Slashdot Mirror

Treating them like a child is an extremely recent cultural development due to the increased length of education typically required to get a job rather than any actual biological or physiological reason.

There absolutely are biological and physiological reasons - the frontal lobes of the brain (the bits that play a role in rational decision making) are not fully developed until well into the 20s. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Someone of the age of 16 is not fully developed.

By what criterion? In history, countries had regents of that age - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - and quite obviously a lot of humans have sex at that age, also in current time - see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

They know exactly when and where it happened because it is burned in their brains.

Except the scientific study of trauma suggests that this isn't how trauma memory works:
you can start here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Now a naive reading of this particular article might be that the alleged trauma victim here is making things up, but the reference in the article to 'memory amplification' of trauma, relies of course, on there being a trauma to begin with!

So while I'm certain you do know a statistically significant number of rape victims, this 'burned in their brains' is not how time operates on memory of trauma.

Reduced radiation emissions from 5G antennas compared to 4G antennas would presumably further reduce any health effects of this technology.

Enjoy your greatly increased exposure to "reduced radiation emissions" that you'll be getting from small-cell 5G placed everywhere.

Of course, any worries about microwave and millimeter wave emissions causing harm to anyone or anything are total bullshit.

Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation

2.45GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning and Spatial Memory via Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Induced p53-Dependent/Independent Hippocampal Apoptosis: Molecular Basis and Underlying Mechanism.

Ok.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I am not supporting any position other than your google skills seem to be lacking. I just got back from MWC.

Posted without further comment:

Effects of microwave radiation on brain energy metabolism and related mechanisms

Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons.

Relationship between cognition function and hippocampus structure after long-term microwave exposure.

Neural Cell Apoptosis Induced by Microwave Exposure Through Mitochondria-dependent Caspase-3 Pathway

I am not supporting any position other than your google skills seem to be lacking. I just got back from MWC.

Posted without further comment:

Effects of microwave radiation on brain energy metabolism and related mechanisms

Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons.

Relationship between cognition function and hippocampus structure after long-term microwave exposure.

Neural Cell Apoptosis Induced by Microwave Exposure Through Mitochondria-dependent Caspase-3 Pathway

I am not supporting any position other than your google skills seem to be lacking. I just got back from MWC.

Posted without further comment:

Effects of microwave radiation on brain energy metabolism and related mechanisms

Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons.

Relationship between cognition function and hippocampus structure after long-term microwave exposure.

Neural Cell Apoptosis Induced by Microwave Exposure Through Mitochondria-dependent Caspase-3 Pathway

I am not supporting any position other than your google skills seem to be lacking. I just got back from MWC.

Posted without further comment:

Effects of microwave radiation on brain energy metabolism and related mechanisms

Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons.

Relationship between cognition function and hippocampus structure after long-term microwave exposure.

Neural Cell Apoptosis Induced by Microwave Exposure Through Mitochondria-dependent Caspase-3 Pathway

Speaking as someone who is sitting about 20 metres away from one of the major groups in this project, I invite you to look up the Sanger Institute and read our history. Remember the Human Genome Project? The race between a commercial effort to sequence and patent the Human genome and the academic effort to release it publicly? We were the ones doing the public release, and that data promised to be far more valuable to pharma than these animal genomes. So no I would not take that bet. Besides we have already released the first 15 and you can download them yourself (we also have works in progress available to download for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...).

...discriminatory to those with anxiety...

If this accomodation is made, it will necessarily discriminate against those who do not have anxiety unless they don't have to speak in front of class either.

I get anxiety taking tests. Should I not have to take tests? Oh wait, that's a thing.

Is there any evidence that nicotine is addictive?

Are you special?

In case you were asking legitimately the "Is there any evidence the sky looks blue" kind of question, then I have this link here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Let me also know if you think the world is flat.

There seem to be at least sixty companies manufacturing the stuff.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/nitrofurantoin#section=Drug-Labels-for-Ingredients
What's so special about Nostrum's formulation that merits noncompetitive pricing?

