Slashdot Mirror

I guess nothing sounds impressive if you compare it to something else that's much bigger.

As you know, I'm not comparing it to "something else" -- I'm comparing it to the entirety of exactly the same substance that TFA implies is being lost at a catastrophic rate by throwing around big-sounding numbers in a vacuum.

That would be like me saying, "around 200 billion cells in your body are dying EACH DAY -- you'd best get your affairs in order."

Context matters.

Repeat after me: "dietary cholesterol has no statistically significant effect on serum cholesterol." Take your bullshit study and shove it. "Doctor" (scare quotes because he had a doctorate but was turbo full of shit) Ancel Keys could almost single-handedly be blamed for the abysmal state of the American diet today. All evidence presented since Ancel Keys's time show that eggs are one of the absolute best things you can possibly consume, especially the yolk. I'm so sick of this bullshit. Saturated fats are good for you, unsaturated fats are not so good for you, eggs are extremely good for you, red meat is extremely good for you, simple sugars and refined carbohydrates are the worst thing you can eat, carbs in general are only good for you in small, limited amounts, and low-fat foods have poor satiety which leads to overeating (ignoring the fact that many low-fat foods have added sugar to make up for the lost taste.)

Any study that says eggs will kill you faster is pulling a big fat "correlation = causation" fallacy. My best guess is that the guys who died earlier and ate more eggs also ate a lot more biscuits and cereal and extra slices of toast with jelly, but hey now, let's not control for THAT shit, guys, we're ONLY interested in a headline. They even say in the damn study that they cobbled together piles of data from six different places that were collected starting from 1985, but I have no way of discovering how that data was collected or what it contained or what they controlled for because the actual study text is locked up behind a fucking paywall like so much science seems to be.

However, nicotine is much more addictive than caffeine. It would be a mistake to equate them. And there are a variety of other chemicals in the vapes, which may or may not be harmful. And nicotine itself may contribute to cancer too.

And maryjooanna - AKA devil's lettuce -makes black people violent! That sounds insane, but once upon a time, that was considered to be truth,

The nicotine causes cancer bugaboo is so easy to pull out. Yet it backfires on the puritans on occasion, like when they shit their panties about bacon and cured meats "causing cancer" then we found out that humans get most of their nitrate load from....... wait for it..... veggies!

We should make eating veggies illegal, just to be safe.

However, nicotine is much more addictive than caffeine. It would be a mistake to equate them. And there are a variety of other chemicals in the vapes, which may or may not be harmful. And nicotine itself may contribute to cancer too.

I don't think you fully appreciate just how complicated medicine is. There are a lot of factors in every disease and progress is necessarily slow.

As for factors, what you call "cancer" is actually a few dozen distinct diseases with similar etiology (DNA somewhere in some cell broke) but completely different presentations and treatments. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other. HIV is a retrovirus made of RNA and mutates constantly. There are two distinct strains and several different recognizable subgroups. The flu isn't a retrovirus but similarly mutates constantly. Every year we get a little genetic drift and every few years we get a genetic shift and we get screwed until it gets under control.

As for progress, the progress we've made is incredible in the last decades. Your comparisons are completely off base. If an electrical engineer lets the magic smoke out of a few components on a PCB he just gets new components or a new PCB. If a physician or medical researcher destroys a few organs in a patient he just killed a human being. You simply cannot move fast and break things in this field. Breast cancer (probably the best funded) survival is now over 90%. Want to see truly huge gains? Try leukemia.. HIV has improved, too. PrEP can prevent the spread and maybe in a few generations we won't have to worry about finding a cure for it because we have eradicated it like we did smallpox. Oh! Remember seeing that one recently? No. You didn't. Because vaccines have made it possible to completely eradicated diseases. Polio is only endemic in a handful of countries now. Why? Because medicine DOES work.

Maybe you're not happy with the speed of progress but that's because of your broken standards, not because we're moving too slow.

After googling this stuff and hitting 8 websites, this one seems to be the most informative.

https://www.healthline.com/nut...

In summary, eating lots of processed meats is linked to certain cancers (might be related to nitrates/nitrites, might not). Lots of vegetables contain tons of nitrates, but cooking them doesn't produce the bad stuff. The problem is

Quote:

"When nitrites are exposed to high heat, in the presence of amino acids, they can turn into compounds called nitrosamines.

There are many different types of nitrosamines... and most of them are potent carcinogens (26).

They are among the main carcinogens in tobacco smoke, for example.

