Slashdot Mirror

Way ahead of you. There have been lots of schemes to encourage more men to get into nursing, and lots of research to understand the problem.

Here are some overviews:

https://journals.lww.com/ajnon...

https://minoritynurse.com/more...

Same with teaching. It's particularly bad in primary level, where children need male role models. The BBC is a good starting point:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

And these guys if course:

http://www.malesinteaching.com...

Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?

The source of the exposure isn't really important to the repair mechanisms. What is important is the extent and nature of the damage: DNA modifications, protein modifications, and heating. Internal vs external exposure only determines which tissues are affected, the rate/duration of the dose, and the specific type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma). But as far as an individual cell is concerned, all that is important is the rate of exposure.

Very interesting, is this in humans or animals?

Is what in humans or animals? I don't personally study radiation-induced tumorigenesis, but I'm familiar with the concepts. Biochemistry works pretty much the same way in humans and mice, though we definitely have our differences.

This work says:Linear extrapolation of high LET radiation from high to low doses probably underestimates the risk at low doses in some cases. Is this what you mean?

I was referring to the dose-response relationship and the saturation of enzymes, which are foundations of biochemistry. I'll check out that paper because I'm curious, but I have to wonder if a 40 year old review paper is the best source. If it's concentrating on doses higher than most people would ever be expected to experience ("up to 100 rads" was mentioned in the abstract and this is the first journal I've found that my uni doesn't provide access to), then I could see all of that reviewed data being well above any realistic threshold. Biochem is all about rates, and high rates of exposure could easily saturate any system that could repair damage. Even small tumors are often (disturbingly often, you don't even want to think about it) cleared from the body, so the idea of linear cumulative dose doesn't seem to make sense, even in the case of punctuated moderate doses.

Sure, however that is a far cry from the OP's claim that the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago. Where, when, who by? What's the new model?.

It's not my field, so the best that I can offer is a solid "beats me", but it does seem a little unconvincing from a biochemical perspective. What would be the mechanism?

As a biochemist, LNT doesn't really make much sense when applied to a biological system. It seems odd that there wouldn't be any threshold when we know that there are biological mechanisms for repairing radiation induced damage.

Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?

Also, a linear response is at odds with the saturation of these mechanisms which usually manifests as a sigmoidal dose-response and with normal immunological recognition and destruction of cancerous cells.

Very interesting, is this in humans or animals? This work says:Linear extrapolation of high LET radiation from high to low doses probably underestimates the risk at low doses in some cases. Is this what you mean?

LNT is used because it is very conservative and a better model hasn't been soundly demonstrated yet. From a public policy standpoint, that is perfectly reasonable. Don't mistake policy for scientific proof, though.

Sure, however that is a far cry from the OP's claim that the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago. Where, when, who by? What's the new model?.

Nobody's asserting that there's a "glut of men" in nursing. Archangel Michael suggested that "why does nobody seem to care about the lack of men in nursing?" To which serviscope_minor replied, "Whenever somebody says this, people show how that's false, and that people DO care about the lack of men in nursing, and you can't have missed this, as you've been around Slashdot for a while. Google, chump."

And he's right - people DO care about the lack of men in nursing. You just don't hear about it here in your insular little slashdot bubble.

There's even an organization dedicated to, and I quote from their own statement of their positions:

[...]
2. AAMN exists and is organized to promote the recruitment and retention of men in nursing. We are actively working to position AAMN as the voice for men in nursing, able to speak the needs of and contributions by men as a targeted demographic.

3. AAMN has been organized for more than three decades. Today we are a vitalized professional nursing organization with a rapidly growing membership base. We are vibrant and prospering.

[...]

7. AAMN will further expand on its expertise on men in nursing and promote gender diversity and inclusion. This will lead to improved gender balance in nursing schools and the workforce, gender retention, and gender opportunity.

Yep, there's nobody who cares about the lack of men in nursing at all. You sure nailed it.

Well, except for this, headlined "Male Nurses Break Through Barriers to Diversify Profession," with a sub-heading of: "Advocates call on men to join the nursing profession to create a more diverse nursing workforce and help curb a projected shortage of nursing that threatens to undermine care."

