Slashdot Mirror

The environment in the vehicle is somewhat more self contained and even if you're venting in air from the outside, it should being going through an air filter (a lot of newer vehicles have a cabin air filter) to remove some the pollutants or other particulate matter that's being kicked up. Even though no car is completely sealed off and air tight, it would still be better than being outside and directly exposed. I suppose over a long enough commute, eventually all of the air initially in the car would be replaced with polluted air, but I don't know how long it would take for that to happen so it may not be an issue in the real world.

There's even a study to support such conclusions.

Read this interesting paper on combining Fluticasone with Oxymetazoline (Diflam) to reduce eliminate the rebound effect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

I get blocked eustachian tubes when flying which for me can result chronic pain an middle ear bleeding. I take Fluticasone then Oxymetazoline when flying to try prevent the rebound effect. This combo seems more reliable than pseudo.

"The observation that laboratory rats not only live longer but also have fewer age-associated diseases when their food intake is restricted dates back to the 1930s."

There is some evidence of honey's impact on specific kinds of allergy symptoms, although honey, especially unfiltered and raw honey, can be dangerous. Some research has suggested honey "should not be considered a completely safe food" due to potential toxic compounds. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Modding, so A/C post.

Dude: really with the cautionary note on honey? Surprised you did not go all in with a honey-coated bacon rip.
C'mon, lighten up a little.

There is some evidence of honey's impact on specific kinds of allergy symptoms, although honey, especially unfiltered and raw honey, can be dangerous. Some research has suggested honey "should not be considered a completely safe food" due to potential toxic compounds. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

It is wrong, IMO, to describe it as addictive due to the connotations of that word.

I think your right. A more accurate description would be that one can become physically dependant on oxymetazoline as the rebound congestion becomes worse the more its used. Additionally, and perhaps worse, regular use can cause a host of unwanted side effects:http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+3143/

It seems like stress can have an impact on our genetic system that can be passed down to the offspring. Seems like an evolution not just based on natural selection but also based on the parent gene's experience as well. This is just a long shot, I am not an expert on this by any means!

Not likely Natural selection is natural selection. Ignoring th efact that Darwin didn't even know about genes, teh question isn't relevant to him. More likely (though I do nopt know at this time) the stress has an effect on the genetic makeup of the father's sperm.

Another similar thing is a "maybe" link between obesity issues, possibly caused by exposure to estrogen mimic plastics, that may be pased to future generations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Now DES is a mimic that has been already linked to birth defects.

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

And bispnenol-A was yanked for being a mimic. That was in a lot of childrens drinking bottles.

A long, but good paper on xenoestrogens and the problems they cause.. Xenoestrogens's links to obesity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... But here is where it gets even more interesting. http://www.technology.org/2013...

Now scientists may indeed tie the two together. Too much estrognen mimic substances causeing male birth defects and obesity, being passed down to offspring by way of damaged genes. These damaged genes might be (un) natural selection in reverse. Not so good.

It seems like stress can have an impact on our genetic system that can be passed down to the offspring. Seems like an evolution not just based on natural selection but also based on the parent gene's experience as well. This is just a long shot, I am not an expert on this by any means!

Not likely Natural selection is natural selection. Ignoring th efact that Darwin didn't even know about genes, teh question isn't relevant to him. More likely (though I do nopt know at this time) the stress has an effect on the genetic makeup of the father's sperm.

Another similar thing is a "maybe" link between obesity issues, possibly caused by exposure to estrogen mimic plastics, that may be pased to future generations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Now DES is a mimic that has been already linked to birth defects.

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

And bispnenol-A was yanked for being a mimic. That was in a lot of childrens drinking bottles.

A long, but good paper on xenoestrogens and the problems they cause.. Xenoestrogens's links to obesity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... But here is where it gets even more interesting. http://www.technology.org/2013...

Now scientists may indeed tie the two together. Too much estrognen mimic substances causeing male birth defects and obesity, being passed down to offspring by way of damaged genes. These damaged genes might be (un) natural selection in reverse. Not so good.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

This doesn't agree with the research I've seen.