Because most bacon, hot dogs and processed meat tend to be high in sodium nitrite and they're high protein foods (a source of amino acids), exposing them to high heat creates the perfect conditions for nitrosamine formation (27)."

why nitrates in vegetables aren't really a problem

TL;DR; cooking a high protein food at high heat is what makes them cancerous.

I'm not sure when Marijuana was introduced to the West, I'll have to investigate

The plant itself has been familiar in the west for hundreds of years, as hemp has several other uses besides the intoxicating effects, which have also been known for a long time. An interesting anecdote from the wiki article of the history of cannabis::

During Napoléon Bonaparte's invasion of Egypt in 1798, alcohol was not available per Egypt being an Islamic country.[29] In lieu of alcohol, Bonaparte's troops resorted to trying hashish, which they found to their liking.[29] Following an 1836–1840 travel in North Africa and the Middle East, French physician Jacques-Joseph Moreau wrote on the psychological effects of cannabis use; Moreau was a member of Paris' Club des Hashischins (founded in 1844). In 1842, Irish physician William Brooke O'Shaughnessy, who had studied the drug while working as a medical officer in Bengal with the East India company, brought a quantity of cannabis with him on his return to Britain, provoking renewed interest in the West.[30] Examples of classic literature of the period featuring cannabis include Les paradis artificiels (1860) by Charles Baudelaire and The Hasheesh Eater (1857) by Fitz Hugh Ludlow.

As for this:

but it has never been part of mainstream society

I think this statement was true 50 or maybe even 30 years ago, but trends are changing fast across the West. With legalization proceeding in many places, the social status of weed has changed considerably in the past decade and a half. Roughly about half of the people I know (most of them under 30 with some exceptions) smoke occasionally, one even as an alternative to alcohol as he cannot drink due to issues with migraine. And this is in a country where the plant is still illegal (for now, although legalization is pretty much unavoidable in the coming 10-20 years as attitudes are changing even among the politicians as more and more data is coming in about the failures of a total ban on drugs and the benefits of decriminalization or legalization).

While it may not be exactly 'mainstream', with use increasing even among the older populations ("According to data gathered from the latest survey done by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people age 65 and up who said they use marijuana grew 250 percent between 2006 and 2013') as they read news about how it's become legal in more and more places, I'd say it's fast on track for becoming a mainstream alternative.

Keep in mind also that it's been more common than most people think throughout the last decades. It's true that alcohol has a way longer history in the West, but the statistics are also heavily slanted by the prohibition approach to cannabis which understandably makes people less likely to admit to using it, thereby creating an image of it as more marginalized than it actually is.

Only a small fraction of the body's blood flow goes through the feet (10% would be generous).
That is wrong: all blood flows through the feet and the hands. You have like 7% of your body weight as blood, so about 1.2 - 1.5 gallons, or around 6liters.

https://www.healthline.com/hea...

"The heart can move 5 to 7 liters of blood in one minute and 7600 liters (2000 gallons) per day."

During the course of a few minutes: all your blood was once in your feet or your hands.

Which is why people never, say, get frost bite, as the super efficient blood supply means their toes stay toasty.
You get it reversed ... strange. Obviously you get frost bite because the feet are so efficient flown with blood. If you lose heat and start freezing, the body shuts down blood circulation to the extremities where it loses most heat: which are your feet and your hands. The body would love to shut down the head too ... but obviously that would be no solution :D

Putting your feed and hands into water implies your pour a bit water over your legs and forearms: what is cooling more? Cold water evaporating from your forearms and calfs or 100F/37C warm sweat?

Just drink from the cup...

You reckless soda-slurper! Drinking soda without a straw will make you lose all your teeth. Every one. Straws are soda PPE.

Science is not static and California did not bypass it. Science is a constant process of discovery and the results are seldom binary.

A better opinion piece with citations: https://www.healthline.com/nut...

Has anyone ever heard of Acrylamide before reading the original article?

I'm still going to enjoy coffee regardless of the warning label informing me of exposure.

Why stay ignorant?

When new science comes out, I'll adjust accordingly.*

People are still going to do whatever they want https://youtu.be/wGI3rL7smN8

We left a generation dead from "No Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer".

And who kept singing that chorus?

