you ask? Because planes usually have a very dry atmosphere and cause dehydration which can lead to exhaustion and illness. The two or three 4 oz cups that you get on a domestic U.S. flight just aren't enough.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-travel/air-travel-and-dehydration.aspx

On the Plane: Why Is Low Humidity a Problem?
Dehydration can cause problems ranging from mild discomfort caused by dry skin and scratchy eyes to potentially life-threatening issues, such as problems with breathing for people who have respiratory conditions like asthma. Dehydration can also lead to fatigue, says William L. Sutker, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

Being in a low-humidity environment has another caveat: You're at increased risk of catching a respiratory virus, such as a cold. Humidity in the air keeps your airways moist so the lining can help trap germs trying to enter your body. When the air youâ(TM)re breathing is too dry, the mucous in your airway canâ(TM)t do its job, and viruses or bacteria can enter more freely.