Slashdot Mirror

And asbestos. And exploding cars. Hey here's an idea, what if we made the exploding cars... out of asbestos?

Ipana toothpaste actually had asbestos in it.

This is the problem with hoomins - even scientists. We can become corrupt pretty easily.

Oddly enough, a lot of slashdotters seem to believe the libertarian outlook that everything is wonderful until it is proven bad for you. That's what gets us dosed with Bisphenol A and other endocrine inhibitors and estrogen mimics. Oh lookie, the birth defect rate in males is going up https://www.endocrine.org/news... Oh, and it's linked to Bisphenol A. "Isn't there some way we can make this problem go away? we can't upset the stockholders!!!!" http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/13077...

Dont forget mouthful diethylstilbestrol (DES) It along with Bisphenol A are also obesogens. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... chemicals that seem to alter the way the body produces fat cells.

Let's just forget that the obesity problem showed up around the time that these chemicals did. Let's blame if all on the unfortunate individuals involved. They must be lazy, they have a personality defect. They must have done something wrong that they were born with birth defects.

And asbestos. And exploding cars. Hey here's an idea, what if we made the exploding cars... out of asbestos?

Ipana toothpaste actually had asbestos in it.

This is the problem with hoomins - even scientists. We can become corrupt pretty easily.

Oddly enough, a lot of slashdotters seem to believe the libertarian outlook that everything is wonderful until it is proven bad for you. That's what gets us dosed with Bisphenol A and other endocrine inhibitors and estrogen mimics. Oh lookie, the birth defect rate in males is going up https://www.endocrine.org/news... Oh, and it's linked to Bisphenol A. "Isn't there some way we can make this problem go away? we can't upset the stockholders!!!!" http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/13077...

Dont forget mouthful diethylstilbestrol (DES) It along with Bisphenol A are also obesogens. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... chemicals that seem to alter the way the body produces fat cells.

Let's just forget that the obesity problem showed up around the time that these chemicals did. Let's blame if all on the unfortunate individuals involved. They must be lazy, they have a personality defect. They must have done something wrong that they were born with birth defects.

Back on topic. You'll probably find a bunch sponsored by the industry finding both are equally bad.

Here's one from nih:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Here's one from harvard:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/...

Brain surface area and cortical thickness seems to be more significant. The ability to measure surface area is improving (US National Institutes of Health PubMed):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
And the relationship to intelligence is an ongoing study. Here's one approach:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

As the Martian says, brain size can be a factor but it's complicated.

Brain surface area and cortical thickness seems to be more significant. The ability to measure surface area is improving (US National Institutes of Health PubMed):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
And the relationship to intelligence is an ongoing study. Here's one approach:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

As the Martian says, brain size can be a factor but it's complicated.

I assure you, the battery is neither ingested nor inhaled.

And the vapor isn't? You're missing the point if you don't understand what the Food and Drug Administration does.

Yes, as a matter of fact. That does not include ethylene glycol.

So when the NIH found ethylene glycol in e-cigarettes (and other toxins), that was a figment of their imaginations? I don't think you have the facts.

Only if by NEW you mean first sold after 2012.

SO you admit that the FDA didn't ban everything but you're still outraged.

Yes, and the juices I was referring to contain none.

Some still do. That's the point. There had been no regulations about if they can. I suppose Congress should create an regulatory agency whose purpose is to regulate things like nicotine. Why don't we call it the FDA.

great news, but they need to be careful not to remain malaria free for some years then have it break out again. Because then immunity in the human population is gone and many more people die, particularly adults, who would normally have some protection (having survived childhood). This happened in Sao Tome in the 1980s, and in many other places as well- good review here.

This concern is one of the reasons the DDT campaign to eliminate mosquito vectors in the 1950s was never tried in earnest in Subsaharan Africa- program leaders were concerned that the gains would not be permanent and then the effects of resurgent falciparum malaria on a newly immunologically naive human population would be worse.

Good news all the same- they must stay vigilant.

Wow, that sounds almost unbelievable. I would have thought that the result would have been just the opposite. Oh wait, it was. As multiple studies have shown.