And this, with an abstract that reads: "This literature review examines the ability of the nursing profession to recruit and retain men in nursing schools and in the nursing workforce. The authors consider such educational barriers as role stress, discrimination, and stereotyping, and explore questions of male touch and the capacity of men to care. In identifying challenges faced by men entering or working in a profession in which women predominate, the authors hope to promote actions on the part of nurse leaders, educators, and researchers that may address issues of sex bias and promote greater sexual diversity within nursing."

Yep, nobody at all cares about the lack of men in nursing. Except the nationwide organization dedicated to it with upwards of 2000 members. And the various articles, both scholarly and popular, which are written about the problem.

Anybody who claims that "there's never any outcry" over this is ignorant, and guilty of not having performed even the most cursory research. Anybody who *remains* ignorant does so willfully, and loses any possible grant of rationality or logic to their arguments.

So far the treatments of tinnitus have been effective, but with a few caveats (as with all medical interventions).

Here is the original animal study regarding tinnitus: http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
And a review paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Here is a clinical trial that happened: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
And another clinical case study: http://journals.lww.com/otolog...
And here is a clinical trial currently happening: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2...

To sum up the clinical trial that has already been published: researchers found that VNS did improve tinnitus, but only in patients that were not on drugs that affected neuromodulators such as acetylcholine and norepinephrine.

The mechanisms behind the beneficial effects of vagus nerve stimulation are still being explored, but many researchers believe that timing is important. Precise timing is something difficult, if not impossible, to achieve using drugs - they take awhile to become active. Once active, they remain active for hours or days, and then they slowly decline.

VNS, as well as other methods of neural stimulation, can be applied very precisely in the time domain, allowing for a timed release of neuromodulators into the brain that can influence brain plasticity. Although not all VNS research includes timing as an important issue, a large body of the research focuses on this element of it.

Here's one paper: http://journals.lww.com/neuror...

There's no need to wait and see. This idea is foo'd up for all the same reasons that HAM radio operators have a statistically significant higher incident of cancer. Why everyone is racing to drop the broadcast power of cellphones. And, why putting your head in the microwave is generally considered a bad idea.

Are you going glow green, set off radiation detectors at airports, or erupt in blisters and boils? No, but just because it isn't ionizing radiation doesn't mean its harmless.

Okay.

Point the first, you're an idiot.

I acknowledged full well that suicide is multivariate. Japan has a bit more of those other variables. Suddenly switching to simplistic 1 dimensional analysis in order to cherry pick a one nation datapoint that suits your case isn't clever argumentation. It's intentional duplicitousness. Don't be that guy. Being that guy makes you an idiot.

Point the second, one can minimize the effect of these other variables by analyzing within populations to control for other known variables. This is called science.

Here is one such study. There are more if you can invent any variables you think need to be more adequately controlled for.

Point the third, no matter what the data say about the relationships, none of that calls for a specific course of action, and contesting relatively reasonable facts doesn't actually help the case you want to make, which is almost certainly about what kind of gun control is acceptable. It just helps you look ill-informed.

You don't have to have professional medical experience to accept what medical professionals say...

No, you just need to be gullible.

Doctors have been taking kick-backs for prescribing drugs for years. They have a long historical record of gettings things wrong. Previously using the wrong drugs and killing a bunch of people was not too serious, a number were probably going to die anyway. However something you are giving to an entire generation of healthy children you had better be pretty damn sure there aren't going to be side-effects down the line.

As much as I hate to admit it - you're right.

Food for thought: "preventable medical harm" kills or incapacitates more Americans every year (210,000 to 400,000) than homicides (11,000 - 16,000) and auto accidents (30,000 - 35,000) combined.

That makes medical errors one of the top 3 causes of death in America.

Definitely something to keep in mind the next time a medical "professional" starts talking down to you because you questioned their "wisdom."

The question the article doesn't answer is "where did they get it?". The existence of such a study implied to me that pharmaceutical grade LSD was manufactured. Not that I'm looking to score some or anything; but it's my understanding that getting the process right is notoriously difficult. I've read stuff where people said nothing ever came close to the original Sandoz LSD.