This article provides some links to places suggested to donate to, to ease the pain of mental illness. I would just like to share a short story.


I attended a public NAMI support group a while ago. Part of the group were these handouts that would explain various mental illnesses. Eventually one of the hand-outs attempted to explain shizophrenia. I shit you not; in this hand out, schizophrenia was described as a physical attack on the brain. They showed pictures of, 'healthy brains', and then of, 'schizophrenic' brains. The schizophrenic brains were smaller. This literal shrinkage of the brain was described as a symptom of schizophrenia's physical effects on the brain.


I remember upon reading this, I thought to myself, "bulllllll... shit". I thought to myself, the brains of these schizophrenics aren't shrinking because of the disease, they are shrinking because of the anti-psychotics they are being, "medicated with".


Fast forward about 5 years later, and I came across a study proving to at least some degree my, hunch, at this, "NAMI", meeting. Schizophrenia is not a disease that manifests itself physically by literally shrinking the brain (brain atrophy); it is a description of an observation on human behavior and the medication often prescribed to treat it, is really nothing more than a tranquilizer that after long enough repeated use causes brain atrophy. It's my belief that because these, 'anti-psychotics', essentially stop a lot of synaptic firing, that some neurons, after being drugged up for so long, just stop functioning and die off, or perhaps, that if prescribed at young enough ages, stops later adult brain development.


Anyway, theorizing aside. My point is that NAMI was (and probably still is along with many NPs and Psychiatrists) in the dark at least on this subject, and probably is on many others. I can not describe the level of frustration I felt being taught that schizophrenia is shrinking the brains of it's sufferers, when in fact, it is the, 'medication', they are being given that is doing the physical damage.


So my real point is that if you want to donate money to causes aimed at helping to alleviate suffering from mental-illness, i would not suggest sending money to NAMI. Do I think NAMI is evil? No. I think they are grossly ignorant and misguided along with many people in the mental health system from Psychiatrists all the way down to patients. I think people begin to identify more with their diagnosis, than who they actually are as a person, as a personality. And likewise can be objectified as a described set of behavioral patterns, rather than a person. I think the mental-health system claims to want help these people by having others see them, 'differently'. From one perspective, this is an attempt at trying to breed compassion from those who would other wise most likely just be viewed as, 'difficult people'. The problem is, most people in the mental health system also view people as, 'difficult'. To people inside and outside the mental health system you become some one who is, having a manic episode, depressed, anxious, delusional, hullucinatory, etc.. etc..


I'm not preaching full blow anti-psychiatry here, so much as I'm trying to say that the mental health field, as i've often seen it and experienced it is, very often much like one of those cartoons where one character is digging a hole and throwing the dirt in back of him, while some one behind him is digging their own hole and throwing their dirt over their back. Each person is sort of stuck, never getting anywhere, because they keep filling up each other's hole.


Everybody becomes a fucking doctor and normal human interaction becomes, instead, this sociopathic behavioral observer. There are people in the field, who are sort of hip to the jive, and are trying to help; but, it's sort of like if you are working for a logging company, trying to plant a few trees as you cut down large oaks.

DK includes both sides of the spectrum.

See the graph here and the quotes below it.

It's one of those things that people had always suspected based on their intuition, but was not formally studied until recently.

The original study is here.

You are assuming that helmets are safer on bicycles AND on scooters.

You DO realize that helmets are NOT any more safe on bicycles, right?
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets...

TEDx Copenhagen - Mikael Colville-Andersen - Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you were actually concerned about safety you would lobby crash helmets for motorists instead of just cyclists or motorcyclists. About 38,000 motorists die on U.S. roads every year compared to fewer than 700 cyclists.

But since we are talking about scooters here, fatalities are usually clumped in with Motorcycles. In 2014 there were 4,295 deaths.

Florida between 2002 and 2008 had a total of 5,660 moped crashes. The average speed was 25 mph in a 35 mph zone.

The use of personal protective equipment did not significantly impact crash outcomes. ...