Makes you wonder how bad the health effects of indoor laser printer pollution will turn out to be. The toner nanoparticles are much more dense in operation than people realize. See serious academics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-co... "Effects of Laser Printer–Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts"
http://www.scientificamerican....
https://www.arb.ca.gov/researc...

Makes you wonder how bad the health effects of indoor laser printer pollution will turn out to be. The toner nanoparticles are much more dense in operation than people realize. See serious academics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-co... "Effects of Laser Printer–Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts"
http://www.scientificamerican....
https://www.arb.ca.gov/researc...

Yeah, we tend to see things as "safe" if they don't directly hurt people. This frustrates me to no end. My favorite example is the debate on fluoride in drinking water, whether or not it is safe to people. Did anyone consider whether it's safe for fish???? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... -- There are lots of other studies like this one, too, dating back 20+ years.

From 2002, Endogenous Retroviruses and Human Evolution
Wiki on Retro Virus and Evolution.

And how do many retrovirus spread? A number of ways, but mosquitoes are the main source of transmittance across species.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
https://www.thevespiary.org/rh...
http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/...

Feel free to do your own research if you don't like these articles. Unfortunately, if you are looking for peer reviewed primary sources, you will hit a lot of paywalls...

> but hear of far fewer cases of drunk driving and I have a really hard time

You certainly may hear about it less. On the other hand, German men have a 27% higher rate of death from cirrhosis of the liver than US men. In fatal car crashes, alcohol is involved slightly more often in Germany than in the US.

There may be less media attention in Germany, but the policies aren't actually working any better than US policies.

See also:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitst...

US numbers have improved greatly since the 1980s - DWI deaths have been cut in half.
https://report.nih.gov/nihfact...

One benefit of having 50 different states with different being enacted at different times is that you can compare the results. When California tries one law, Texas does it a bit different, Florida does a public awareness campaign without a new law, you can compare the changes in each state to see which approaches work. The National Institutes of Health determined the two things that worked best are a) enforcing DWI laws - unenforced laws are clearly useless and b) raising the drinking age.

Except it's not only that.

They could use tooth enamel.

This isn't, by any definition whatsoever, a free market. This is in fact a government granted monopoly. You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases. That said, I don't quite understand why we give i.e. patent holders, copyright holders, etc free reign on how, when, where, and how much they can charge for anything with the sky being the limit.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the real issue here, the EpiPen problem (1) has nothing to do with drug patents, and (2) has relatively little to do with patent protection in general.

Just to be clear, the drug here (epinephrine) has been around for many decades and is patent-free. You can easily get a dose of it for a few cents: hospitals directly inject the generic all the time. And the EpiPen is basically out of patent protection. There apparently is still an active patent for some aspect of the device, but the manufacturer settled a lawsuit already that would allow generic manufacture.

So what's the real problem here? There are two. The first is the FDA. Epipens fall under the category of both "drugs" and "medical devices" for approval purposes, and the byzantine set of processes necessary for approval take forever. They also require standards for effectiveness that are probably impossible to meet in this case, because of the high rate of EpiPen (and generic autoinjector) user error. There were supposedly 26 incidents of "incorrect dosage" from Auvi-Q before the recall, but none were actually confirmed and the devices involved did not seem to be malfunctioning. So why the wrong dose?

This is the dirty secret of this whole autoinjector business -- people actually screw up using them quite a bit. (The second issue.) The most common user errors: (1) forget to take safety cap off, (2) use wrong end, (3) don't inject for adequate time (usually recommended for 10 seconds). You introduce a slightly different procedure (with another cap, oh gosh!) and that makes alternatives like Adrenaclick even more likely to be misused.

This whole discussion in the media, to my mind, has been highjacked by people who want to draw attention to the high prices of drugs in the U.S. And that's a very noble goal, because it is ridiculous.

