Slashdot Mirror

Treatment of white phosphorus and other chemical burn injuries at one burn center over a 51-year period. Fail.

If you're going to try to claim that White Phosphorous (AKA yellow phosphorous) doesn't burn by thermal action, you are fighting a losing battle.

I've highlighted the parts below that refer to heat producing chemical reactions (burning).

A review of chemical burns

Phosphorous is a waxy and translucent solid that undergoes spontaneous ignition on contact with air. Burns result from contact with either the solid or liquid form.

Spontaneous ignition results in rapid oxidation forming phosphorus pentoxide. This then combines with water to form phosphoric acid www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm).

When phosphorus comes into contact with skin the resultant burn causes a painful, necrotic, yellow wound with a garlic-like odour. Particles of phosphorus embedded in the skin continue to
burn as part of an exothermic reaction until the products are removed.

Exothermic reaction

An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat.

Q&A: White phosphorus injuries

In its solid form, white phosphorus burns on contact with oxygen and can reach temperatures of 800C.

Your soy burger would be a cinder rather quickly at 800C, wouldn't it? What do you think happens to skin?

A youtube video helpful to understanding: Elementary Productions: White Phosphorus . Pay special attention starting at 1:38.

WP is used in weapons because it spontaneously ignites in air and burns very hot while producing large amounts of smoke.

The writer in the Guardian either doesn't know what he is talking about, or is lying for political purposes.

You seem to think you are fighting me, but you're not. You are fighting chemistry and a treaty with specific meanings. The fact that you and the Guardian don't like what is, doesn't change it.

Treatment of white phosphorus and other chemical burn injuries at one burn center over a 51-year period. Fail.

Sorry if I offended you somehow or made my post seem redundant, that was never my intention /: I was trying to add to the discussion by saying that I think the overeating and lack of physical activity is more fair to see as the primary causes of type 2 diabetes rather than genetics, and that by blaming the genes we're ignoring the point that our bodies might not be build for our current way of life (: I would rather say that modern life has revealed that some people are not as well adapted as others to that lifestyle.

I think you have it for life if you have aquired it, but for type 2 diabetes, loosing weight (and exercising) is the primary treatment, and according to the widely used Norwegian Electronic Doctor's Manual (NEL) almost all cases can be prevented by preventing obesity (: They reference an article here, amongst others, for this claim. The goals of therapy is stated to be to reduce the condition to a non-symptomatic one if possible, and this is what weight loss and exercise seems to achieve (but medicines might also help, and acute cases needs medical intervention).

Regarding weight loss as treatment, I'm not sure if this resource is available for free everywhere, but it's also clearly stated here and here. Wikipedia also references an article on this.

That's of course not to mention all those other things that a healthy diet and working out does for your body. Seems like an attractive package for just about everyone (:

FYI:

+ http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pancreaticislet/

Not problem-free, but some successor or spin-off might be, someday, if not now.

Hearing recovers just fine, given time. The ear is much better at healing than had been thought at one time.

This is a bold claim, and I would like a citation to back it up, please.

I will counter with my own bold claim: if you listen to noise that is energetic enough to rip hair cells, you permanently lose the hearing from those hair cells. It won't come back.

Here's a citation. This citation talks about the hope of overcoming the above, someday. Mouse hair cells were damaged, and some hair cells sort of partially regrew but the hearing never came back. They hope to find a way to encourage this process to restore some hearing, but that is a hope and not present reality.

http://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=94

Wikipedia confirms it: in mammals, destroyed inner hair cells structures do not regenerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereocilia_(inner_ear)#Destruction_of_stereocilia

For the sake of your hearing, don't expose yourself to any sounds with sufficient energy to tear your hair cells. Maybe in 20 years doctors will have a way to fix this. Why risk it?

I read a posting here on Slashdot. A guy said he used to be able to hear very high-pitched sounds that other people couldn't hear; he must have been hearing over 20 kHz or so. He went to a Motorhead performance and was deaf for two days. His hearing came back but he had lost his unusual ability to hear high frequencies. Reading this story, I was sad.

When I am at a loud music performance or in a loud movie, I stuff some tissue paper in my ears. Not enough that I can't hear; just enough that it isn't deafening.

steveha

I do not believe in a god, but I don't believe in organ donation either. I don't generally see a high quality of life for the recipients. In most cases it's just prolonging the agony. If the patients had more legs and the doctor had DVM after his name, this would have been called "inhumane".