Here's the source which lays out the details of the study, and it's not too difficult to read. The source is in there too. Obviously you're not going to run over to Switzerland and score some now; but it's interesting to think that this stuff is being made. I had a teacher once who said she made some in an organic chemistry class (!). I doubt she tried it though, because of the aforementioned difficulty of getting it right.

I like this line of thinking.

It's very likely that people with ASD are far more susceptible to anxiety and depression disorders, but this might be due to the ludicrous amount of bullying autistic children receive (38% in this study over a single month).

PubMed doesn't index all journals. They don't index Topics in Language Disorders. (You can get the index list of PubMed titles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/advanced ).

Here's a list of free articles in Topics in Language Disorders.
http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/viewallmostpopulararticles.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

It is annoying. Some of the interesting ones are free, but some of the interesting ones are not.

I agree with you, of course. Knowledge should be free. Of course, there's the question of who's going to pay for it. It looks like the easy days for the commercial academic publishers are over.

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

Nope. Doesn't appear to.

Here's an example paper which I picked at random from the journal : Differentiating Speech Delay From Disorder: Does it Matter?. There's a paywall on the journal site with a $30 fee.

And here's the result of a search on PubMed for the same paper. I'm danmed if I can find it there.

Perhaps this is due to my search coming from outside the US, but I doubt it. I don't think the papers are being made available, or at least, they are being made less accessable than the paywalled versions.

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

Nope. Doesn't appear to.

Here's an example paper which I picked at random from the journal : Differentiating Speech Delay From Disorder: Does it Matter?. There's a paywall on the journal site with a $30 fee.

And here's the result of a search on PubMed for the same paper. I'm danmed if I can find it there.

Perhaps this is due to my search coming from outside the US, but I doubt it. I don't think the papers are being made available, or at least, they are being made less accessable than the paywalled versions.

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

Nope. Doesn't appear to.

Here's an example paper which I picked at random from the journal : Differentiating Speech Delay From Disorder: Does it Matter?. There's a paywall on the journal site with a $30 fee.

And here's the result of a search on PubMed for the same paper. I'm danmed if I can find it there.

Perhaps this is due to my search coming from outside the US, but I doubt it. I don't think the papers are being made available, or at least, they are being made less accessable than the paywalled versions.

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

I feel for her. I've been in the same situation as her and I've made the same arguments. Years ago it was even worse.

That said, I think she's exaggerating the situation somewhat. I think she should have a talk with a good reference librarian in her field.

(I do similar research, not in speech pathology but often in visual pathology, orthopedic handicaps, etc. She may have different needs, but I track down a lot of papers, with varying degrees of success.)

You might want to have access to 100 journals, but nobody reads 100 journals cover to cover. I read a half dozen core journals every week, and I got access to a good database and a few journals through a couple of professional organizations. The New York Public Library has a few good databases online free to its cardholders, and the EBSCO Academic (or whatever they call it) has some good journals too. Every week or so I come across a journal that isn't included, so I email the author, or ask my friends. It used to be easy to get into an academic library, but now that universities are monetizing, it's getting difficult (but not impossible). The public library has all kinds of arrangements for ordering papers from other libraries.

I think I know what Grove is doing. She's reading journal articles, looking at 200 footnotes, and she wants to read the ones that look interesting. I've done it myself. It's the sign (or maybe the vice) of a good scholar.

Just to get an idea of the kind of articles we're talking about, here's one of the free articles in
http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Fulltext/2013/01000/Morphological_Awareness_Intervention_in_School_Age.4.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

But there's a lot of redundancy. I used to collect a dozen articles, read them, and they all seemed to be saying about the same thing. A review article in the New England Journal of Medicine is about the same as a review article in The Lancet. If you've read one, you don't have to read the other (or the other six). If you can't read it in Topics in Language Disorders, you can probably read it in another dozen journals.

So (since she's not doing research in an academic institution) she probably doesn't need 100 articles. She needs a professor or librarian or somebody to steer her through the literature and give her a half dozen articles that she should read.