But in this particular case, there is a simple, viable, CHEAP alternative -- a syringe with epinephrine. The primary objections are that people could draw up the wrong dose in a panic or whatever -- but this is solved simply. Have your syringe prefilled by a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. You'll also hear misinformed doctors saying, "But it isn't guaranteed to be sterile" or "it will degrade." Again, we have research on this issue -- see here and here. Basically, as long as the syringe is stored in darkness (e.g., in a simple tube or something), it's sterile and stable for at least 3 months.

And guess what -- you don't have any of those annoying problems with people screwing up using their autoinjectors. (1) forgot to take safety cap off? Nope -- you actually see the drug go in, so if there's some sort of safety put on the needle to prevent accidental discharge, it'll be clear if you didn't take it off. (2) Used the wrong end? Nope -- even a 4-year-old knows which end of the syringe has to go in. (3) Don't inject long enough? Nope -- again, you see the stuff go in. You push the needle until the pre-measured dose is completely out.

Giving yourself or someone else an injection is not rocket science, and with pre-filled syringes it's probably less error-prone than "autoinjectors." And here's the best part: the total cost is probably about $5 for one (including the syringe and the pre-filling to correct dose). If you were willing to buy syringes and a larger bottle of epinephrine yourself, you could make it even cheaper, but we're already down to $20/year with replacements every

This isn't, by any definition whatsoever, a free market. This is in fact a government granted monopoly. You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases. That said, I don't quite understand why we give i.e. patent holders, copyright holders, etc free reign on how, when, where, and how much they can charge for anything with the sky being the limit.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the real issue here, the EpiPen problem (1) has nothing to do with drug patents, and (2) has relatively little to do with patent protection in general.

Just to be clear, the drug here (epinephrine) has been around for many decades and is patent-free. You can easily get a dose of it for a few cents: hospitals directly inject the generic all the time. And the EpiPen is basically out of patent protection. There apparently is still an active patent for some aspect of the device, but the manufacturer settled a lawsuit already that would allow generic manufacture.

So what's the real problem here? There are two. The first is the FDA. Epipens fall under the category of both "drugs" and "medical devices" for approval purposes, and the byzantine set of processes necessary for approval take forever. They also require standards for effectiveness that are probably impossible to meet in this case, because of the high rate of EpiPen (and generic autoinjector) user error. There were supposedly 26 incidents of "incorrect dosage" from Auvi-Q before the recall, but none were actually confirmed and the devices involved did not seem to be malfunctioning. So why the wrong dose?

This is the dirty secret of this whole autoinjector business -- people actually screw up using them quite a bit. (The second issue.) The most common user errors: (1) forget to take safety cap off, (2) use wrong end, (3) don't inject for adequate time (usually recommended for 10 seconds). You introduce a slightly different procedure (with another cap, oh gosh!) and that makes alternatives like Adrenaclick even more likely to be misused.

This whole discussion in the media, to my mind, has been highjacked by people who want to draw attention to the high prices of drugs in the U.S. And that's a very noble goal, because it is ridiculous.

But in this particular case, there is a simple, viable, CHEAP alternative -- a syringe with epinephrine. The primary objections are that people could draw up the wrong dose in a panic or whatever -- but this is solved simply. Have your syringe prefilled by a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. You'll also hear misinformed doctors saying, "But it isn't guaranteed to be sterile" or "it will degrade." Again, we have research on this issue -- see here and here. Basically, as long as the syringe is stored in darkness (e.g., in a simple tube or something), it's sterile and stable for at least 3 months.

And guess what -- you don't have any of those annoying problems with people screwing up using their autoinjectors. (1) forgot to take safety cap off? Nope -- you actually see the drug go in, so if there's some sort of safety put on the needle to prevent accidental discharge, it'll be clear if you didn't take it off. (2) Used the wrong end? Nope -- even a 4-year-old knows which end of the syringe has to go in. (3) Don't inject long enough? Nope -- again, you see the stuff go in. You push the needle until the pre-measured dose is completely out.

