Slashdot Mirror

Pretty much.

The French have the right idea in this case. There's no reason to pamper this monster and give him a lifestyle potentially better than law abiding citizens.

Recidivism in France is at 59%. In Norway it's 20%.

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

The answers to that question can probably be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

That pretty much sums it up.

Paper filters does filter out the fines and results IMHO a better cup of coffee..

Also the paper filters adsorbs a libid that prevents a slight cholesterol bump from drinking coffee.

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

"We propose that paper filters of the type used for drip-filtered coffee retain the lipid present in boiled coffee and in that way remove the hypercholesterolemic factor"

Estimating Community Drug Abuse by Wastewater Analysis, Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Aug; 116(8): 1027–1032.

Wastewater analysis and drugs — a European multi-city study

One of the mysteries of the universe is that anti-religious people such as myself tend to support freedom of religion much more than religious people do.

The answers to that question can probably be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

TL;DR: "Religious people" are to too stupid to understand a different viewpoint.

True story

Washing your hands without soap at all is quite effective, assuming you do a reasonable job at it. See The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study. Any soap will make the hand washing more effective. Anti-bacterial soap is no better than standard soap.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but your statement is incredibly misleading. Yes, washing with water alone is better than nothing, but is definitely not "quite effective."

According to your quoted study, the Odds Radio of diarrhea are:
No washing: .78
Water washing: .67
Soap washing: .30

You've got a bit overboard. Washing your hands properly with or without soap does decrease the likelihood of spreading germs that make people sick, see The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study

Washing your hands without soap at all is quite effective, assuming you do a reasonable job at it. See The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study. Any soap will make the hand washing more effective. Anti-bacterial soap is no better than standard soap.

They don't. Each emitter encodes it pulses with a unique signature.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

In case anyone was wondering how much they got for this project, it's part of a $100million NIH project.

There's an abundance of research showing that strong electric and magnetic fields can be hazardous.

Bollocks.

Biological Effects and Safety in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review
Since the introduction of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as a diagnostic technique, the number of people exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) has increased dramatically. In this review, based on the results of a pioneer study showing in vitro and in vivo genotoxic effects of MRI scans, we report an updated survey about the effects of non-ionizing EMF employed in MRI, relevant for patients’ and workers’ safety. While the whole data does not confirm a risk hypothesis, it suggests a need for further studies and prudent use in order to avoid unnecessary examinations, according to the precautionary principle.
Keywords: electromagnetic fields, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI safety, genotoxic effects

I made a large change to my diet by not going out to eat almost at all and rarely eating frozen dinners, only to find myself going to the bathroom a lot after 1 year. My blood-work always came back perfect for sodium. Eventually I started to purposefully sprinkle a small bit of salt on salads and stuff and my bathroom issue quickly went away. My blood-work still showed identical sodium levels.

That's because your body is a lot smarter than you are. The brain, in particular, controls sodium levels closely. Salt aggrevated hypertension doesn't cause elevated sodium levels. The mechanism is actually a bit obscure. So, unless you are seriously ill or on some specific medications, you would expect the sodium to be perfectly stable no matter what your diet was.

Our taste buds didn't originally exist for our pleasure, they were to tell the body about the food entering it, and it is still that way. If you give someone an artificial sweetener they will produce insulin. Our brains evolved to like some foods so that we would eat them. Artificial sweeteners mess up your response, and I would imagine what artificial salt taste sensations will mess us up in some similar way. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Just eat a reasonable amount of salt, sugar, fat, etc.

Our taste buds didn't originally exist for our pleasure, they were to tell the body about the food entering it, and it is still that way. If you give someone an artificial sweetener they will produce insulin. Our brains evolved to like some foods so that we would eat them. Artificial sweeteners mess up your response, and I would imagine what artificial salt taste sensations will mess us up in some similar way. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Just eat a reasonable amount of salt, sugar, fat, etc.

Where do you think the Vikings kidnapped their women from?