The cognition-enhancing effects of psychostimulants involve direct action in the prefrontal cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Prescription Stimulants' Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Psychostimulants and cognition: a continuum of behavioral and cognitive activation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The neurobiology of modafinil as an enhancer of cognitive performance and a potential treatment for substance use disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not to mention Adderal, caffeine, and Nootropics, such as Piracetam, Ocetam, high dose B12, Hydergine (an ergoloid mesylate), as well as about a dozen others.

But you know: NYT knows best.

Other in the fairy-tale world of slashdot's nuclear fanboys, we know nothing like that. In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence
that the LNT holds to very small doses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.solarstorms.org/Thr...
And a video for the layman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is a fallacy. That we adapted to radiation doesn't mean that radiation is good for us.

As a reference.. How come some areas with a higher background radiation show a lower amount of lung-cancer cases? http://webecoist.momtastic.com...

Water is good for us... but not if we drink 10 liters of it.. I can imagine the same is true for radiation where small doses will result in a immune-response that trains the body to kill cells that starts misbehaving... but i'm not a doctor..

The problem is people having opinions about science without being able to read the relevant scientific literature.

I completely agree.

Now you are denying that contamination can be monitored, and need me to provide proof? Please. I suppose you might deny the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Do I need to provide proof of that?

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://www.google.com/search?...

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

My points are based on real world data, not just fear factor, accusations of cover ups, and scary words. Here are some real world results that you will find hard to digest, and back up my points about conservatism in the models.

Chernobyl Cancer Study Harvard 2005: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

Predicted number of Leukemia cases (above normal) up to 2005 = 940

From 2012 study: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/12049...

Actual number of Leukemia cases as of 2012 = 136

We have a lot of bacteria in our gut that, as it turns out, are quite beneficial and even necessary to our well-being. I would be surprised if killing 99% of dental bacteria does not come with ill effects.

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

TLDR: having caries may help protect against head and neck cancers.

For those interested, there is a vast amount of research you can look into at PubMed, like this article. The folks here at /. who dismiss radiation risks are not being realistic. There is a big difference between background radiation and a nuclear plant core meltdown in terms of isotopes and exposure levels.

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

First of all, I'll reiterate bloodhawk's point above, that coal has worse long-term impact than nuclear disasters too.

Well DU is analogous to coal ash, so is it worse than this? Which was also inflicted on American soldiers.

This is what happens when you start spreading DU around regardless of the source (in this case as munitions). Warning: those pictures are disturbing and illustrates the consequence of internal radiation exposure from one type of radionuclide.

So coal bad, nuclear worse.

Second, the main long-term impact of Chernobyl and Fukushima (beyond the lifetimes of the humans involved)

Unfortunately it is a contrived position that has been constructed by the political agreements in place to deceive us into thinking that something positive came out of Chernobyl, I doubt Ukrainians would agree. I will provide you with some context.

According to the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:

"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"

In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA , widely known in the scientific community as the instrument that gags their work. Unless of course you beleive the IAEA has an interest in malaria or Aids research it has effectively gagged the WHO from reporting on health matters Nuclear.

Ask yourself how likely it is for us to get reliable health science if the world's peak health organisation has it's science related to Nuclear matter vetted by the orgainsation responsible for promoting nuclear power.

Look, Chernobyl and Fukushima sucked for their victims.

Indeed it did. As opposed to WHO reports, reports in the Slavic languages from Ukrainian scientists on the ground performing research into the after effects of Chernobyl estimate deaths as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident to be around 980,000.

Why is their science less valid?

It's an emotional, irrational overreaction that just doesn't make any damn (statistical) sense.

No, it's a logical one based on a dispassionate examination of the evidence. Current governance of Nuclear reactor technology (especially in Japan) needs a complete overhaul as so far, it has produced accidents and is in no way comparable to the airline industry who has an embedded safety culture. You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion:

The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nationâ(TM)s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly manmade.

So far, we have no evidence that there is any improvement in the regulatory structures of NIAC or TEPCO and thus how can we expect anything different a restart of their nuclear industry. Not the technology, per se, but the flawed humans running it.