It's also an exaggeration to say that her clients won't get the benefit of the latest research. A practicing clinical speech therapist doesn't have to follow the basic research and theoretical arguments in the academic journals (although it's nice, and it's the sign of a good practitioner). You should be treating people according to consensus statements and guidelines. A lot of the latest stuff turns out to be wrong.

You should find everything you need for clinical practice in a half a dozen core journals and a few professional meetings. If you want to be up to date, you have to take continuing education -- no way out of it. And the people who give continuing education courses can guide you through the literature.

But if she takes the current research that seriously, she should have some academic affiliation, which would also give her library access. Admittedly, some charge exorbitant fees. But some universities used to give free library access to their alumnae, and even if they do charge

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

I feel for her. I've been in the same situation as her and I've made the same arguments. Years ago it was even worse.

That said, I think she's exaggerating the situation somewhat. I think she should have a talk with a good reference librarian in her field.

(I do similar research, not in speech pathology but often in visual pathology, orthopedic handicaps, etc. She may have different needs, but I track down a lot of papers, with varying degrees of success.)

You might want to have access to 100 journals, but nobody reads 100 journals cover to cover. I read a half dozen core journals every week, and I got access to a good database and a few journals through a couple of professional organizations. The New York Public Library has a few good databases online free to its cardholders, and the EBSCO Academic (or whatever they call it) has some good journals too. Every week or so I come across a journal that isn't included, so I email the author, or ask my friends. It used to be easy to get into an academic library, but now that universities are monetizing, it's getting difficult (but not impossible). The public library has all kinds of arrangements for ordering papers from other libraries.

I think I know what Grove is doing. She's reading journal articles, looking at 200 footnotes, and she wants to read the ones that look interesting. I've done it myself. It's the sign (or maybe the vice) of a good scholar.

Just to get an idea of the kind of articles we're talking about, here's one of the free articles in
http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Fulltext/2013/01000/Morphological_Awareness_Intervention_in_School_Age.4.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

But there's a lot of redundancy. I used to collect a dozen articles, read them, and they all seemed to be saying about the same thing. A review article in the New England Journal of Medicine is about the same as a review article in The Lancet. If you've read one, you don't have to read the other (or the other six). If you can't read it in Topics in Language Disorders, you can probably read it in another dozen journals.

So (since she's not doing research in an academic institution) she probably doesn't need 100 articles. She needs a professor or librarian or somebody to steer her through the literature and give her a half dozen articles that she should read.

It's also an exaggeration to say that her clients won't get the benefit of the latest research. A practicing clinical speech therapist doesn't have to follow the basic research and theoretical arguments in the academic journals (although it's nice, and it's the sign of a good practitioner). You should be treating people according to consensus statements and guidelines. A lot of the latest stuff turns out to be wrong.

You should find everything you need for clinical practice in a half a dozen core journals and a few professional meetings. If you want to be up to date, you have to take continuing education -- no way out of it. And the people who give continuing education courses can guide you through the literature.

But if she takes the current research that seriously, she should have some academic affiliation, which would also give her library access. Admittedly, some charge exorbitant fees. But some universities used to give free library access to their alumnae, and even if they do charge

That's right. The journal that Cortney Grove gave as an example, Topics in Language Disorders http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx , does provide free access to papers funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/_layouts/oaks.journals/nih.aspx

I feel for her. I've been in the same situation as her and I've made the same arguments. Years ago it was even worse.

That said, I think she's exaggerating the situation somewhat. I think she should have a talk with a good reference librarian in her field.

(I do similar research, not in speech pathology but often in visual pathology, orthopedic handicaps, etc. She may have different needs, but I track down a lot of papers, with varying degrees of success.)

You might want to have access to 100 journals, but nobody reads 100 journals cover to cover. I read a half dozen core journals every week, and I got access to a good database and a few journals through a couple of professional organizations. The New York Public Library has a few good databases online free to its cardholders, and the EBSCO Academic (or whatever they call it) has some good journals too. Every week or so I come across a journal that isn't included, so I email the author, or ask my friends. It used to be easy to get into an academic library, but now that universities are monetizing, it's getting difficult (but not impossible). The public library has all kinds of arrangements for ordering papers from other libraries.