"The ancestry of the settlers is more controversial. Historical evidence suggests that not all of the settlers in Iceland originated from Scandinavia (Jones 1984). At the very least, it is believed that the settlers included a number of women and slaves from Norse settlements in the British Isles. There are numerous references in Icelandic medieval writings to the keeping of slaves, many of whom were obtained through raids on settlements in the British Isles (Jones 1984). Thus, the Icelandic founding gene pool may have received a substantial maternal contribution from the British Isles."

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

For the tobacco companies, physicians’ approval of their product could prove to be essential, especially since patients often brought smoking-related symptoms and health concerns to the attention of their doctors. Through advertisements appearing in the pages of medical journals for the first time in the 1930s, tobacco companies worked to develop close, mutually beneficial relationships with physicians and their professional organizations. These advertisements became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations.19

Coming during the Great Depression, the placement of advertisements in medical journals helped to keep medical organizations financially solvent when resources were scarce. Philip Morris praised physicians in these advertisements with taglines like “Every doctor is a doubter” and “Doctor as judge” as they appealed to physicians’ expert ability to evaluate the evidence, referring them to scientific articles that they claimed illustrated the superiority of their brand. As one such advertisement explained in its entirety in 1939, “If you advise patients on smoking—and what doctor does not—you will find highly important data in the studies listed below. May we send you a set of reprints?”20

Not only, then, did physicians’ findings help to make the Philip Morris brand appear superior in the eyes of the public, but the company also turned to physicians with great effect. Physicians became, through this process, an increasingly important conduit in the marketing process.

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

BMI is not a worthless model for the average person. It provides a tool and scale for understanding approximately appropriate weights for individuals aiming to be of reasonable size and fitness.

With this model they go to world class Athletes with 5% body fat and tell them they are fat because they should weigh xyz, but they weight is abc because of muscle mass.

You and I both know this isn't likely to happen with a world-class athlete. When I hear people talking about how BMI is junk, I assume they are a fat person trying to justify why the medical community is wrong about how overweight they are. As if the average person should be compared to a world-class athlete in any metric. Anyways, there are folks within the medical and statistical communities who do understand the limitations of BMI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That being said, there is a strong correlation between disease and those who are rank as either overweight or obese on the BMI scale: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo....

well, you are right to a point. As a type 1 diabetic it caused only about a second of confusion with my endocrinologist about the weight I have lost on a ketogenic diet being "Bad" because it put me slightly underweight at 160, but then she realized that unlike the 90 other patients she had seen I was the ONLY ONE who managed to lose 20 pounds of just fat and had my HDL go up and LDL go down, triglycerides go down and total cholesterol go down.. so yes in my case BMI is bunk.. because it would show me to be underweight when I actually improved my body composition. I am not an olympic athlete but I am athletic so that part of your discussion is kind of a red herring for understanding how BMI is limited.. as it does not take into account body composition at all and that is important.. very important to understanding one's health.. you can be 6 ft 3 and weigh 290.. but does that tell you if you are grossly over fat or very muscular? NO not even close!

With this model they go to world class Athletes with 5% body fat and tell them they are fat because they should weigh xyz, but they weight is abc because of muscle mass.

You and I both know this isn't likely to happen with a world-class athlete. When I hear people talking about how BMI is junk, I assume they are a fat person trying to justify why the medical community is wrong about how overweight they are. As if the average person should be compared to a world-class athlete in any metric. Anyways, there are folks within the medical and statistical communities who do understand the limitations of BMI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That being said, there is a strong correlation between disease and those who are rank as either overweight or obese on the BMI scale: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo....

Yes, it does have a real scientific meaning, rather than the unscientific crap you spewed on the screen.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health...

Autism is a spectrum of disorders from fully functioning people all the way down to completely dysfunctional.

There are certainly multiple factors. Pre-natal care is probably a big one and I bet poor people in beijing get better pre-natal care than poor americans because it is relative cheap and straight-forward so state healthcare system can do that pretty well.