Giving yourself or someone else an injection is not rocket science, and with pre-filled syringes it's probably less error-prone than "autoinjectors." And here's the best part: the total cost is probably about $5 for one (including the syringe and the pre-filling to correct dose). If you were willing to buy syringes and a larger bottle of epinephrine yourself, you could make it even cheaper, but we're already down to $20/year with replacements every

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates. [snip]

... when used inconsistently you should add. With perfect use you get (Trussell J, Contraceptive failure in the United States.) way better numbers:

Our estimate of the proportion of women becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of the male condom is [...] 2%.

Which means with a proper education you can lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies significantly.

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability: you could go to school and learn the physics that go into climate change. If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world. Whereas, if I went to seminary(?) school (apologies for not knowing the correct term), there's no way to guarantee God would ever speak to me.

If only 5% of the Louisiana damage was caused by climate change, that's $1B that could've been spent on green energy. That, in turn, would lead to reducing the pollution that causes breathing issues (asthma) or heavy metal poisoning (mercury in the fish we eat). If we don't burn coal, the mercury in the coal can't drift into the sea. If we did get off fossil fuels, that would save $361B to $886B annually.

Better switch to shrooms .

I am certain that in such a society, the biological urge to reproduce might have to be genetically eradicated.

Come, come, humanity, probably, already has some such mechanisms built in. For example, many more boys are born during war-time. Also, a better-off society has lower fertility rate, than a poor one — that is, the "need" for new people affects fertility rates.

On the other hand, the planet remains largely unsettled — vast expanses of Siberia, Canada, Alaska, American Midwest, Australian Outback, the deserts (think Sahara) and the entire continent of Antarctica all require relatively minor improvements to become "prime" real estate. Plus the ocean floor — if we are replacing human bodies, we can make some fine improvements...

And then come other planets — there is plenty of room for humanity to grow even with the current fertility rates.

Can't do that, if a person's education takes a comparable amount of time as the period during which it can actually be used productively...

Time dilation?

I don't think, you understood my complaint... Today it takes a person 15-20 years to become reasonably well-educated. He can then use this education for another 30-40 years before retiring due to infirmities. Not only his education, but also his valuable experience all die with him... If we could turn those 30-40 years into even mere 60-80, we'd increase the efficiency of humanity tremendously — thus greatly speeding up the rate of scientific advances and quality-of-life improvements. But, if we could go to infinite, we'd become unstoppable...

Not if the errors are systematic. And they often are.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

By the way, more on BIID:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/P...

Here's the abstract, you can read the free PDF for more details on the study.

Gender Dysphoria and Body Integrity Identity Disorder are sometimes together in the 19% of the cases. Other discomfort diseases related to identity, body scheme and/or integrity are discussed in relation to Gender Dysphoria. Because persons experiencing Gender Dysphoria need a precise diagnostic that protects their access to care and will not be used against them in social, occupational or legal areas a distinction diseases is provided in this text, because a meticulous description with clear exclusion criteria is required.

19% is quite a significant number, especially considering that among those with BIID, there are differences in which particular disability that some of them are after. A desire for having genitals and breasts surgically altered would easily fit.

In addition:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Two BIID individuals with the paralyzation form from in the present study and one with the amputation form reported by First et al. stated to have an intersex condition (see Table 3) [1]. These rates are substantially higher than in the general population [27] and therefore might suggest a common pathway in developing identity disorders [2]. However there can be a significant ascertainment bias, so it still remains uncertain at present whether there is a true relation between intersexuality and BIID.

So apparently more people than just me think there's a possible common underlying pathology. And no, contrary to what you think, nobody ever treats BIID with surgery; the rare exceptions are those where somebody deliberately injures themselves to force an amputation, or in at least one case there was a girl who blinded herself:

Of course, you're going to be bigoted and lob more personal attacks for me for having an opinion consistent with some obviously well done scientific investigation, but again that's your issue.

Obviously you haven't looked far enough. The flaws in the study are well known. I thought you said you knew something about this stuff?

As for Johns Hopkins being trigger shy, they absolutely refuse to discuss Dr. Money's fake research with the media. And you can also look at their other actions, such as putting a guy into place who also hasn't kept up with the latest brain studies (including autopsies) that show that not only are trans brains more like an amalgam of both sexes, but the neural networks are more like their target gender than their birth gender. Even the brains of transsexuals who had never taken hormones, never transitioned, had structures that were more the opposite sex, so it can't be blamed on cross-gender hormones - it's innate.