Previous studies show that nonhelmeted riders have an increased risk of serious injury and poorer hospital outcomes.4, 8, 20 Since over 80% of drivers did not use helmets, this study was likely underpowered to find any significance.

Can't you get the same experience by running some nature scenes on a 39" monitor?

No. You get some benefit that is measurable but not as significant. They've done studies that simply having x amount of trees in your neighborhood (controlling for wealth etc.) lowers cancer very risk significantly. Here's one study with a bunch of interesting references summary: When one ponders humans existing less than 0.01% of the species’ history in modern surroundings and the other 99.99% of the time living in nature, it is no wonder some humans yearn and are drawn back to where human physiological/psychological functions began and were naturally supported. The Biophilia Hypothesis [8] supports SY and NT because it is steeped in the idea humans have an inner biological attraction to nature and its importance in our human development...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

What is that study supposed to prove? They asked people who chose homeopathic care after a traditional medical intervention if they think homeopathy helps. It's not a study, it's a questionnaire. They don't even compare it to regular post-intervention care. It's like asking people who visit a chiropractor if they think going to the chiropractor helps. I'm somewhat shocked 30% said the homeopathic care didn't help in a study set up this way.

Why is that all dystopias and apocalypses are always predicted to happen in the lifetime of people hearing the prediction? You never hear about an apocalypse that will happen a few 1000 years from now even though we can do more to avert it.

Humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. How unlucky would we have to witness the last of us?

Statistically Significant results are three times more likely to be published than papers with null results.

By framing the hypothesis to align with your agenda, you can get anything to be science. And from that point onward scientific legitimacy is equivalent to political legitimacy, because all that matters is who gets to gather enough legitimacy by political means to frame the hypothesis.

It would take political clout to grant money to only one type of hypothesis but it can be done, if you are a rich enough donor in grant-making NGOs or a rich lobbyist in government agencies.

The great thing about this technique is that you do not have to ask the scientists to meddle with p-values and create data mining bias because that is prone to whistleblowing. This method is also resistant to meta-analyses and reviews.

There have been cases in science where 40,000 papers by experts had to be considered questionable. It is possible for a large number of experts to be wrong.

Considering our present knowledge of the human body, healing in general is often the result of "magic". We may observe that something happened but do not know why that happened. If that's not magic, I don't know what is.

And regarding the original topic,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

"CONCLUSIONS:
Homeopathic intervention offered positive health changes to a substantial proportion of a large cohort of patients with a wide range of chronic diseases. Additional observational research, including studies using different designs, is necessary for further research development in homeopathy."

Again you do not observe the chemical effect of sugar pills in isolation. The "system" here is the patient with his own motivations and concerns and the homeopath to talks to him and gives him herbal remedies and other advice.

Yes, but have you thought about the risks of L.E.D. lights?

Here are a few papers:

1) Light-induced retinal damage using different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

2) White Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Domestic Lighting Levels and Retinal Injury in a Rat Model [Environmental Health Perspectives] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I hear that this new "fire" thing is dangerous. Have there been any studies on the dangers on having a personal fire inside caves?

Yes, but have you thought about the risks of L.E.D. lights?

Here are a few papers:

1) Light-induced retinal damage using different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

2) White Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Domestic Lighting Levels and Retinal Injury in a Rat Model [Environmental Health Perspectives]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema.

That's not what the research indicates.

Smoking pot is not as safe as you think.

Depends on how "safe you think" it is doesn't it? Notice there are no numbers in the item, indications of prevalence, to allow one to assess the putative risks. Although the American Lung Association is a fine organization genuinely devoted to public health, and focused on one subject, minimizing the prevalence of lung injury, they are - by the same token - not interested in giving a balanced presentation of what is known about risks.

Here is the abstract from the current gold-standard study of this subject:

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

This is a balanced assessment. Yes, you will see the same concerns mentioned by the ALA -- but not the counterbalancing factor (for example) that there are no significant abnormalities in lung function which is kind of an important fact here.