The National Institutes of Health now requires that future papers funded through their coffers to be publically available via their own publication repository called PubMed (see the policy here), though the copyright of the manuscript does not change (see this FAQ on the matter). All in all, I can't say the change has been a bad one. If you will pardon the expression, the state of biomedical research is evolving rapidly thanks to significant advances in instrumentation and processing capability. With next generation sequencing alone, researchers are innundated with terabytes of data, and biologists must now adapt to not only a new methodology, but also the almost-daily discoveries that have arisen from it. Without access to the literature, modern microbiology becomes a very harrowing field.

The National Institutes of Health now requires that future papers funded through their coffers to be publically available via their own publication repository called PubMed (see the policy here), though the copyright of the manuscript does not change (see this FAQ on the matter). All in all, I can't say the change has been a bad one. If you will pardon the expression, the state of biomedical research is evolving rapidly thanks to significant advances in instrumentation and processing capability. With next generation sequencing alone, researchers are innundated with terabytes of data, and biologists must now adapt to not only a new methodology, but also the almost-daily discoveries that have arisen from it. Without access to the literature, modern microbiology becomes a very harrowing field.

They are taking naps 7% of days in the winter (i.e. about every 14 days) and 22% in the summer (about every 4-5 days).

Which they have measured by the fact that the wrist bracelet wasn't moving for periods longer than 15 minutes.
On 94 people, across 2 continents and 3 countries, in groups of 5 to 15 people.

But regardless of those sketchy definitions and methodology the point is that they are actually reporting 1.2 - 1.4 longer daily sleep periods than those listed in summary and the npr article.
That's a lot of time being motionless on a kudu or an impala skin on the floor of the hut for someone not sleeping.
They are sleeping much closer to 6.9 - 8.5 hours - NOT just 5.7 - 7.1.

And then there's the crappy measurement tool they are using.

This study that Philips lists as the proof of actigraphy units being "a gold standard" shows moderate correlations at best (but mostly weak to moderate) with more accurate methods of measurement - if you measure sleeping patterns of patients suffering from depression and insomnia.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This one on the other hand, cited by the study in question shows a MUCH HIGHER correlation between actigraphy and PSG.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
A sensitivity (both methods showing sleep at the same time) with a 0.965 correlation and accuracy (total proportion correct) with a 0.863 correlation, while specificity (both methods showing awake at the same time) being rather weak at a mere 0.329.

Still, pretty good results - if you are fine with p values of 0.363, 0.389 and 0.195 for sensitivity, accuracy and specificity, respectfully.
I.e. More than 1 in 3 chance of false positives. About 1 in 5 for being awake.

Which is why sleep time measurements in the hunter-gatherer study, which they average out to 6.4, have deviations as high as +/- 1.39 hours.
On average, that 6.4 hour average of theirs has a 0.87 hour deviation.
So, while that particular 5.9 hour measurement (one with deviation of 1.39 hours) varies from 4.51 - 7.29 hours, many others go as high as 7.5 hours.
Which is pretty damn close to the 6.9 - 8.5 average of 7.7.
Adding their sleep and wake onsets to that - and it's about 8 hours.

I.e. They are interpreting readings from an inaccurate tool, with a known overestimation bias as an overestimation EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT ONE - due to high rate of false positive built-in into the tool.
Those people are lying motionless on the skin of an impala, on the floor of the hut (during the rain season - otherwise in open air), with things buzzing, flying and crawling around...
And the algorithm is telling them "No, no... an insomniac in a bed in North Carolina would not be asleep yet."

They are taking naps 7% of days in the winter (i.e. about every 14 days) and 22% in the summer (about every 4-5 days).

Which they have measured by the fact that the wrist bracelet wasn't moving for periods longer than 15 minutes.
On 94 people, across 2 continents and 3 countries, in groups of 5 to 15 people.

But regardless of those sketchy definitions and methodology the point is that they are actually reporting 1.2 - 1.4 longer daily sleep periods than those listed in summary and the npr article.
That's a lot of time being motionless on a kudu or an impala skin on the floor of the hut for someone not sleeping.
They are sleeping much closer to 6.9 - 8.5 hours - NOT just 5.7 - 7.1.

And then there's the crappy measurement tool they are using.