If you really had done your research, you would have already known this, but you haven't, because you're a bigot who goes out of their way to find the oldest studies. Searching "satisfaction rates for srs" earlier today turned up studies that contradict everything you're saying.

The swedish study you quotes uses subject going back to 1973, when the surgery was experimental and controversial. A followup swedish study says you're full of shit.

No one regretted their reassignment. The clinicians rated the global outcome as favorable in 62% of the cases, compared to 95% according to the patients themselves, with no differences between the subgroups. Based on the follow-up interview, more than 90% were stable or improved as regards work situation, partner relations, and sex life, but 5-15% were dissatisfied with the hormonal treatment, results of surgery, total sex reassignment procedure, or their present general health. Most outcome measures were rated positive and substantially equal for MF and FM. Late-onset transsexuals differed from those with early onset in some respects: these were mainly MF (88 vs. 42%), older when applying for sex reassignment (42 vs. 28 years), and non-homosexually oriented (56 vs. 15%). In conclusion, almost all patients were satisfied with the sex reassignment; 86% were assessed by clinicians at follow-up as stable or improved in global functioning.

The only one suppressing facts here is you, with your irrational insistance on using old data, and a hospital that has a researcher who totally faked his research to present "evidence" to reinforce his viewpoint rather than the facts - just like you are doing.

Looking at how everyone seems to smoke back then, I expect more solders died of smoking that any radiation issues.

In reality, smoking was not nearly as unhealthy as it is today. Big Tobacco optimized addition by poisoning smokers. Previously, smoking natural tobacco was not nearly as lethal as smoking what is in national cigarettes today, which is no longer natural tobacco.

From the US Surgeon General Report "Smoking and Health" (big pdf)

(No. 1103, page 112)
 

Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.

(No. 1103, page 92)
 

Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers.

...which means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.

To understand how the Big Tobacco industry started killing people, you have to understand what it is that they're selling... it isn't tobacco.
This Modern Marvels episode dispassionately makes it clear cigarettes contain no tobacco, but instead a tobacco-based paper product infused with nicotine and 300 some other chemicals in order to keep smokers addicted:
Modern Marvels 12x46
(requires registration)

here's a free clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAuM1fLKRk

Regular, ordinary, honest to goodness tobacco doesn't do that. Its still not good for you, but natural tobacco is no where near as lethal as whatever the heck is in cigarettes.

I can go to nearly any major U.S. city and find those as well. Maybe not to the degree we're seeing in Rio, but let's see how many people come out sick before we cast stones from our glass house.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/24...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Housing is an important determinant of health, and substandard housing is a major public health issue.1 Each year in the United States, 13.5 million nonfatal injuries occur in and around the home,2 2900 people die in house fires,3 and 2 million people make emergency room visits for asthma.4 One million young children in the United States have blood lead levels high enough to adversely affect their intelligence, behavior, and development.5 Two million Americans occupy homes with severe physical problems, and an additional 4.8 million live in homes with moderate problems

BMI sucks per nih.gov as well. I'll stand by my statement that using BMI to determine obesity is like trying to measure success by IQ. The relationships would be very similar, and by your own admission, useless. This is independent of any meaningful definition of success/obesity. The more I think of it the more accurate the analogy.

Notable researchers and organizations agree BMI is useless.

And the first link has this as the first line of the abstract:

"Body mass index (BMI) has various deficiencies as a measure of obesity, especially when the BMI measure is based on self-reported height and weight."

Note the bit about relying on people to tell the truth?

You can have 2 people, identical height, same actual body fat, and one will be obese according to BMI merely because they are large framed and heavily boned vs the other being small framed and light boned.

Yes, so? Those cases are rare.

BMI is like trying to measure success by IQ.