Of course vaping cannabis is very popular now, so actual smoking of the material is surely on a steep decline.

One factor that explains why the numerous studies that have been done have failed to find any increase in lung cancer with cannabis use (aside from the fact that cannabis smokers consume far less material than tobacco smokers) is that nicotine is a cancer promoter, while THC suppresses cancer! You won't ever find that mentioned on an ALA page.

Smoking pot is not as safe as you think.

Depends on how "safe you think" it is doesn't it? Notice there are no numbers in the item, indications of prevalence, to allow one to assess the putative risks. Although the American Lung Association is a fine organization genuinely devoted to public health, and focused on one subject, minimizing the prevalence of lung injury, they are - by the same token - not interested in giving a balanced presentation of what is known about risks.

Here is the abstract from the current gold-standard study of this subject:

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

This is a balanced assessment. Yes, you will see the same concerns mentioned by the ALA -- but not the counterbalancing factor (for example) that there are no significant abnormalities in lung function which is kind of an important fact here.

Of course vaping cannabis is very popular now, so actual smoking of the material is surely on a steep decline.

One factor that explains why the numerous studies that have been done have failed to find any increase in lung cancer with cannabis use (aside from the fact that cannabis smokers consume far less material than tobacco smokers) is that nicotine is a cancer promoter, while THC suppresses cancer! You won't ever find that mentioned on an ALA page.

sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry

Just a few of those doing those 'alcohol industry backed' studies:

The School of Public Health at Harvard University
Catholic University of Campobasso
Kew-Kim Chew, epidemiologist, University of West Australia
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Edward J. Neafsey, Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago
University of East Anglia

There are more. It looks like, according to you, the six universites above are in the pocket of the alcohol industry. Your claim, now go about backing it up.

This metastudy has all the resources you might need to conclude that science has in fact been done.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

"Except, of course, that isn't the case with Cuba. Nobody travels to Cuba to use the great healthcare. Because it isn't great."

You're correct, for a third world nation it's fucking amazing.

Context matters my friend.

ORLY?

State of malnutrition in Cuban hospitals.

RESULTS:

The frequency of undernutrition in Cuban hospitals was 41.2% (95% confidence interval = 38.9 to 43.4), and 11.1% of patients were considered severely undernourished. Statistically significant (P < 0.05) univariate relations were identified between undernutrition and patient's age and sex. Nutritional status was a dependent of the patient's instruction level (P < 0.05). Patients' nutritional status was statistically associated with the presence of cancer and infection. Undernutrition was highly prevalent among cancer patients, no matter the stage of medical or surgical treatment. Undernutrition became extremely frequent after surgical treatment in non-cancer patients. High nutritional risks hospital services/specialties were identified: geriatrics (56.3%), critical care (54.8%), nephrology (54.3%), internal medicine (48.6%), gastroenterology (46.5%), and cardiovascular surgery (44.8%). Malnutrition rates increased progressively with prolonged length of stay.

What's fucking amazing is either your gullibility or low standards for leftist hellholes. Which one is it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... See the "agreeableness" and "neuroticism" section.

For prevention, regular water-only fasting is supposed to help:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Yes, the military high explosives do leave residues at a very low level. Tests of this (where they explode munitions in piles of snow) show that "on average, 99.997% or more of the RDX and TNT was consumed" (used Sci-Hub to read). So a few grams of a mildly toxic material that breaks down fairly quickly in low concentrations. UXOs would simply be disarmed and removed since these are precision bombing operations though know exactly where they are.

The fire retardant that is used in fire bombing is Phos-Chek. Which consists of "include ammonium polyphosphate, diammonium phosphate, diammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, attapulgus clay, guar gum (or a derivative of guar gum), and trade secret performance additives". The Phos-Chek is dyed red in part with iron oxide. the ammonium phosphate fertilizers are used in ABC fire extinguishers as well.