Also smoking. In asia there is a lot of stigma on women smoking in asia compared to women smoking in the US. A woman smoking in asia is considered rebellious and trashy.

But when I went googling all I could find were Beijing numbers from 2006: 6.3% versus USA 2014 rate of 9.6% Pollution in Beijing has become a LOT worse since 2006.

Also, nearly all of Europe is substantially better than the USA, with many euro countries in the same neighborhood as china. Again, socialized medicine is one common denominator.

Yeah, I'm sure the National Institutes of Health is as well, right?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/i...

Yeah, I'm sure the National Institutes of Health is as well, right?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/i...

Lol, the fiber myth keeps rearing it's ugly head.

Ask anyone who (like myself) suffers from IBS...fiber keeps you regular. Fiber also makes you feel full, thus helping keep people from overeating. This article from NIH has links to several other good sources on why fiber is important.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlin...

I still drink diet soda though, and it doesn't cause any issues. I haven't found any credible research that shows anything bad about aspartame, which is just a combination of two amino acids (aspartic acid, phenylalinine) and methanol, all of which are found in higher quantities in "natural" foods than are found in diet sodas (fruit juice has something like 11 times as much methanol and 6 times as much aspartic acid as a diet soda, while milk has some 6 times as much phenylalinine.)

It's not the aspartame that's the issue....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2...

I still drink diet soda though, and it doesn't cause any issues. I haven't found any credible research that shows anything bad about aspartame, which is just a combination of two amino acids (aspartic acid, phenylalinine) and methanol, all of which are found in higher quantities in "natural" foods than are found in diet sodas (fruit juice has something like 11 times as much methanol and 6 times as much aspartic acid as a diet soda, while milk has some 6 times as much phenylalinine.)

It's not the aspartame that's the issue....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2...

I still drink diet soda though, and it doesn't cause any issues. I haven't found any credible research that shows anything bad about aspartame, which is just a combination of two amino acids (aspartic acid, phenylalinine) and methanol, all of which are found in higher quantities in "natural" foods than are found in diet sodas (fruit juice has something like 11 times as much methanol and 6 times as much aspartic acid as a diet soda, while milk has some 6 times as much phenylalinine.)

It's not the aspartame that's the issue....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2...

Go. Look. It. Up. And. Find. Out.

I'll give you a hint, one isn't digested; the other is.

Don't even use the word "genius," you are not even a functional reader. To prove you can read, don't write; go and read. Then, when you don't reply I'll know you actually read something about the subject.

Since you didn't know how to google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...

You also seem confused about the word "nutrient" (in nutritional) so I'll also show you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Even fiber that isn't fermented and absorbed is still a nutrient, it still has nutritional value.

Knowledge of contagion was universal before the germ theory of disease. They just did not know what the mechanism of contagion was, and so conversely how to sterilize (remove) the contamination.

And yes, fabric that comes in contact with small pox infected people absolutely can spread infection. Small pox outbreaks occurred in textile miles in England in the 1950s from contaminated cotton imported from Egypt. Study of variola survival in cotton found that "if cotton can become contaminated with smallpox scabs in temperate climates (20-25C) or is already contaminated when imported at this temperature, the experiments indicate that a few particles of virus may survive for as long as 18 months."

I think it's more important than that. You're assuming the food quality is no different. Some may not be but tomatoes definitely are.

You're right! And in the few cases where the quality is different, it's actually better. See this white paper for example:

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

That still doesn't help your argument though.

DNA is DNA, it has no memory of how it was created -- through genetic engineering or through natural mutations which were then bred because humans or animals intentionally or inadvertently favored them in some way.