No it isn't because success is poorly defined. You can measure BMI and then measure fat percentage using an accurate techinque and see how well the two are correlated. BMI predicts obesity vasy well. If BMI says you're obese then as a population average, there's a 95% chance you're obese if you're male.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

These things are measurable. Someone't measured it. It's actually pretty good.

You should have a look at these guys, who bolted a single-photon microscope to a mouse spinal cord, in order to watch calcium transients in the awake, behaving animals. Mouse is small enough that they can image the full depth of the cord.

Exactly...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Despite these limitations, Anstey and colleagues are to be congratulated for applying this methodology to produce a unique assessment of the relationship between parasite biomass and the major determinants of severe malaria pathogenesis: inflammation, sequestration, and vascular endothelial dysfunction [15], [19]. Their data are all the more remarkable because they compare large numbers of healthy controls and subjects with both P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria [12]. Whilst there appear to be many similarities between severe disease caused by both parasite species, it is only when parasite biomass and distribution are considered that distinct pathogenic mechanisms begin to be revealed.

The same thing also applies to toxin load. Which is why cherries having sub dangerous levels of over 20 different toxins and pesticides is an issue. Taken alone, you'd be okay. Consider it like taking subfatal doses of arsenic, cyanide, and strychnine at the same time. Combined they can kill you even tho separately they are not fatal doses.

>> Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals

sure it has.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

Weelll. The evidence for butter being actually bad for you is surprisingly thin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... - for example.
Is a systematic review of the literature that concludes:
"This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary priorities; while also highlighting the need for additional investigation of health and metabolic effects of butter and dairy fat."

In other words, butter consumption has a small and uncertain correlation at most with dying early, heart disease and as small a protective effect for diabetes.
This is not to say overconsumption is healthy.

Actually, they did. The 10 years was in 2014, this conference presentation appears to be after a couple years follow-up work to see the results of refresher training.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsro...

It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.

So it was. Unfortunately that's the language commonly used in cheesemaking tutorials. Hence the 3rd paragraph in my original post. One day I might get around to read up on the actual biochemistry and be able to quantify more precisely, but for now I'm too lazy to do that and the cheese works out all right.

About adding Ca: http://curd-nerd.com/calcium-c...

blessed are the cheesemakers.

It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.

So it was. Unfortunately that's the language commonly used in cheesemaking tutorials. Hence the 3rd paragraph in my original post. One day I might get around to read up on the actual biochemistry and be able to quantify more precisely, but for now I'm too lazy to do that and the cheese works out all right.

About adding Ca: http://curd-nerd.com/calcium-c...

It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

It is now well-documented that children and adolescents exposed to radioiodines from Chernobyl fallout have a sizeable dose-related increase in thyroid cancer, with risk greatest in those youngest at exposure and with a suggestion that deficiency in stable iodine may increase the risk. Data on thyroid cancer risks to other age groups are somewhat less definitive. In addition, there have been reported increases in incidence and mortality from non-thyroid cancers and non-cancer endpoints. Although some studies are difficult to interpret because of methodological limitations, recent investigations of Chernobyl clean-up workers (âoeliquidatorsâ) have provided evidence of increased risks of leukaemia and other hematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of an increase in risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation. ...
---
conclusion
Twenty-five years have passed since the Chernobyl accident led to exposure of millions of people in Europe. Studies of populations exposed have provided significant new information on radiation risks, particularly in relation to thyroid tumours following exposure to iodine isotopes. Recent studies among Chernobyl liquidators have also provided evidence of increases in the risk of leukaemia and other haematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of increases in the risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation.

Further careful follow-up of these populations, and the establishment and long-term support of life- span study cohorts, may continue to provide important information for the quantification of radiation risks and the protection of persons exposed to low doses of radiation.

Those people have two basic choices- starve to death or steal the money from the rich.

False dilemma. We are importing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants today, because — we are told — we must fill jobs, that Americans, allegedly, "just will not do"... Am I supposed to sympathize with your hypothetical "starving unemployed", who'd rather rob me, than take an honest job, which an illegal immigrant is happy to take?

History has shown us, starving people WILL rob & kill the wealthy to survive.