This study that Philips lists as the proof of actigraphy units being "a gold standard" shows moderate correlations at best (but mostly weak to moderate) with more accurate methods of measurement - if you measure sleeping patterns of patients suffering from depression and insomnia.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This one on the other hand, cited by the study in question shows a MUCH HIGHER correlation between actigraphy and PSG.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
A sensitivity (both methods showing sleep at the same time) with a 0.965 correlation and accuracy (total proportion correct) with a 0.863 correlation, while specificity (both methods showing awake at the same time) being rather weak at a mere 0.329.

Still, pretty good results - if you are fine with p values of 0.363, 0.389 and 0.195 for sensitivity, accuracy and specificity, respectfully.
I.e. More than 1 in 3 chance of false positives. About 1 in 5 for being awake.

Which is why sleep time measurements in the hunter-gatherer study, which they average out to 6.4, have deviations as high as +/- 1.39 hours.
On average, that 6.4 hour average of theirs has a 0.87 hour deviation.
So, while that particular 5.9 hour measurement (one with deviation of 1.39 hours) varies from 4.51 - 7.29 hours, many others go as high as 7.5 hours.
Which is pretty damn close to the 6.9 - 8.5 average of 7.7.
Adding their sleep and wake onsets to that - and it's about 8 hours.

I.e. They are interpreting readings from an inaccurate tool, with a known overestimation bias as an overestimation EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT ONE - due to high rate of false positive built-in into the tool.
Those people are lying motionless on the skin of an impala, on the floor of the hut (during the rain season - otherwise in open air), with things buzzing, flying and crawling around...
And the algorithm is telling them "No, no... an insomniac in a bed in North Carolina would not be asleep yet."

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

Coles notes, if you were a woman exposed to said chemicals (and possibly still exposed to them), you have a good change of passing on defects to future generations. Of course the US doesn't give two sh*ts about the nations of the world, so no reparations for chemical exposure resulting in berth defects will ever be paid out... ohh well.

>McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

But wait there's more

Radically restrict The FDA.

Because I'm sure health costs will go down when Pharma can do what it wants, I mean obviously its the FDA keeping all these drugs at insanely high prices by not catering to Pharma's every need. More direct to consumer advertising to muddy the waters will make things even better...I just can't wait to see!

>McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

McAfee is nuts.... There is no way 75% is even close.

He's also nuts on the solution to the problem....

The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees". Right now, everybody pays their own legal fees, unless you sue for your legal costs and win. This should be "Looser pays" which means if you file a lawsuit and loose for any reason (judge dismisses it or you loose in court) you pay everybody's legal fees. This will make it much more dangerous for lawyers to gin up a possible case, sue Big Daddy War bucks with deep pockets and hope that something sticks and cut down on the border line frivolous suits.

>McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

I am just telling you what I read in the primary scientific literature on the subject. I gave several links to PubMed. I'll give you those again and some more.

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

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

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

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

Our research involves delivering neuroprotective compounds to the brain via intranasal application, which bypasses the blood brain barrier. The glymphatic system is the primary route for transporting drugs from the nasal epithelium to the brain. This system is also the one that clears toxins, excess transmitters, and the byproducts of metabolism from the brain, and the flow rate is substantially increased during sleep. It is one of the first discoveries in a long time that sheds more light on why all animals with brains have to sleep. So please read some of the literature, and then get back to me.

I am just telling you what I read in the primary scientific literature on the subject. I gave several links to PubMed. I'll give you those again and some more.

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

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

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

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

Our research involves delivering neuroprotective compounds to the brain via intranasal application, which bypasses the blood brain barrier. The glymphatic system is the primary route for transporting drugs from the nasal epithelium to the brain. This system is also the one that clears toxins, excess transmitters, and the byproducts of metabolism from the brain, and the flow rate is substantially increased during sleep. It is one of the first discoveries in a long time that sheds more light on why all animals with brains have to sleep. So please read some of the literature, and then get back to me.

I am just telling you what I read in the primary scientific literature on the subject. I gave several links to PubMed. I'll give you those again and some more.