What a wonderfully ignorant statement that captures the very essence of this argument. While DNA has no "memory" of how it was created, DNA is not the only concern with GMO foods. GMO foods are engineered to contain genes that express proteins that are advantageous to the recipient plant. Proteins, when expressed the wrong way can wreak havoc on the humans (or animals) that consume them. About the agent that causes CJD: It is difficult to kill, it does not appear to contain any genetic information in the form of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA), and it usually has a long incubation period before symptoms appear. In some cases, the incubation period may be as long as 50 years. See Prions. Prions cannot be destroyed through cooking, and therefore would be present in any product manufactured from the ingredient that contained them. Not to say that GMO products will contain Prions, but if a GMO protein contained in a foodstuff was harmful, it could take decades before it was discovered.

Additionally, our understanding of how DNA works is laughably limited. While we know that DNA contains the instructions to produce a protein, the exact mechanisms that determine the expression of those genes are complicated and aren't always understood. Our understanding of how proteins work and how they interact with each other and RNA is even more limited, especially when you consider how many interactions that must be considered to determine if a GMO protein will be safe to consume.

What hubris you, and everyone who claims that a few years of very limited research, is enough to prove that something this complicated is absolutely safe and warrants no caution by the consumer.

As for myself:

“I am sufficiently proud of my knowing something to be modest about my not knowing all.”

Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

DNA is DNA, it has no memory of how it was created -- through genetic engineering or through natural mutations which were then bred because humans or animals intentionally or inadvertently favored them in some way.

What a wonderfully ignorant statement that captures the very essence of this argument. While DNA has no "memory" of how it was created, DNA is not the only concern with GMO foods. GMO foods are engineered to contain genes that express proteins that are advantageous to the recipient plant. Proteins, when expressed the wrong way can wreak havoc on the humans (or animals) that consume them. About the agent that causes CJD: It is difficult to kill, it does not appear to contain any genetic information in the form of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA), and it usually has a long incubation period before symptoms appear. In some cases, the incubation period may be as long as 50 years. See Prions. Prions cannot be destroyed through cooking, and therefore would be present in any product manufactured from the ingredient that contained them. Not to say that GMO products will contain Prions, but if a GMO protein contained in a foodstuff was harmful, it could take decades before it was discovered.

Additionally, our understanding of how DNA works is laughably limited. While we know that DNA contains the instructions to produce a protein, the exact mechanisms that determine the expression of those genes are complicated and aren't always understood. Our understanding of how proteins work and how they interact with each other and RNA is even more limited, especially when you consider how many interactions that must be considered to determine if a GMO protein will be safe to consume.

What hubris you, and everyone who claims that a few years of very limited research, is enough to prove that something this complicated is absolutely safe and warrants no caution by the consumer.

As for myself:

“I am sufficiently proud of my knowing something to be modest about my not knowing all.”

Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

Because facts without context are deceptive. Evolution is 'just' a theory, agree with me? So why not label that on textbooks? Hey, it's a fact, you don't want to hide facts do you? The thing is, your average person has no idea what genetic engineering really is or what it means. Giving people one small detail, without telling the complete story, without explaining the details, knowing full well that years of misinformation are going to result in them thinking something that is not so, is not informative. It is a lie of omission, plain and simple. These laws are forcing lies because no one stopped to ask people who actually know the science behind the crops what they thing.

And don't try to tell me that it is being hidden; that's another intellectually lazy excuse. A quick Google search tells you what is and is not GE, and how. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, papaya, summer squash, sugar beet, alfalfa, and soon apple and potato, with traits like insect resistance (Cry and Vip genes), herbicide tolerance (C4 EPSPS and bar genes), virus resistance (PRSV-CP and WMV-CP genes), drought tolerance (CspB), and soon consumer oriented traits. Yeah, it isn't on the label, but neither is any of the other things we do to crops that you don't know about. I've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing. I could go on but you get the point. Every plant in the grocery store has a story. Genetic engineering is just one part of that.

Now, what you are asking is why food producers don't want to single out one part of a much larger story, one that has been stigmatized by years of scientifically baseless fearmongering, knowing that your average person is completely ignorant of the history and present science of crops and agriculture, and slap a label on that doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful (genetically modified how and why? Label doesn't say). Be real here, they have a very good reason for it. This push for labeling is just the GMO denialists' response to being completely wrong about the safety and benefits of genetic engineering. They lost on the facts, now they're trying to make it look like genetic engineering needs labels, because if they're so safe why hide it? Of course, these same people then point to Europe and say 'if they're so safe why do they need labels?'