* DRINK UP the science:
Acrylamide is NOT known to occur as a natural product. pg 392 https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG...
but wait?! it does roast naturally .. roasting process had the most significant effect on acrylamide levels in natural coffee https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cancer is just ...bad luck... these results suggest ... 0.81 correlation http://science.sciencemag.org/...
It's really safe to drink no warnings needed https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Some are, some aren't. I was keto for the better part of 5 years so I'm well aware of such things. However, the primary drivers for a ketogenic diet are: high-fat, low-carbs, and moderate to low protein. Nowhere on that list you'll notice is "skip vegetables". Non and low carb vegetables: all salad-type greens, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, etc... Here's a couple of lists for you friend:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low...
https://www.healthline.com/nut...

People who disprove well-known and accepted theories are extremely famous, and often rich.

Yeah? Please, name the hero, who became famous and well-off by disproving the scientific consensus, on which the "war on fat" was waged? Mind you, that war did not have the vast government-paid research institutions attached to it, who'd fear for their survival. Unlike the climate quacks.

Also, most climate scientists are not getting rich.

They are earning a comfortable living, which will disappear for most of them, if the underlying assumptions — that Global Warming is an imminent threat facing humanity — are even questioned, much less disproven. The conflict of interest is obvious.

So if you are a "distrust people who are getting the money" kind of person, you should probably distrust those who are making record profits.

I'm well aware of the conflict of interest of any researcher paid by a company, whose product may lose demand based on the researcher's conclusions. This thread, however, is about a different group of people with their own conflict of interest. Please, don't change the subject.

Some theories do it pretty accurately, and some do it less accurately.

Funny, that you continue making these claims without offering any citations — despite an explicit request for some... Meanwhile, consider this — none of the theories you are alluding to would be acceptable for American financial institutions. Had a bank's models come up with predictions so far apart from reality, the bank wouldn't be able to buy back stocks, pay bonuses to executives, etc.

The problem isn't that the experiments are not falsifiable, it's that the time frames are too long and we don't really have dozens of planets where we can run 300-year-long double-blind tests, so any experiments on climate will be hard to falsify soon enough to be useful. That sucks, but it doesn't mean we should throw up our hands

What it does mean, however, is that the theory is not scientific. As in "not confirmed by scientific method". It does not, of course, disprove it — but it does remove the "scientific" mantle from it. And therefore, questioning it is not automatically tantamount to "rejecting science", contrary to an assertion made by aepervius above.

guess we'll pretend that the teamperatures and sea levels are not rising

Are they? The only evidence of the rise comes from the folks at NASA and NOAA (and similar government institutions in other countries), who have the above-discussed conflict of interest.

And before you say "but raw data!" — don't. The raw data is imperfect, so they massage it with their own software "to bring it closer to pristine"... Ha-ha...

From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.

Looks like we'll have to post a warning on our Grills that a nice steak with grill marks is a carcinogen. And lest vegans decide they are exempt, so is that grilled tofu.

And oddly enough, coffee drinkers live longer. https://www.healthline.com/nut...

This one will be overturned quickly.

From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.

Looks like we'll have to post a warning on our Grills that a nice steak with grill marks is a carcinogen. And lest vegans decide they are exempt, so is that grilled tofu.

And oddly enough, coffee drinkers live longer. https://www.healthline.com/nut...

This one will be overturned quickly.

From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.

Everything is a poison at high enough concentrations, you know the old saying "the dose makes the poison". Drinking too much water lowers your electrolyte levels to the point can die.

Try looking at the explosion of A.D.(H.)D. diagnoses (most of which are in boys), and all the SSRI DRUGS they are made to take to "treat" it and other "ailments".

Let's also take note of what the "symptoms" of ADHD are according to:

In boys:
  - impulsivity or "acting out"
  - hyperactivity, such as running and hitting
  - lack of focus, including inattentiveness
  - inability to sit still
  - physical aggression
  - talking excessively
  - frequently interrupting other peoples’ conversations and activities
(sounds a bit like the typical behavior of an undrugged BOY, god forbid)

In girls:
  - being withdrawn
  - low self-esteem
  - anxiety
  - intellectual impairment
  - difficulty with academic achievement
  - inattentiveness or a tendency to "daydream"
  - trouble focusing
  - appearing not to listen
  - verbal aggression, such as teasing, taunting, or name-calling
(sounds a bit like the typical (unsedated) behavior of an undrugged GIRL, god forbid)

Finally, let's consider just how many mass shooters and other violent attacks and suicides were commited by kids on SSRIs (hint: pretty much all of them).