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

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

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

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

Our research involves delivering neuroprotective compounds to the brain via intranasal application, which bypasses the blood brain barrier. The glymphatic system is the primary route for transporting drugs from the nasal epithelium to the brain. This system is also the one that clears toxins, excess transmitters, and the byproducts of metabolism from the brain, and the flow rate is substantially increased during sleep. It is one of the first discoveries in a long time that sheds more light on why all animals with brains have to sleep. So please read some of the literature, and then get back to me.

I am just telling you what I read in the primary scientific literature on the subject. I gave several links to PubMed. I'll give you those again and some more.

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

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

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

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

Our research involves delivering neuroprotective compounds to the brain via intranasal application, which bypasses the blood brain barrier. The glymphatic system is the primary route for transporting drugs from the nasal epithelium to the brain. This system is also the one that clears toxins, excess transmitters, and the byproducts of metabolism from the brain, and the flow rate is substantially increased during sleep. It is one of the first discoveries in a long time that sheds more light on why all animals with brains have to sleep. So please read some of the literature, and then get back to me.

While you've got some raging inaccuracies--for example, the first malpractice crisis in the US was in the 19th century (citation) and it goes about 4000 years from now (citation)--you've very accurate in the summation. The amount of technology, skill, and training--and the amount of things we can treat, no less cure--has soared.

I'd say part of what needs reform though is the fact that the costs are being shifted away from the consumer, however. The effects of moral hazards--where the costs of a risk are displaced from the person who chooses to take the risk--are pretty well-demonstrated. (See: the subprime mortgage crisis.) It doesn't help that people just suck in general at risk perception: the perceived risk of eating the Heart Attack Special daily and putting off exercise will typically be 'not enough to be cared about,' assuming the combination gets considered. Changing your lifestyle and habits is hard, after all, and if society is covering the regular costs then you may not even really feel motivated to care one bit.

Socializing costs and privatizing rewards is not a good idea, in any situation.

While you've got some raging inaccuracies--for example, the first malpractice crisis in the US was in the 19th century (citation) and it goes about 4000 years from now (citation)--you've very accurate in the summation. The amount of technology, skill, and training--and the amount of things we can treat, no less cure--has soared.

I'd say part of what needs reform though is the fact that the costs are being shifted away from the consumer, however. The effects of moral hazards--where the costs of a risk are displaced from the person who chooses to take the risk--are pretty well-demonstrated. (See: the subprime mortgage crisis.) It doesn't help that people just suck in general at risk perception: the perceived risk of eating the Heart Attack Special daily and putting off exercise will typically be 'not enough to be cared about,' assuming the combination gets considered. Changing your lifestyle and habits is hard, after all, and if society is covering the regular costs then you may not even really feel motivated to care one bit.

Socializing costs and privatizing rewards is not a good idea, in any situation.

There are issues around CFS and the DSM.

I was an otherwise healthy child until about age 12, when one month to the next I became extremely fatigued, with other symptoms.
This is not depression - I can be doing something I enjoy for 15 minutes, and my thinking gets gradually muddier. I enjoy cooking.
Often I cannot successfully make a bacon omelette due to fatigue and irrationality that comes on when doing a task as small as this.

Imagine a 15 minute task tires you as much as a 36 hour one.
Not everyone is so affected, and there are likely many other related syndromes all lumped together with different etiologies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... - for example.
CONCLUSIONS:

Severe CFS/ME patients differed from controls and moderate CFS/ME patients over time and expressed significant alterations in iNKT cell phenotypes, CD8(+)T cell markers, NK cell receptors and T cells at 6 months. This highlights the importance of further assessing these potential immune biomarkers longitudinally in both moderate and severe CFS/ME patients.

I wish something rather easier to bear had happened at age 12, for example losing both legs.

Test a sample against a relatively small data set of known prior offenders, fairly good chance of an identification.

Test the same sample against the vast data sets available, and there's a much larger chance of a false positive.

Trolling through all the available DNA records is a mistake.

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

This is not science, this is anecdotal. Neuroscience has shown recently that the brain moves waste products, excess transmitters and toxic products out during sleep via the paravascular glymphatic system. Just because people can get away without lots of sleep, especially when younger, does not mean that there are not long term health consequences from doing so over extended periods of time.