I think I know what Grove is doing. She's reading journal articles, looking at 200 footnotes, and she wants to read the ones that look interesting. I've done it myself. It's the sign (or maybe the vice) of a good scholar.

Just to get an idea of the kind of articles we're talking about, here's one of the free articles in
http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Fulltext/2013/01000/Morphological_Awareness_Intervention_in_School_Age.4.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

But there's a lot of redundancy. I used to collect a dozen articles, read them, and they all seemed to be saying about the same thing. A review article in the New England Journal of Medicine is about the same as a review article in The Lancet. If you've read one, you don't have to read the other (or the other six). If you can't read it in Topics in Language Disorders, you can probably read it in another dozen journals.

So (since she's not doing research in an academic institution) she probably doesn't need 100 articles. She needs a professor or librarian or somebody to steer her through the literature and give her a half dozen articles that she should read.

It's also an exaggeration to say that her clients won't get the benefit of the latest research. A practicing clinical speech therapist doesn't have to follow the basic research and theoretical arguments in the academic journals (although it's nice, and it's the sign of a good practitioner). You should be treating people according to consensus statements and guidelines. A lot of the latest stuff turns out to be wrong.

You should find everything you need for clinical practice in a half a dozen core journals and a few professional meetings. If you want to be up to date, you have to take continuing education -- no way out of it. And the people who give continuing education courses can guide you through the literature.

But if she takes the current research that seriously, she should have some academic affiliation, which would also give her library access. Admittedly, some charge exorbitant fees. But some universities used to give free library access to their alumnae, and even if they do charge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/250010691/Uranium-mining-left-a-legacy-of-death.html?pg=all

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1992/11000/Navajo_Birth_Outcomes_in_the_Shiprock_Uranium.5.aspx

Etc

The risk for teenagers comes from attempts to use magnets to simulate piercings.

See "Magnet Ingestions in Children Presenting to United States Emergency Departments from 2002 to 2011." "A national estimate of 16,386 (95% CI: 12,175-20,598) children The incidence of visits increased 8.5-fold (0.45 per 100,000 to 3.75 per 100,000) from 2002 to 2011 with a 75% average annual increase per year. The majority of patients reported to have ingested magnets were under 5 years (54.7%). From 2009-2011 there was an increase in older children ingesting multiple small and/or round magnets, with a mean average age of 7.1+-0.56 years over the study period. "

Except that the right to choose abortion does not affect 100% of women, it affects only the very small minority who have an unplanned pregnancy and who cannot or are unwilling to raise a (new) child.

Right now in the United States 49% of pregnancies are unplanned, of which 43% end in abortion. One in three women will have an abortion by age 45. So it affects a lot more people than just a "very small minority", especially when you consider that women's partners and existing children are also affected.

Now, a new study shows that providing women with free contraception decreases the abortion rate by 60-70%, in part because they tend to choose methods that are less vulnerable to failure but more expensive upfront (IUDs, implants). Shockingly, the political "Pro-Life" movement tends to be staunchly anti-contraception, almost as if they care more about controlling female sexuality than the welfare of the developing potential child.

I sincerely doubt that Romney cares much about women or children who are not his possessions, but he's representing the party that has been forced to align itself with racists and theocrats to get the political support they need for their tax breaks - if he wants to stay in power he'll have to appease them, which means opposition to abortion, contraception, and sex education. The more contraception access is restricted, the greater the need for abortion will be - so while abortion rights might not be as important as long as they're not in a position to be threatened, as soon as the people who intend to limit abortion rights come into power they will become more important.

Cardio is basically pointless when it comes to weight loss (but still extremely beneficial to your general health!). 'Exercise' is a far too general term here. The way in which exercise can induce weight loss is by increasing your non-fatty tissue and subsequently your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). A couple of weeks of strength training can achieve that: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/04000/Effect_of_strength_training_on_resting_metabolic.5.aspx.

This graph or Wikipedia shows why increasing your RMR can be effective in aiding in losing weight.

Additionally, high spikes in blood sugar levels (insert carbohydrates/HFCS-rant here) and the associated insulin spikes are very suspect when it comes to losing fatty tissue (and generally: weight), see: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html (CTRL+F: lipid metabolism).