Has it shown us this? Citations?

But stipulating for a second it has... Your idea is to stave off such murders and robberies by paying off all of the potential robbers in advance? Is that, how you you'd advise all blackmail victims to react?.. What was that about surrendering an important liberty for the sake of temporary security — and losing both and deserving neither?.. Do you recall?

But, fine, since you are — refreshingly as well as commendably — not wrapping yourself in the flag of fake charity, let's discuss the hard cold numbers. Since waging the "War on Poverty" over 50 years ago, we've spent well over $20 trillion tax-dollars (inflation-adjusted) on various poverty-fighting programs. That's well over $400 billion per year on average in today's dollars. We are also losing about $200 billion each year to crime and crime-fighting.

Now, how much of a crime-increase will the complete abolition of the government's anti-poverty efforts cause? Even if it flat-out doubles the crime-rate — thus doubling the crime-related costs — we'll still save about $200 billion every year. But, of course, the crime will not "double" — just as it did not halve, when we started this ill-fated "war". If anything, it increased back then...

Which society do you want to live in?

I want a society, where criminals are harshly prosecuted and the innocents aren't compelled to pay them off, thanks for asking.

A human has about 4 billion base pairs, which are roughly 2 bits each, so that is 500 MB. You could fit that on a CDROM with room to spare. But humans share 99% of their DNA, so you would really only need to store the diffs. 1% is 5 MB.

A copy of the (haploid) reference genome encoded as 2 bits per base pair comes in at about 800MB:

http://hgdownload.soe.ucsc.edu...

Run that through something like Z-zip and you can store it in less that 640MB, so it will indeed fit on a CD. Each of us has a diploid genome, though (a copy from each parent), so you really need to store double that if you take no account of the high level of similarity between both copies. If we assume a known reference genome, however, the 'diffs' are as you suggest very small - one paper reports compression down to 4MB, small enough to email:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Lots of analyses are done with lists of variants with respect to a reference genome, but the raw data generally comes from 'next generation sequencing' platforms, where every base needs to be sequenced many times over before bases can be called confidently, and quality scores of base calls need to be stored. The raw data usually needs to be kept since alignment and variant calling algorithms are improving all the time. Storage requirements are something like 80GB+ compressed.

The final archived data, what you might use for clinical purposes, could indeed be a diff file more or less. But in the meantime the world was generating 1 zettabyte of DNA sequencing data per year in 2015, the rate doubles every ~7 months.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Not true. Exercise causes muscle cells that are stressed to phosphorylate AKT, which upon feeding activates mTOR and will make you hungrier as insulin starts binding to the muscle cells and activates the PI3K / Akt and Erk MAP kinase pathways.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Exercise will cause the food you eat to go to repair, versus being stored as fat. Doesn't curb hunger at all, other than while you are exercising (due to AMP Kinase phosphorylation). You will certainly be hungrier after a workout than if you hadn't worked out at all.

Shouldn't be, women burn fat more effectively than men.

"there is abundant evidence that the proportion of energy derived from fat during exercise is higher in women than in men."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity, along with the consumption of heavily processed foods. It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

A tiny sample of the tens of thousands of papers stemming from clinical studies of meat's role in disease
Non-industry funded Research

Meat consumption is associated with obesity and central obesity among US adults
International Journal of Obesity (2009) 33, 621–628; doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.45; published online 24 March 2009
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n6/abs/ijo200945a.html

DIET, OBESITY, AND RISK OF FATAL PROSTATE CANCER
Am. J. Epidemiol. (1984) 120 (2): 244-250. 1.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/2/244.short

Diet and body mass index in 38000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans
International Journal of Obesity (2003) 27, 728–734. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802300
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v27/n6/abs/0802300a.html

Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat.
Key T, Davey G. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1996;313(7060):816-817.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352221/

Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study.
Vergnaud AC1, Norat T, Romaguera D, Mouw T, May AM, Travier N, Luan J, Wareham N, Slimani N, Rinaldi S, Couto E, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Cottet V, Palli D, Agnoli C, Panico S, Tumino R, Vineis P, Agudo A, Rodriguez L, Sanchez MJ, Amiano P, Barricarte A, Huerta JM, Key TJ, Spencer EA, Bueno-de-Mesquita B, Büchner FL, Orfanos P, Naska A, Trichopoulou A, Rohrmann S, Hermann S, Boeing H, Buijsse B, Johansson I, Hellstrom V, Manjer J, Wirfält E, Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, Halkjaer J, Lund E, Braaten T, Engeset D, Odysseos A, Riboli E, Peeters PH.
Am J Clin Nutr August 2010. vol. 92 no. 2 398-407
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/398.short

Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes
Serena Tonstad, Terry Butler, Ru Yan, Gary E. Fraser. Diabetes Care May 2009, 32 (5) 791-796; DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1886
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/5/791.short

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Exactly, and it's interesting that allergy rates differ based upon where you were born...

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
The reasons for this stark difference in peanut allergy compared to the western population are not known. It is tempting to speculate that early exposure to peanut which is cooked braised or boiled may be one of the reasons for the development of tolerance, as Asians including children are often exposed to peanut rice porridge. It has been shown that roasting of peanuts increases its allergenicity [56]. However, other environmental factors that modulate mucosal immunity of the gut and induce mucosal tolerance may also be implicated and requires further study. Environmental influences are suggested by studies on migrant populations (see section below on Risk factors for food allergy). In the Singapore survey, it was shown that irrespective of ethnicity, those born in Asia had lower risk of peanut and tree nut compared to those born in Western countries

The hygiene hypothesis is still unproven and controversial

That's not quite correct; "unproven" is a confusing word here. It's more of an "it depends" situation, rather than a "true/false" situation.

The hygiene hypothesis can be sort-of demonstrated in some situations (e.g. reduced allergic response to peanuts in mice via oral sensitisation with very low amounts of CpG-coated peanut extract), and rejected in others (e.g. the parasitic worm H. polygyrus suppresses the adaptive immune response).

The hygiene hypothesis is still unproven and controversial

That's not quite correct; "unproven" is a confusing word here. It's more of an "it depends" situation, rather than a "true/false" situation.

The hygiene hypothesis can be sort-of demonstrated in some situations (e.g. reduced allergic response to peanuts in mice via oral sensitisation with very low amounts of CpG-coated peanut extract), and rejected in others (e.g. the parasitic worm H. polygyrus suppresses the adaptive immune response).

Really? Then you should be able to easily cite them.

1.) Post your peer-reviewed criticisms of PREDIMED and the other large-scale studies. You'll have to go to industry funded research or blogs to do this, because the link between meat eating and heart-disease/cancer/obesity is well established in the literature.

2.) That is really low hanging fruit. The myth dates back to a 1936 article that is now used primarily as a basis for the billion dollar Fish Oil industry:
I M Rabinowitch. Clinical and Other Observations on Canadian Eskimos in the Eastern Arctic. Can Med Assoc J. 1936 May;34(5):487-501.

Here is a tiny portion of the peer-reviewed scientific research that contradicts those early observational reports:
J G Fodor, E Helis, N Yazdekhasti, B Vohnout. "Fishing" for the origins of the "Eskimos and heart disease" story: facts or wishful thinking? Can J Cardiol. 2014 Aug;30(8):864-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

P Bjerregaard, T K Young, R A Hegele. Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence? Atherosclerosis. 2003 Feb;166(2):351-7.

M R Zimmerman. The paleopathology of the cardiovascular system. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993;20(4):252-7.

J Dyerberg, H O Bang, N Hjorne. Fatty acid composition of the plasma lipids in Greenland Eskimos. Am J Clin Nutr. 1975 Sep;28(9):958-66.

E C Rizos, E E Ntzani, E Bika, M S Kostapanos, M S Elisaf. Association between omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and risk of major cardiovascular disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012 Sep 12;308(10):1024-33. doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11374.

R De Caterina. n-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 23;364(25):2439-50.

What kind of sandwich runs on thorium?

Here's one