Slashdot Mirror

(Sorry reposting with corrections - lost a chunk due to forgetting how slashdot processes "plain old text")

> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex.
> This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.

In most cases no. But in other cases see this: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1833268/herpes_virus_can_integrate_its_dna_into_human_chromosomes/index.html

Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigators that, a long time ago, the virus inserted its DNA into the DNA of human sperm and egg cells. As a result, some people (about 1 percent of people in the U.S.) are born with the virus's DNA in every cell in their body. Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line."

As for other sorts of DNA transfer, I wouldn't say "never", after all an aphid can somehow get a fungus gene...

> Hell, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is only about 4%. The difference between individual humans is far smaller than that,

A bit offtopic, but since this keeps coming up, I find it strange that scientists can say that sort of stuff and also say there are no racial differences in humans.

If 4% can make such a big[1] difference between chimpanzees and humans, it seems foolishness to say that humans are all the same (and also DNA fingerprint humans ;) ). Yes, race is very imprecise term, but there are certainly breeds of humans. They're not as clearly distinct as say dog breeds, but there are differences.

Lots of diseases affect different breeds of humans differently: http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=638412

Plenty of other examples. Even the ability to digest milk, and process alcohol differs significantly. And the ability to run 100 metres really fast ;).

So to me it's silly to not think there's a human significant[2] difference between a 7 foot tall "West African" human breed and a Mbenga pygmy human breed. Maybe dogs can even smell the difference between those two breeds.

[1] This "big difference" is of course relative, to some alien creature made of "dark matter and dark energy", all the stuff on the Earth could look pretty much the same to them - and rather strange (we're the abnormal ones since most of the universe is apparently made of something else ;) ).

[2] Significant for human stuff, at a human level.

OK, I found this article, which had actual numbers:

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=634816

I was able to do the math and figure out what an 18% increase in your chance of dying per hour of TV viewing really meant: The number of people who died during the course of the study was about 3 percent of the participants over a six year period. That means that every hour of TV viewing actually increased their chance of dying by about half a percent in any given year. So if you watch TV eight hours a day, your chances of dying in any given year go up about 4 percent.

Interestingly, more people died of cancer in the study than heart disease.

"Soft drinks sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup are up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control. Carbonyl compound are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose Corn Syrup
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/

Diabetes fears over corn syrup in soda. New Scientist (04 September 2007)
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526192.800-diabetes-fears-over-corn-syrup-in-soda.html

Theresa Waldron Sugary Sodas High in Diabetes-Linked Compound
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=607536

Bantle, John P.; Susan K. Raatz, William Thomas and Angeliki Georgopoulos (November 2000). "Effects of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72 (5): 1128-1134.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1128

Whey Protein and Fructose, an Unhealthy Combination. Enerex Botanicals. Retrieved on 2007-1-17.
http://www.enerex.ca/articles/whey_protein_and_fructose.htm

Jurgens, Hella; et al. (2005). "Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice". Obesity Res 13: 1146-1156.
http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/7/1146

Faeh D, Minehira K, Schwarz JM, Periasamy R, Park S, Tappy L (July 2005). "Effect of fructose overfeeding and fish oil administration on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and insulin sensitivity in healthy men". DIABETES 54 (7):1907-1913. PMID 15983189
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/54/7/1907

Scientific? It is more of a religion. Webster's online defines faith as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith def 2b). Evolution requires you to believe (i.e. have faith in) that over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years one form of proto-human becomes another without any other "steps" in between the two. That requires a step of faith. It would seem that at least one other form would be there. Add to this the fact that scientists continue to change what they say as they learn more about things. For example, take the so-called "junk DNA". Now scientists are starting to think these genes sequences are not junk, and they have some bigger functions (Here).

Some people may also be waiting for the whole book to be written rather than reading the snapshots of how it is thought to have happened. Evolution itself seems to evolve over time. In the end you still have to take a leap of faith to believe in it.

If it is marketing it's got to the government: http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR3704.htm

And also with Love

How about an article that references The Annals of Internal Medicine?

I'm curious about your criteria, by the way. Who is the peer in "peer-reviewed" who would review a medical journal who isn't also a doctor?

I gave my self tinnitus about 6 months ago. I really didn't know loud music could damage your hearing so easily. It was from a loud concert, so it wasn't caused by listening to my iPod. But if the experts say you shouldn't listen for more than one hour every day, I would listen to them.