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

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

This is not science, this is anecdotal. Neuroscience has shown recently that the brain moves waste products, excess transmitters and toxic products out during sleep via the paravascular glymphatic system. Just because people can get away without lots of sleep, especially when younger, does not mean that there are not long term health consequences from doing so over extended periods of time.

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

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

Prediction in the year 2000

As far as I can determine, this prediction's time is still in the future and thus it simply could neither have come true nor failed yet. From the abstract (emphasis mine):

We expect global mean temperatures in the decade 2036-46 to be 1-2.5 K warmer than in pre-industrial times under a 'business as usual' emission scenario.

Prediction in 1967

Sorry, I do not see anything predicted in this document at all. It is lengthy, so I may have missed it. Would you mind clarifying — and adding references to the particular pages, where the successful prediction is made?

Thank you.

I wonder, if you are slow, or am I so unclear... Did you not see the requirement for pairs of links? One to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation?

• Prediction in the year 2000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
• Confirmation in the year 2013: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

• Prediction in 1967: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibli...
• Confirmation in 2013: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.

To be fair, those traditional herbal medicines were not all supposed to be malaria cures specifically. In fact this particular herb was a general cure for fever.

From Artemisinin: Discovery from the Chinese Herbal Garden:
During their search, Youyou Tu and colleagues investigated more than 2,000 recipes of Chinese traditional herbs, compiling 640 recipes that might have some antimalarial activity.

Of course, traditional techniques for extracting the compound to make the medicine were still wrong though, so your friends who you are denigrating still don't have cause to celebrate. But traditional medicine is just an early version of modern medicine with just as sloppy scientific rigor as the doctors in the 60s who used to prescribe smoking to their patients. So there is no point feeling all high and mighty as our modern medicine can trace its roots back to a lot of leach-loving doctors.

Parent did NOT deserve 'Troll'. The study mentioned in TA is controversial. People are moderating with their balls not their brains, and their balls shrivel up when anyone suggests there may not be some dire emergency at Fukushima related to killer radiation. But even so,

We've seen this hoax before, why am I not surprised there are people still pushing it? The only difference with this one is how poorly written it is. Cancer rates are actually lower than expected/normal around Fukushima.

Calling it a 'hoax' is going way too far, you should calm down too. It's still early to make definitive statements about cancers, but there is certainly no 'spike'. One of the main reasons the government took the (courageous) position that the thyroid abnormalities were unlikely to be associated with the disaster was, abnormal nodules were detected 'too soon' after the disaster when screening began, and their own health professionals assured them that these conditions take years to develop and were more likely the result of some pre-existing condition. And the last in-depth study was some 10 years prior, so when Fukushima occurred there was a lack of recent baseline. A cause for concern surely but not

The same old deception. Use data from ultrsensitive tests that detect more pre-cancerous cells than what is found under normal testing, then claim that is an increase. But when these same tests are performed on control groups anywhere, they find similar increases in detection of pre-cancerous cells. A simple read of these claims show they completely lack any reasonable baseline or control group methods. Add it to the list of deceptions that keep being debunked but keep showing up.

I'm upset at Fukushima disinfo too, but what can you do about it, especially when the AP is clearly in the market for scare stories, and the usual journalistic burden of proof and balance that applies in other things is relaxed. If your own child was given ultrasound and a 'nodule' showed up, you would not be subject to a hysterical reaction. The doctor would assure you that it should be monitored, but they do form and dissolve naturally. You'd be given nutritional supplements. Yet researchers feel free to insinuate a cause when it suits them. And even if they don't, journalists feel free to insinuate on their behalf by offering side-stories that make a 'connection'. To the slashdotter who ejaculated

It's their fault for not being born in the great state of AMERIKA!

and was also modded Troll... you're not far off the mark. The United States and others have added potassium iodide (for iodine) to its table salt for some 80 years now to counter endemic Goitre. Traditionally Japan has not iodized its salt because the national diet has been heavy with seaweed, a natural source, and there were were concerns that fortified salt plus seaweed might supply an over-abundance of iodine, which is also harmful. Perhaps some Japanese children have been starting to prefer Western diets and should, as are other rural populations, consider the benefits of iodization.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn...
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

all good sources for learning about the hysterical Fukushima over reaction that pull no punches. A lot of what has passed for 'news' has been crap. Look out for closet anti-Islam liberal bias though. Linking to the Christian Science Monitor is OK but l

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/e...

http://schools.yrdsb.ca/markvi...