And in this report we read: "Fire suppression chemicals have minor toxicological or ecological effects and, as a result, do not generally harm terrestrial ecosystems. Major impacts, suppression chemicals have on the environment, may be through the adverse effects on water quality, and subsequently to aquatic ecosystems. Retardants may encourage eutrophication and, in some cases, contribute to fish kill when applied on watersheds, or if accidentally applied directly to water bodies."

About what you'd expect from spreading fertilizer.

I doubt soybean oil in any variety is all that healthy compared to current alternatives. Soybean oil is just a really cheap waste product leftover from making cheap livestock feed.

The winged bean and it's use in the food production revolution might just make the downfall all that much worse when it happens. People who are all concerned about hypothetical effects of GMO foods don't have much to say about soy's general lack of nutrition, or it's phytoestrogen contents. Men should be careful about their consumption of foods like Soy and peas. https://draxe.com/phytoestroge...

Consumption of Soy products is proven to lower testosterone levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Low testosterone affects libido, fertility and erectile function: https://lomalindafertility.com...

These are not kook sites, being the National Institute of Health and a real university. Now let's all have a soy and sweet pea smoothie. Very very healthy!

Let's look at the facts:
1. In America, suicides are twice as common as homicides.
2. Only 10% of people that survive a suicide attempt go on to successfully kill themselves in later attempts.
3. Women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are more likely to succeed (in America, 3 dead men for every woman). China is the only country in the world where the female suicide death rate exceeds the male rate.
3. Guns are not the most common method for attempting suicide. But in America they are the most common method of successful suicides. Drug overdose is the most common method, but is only successful 3% of the time. Gun suicides are successful 85% of the time.
4. Gun owning households have significantly higher suicide rates.
5. Gun suicides, in particular, tend to be "on impulse" rather than planned.
6. The TYPE of gun matters. Handguns are used in suicides much more often than either rifles or shotguns.

It is unlikely that people using guns to kill themselves would have done so successfully with a different method, since other methods require more planning and preparation, and have much higher failure rates.

If you choose to keep a gun in your home, you should choose a rifle or shotgun (I own one of each), not a handgun. Keep it locked.

Guns and suicide
Guns, suicide, and public policy
List of countries by suicide rate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

That's from 2006, before I started designing and selling horticultural LED lighting, from the British Journal of Ophthalmology.

I never hear about the diversity problem in nursing or preschool school teachers where men are effectively absent from the workforce, or how women want diversity in construction jobs or automotive repair.

Only because you don't listen.

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.womeninconstructio...

http://womeninautomotive.com/

etc.

Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy—all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people.

(abstract from Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science)

LNT encourages the hysteria surrounding nuclear, and transforms harmless levels of radiation exposure into real deaths. The tragedy at Fukushima was not the nuclear accident, but the misinformed response: a forced evacuation which claimed ~1600 lives, the monumental cost of an absurdly excessive cleanup, and the entire nation regressing to imported fossil energy. Oh, and the tsunami itself, which was all but ignored while the media focused on fearmongering and conflating the unrelated refinery explosions with the damaged reactors.

See X-LNT for a more accessible background on low dose radiation. Set aside your ideologies and inform yourself; it may save your life someday.

Now, you raise a different question, namely whether a rapid rise in global average temperatures by 4-5C would lead to mass extinctions. There have been many such temperature increases in the past, and they were not usually associated with mass extinctions. Mass extinctions are extremely rare and seem to require multiple factors to coincide.

We ARE currently living in the middle of a mass extinction event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

We have limited information about the cause of past extinction events, but we've got some good evidence that climate change played a major role in some of them. When the ocean heats up and stores more CO2, it gets more acidic, and shells get weaker for many sea creatures. That can lead to extinctions at the bottom of the food chain, and those can quickly propagate through the rest of the ecosystem. In the case of the Permian extinction, 96% of all species went extinct. And we've got some good evidence to suggest that climate change was a major contributor to that event.

Summary: http://www.iflscience.com/envi...
Some real science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Do you want some proof? I'll just copy a previous post I made and you can verify it yourself.