It seems many posters here also think that these warnings are just old people being concerned about whatever the young ones are up to these days. But hearing damage is real and can happen to you, just because you don't have any noticable damage yet, doesn't mean your ears are in perfect shape.

To everyone who has hearing damage, I also say that I think we will see hearing cell regeneration during my lifetime, (im 25). Biotechnology is advancing faster than ever. Check these three links to get some hope in your life:
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?doc ID=523947
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2005/Feb11_2005/neuro science.html
http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=14 1787&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=719626&highlight=

(rant)
First, did you know that you can actually die from alcohol withdrawl? And that it is as bad or worse than heroin withdrawl in terms of pain and suffering? Really, look it up, but I digress...

I agree that opiates are pretty damn addictive, but LSD? LSD has got to be the most non-addictive substance ever. It almost has an anti-addiction property built in, where people almost always say "wow, let's wait a few weeks before we try that again". Sure, there are some wackos who trip for days and days on end, but there are wackos for every substancem legal or illegal.

As far as I can tell, there has NEVER been a death attributed directly to LSD overdose, although I'm sure many people have somehow killed themselves while high on LSD becuase of lack of sober supervisors. That's a problem caused by law enforcement, which forces people to go underground and into uncomfortable/unsafe situations to use drugs, where unsafe things can happen. If you could just hang out in the park while tripping witha sober buddy, and didn't disturb anyone, who would you be harming?

On the other hand, in 2001 there were 75,000 alcohol-related deaths in the United States, which took an average of 30 years off the lives of each person that died. That's a staggering figure. For the same year, there were only 21,683 drug-related deaths, and that ANY drug, legal or illegal, meaning botched prescriptions and overdoses on aspirin and tylenol and everything else included (opiates too).

I know, alcohol is much more readily available than drugs, so there are more deaths, but think about all the expense, pain, and misery people are put through just because they want to get high.

Is that such a crime? Since when is being sober 24/7 a necessary requirement to be a good person? Illegal drugs can lead to amazing emotional/personal breakthroughs, or just plain enjoyment. If people want to get fucked up and (eventually) damage their health, there are MUCH better ways to do it that by using alcohol. The gov gives you the least fun and most damaging of intoxicants and says "have at it!" Brilliant....=(
(/rant)

Ok, for the record, I am about as big a separation of church and stater as there is on Earth. I have been referred to as an "anti-theist" instead of a mere "atheist".

While there is no doubt that GWB is religiously biased in favor of abstinence only crap, that doesn't mean that abstinence hasn't helped in other countries.

I refer you to:

This story about Uganda and abstinence

This Kristof article

It does mention that 1/3 of the money committed goes to abstinence programs, which may be too much as a percentage, but a) these programs have a history of working in conjuction with other programs, and b) in a dire situation like this, it's better to have $3 billion that is as effective as $2 billion than just spending $1 billion.

Bush is a disagreeable ideologue, and he is overcommitted to many crap ideas, but that doesn't immediately discount funding for abstinence AIDS programs.

Also, I believe, although I can't point to something that immediately backs it up, that they have trouble getting people to regularly take the AIDS cocktail when it is offered. I truly wish that the West would get off it's ass and force drug companies to license/produce generic AIDS drugs for distribution in Africa, but it is unlikely to happen, and even so, there are still major cultural barriers to overcome.

The problem is that we view the health problems of Africa through Western eyes. With so many people dying young from a variety of illnesses, we can afford to allow them to do things that we find disagreeable to protect themselves. For instance, allowing/selling them DDT for their homes to prevent malarial mosquitos from infecting them.

I swear I saw a documentary on PBS about how a tiny percentage of mostly european descendants are immune and it was because of the Black Death (or Bubonic plague, I'm not sure that those are the same thing.) But googling for answers lead me to this article which says that 10-15 percent of northern europeans have limited immunity due to inheriting 1 resistant gene and 1% inherited the gene from both parents giving them full immunity. And Swedes have the highest percentage. Also it says the Plague is debunked and suggests the everpresent Smallpox as the culprit.

Not so. From estimates I've seen, the Black Death killed more in Europe alone (during the 1347-1350 pandemic it was on the order of 25 million) than the 1918 Flu Pandemic did globally (roughly 22 million).