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

But I did know the Nazis were using the Swastika symbol. So what? I will proudly and happily use the Swastika for what it is, a Hindu symbol and a decorative motif from ancient India. I recently ran into a group Indians and their priest in the Starbucks (@ State College PA) The women were wearing white saris with ornate decorative borders. The motifs in their border? The Swastika and the Star of David alternating in a series!

Not sure how many noticed the irony!

I was going to call bullshit on this, but here's a paper which explains this mechanism. It requires strong magnetic fields that change at just the right frequencies, but those are not outside what talked about in the article.

OK, for the sake of argument, citrus is citrus. What about moving a gene from peppers into tomatoes to resist a bacterial infection? Close enough, or crime against the universe?

Telling people to "buy a decent juicer and some fresh fruit" is as bad of advice as telling them to go drink sodas.

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

Honestly based on your other posts, it's pretty clear you're a devout follower of the food religion that basically throws out all scientific thought in favor of the latest diet fads that would make any hipster blush, and I strongly advise anybody to stay away from your recommendations.

FDA:

Is HFCS less safe than other sweeteners?

FDA receives many inquiries asking about the safety of HFCS, often referring to studies about how humans metabolize fructose or fructose-containing sweeteners. These studies are based on the observation that there are some differences between how we metabolize fructose and other simple sugars.

We are not aware of any evidence, including the studies mentioned above, that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that everyone limit consumption of all added sugars, including HFCS and sucrose.

American Heart Association:

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calories allowance. For most American women, that's no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it's 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons. The AHA recommendations focus on all added sugars, without singling out any particular types such as high-fructose corn syrup.

(FYI -- that daily limit for sugar for men is approximately one 12-oz. can of soda. It's less for women. And that assumes you don't consume ANY added sugars in anything else you eat that day, which is nearly impossible if you consume any processed foods.)

Review article supported by the American Medical Association:

Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. . . . At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.

You can find plenty more things like this if you look, because there are dozens of studies that back up such a position. After decades of looking, we so far have only a handful of studies measuring significant differences with HFCS metabolism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking... but it's important to see those Princeton findings in context.

And yet, the research. Maybe high-fructose corn syrup has more differences than just the fructose/glucose levels?

Yes, let's talk about "the research." I've been following this fairly closely for a decade.

About a decade ago I got into an argument with a friend over the overconsumption of sugar. I, like you, assumed with all the bad press about HCFS (even back then) that it was terrible for you. So, I started looking for reliable, clear studies that proved it.

The problem was: THERE WEREN'T ANY. Since then, there have been a few, but given how many people are shouting about how terrible HFCS is, it seems surprisingly hard to prove it.

Let me summarize the state of current research:

(1) Pure fructose vs. glucose -- there are dozens of studies showing that pure fructose screws up metabolism in rats and humans much worse than glucose.

(2) Pure fructose vs. sucrose -- there are dozens of studies showing that pure fructose screws up metabolism in rates and human much worse than sucrose.

(3) HFCS (~50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose) vs. sucrose -- until about 2010 and that Princeton study, there were basically NO STUDIES that showed a statistically significant difference between consumption of HFCS vs. sucrose (table sugar). To the contrary, there are at least a dozen or so studies out there if you look where they tried looking for a difference and didn't really find one.

This surprised me, given what I had been told about HFCS, but it also makes sense given that HFCS is basically about 50/50 fructose/glucose, which is very close to what sucrose becomes very early in the digestive process.

The vast majority of people who are shouting "HFCS is terrible!" tend to cite the studies in categories (1) and (2). You did precisely that in your quote from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. A number of studies in the past which tried measuring pure fructose and found significant differences found that there were little to no measurable differences when they substituted HFCS for the fructose.