OR we can continue to blame guns.

captcha: pretend

Garlic. Raw, well-chewed garlic. Has compounds with anti-viral, anti-fungal, and antibacterial properties. Cures and protects from the common cold.

Check out the science behind it.

https://www.healthline.com/nut...

This can be caused by butter (or other synthetic fat) and eggs but you don't need either to make pancakes.

The link between saturated fats and heart disease has been disproven, since it seems you haven't been keeping up. Butter and eggs are back on the healthy menu.

Cmon, you snowflakes have no viable argument against cats.

They climb fences into other peoples yards where they don't belong, which is complete irresponsible cat ownership. They kill native bird species, lizzards and anything else because that is their instinctive nature - to hunt.

The biggest problem with cats are the owners in complete denial about the cat's most basic instinct to hunt and kill and letting them roam freely. As opposed to dogs which are much easier to control, it is completely inappropriate for someone's cat to be outside a house because of how easily they can climb. Therefore it is a valid consideration to trap cats coming onto your property because the owners have no control over where the cat roams with their toxoplasmosis.

On the whole though, I do like domesticated cats, they are funny creatures. Generally cat owners do not take responsibility for controlling their pets, which is not the cat's fault, however it is the biggest problem with cats, irresponsible cat ownership.

Good thing no one in IT has ADHD!

Yeah, good thing adhd isn't common in IT professionals.

Good thing no one in IT has ADHD!

> AIDS is only transferred when you fuck someone in the ass or share needles. It is VERY difficult to catch unless you are a stupid drug addict or you like to sodomize other people and not use a condom.

Infected blood supplies from transfusions have been a dangerous vector since the disease first became noticeable anywhere. Unprotected anal sex is risky, at aa rate of roughly 138 of 10,000 acts For ordinary penis/vaginal sex, the rate is roughly 4 out of 10,000 acts. Moher/infant sex, from childbirth itself and from breast feeding, is also not without risk. This is according to http://www.healthline.com/heal...

"VERY difficult" does not mean a zero risk. And the spread among health care workers and their patients was devastating among poorer nations and poorer communities with less access to gloves, gowns, and the tools and human resources to provide good sterile handling of patients for the 10 years between initial infection and the first clear symptoms of the disease.

The common ground between a physiologist, psychologist, and feng shui expert would be sunlight. I've felt it most as I entered a tiny bathroom in the middle of a dingy building, and all of a sudden I felt great. I looked everywhere for what could explain my mood change and finally realized the light above me was from a small solar tube. It happened a 2nd time in a different building and I've been wondering ever since why they're not everywhere, if the architecture doesn't design it in to begin with.

Could be, but it could have been one of the less-expensive ones, too. We may never know which one was left out here.

My mother until recently took an "orphan drug", which was expensive but was the only treatment for her condition that did not cause her horrible side effects. The manufacturer now has stopped making the drug at all, so she is SOL. I told her it certainly sucks for her, but kind of proves that health care isn't a right.

I fully expect family of the woman in the story to file a wrongful lawsuit against the 4th company (which did not provide her free drugs). And fully expect that they'd do the same had none of the above happened, but the company decided to stop manufacturing the drug.

http://www.healthline.com/heal... cost-epilepsy-medications#Prices2

The following prices are the average cost of a one-month supply for each drug. But remember, drug prices change often. These prices also do not include discounts from insurance companies.

Eslicarbazepine acetate (Aptiom)
$800 for thirty 400-mg tablets of the brand-name version Aptiom

Carbamazepine (Carbatrol)
$130 for sixty 200-mg tablets of the brand-name version Carbatrol
$70 for sixty 200-mg tablets of the generic carbamazepine

Valproic acid (Depakene)
$240 for ninety 250-mg tablets of the brand-name version Depakene
$51 for ninety 250-mg tablets of the generic valproic acid

Valproic acid (Depakote)
$350 for ninety 500-mg tablets of the brand-name version Depakote
$75 for ninety 500-mg tablets of the generic valproic acid

Divalproex sodium (Depakote ER)
$380 for sixty 500-mg tablets of the brand-name version Depakote ER
$180 for sixty 500-mg tablets of the generic divalproex sodium

Phenytoin (Dilantin)
$88 for ninety 100-mg capsules of the brand-name version Dilantin
$65 for ninety 100-mg capsules of the generic phenytoin

Felbamate (Felbatol)
$1200 for ninety 600-mg tablets of the brand-name version Felbatol
$350 for ninety 600-mg tablets of the generic felbamate