I will agree with you that the total amount of energy intake is also important. Not eating that extra pound is not a bad idea at all. But it is misleading to imply that merely eating less is the way to go. In fact, if not combined with daily activity (I'm avoiding the word exercise here), it can leave you as unhealthy as your visibly obese neighbour. See, f.i.: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.shtml (btw, 'visceral fat' is the more correct term as it doesn't conjure up associations with 'love handles' and such). Or Google 'dr jimmy bell fat' for some popular media coverage on the subject.

The journal article on which TFA is based is embargoed behind Kluwer's academic firewall's and my school doesn't have a subscription to this one. So, I can't see the actual article. However, the comments from some of the people who *can* see the article are telling, to wit:

"Only by a stretch of imagination do you see a linear correlation in there. Look at figure 3 ... http://journals.lww.com/jcrani...
OMG!!..."

and......

"This is only a pilot-study, and should NOT be brought into the media before a larger and more rigorous study has been done. This study has very small sample groups, and they should have had a group with the cellphones at their waste, but turned off. It could be other things than the electromagnetic radiowaves, i.e. the weight of the phones, if there is an effect at all, which a larger study will clarify."

not to mention.....

"This is only a pilot-study, and should NOT be brought into the media before a larger and more rigorous study has been done. This study has very small sample groups, and they should have had a group with the cellphones at their waste, but turned off. It could be other things than the electromagnetic radiowaves, i.e. the weight of the phones, if there is an effect at all, which a larger study will clarify. "

and.....

"Also, the study doesn't say if the measurement and calculations were unblinded, and the sample groups were not randomized, and recruited by word of mouth locally. This is just the flaws without looking at the results. Again, please stop writing about pilot studies, unless you are giving it a critical evaluation."

as well as....

"Something is wrong with the user cited charts where the bone density declines on a range from zero to 80,000 hours.

Now at maybe 2000 hours exposure per year, that means 40 years exposure. How could they get that much data?

Chart labels must be wrong. "

followed up by....

"From the method section of the study:

'Men of the first group provided information about the
number of years they had used a mobile cell phone and the number
of hours per day that they carried the phone in the belt pouch. The
number of years of use and the product of years of use and hours per
day each year carrying the phones were used as rough estimates of
cumulative exposure.'

*****In other words*****

A small pilot study with questionable (or at least very simplistic) methods for estimating for cumulative exposure was conducted on a small and apparently undifferentiated sample and a statistically significant result was obtained.

As one of that "strange breed," I was initially concerned. Now, not so much...

the original article doesn't qualify [the statistical significance] either. Neither does the official study summary. The study itself is purposefully wording things so the media will run with it, by being as vague as possible.

Not sure what you mean by "qualify", but the study itself does quantify the statistical significance. It appears to be the standard level in medicine, p less than 0.05 (that is, less than a 5% probablility that results are by chance).

Have a look at figure 3 of the actual article:
http://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/_layouts/oaks.journals/ImageView.aspx?k=jcraniofacialsurgery:2011:03000:00075&i=FF3

Really? A linear correlation?! I suppose MDs must have a really wild imagination to see an actual linear correlation in that dataset! For crying out loud...!

Have a look at figure 3 of the actual article:
http://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/_layouts/oaks.journals/ImageView.aspx?k=jcraniofacialsurgery:2011:03000:00075&i=FF3

Really? A linear correlation?! I suppose MDs must have a really wild imagination to see an actual linear correlation in that dataset! For crying out loud...!

It's linked through in the OP. See here.

There are some pretty surprising statements in there like this in the discussion:
"First, although the choice of iliac bone is understandable because it is the bone closest to the phone when the latter is carried in a belt pouch, it is probable that regions of interest had to be determined manually or through a custom software (details were not provided in the report). In the current study, regions of interest were used that were automatically set by a reliable commercial software provided with the bone densitometer."

I don't know enough about how any of that stuff works to criticize it, but there's no further explanation provided of the algorithm used or whether you'd expect it to be suitable for making the inferences being made. Selecting regions of interest almost immediately makes me curious about the bias that introduces.