2015-2017 are the hottest years on record on Earth. Citation: https://public.wmo.int/en/medi... and multiple countries and weather stations confirmed this

2018 is looking to be #4, but we can't actually say that without actually going through the whole year obviously; but last April was the third warmest on record: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...

The higher temperatures are affecting all crops, but their effects are most pronounced under Middle East and African Desert countries currently, but their effects should be closely examined to find ways to stop them in general. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

.. and it's not very impressive. This article says: ...the current status of the literature is that there is no evidence to support the use of Learning Styles in this way [matching instruction style to student learning style improves learning]. There are lots of links in the article to the underlying studies.

This is not exactly the same thing as screen-based vs. living-world-based learning, but it does support the idea that statements like "Children learn best when their bodies are engaged in the living world" without supporting studies are not helpful.

Wikipedia
=======

Variations of LLLT have gone by a variety of alternate names including low-power laser therapy (LPLT), soft laser therapy, low-intensity laser therapy, low-energy laser therapy, cold laser therapy, bio-stimulation laser therapy, photobiomodulation, photo-biotherapy, therapeutic laser, and monochromatic infrared light energy (MIRE) therapy.

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a form of alternative medicine that applies low-level (low-power) lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to the surface of or in orifices of the body. Whereas high-power lasers are used in laser medicine to cut or destroy tissue, it is claimed that application of low-power lasers relieves pain or stimulates and enhances cell function.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT)

Low-level laser therapy versus sham treatment

One study [64] with a low risk of bias, compared low-level laser therapy treatment with sham laser therapy treatment in elderly patients over 60 years. The study provided low quality evidence that LLLT was more effective in pain relief at intermediate follow-up (44.7%) compared with sham LLLT (15.2%).

Low-level laser therapy + exercise versus sham LLLT + exercise

Results on pain and disability at post-treatment were reported by one study [62] and no difference was found between the intervention groups on both outcome measures.

Two studies [62, 63] reported on pain intensity and disability at short-term (3 months) follow-up. The pooled analysis of these two small trials (n = 61) showed a significant difference in pain relief (WMD 13.57 [95%CI 26.67; 0.47]). No difference was found on disability between those who received LLLT plus exercise and those who received sham LLLT + exercise (WMD 5.42 [95%CI 23.55; 12.71].

Very low quality evidence was provided (serious limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision) for the effectiveness of LLLT + exercise compared to sham LLLT + exercise on pain intensity at short-term follow-up, but not for disability.

Low-Level laser therapy versus exercise

One study [27] compared the effectiveness of LLLT with exercise therapy post-treatment. No statistically significant difference was found between both therapy groups on pain level and disability.

This looks exactly like quackery. You perhaps tried it and subsequently psychologically bought into it. That is also typical with these alternative stuff.

If I'm understanding the abstract correctly, this study showed that three seconds of hot steam was 99.95% effective at killing biofilm. "Compared with chemical disinfection, steam treatment for <1 second a similar level of biofilm disinfection as provided by incubation with 10-ppm sodium hypochlorite (bleach) for 10-20 minutes of contact time."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22418602/

The above study tested a particular brand of commercial steam vapor cleaner ("Ladybug") with a feature called "TANCS". I'd be interested to know how well other brands of steam cleaners would work. Is "TANCS" key to this or was it simply the high-temperature steam?

From the Ladybug web site here's an article that discusses the results of another study, also showing that the Ladybug is effective:

https://www.ladybugsteamvapor.com/study-validates-ladybug-dry-steam-vapor/

I got some numbers for you to chew on.

2015-2017 are the hottest years on record on Earth. Citation: https://public.wmo.int/en/medi...

2018 is looking to be #4, but we can't actually say that without actually going through the whole year obviously; but last April was the third warmest on record: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...

The higher temperatures are affecting all crops, but their effects are most pronounced under Middle East and African Desert countries currently, but their effects should be closely examined to find ways to stop them in general. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. 30 minutes at 375 (celcius) is required to confidently kill MRSA

I always welcome corrections; I'd rather learn the truth than continue to believe something mistaken. However, I just did a Google search and I have not found a reference to support the above numbers.