I'll believe this is about honesty and transparency whenever the anti-GMO crowd demands that non-GMO corn be labeled as having higher mycotoxin levels. I'm not holding my breath for that though.

Most academic papers are published with financial support from federal funding agencies. Too bad publishing academic papers is a private industry with a profit motive to keep you from accessing them.

Actually, most publicly funded research is now required to be published in publicly accessible ways:

• NIH public access policy
• NSF public access policy
• DOE public access plan

Granted, those came in to existence in the past decade or so, which leaves a lot of old papers not covered and subject to the whims of the publisher. Regardless, pretty well every existing research grant in the US from the federal government is now subject to those terms. The big for-profit publishers (think Nature and others) have made accommodations to allow for researchers to publish in their journals while still meeting the open access requirements.

Swartz died over this.

No, he didn't. He was over zealous, afraid, and likely fraught with unmanaged mental health problems. He was trying to make a name for himself and then didn't know what to do once he accomplished that. Regardless his goal was not to free all the data, if it had been he could have used other means that would not have landed him so quickly in so much trouble.

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

If only sick people would stop going to there maybe there wouldn't be so many infectious diseases at hospitals.

Part of the problem with transmission is that doctors and nurses are not as good as they should be at washing their hands. For example this study looked at two hospital wards and found doctors were about 47% compliant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

There sure are some scary comparisons of doses and suggestions of risk without any references in the TFA.

The problem with many exposure limits and risk estimates is that they are all based on the worst case scenario, ultraconservative exposure model: linear no-threshold (LNT). Basically, this model we created in the 1940s assumes that all radiation is bad and more is worse in with a linear dose to risk relationship.

However, there is not much evidence to support this simplistic model, which is what NRC uses to establish dose limits! We've known it is wrong for a long time. There is evidence that other models, specifically radiation hormesis, are correct. We won't change anything policywise because imagine the gnashing of teeth from the Greens when the newspaper article reads "Government loosens radiation rules! FEAR!"

But radiation hormesis is supported by the evidence. It suggests that below a certain level, radiation stimulates cellular and DNA repair mechanisms so that there is an opitmal dose of radiation that is ABOVE zero and that only when you go high on a dose in a given time (threshold) does the damage outweigh the stimulated benefits, but the response may be nonlinear for dose vs risk after the threshold.

Here are just two of the more recent articles on the subject (research goes back a LONG time)

2009, "The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data" Radiology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

2013, "Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Other fun pieces of information:
A chest X-ray is ~1.5mSv.
An abdominal Cat Scan (CT) is usually 10-20mSv per study.
Natural radiation exposure for Denver, CO (5280ft): 12mSv per year.

There sure are some scary comparisons of doses and suggestions of risk without any references in the TFA.

The problem with many exposure limits and risk estimates is that they are all based on the worst case scenario, ultraconservative exposure model: linear no-threshold (LNT). Basically, this model we created in the 1940s assumes that all radiation is bad and more is worse in with a linear dose to risk relationship.

However, there is not much evidence to support this simplistic model, which is what NRC uses to establish dose limits! We've known it is wrong for a long time. There is evidence that other models, specifically radiation hormesis, are correct. We won't change anything policywise because imagine the gnashing of teeth from the Greens when the newspaper article reads "Government loosens radiation rules! FEAR!"

But radiation hormesis is supported by the evidence. It suggests that below a certain level, radiation stimulates cellular and DNA repair mechanisms so that there is an opitmal dose of radiation that is ABOVE zero and that only when you go high on a dose in a given time (threshold) does the damage outweigh the stimulated benefits, but the response may be nonlinear for dose vs risk after the threshold.