The samples are also a bit odd - there's almost no overlap in age or weight between the two groups (it would seem - I may be reading this wrong but the means given are way the christ different between the user and non-user groups, and no real argument is presented as to why we'd expect linear relationships of the various parameters clear up through the differing ages).

There is even some data against the LNT model - radiological hormesis seems to be in play in Ramsar, Iran.

For what it's worth, immaculate conception isn't unheard of in humans: http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1979/03001/Pregnancy_in_a_True_Hermaphrodite.14.aspx

"Data from the Sydney Myopia Study data, while cross-sectional in nature, suggest that greater time spent outside can also over-ride the greater risk associated with near work and schooling."

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2009/01000/What_s_Hot_in_Myopia_Research_The_12th.2.aspx

Despite reducing the number of cars entering this intersection during a red light, RLC do not seem to prevent traffic collisions at this monitored intersection. Alternative means of injury prevention must be investigated.

Not so fast. Hearing aid sales in the United States aone are around 2 million. Add international sales (no need for language localized version :), the relatively slow product cycle, etc. and the prices are hard to defend. The hearing aid is not an obscure device, and many millions of people will need one. It is also relatively recession-proof. It appears that the industry both suffers from a lot of regulation but also is, frankly, crooked. See this Wall Street Journal article.

Nope. There's been a large reduction in cancer deaths due to research and treatment advances

Unfortunately, that's not really true - the overall mortality rate for cancers is roughly the same as it was in 1950, as aresurvival rates for people diagnosed with cancer.

I would suggest that spending more money on cancer research is unlikely to have a significant impact on survival rates. From the proteins on his surface to the sequence of his DNA, we know the enemy. What we lack is the bullet that can reach him and kill him - essentially the same problem that prevents us from curing AIDS, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and many genetic diseases. Now that gene therapy has proven to be a dud, there's no incremental advancement on the horizon that could lead to a large increase in cancer survival rates. Funding is unlikely to help because the advisory boards making the money decisions prioritize incremental research deemed most likely to succeed over more ambitious experiments. The few major breakthroughs in treating specialized forms of cancer have mostly come from lone wolves who secured funding from private benefactors.

No one can argue against funding cancer research while so much of our economic output is earmarked for empire building or making really great sitcoms. But I do not believe that additional funding for cancer research is likely to produce a large increase survival rates.

All I'm looking for is one study showing that pot produces significantly more damage, either personal or social or both, than alcohol.

Took me 5 minutes on Google Scholar. Maybe not what you're looking for, but it meets the criteria you've outlined. If I wasn't supposed to be studying Biochem right now I'd try to find you a better one.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that pregnant women should smoke pot. Also, studies in Jamaica and elsewhere have long shown that marijuana's effects are less severe than alcohol's.

Again, I'm in favor of legalization but I don't think pregnant women should drink or smoke pot. But if every drink, intoxicant, food and activity that pregnant women should abstain from was illegal like cannabis is, our laws would be even more ridiculous than they already are...

All I'm looking for is one study showing that pot produces significantly more damage, either personal or social or both, than alcohol.

http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/1990/04000/36__and_48_Month_Neurobehavioral_Follow_up_of.3.aspx

Took me 5 minutes on Google Scholar. Maybe not what you're looking for, but it meets the criteria you've outlined. If I wasn't supposed to be studying Biochem right now I'd try to find you a better one.

Dude, cherry picking articles that are convenient to preserve ignorant opinion won't get you far with me. Notice the stipulations of that article are exclusive, not inclusive.

I'm not on campus right now but I bet I could dig up a ton of primary published scientific literature with data to support the efficacy of Flu vaccines.

A quick dig with Google Scholar yielded this (if you wanna get to the 'answer' just go to the Conclusions section:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/10/908

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/12/778

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ASHZ--Eay88J:scholar.google.com/+flu+vaccine&hl=en

http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx (this only shows the abstract, but the last line of the abstract is a short version of the conclusion)

------
And those are just from the first 10 results. I've informed you plenty; from here you can accept new information and begin to learn, or you can ignore it, use selective reading, and maintain ignorance. From here I assume you will become irrational so I will leave this conversation now.