Could you please provide a link documenting your numbers?

Here's an article about a test using a commercial steam vapor cleaner. I'm having trouble understanding it... the conclusion is that a steam vapor cleaner is a practical way to kill MRSA and other bacteria, but reading the text it seems to suggest that it took over 7 minutes, and I don't think anyone applies a steam cleaner to the same spot for over 7 minutes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600216/

This BBC article says that 150 to 180 degree C steam vapor can kill MRSA in two seconds. I think that is practical with a real steam vapor cleaning machine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6919473.stm

And here are some claims from companies that want to sell you steam vapor cleaners.

Ladybug company cites a study

Vapamore company cites a study

An article that reads like an advertisement for Ladybug brand cleaners with "TANCS".

Quote: "...even strong chemical disinfectants such as bleach when allowed 20 minutes of dwell time did not achieve the same degree of kill that the TANCS(R)-equipped unit accomplished in 3 seconds."

This company claims two of their machines are "certified" to kill MRSA (no reference to support the claim).

Sure. In general phone use and especially internet smart phone use is detrimental for children. Some examples (easy to find if you do actually look at health journals) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... and https://www.sciencedirect.com/... And especially so for students in class. https://www.tandfonline.com/do... If you don't have access just read all of the abstract, since it is the summary. For more easy to find papers check the links on the hosting pages and especially in the references provided in these papers.

Some went on to have amazing cardiometabolic damage and lower cognitive function:

"Ramen noodles are particularly unhealthy because they contain a food additive called Tertiary-butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ), a preservative that is a petroleum industry byproduct. They're also incredibly high in sodium, calories and saturated fat."

"according to a new study by Baylor University researchers. If you eat a lot of ramen noodles, your risk of metabolic changes linked to heart disease, diabetes and stroke rise considerably."

A long term pessimistic approach:

Practice terraforming Mars and Venus. It's a good way to gain experience that might help in fixing the mess we have here on Earth.

Direct manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counter rising CO2 and global warming may seem absurdly expensive, but the migration of approximately 40% of humans who live in coastal areas might be far more expensive.

The current European Migrant Crisis may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Interesting information, but did you read the linked article? The project's ultimate goal is simulating all of the cells, and the post you replied to claims they are 30% of the way there.

BTW, C. Elegans only has 50 glial cells.

Ritalin is not an amphetamine damm you people are pharmaco-ignorant

Methylphenidate is close enough that it appears to work very much like dextroamphetamine. It is considered to be in the amphetamine family, typically, and may be* subject to the same laws as amphetamines--right down to the same legal issues if you try to take any with you when crossing the border, even if you obtained it perfectly legally and have the medical documentation to prove it.

* I am not a lawyer, nor employed in any field that requires I know the logistics of obtaining controlled substances or taking them across international borders beyond those very specific cases I have had to know. Do your own research before you go--especially since laws can change--and do not expect it to be necessarily easily found, and the ease of access can and does vary between countries. That said, Ritalin is under the same rules as other drugs considered amphetamines in all countries I've had reason to know the details of; if you cannot function without Ritalin or Adderall, don't visit Japan.

Ritalin is not an amphetamine damm you people are pharmaco-ignorant

Methylphenidate is close enough that it appears to work very much like dextroamphetamine. It is considered to be in the amphetamine family, typically, and may be* subject to the same laws as amphetamines--right down to the same legal issues if you try to take any with you when crossing the border, even if you obtained it perfectly legally and have the medical documentation to prove it.

* I am not a lawyer, nor employed in any field that requires I know the logistics of obtaining controlled substances or taking them across international borders beyond those very specific cases I have had to know. Do your own research before you go--especially since laws can change--and do not expect it to be necessarily easily found, and the ease of access can and does vary between countries. That said, Ritalin is under the same rules as other drugs considered amphetamines in all countries I've had reason to know the details of; if you cannot function without Ritalin or Adderall, don't visit Japan.