Perampanel (Fycompa)
$1400 for 120 4-mg tablets of the brand-name version Fycompa

Tiagabine (Gabitril)
$240 for thirty 4-mg tablets of the brand-name version Gabitril
$150 for thirty 4-mg tablets of the generic tiagabine

Levetiracetam (Keppra)
$450 for sixty 500-mg tablets of the brand-name version Keppra
$44-80 for sixty 500-mg tablets of the generic levetiracetam

Clonazepam (Klonopin)
$150 for sixty 0.5-mg tablets of the brand-name version Klonopin
$35 for sixty 0.5-mg tablets of the generic clonazepam

Lamotrigine (Lamictal)
$350 for thirty 100-mg tablets of the brand-name version Lamictal
$80 for thirty 100-mg tablets of the generic lamotrigine

Pregabalin (Lyrica)
$430 for sixty 75-mg capsules of the brand-name version Lyrica

Primidone (Mysoline)
$800 for sixty 50-mg tablets of the brand-name version Mysoline
$35 for sixty 50-mg tablets of the generic primidone

Gabapentin (Neurontin)
$165-350 for ninety 300-mg capsules of the brand-name version Neurontin
$40 for ninety 300-mg capsules of the generic gabapentin

Oxcarbazepine (Oxtellar XR)
$380 for thirty 600-mg tablets of the brand-name version Oxtellar XR

Phenytoin (Phenytek)
$140 for ninety 200-mg capsules of the brand-name version Phenytek
$90 for ninety 200-mg capsules of the generic phenytoin

Carbamazepine (Tegretol)
$127 for sixty 200-mg tablets of the brand-name version Tegretol
$67 for sixty 200-mg tablets of the generic carbamazepine

Topiramate (Topamax)
$310 for sixty 25-mg tablets of the brand-name version Topamax
$57 for sixty 25-mg tablets of the generic topiramate

Oxcarbazepine (Trileptal)
$410 for sixty 300-mg tablets of the brand-name version Trileptal
$150 for sixty 300-mg tablets of the generic oxcarbazepine

Ethosuximide (Zarontin)
$350 for 120 of the 250-mg capsules of the brand-name version Zarontin
$155 for 120 of the

It is hot enough to produce third degree burns in a matter of 2-10 seconds according to a burn expert used at the trial.

http://www.healthline.com/heal...

Third degree burns extend through all the layers of skin. It is a very bad burn, and requires hospitalization to properly treat.

As a pedestrian; there is generally no hazard from texting, and all the danger is caused by the fact there are cars

Man 'walks off cliff and plummets 60 feet to his death on Christmas Day while distracted by his cell phone'

Girl Falls Into Manhole While Texting, Parents Sue

Bonnie Miller, Woman Who Fell Off Pier While Texting, Saved By Teen Rebecca Van Zant

Texting While Walking Causes More Accidents Than Texting and Driving

Want to rethink that stance?

Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities.

Whiplash injuries are really horrible, the damage is permanent and painful forever. They happen even in low speed collisions. You've completely neglected the fact that whiplash injuries will be greatly reduced.

According to the info below, a small percentage do have extended health issues after experiencing Whiplash. However, most people do recover from it.

http://www.healthline.com/heal...
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/gu...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise...

That being said, I do agree that if this reduces injuries by preventing accidents then its a good idea. The problem is that it also needs to show that it doesn't end up causing other types of accidents.

For example, the car in front is breaking, you are breaking and steering off the road to miss the guy in front and to prevent the guy behind from hitting you, and then the automatic breaks kick in, causing the guy behind you to hit your car and launch it into the car in front. In this case, you could have avoided the accident by driving on to the shoulder of the road but the automatic system wouldn't let you.

Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so.

We have.

"Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous."

Hmm.. which unit? not widely known, two meltdowns occurred at Chernobyl. NPP, Unit 1, September 9, 1982 and then the Unit 4 explosion April 26, 1986, which was hidden from world until the fallout trigger a Swedish radiation monitor.

Eight days days later, (May 4, 1986), a pebble fuel pellet got stuck in the piping in a German 750MWth, AVR PBM reactor. Efforts to dislodge the pellet caused a release of both core and coolant into the atmosphere. Local plant management tried to blame on the Chernobyl disaster. But a professor at a local university in Frelburg, analyzed the fallout which contained radioactive Pa-233 and determined that a second nuclear incident had occurred nearby.

So their is a list of three(3) incidents, each time management/government tried to cover up and there is much more.