I'm very interested in the studies in category (3). They include your Princeton citation, as well as a more recent study out of the University of Utah. There was also a bit of attention given to recent population-based study which claimed to find a correlation between diabetes and HFCS availability in different countries. (These sorts of population studies are always notoriously difficult to do well statistically, since there are always a ridiculous number of confounding factors, but I mention it because it's one of the few such things out there.)

The problem is that these HFCS studies are fighting an uphill battle -- as I said, prior to 2010 there were studies that measured HFCS vs. sucrose and tended to find no significant differences. Which also leads to the question now about whether the Princeton and Utah studies could be an example of publication bias -- we only tend to see them because those studies show an effect which hadn't been observed previously, but perhaps those effects are due to random chance or unintentional changes in study design. (And since HFCS had been branded as bad long before any rigorous scientific evidence was available, there are probably a lot of groups looking for effects... and yet we only have 2-3 studies.)

Despite what the powerful corn lobby in the US would have you believe, corn is just not all that good for you in large amounts. And with the amount that goes into HFCS, drinking soda pop is getting corn in large amounts.

Absolutely.

To be clear: I think HFCS is terrible, and the whole corn growers industry needs to be rethought, since our agricultural subsidies for corn are distorting the economy and

You say that like you are a member of the cult of scientology.

There is a myth that all mass shooters are on anti-depressants.

(1) It's false. For example the Sandy Hook shooter had no medication in his bloodstream.
(2) The origin of the myth is a scientology front
(3) Mass-shootings are a form of suicide and anti-depressants reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
(4) Anti-psychotics cut homicide rates in patients by 93%
(5) People who are happy don't commit suicide. Given that some 20% of the adult population is taking anti-depressants it is not surprising that some mass-shooters would be on anti-depressants. It would be anomalous if they weren't.

Your specific claim is that we perform killing BETTER than we do anything else. "Anything" is a pretty broad spectrum of possibilities ;

Wait - what?

I wrote - complete with the typo: I simply saty that killing each other is an integral part of the human mind, to deny tht takes a special sort of tap-dance.

Yeah - "Saty" should have been "say".

Your idea that I said we do it "BETTER" than anything else just isn't correct. I never said that. Killing each other is simply part of being human. Probably a part of "us versus them", aggression and ability to kill others possibly making for a better chance of survival, and the qualities that might fuel that aggression, like robustness, and high testosterone levels, just aid in the process. Not a condemnation, not a endorsement. Just a statement of what to me is as much a fact as humans having a drive to reproduce, or eat, or express themselves through art.

I'm still puzzled how you can actually compare "killing" and all other activities. That is a major advance in the philosophy of knowledge - up there with Immanuel Kant, and I hadn't heard of such major advances in philosophy. Where did you publish it? How do other philosophers regard your comparison arguments?

Oh, come off it. If I have to be published to make a comment, you need to be published to respond to it. But I do have some references below.

But first, you need to not tell me what I said, and substitute something you apparently wanted me to say in order to defeat the argument you wanted me to have.

All I'm saying is that humans have a genetically based component that predisposes us to life ending violence. Whether through personal murder or tribal sponsored warfare, we've been doing it for a long long time. We are good at it, just like we are good at a lot of things.

Since there are no longer any species of species of Homo to compare humanity with - perhaps in itself telling - we have to look elsewhere.

A comparison might be made between our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/... for an entry level text.

The two species are very similar physically, but have a number of behavioral differences. The most striking difference is that Pan paniscus, the bonobo, is a very peaceable creature, while troglodytes is quite violent, including fratricide.

http://www.latimes.com/science...

There's a paywalled versions of that article - if you have to have the actual article, not articles based on them, ya gotta shell out some green.

Here's one that isn't paywalled. Very good article , with some intriguing genetic relationships between the behaviors of the two species assessed through differences in neurological systems.

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

Regardless, our closest living relatives, with Toglodytes being the very closest, show distinctive behavioral differences, with one being very violent, especially towards outsiders - yet not exclusively, and the other species settling conflicts, often via sexual activity. Which most closely resembles humanity?

I say human violence is an integral part of human heritage via our genes, just as with Pan Troglodytes.

You might differ, but now you need to show me the research saying we are not inherently violent.