Fyi, light can degrade organic compounds, to include proteins. And while I do not claim to clearly understand the properties of influenza virus, I cannot, like you, purport absolution in an argument for the presence of miniscule anecdotal observation.

Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal

Citation needed. On the other hand, I'll provide some:

"Nick d'Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
"By far the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest strategy to meet America's growing demand for electricity is energy efficiency and demand-side management."
"For Cheap Clean Energy, Go Geothermal, Study Says".
"Coal is America's most abundant and cheapest fossil fuel but, as Scott Pelley reports, burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming."

Wiki has a table of the cost of various energy sources at Levelised energy cost. Of more than 10 sources listed of cost per megawatt coal is cheapest while 4 others are potentially cheaper than nuclear. One of those potentially cheaper is wind.

with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint

Try to tell that to indigenous people's from who's land uranium is mined. Ask the Sioux or Navajo in the US. Ask the Algonquin First Nation in Canada. Or the aboriginals in Australia such as the Adnyamathanha community.

Now I picked on Australia, Canada, and the Unites States because they should have among the strictest environmental laws. Imagine what happens in countries without strong environmental laws.

AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).

Check into conservation which is listed as being cheaper and geothermal which is also listed as being cheaper by at least one of the links above and is good for baseload power.

Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered

Nuclear power asks and is addicted to subsides. Without them Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built. At least solar and wind would be built without subsidies. Think NanoSolar asked for or was given subsidies? Not that I know of, instead billionaire founders of Google invested in NanoSolar. Even if they did though, economically subsidies are supposed to be only temporary aid, however coal and nuclear power get subsidized year after year after year. There is nothing temporary about the subsidies they get.

One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper)

As referenced above coal is cheapest and even with cap and trade or carbon capture and storage it's still cheaper than nuclear power. Now if you have a link to data that disputes that provide it.

Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.

No matter how many tymes you repeat a lie* it doesn't magically make i

You're smart enough to ask for a peer reviewed article. Good. Here's one for you.

http://journals.lww.com/psychopharmacology/Abstract/2001/06000/Targeted_Use_of_Naltrexone_Without_Prior.6.aspx

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

I originally got this information from a person who was following the "Protein Power Life Plan", and directed to the book, "Protein Power" by Eades and Eades. The book gives a good little chapter on eicosanoids (and I apologize for the multiple mis-spellings in my earlier post). The Eades' claim that nothing in their book contains any theories or facts that are not taught to all medical students, so I looked up some basic Physiology and Biochemistry books. As a result, I changed sources from flaxseed to fish oil.

http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch01.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch07.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch21.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch26.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/Products/smith/documents /PDFs/Ch37.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch27.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/rhoades/documen ts/smch30.pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2003(35-48).pdf
http://connection.lww.com/products/lieberman/docum ents/41869%20ch%2015(215-230).pdf

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, you will have to do a little brainsweat to get to the answers.

Go read post 49. Yours is post 50 and 3 minutes later so you could have missed it.

Let's see how well you argue complex moral issues. Moderators may flag this as offtopic, but if Slashdot is to keep its focus, news for nerds, stuff that matters, we have to stop debates going offtopic by challenging people who take them offtopic (mea culpa?). You think your view matters, I wouldn't doubt your commitment, so here goes.

Your post (#8) says SuSE should donate to enlightened causes, including animal rights groups. Ella is a pet cat. There are anecdotal stories of how experiments on new born kittens determined that the visual system is conditioned at a very early age, as a consequence operations to correct a squint in humans now take place almost immediately after birth, whereas before it was felt appropriate to wait a while.

I can't verify the anecdote, but I did some digging around, and I came across this

As Hubel and Wiesel first observed in the 1960s 56, closing one eye in a kitten during its early postnatal development profoundly disrupted the pattern of ODC; the eye that had visual input dominated the cortex, whereas the eye that had been closed lost its connections.

I couldn't do this to a kitten, nor could I condemn a human to suffer a squint. My point is that issues like this are complex and subtle.

Slashdot suffers when people take simplistic moral positions that are tangential to the topic. Just because an issue is worthy, doesn't mean you should introsuce it into every discussion.