Here are just two of the more recent articles on the subject (research goes back a LONG time)

2009, "The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data" Radiology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

2013, "Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Other fun pieces of information:
A chest X-ray is ~1.5mSv.
An abdominal Cat Scan (CT) is usually 10-20mSv per study.
Natural radiation exposure for Denver, CO (5280ft): 12mSv per year.

In case you're wondering, use a hardware-based neural net to learn and store data. All my components are fully biodegradable and non-toxic. My capabilities include real-time video processing and object identification, full voice recognition, and the ability to pass the Turing Test. You can download both my blueprints and full base code here. The full download is pretty small; smaller than a modern computer game in fact.

...accuracy is unknown, but probably exaggerated. The study doesn't claim what you think it claims.

Says the guy who never even looked at it. You want numbers; where are the numbers backing your claims? Only got blog pages to "cite"?

no one who uses the IPCC reports as primary support can find anything in there.

Here are a handful of the many studies I found with 10 minutes of browsing through IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2.6:

Heatwaves
Donal et al 2013: Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century
Choi, G., et al., 2009: Changes in means and extreme events of temperature and precipitation in the Asia Pacific Network region

Precipitation
Allan, R. P., and B. J. Soden, 2008: Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes
Pryor, S. C., J. A. Howe, and K. E. Kunkel, 2009: How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA?

There are many more, on many areas. E.g. intense tropical storm frequency? Try Kossin et al 2007. All the pretty graphs, tables, and citations to peer-reviewed studies you could ever want - if you can be bothered to take a look.

Claims of "obfuscation" are pure bullshit. You obviously haven't checked for yourself, because you've already decided that nothing you want to see is going to be there (and heaven forbid that new data might pop your worldview bubble!).

With NSF's public access policy in place, PubMed provides open-access to a lot of journal papers in a variety of formats, including EPUB.

I've found the PubMed site itself to be one of the best-laid-out reference web sites I've used, period -- its links to external journals, full and partial papers in various formats, and ability to bookmark items of interest, are all very functional and easy to access.

Well I guess the article clarifies that coffee in moderation has some positive effects...

So does drinking in moderation. Google 'alcohol j-graph'.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publ... for example. Graph at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publ...

Moderate drinkers are less likely to suffer from an early death or various diseases, and it's not until you get to around 80g/ day of ethanol (8 UK alcohol units, 4.6 US alcohol units) that you are back to the same risk level of a tee-totaller.

Well I guess the article clarifies that coffee in moderation has some positive effects...

So does drinking in moderation. Google 'alcohol j-graph'.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publ... for example. Graph at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publ...

Moderate drinkers are less likely to suffer from an early death or various diseases, and it's not until you get to around 80g/ day of ethanol (8 UK alcohol units, 4.6 US alcohol units) that you are back to the same risk level of a tee-totaller.

There is also the Clam.
https://www.mixcloud.com/thisw... This is an excelent podcast on virology.
Or for those more into the heavier stuff: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

If only we could get some decent peer review. Maybe it was different back then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ha...
http://retractionwatch.com/201...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21s...
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

Resistance training leads to change in the nervous system, but possibly not in the brain. Relevant research

The studies you mention are from 1988 and 2006, respectively. A more recent study from 2015 concludes otherwise:

This study provides the first evidence for strength training-related changes in white matter and putamen in the healthy adult brain.

Resistance training leads to change in the nervous system, but possibly not in the brain. Relevant research

The studies you mention are from 1988 and 2006, respectively. A more recent study from 2015 concludes otherwise:

This study provides the first evidence for strength training-related changes in white matter and putamen in the healthy adult brain.

Resistance training leads to change in the nervous system, but possibly not in the brain. Relevant research

The studies you mention are from 1988 and 2006, respectively. A more recent study from 2015 concludes otherwise:

This study provides the first evidence for strength training-related changes in white matter and putamen in the healthy adult brain.

Resistance training leads to change in the nervous system, but possibly not in the brain. Relevant research