Don't fooled, TMI unit II was only 4 months old when a valve got stuck and melted down.. Fukushima is the worst yet, three(3) fully mature reactor cores have melted down and now reside somewhere below the reactors, releasing deadly fission by products into an underground river flowing underneath it.

Millions of humans have succumbed to early death, and Ten's of millions more are suffering the consequences, and that is just the tip of iceberg. Their is nothing clean about Nuclear Power plants, each refueling cycle discharges a large amount of radioactive gas into the environment, and the effect is detectable in the surrounding population.

And if we're going to be pedantic, smoking wont give you crabs or the clap either. It's still a bad comparison for plenty of other reasons.

None of the reasons important enough for you to list I see. And no, no one was being pedantic, facts are simply facts which when ignored makes what was said look fictitious at best and outright purposely misleading at worst.

There's a vaccine for HPV. There isn't one for lung cancer.

Sure, and it's a recent creation which no long term studies have been made because it's approval for use in humans has not yet met the time span of one generation or the time span thought to be associated between HPV and Cervical Cancer. And until those facts are in and understood, making claims that you cannot get cancer from the Human Papillomavirus Virus is about as accurate as a witch doctor declaring that you specifically will not get cancer from smoking. The data simply isn't in and unless someone knows something will cut your life short, the claims simply cannot be made.

The only way to get HPV or AIDS via sex is to....have sex with someone that already has HPV or AIDS. Cigarettes will give you cancer all by themselves.

Well, no. You can get both outside of having sex or even sexual relationships with anyone. They are most commonly transmitted during sex though.

You can have unprotected sex without fear of infection if you and your partner get tested for STD's. There is no "test" that will let you smoke without risking cancer.

You can jump out of an airplane without fear if you wear a parachute too. It doesn't mean that people who do so are not seriously injured or killed in doing so. And some tests for STDs, Here is some reading for you on this.

http://std.about.com/od/gettin...

http://www.healthline.com/heal...

It seems the knowledge you have about this is as accurate as the phone number for a good time on the bathroom wall.

Humans have an inborn desire to fuck. They don't have an inborn desire to smoke cigarettes.

That is until they get addicted. And yes, inborn is a proper term for the addiction because the chemical actors interfere with chemistry in the brain making smoking and pretty much other addictions necessary to return to the proper balance they naturally want to reach. That is why quitting is so difficult for some people.

Sex isn't a product (unless you buy one of those Japanese robots, but robots wont give you AIDS) and can't be taxed, as it's something you could go out and start doing with your neighbor 30 seconds after reading this. Cigarettes are a product that are purchased in stores, and that makes them taxable.

Actually, sex most certainly can be taxed. It's just a matter of what levels of intrusion you are willing to allow the government to have. Certain types of sex were even outlawed and people were sent to jail for it in the past.

So, yeah: false equivalence.

Only if you are ignorant and want to remain that way.

Perhaps your wife could wear some sort of device (bracelet, etc) that itself would be capable of detecting that she was having a seizure, that could be setup to trigger whatever notifications were desired. Here are a few things I found alone these lines:

http://www.epdetect.com/
http://www.healthline.com/heal...
http://www.gizmag.com/embrace-...

Just came back to this. I'm curious, do you know of anyone who's published such tests? I'd be really interested to see something like that.

http://www.expertfoods.com/FAQ/labelaccuracy.php
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/action-plan/food-safety-regulatory-forum/presentations/discussion-paper/eng/1369936679236/1369936805623
http://www.cspinet.org/foodlabeling/
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/label-etiquet/nutrition/res-rech/index-eng.php
http://www.healthline.com/health-blogs/diet-diva/are-food-labels-accurate
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/nutrition/news/study_food_labels.aspx
http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html

Most of this is about the misrepresentation of calorie counts, but there are links to other studies and references to other nutritional discrepancies too. The amazing thing is that these studies have been going on since 1998, have been published, and yet nothing seems to be improving yet.

Actually dog bites are usually NOT infected and one usually does not give antibiotics for them..................

no

Dog bites are usually infected and if the bite breaks the skin there is the risk of getting an infection and/ or diseases like rabies.

"....Cat and dog bites result in 334,000 emergency room visits per year, which represents approximately 1 percent of all emergency hospital visits..."

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/animal-bite-infections

If you live in an area that has rabies than you need to go to a doctor and have rabies shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-exposure_prophylaxis

glad to see http://www.healthline.com/ got one.