Wrong. Recipients of kidney transplants have a high quality of life. As an anecdotal example, my son received a renal transplant 20 years ago and is sill going strong. For something non-anecdotal, see this also.

Contrary to what you see here , implying california is without cause with wanting this label, here is an in vivo study on the effect of the aforementionned substance :
PUBMED article on rat study

Now I am not sure whether the panic is granted due to the amount spoken of which are order of magnitude greater than what we take in food, but caution is warranted.

Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.

So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.

It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]

But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.

But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.

Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:

• also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
• from the National Cancer Institute
• A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
• Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study

Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."

And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.

Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.

You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.

Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.

So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.

It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]

But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.

But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.

Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:

• also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
• from the National Cancer Institute
• A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
• Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study

Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."

And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.

Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.

You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.

Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.

So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.

It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]

But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.

But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.

Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:

• also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
• from the National Cancer Institute
• A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
• Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study

Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."

And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.

Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.

You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.

Probability is not directly proportional to dose. With dose response curves (increasing the concentrations of a chemical), the old dogma is that you can treat with a really high dose where it is easy to see a response (e.g., tumor formation), and then you can extrapolate using those high dose points and make basically a straight line to determine what low dose is "safe". Somewhat recent work has brought to light a concept known as hormesis, which essentially means that low doses can actually have opposite effects than high doses (e.g., an anti-cancer drug that kills cells at high doses can actually increase growth rates at low doses). It is speculated that this might occur due to moderate stimulation of biological stress responses, which can be beneficial. I'd note that scientists have seen hormesis for a while, but it was shied away from to some degree because of the taint caused by the pseudoscience of homeopathy. While hormesis does not necessarily apply to every chemical and response measured, it at least challenges the commonly accepted notion that what you do with the 1000 times concentrated dose is extrapolatable to the low dose.

Bad news, roasted coffee samples had 0.307 to 1.241 mg/kg of 4-MI

That article is alarmist and misleading.
A) Coca-coal doesn't 'add it'. It is created when caramel is made. BTW, Coca-cola doesn't make caramel, they buy it from suppliers.
B) a serving has .4ppm... Which is about what you would get from any browning process.

FDA say 250ppm is where the issue might begin. However, the studies regarding 4-MI see an effect in rats over 1250 ppm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed

And anyone who had a parody of the item they are allegedly looking into cannot be trusted. Clearly they are biased.

And why, exactly, makes you think the CSPI are the good guys? Because everything I read from them is always misleading, it is always biased, and it is always full of logical fallacy's. They are either following an agenda that falls under naturalist fallacies, or they are just incompetent.

The 4-MI levels in soda aren't even worth noting, but hey6 they can't get funding by being honest and reasonable.
Fuck. Them.

Which is in NO WAY an endorsement of ABA.

I mean, look at this:
"But the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population."
False. There is no evidence of that at all. Unless there are people drinking 100's of cans of soda everyday for weeks on end.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed

note the PPM 1250 and 5000

from http://www.itwire.com/science-news/health/53314-coke-and-pepsi-new-formulas-have-less-cancer-causing-stuff?start=1

, “the FDA’s limit for 4-MEI in caramel coloring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm,
So to even begin to enter the risk are, you would need to drink 1000 cans.

And they don't 'add it' tit comes naturally form the cooking of the caramel.

Just so people know, you get it in pretty much anything the browns.

As always, it's the dose that makes the poison;.

I'm not the GP, but as far as linkage between genes and behavior, here ya go. As for epigenetics, there are links to schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and some other neurodegenerative diseases. I'm puzzled though why you disparage links between DNA and behavior while simultaneously touting the links between DNA methylation and behavior. If genes don't influence behavior then their methylation state shouldn't either.

Yes it has. Jesus Christ the tobaccos campaign is still seeding its way through culture even though they have stopped trying to hide that particular truth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383660 - Not LC, but still killing people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217548

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21925188

and so on.

Yes it has. Jesus Christ the tobaccos campaign is still seeding its way through culture even though they have stopped trying to hide that particular truth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383660 - Not LC, but still killing people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217548

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21925188

and so on.

Yes it has. Jesus Christ the tobaccos campaign is still seeding its way through culture even though they have stopped trying to hide that particular truth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383660 - Not LC, but still killing people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217548

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21925188

and so on.

Similarly crappy upsampling drivers for example those found in old creative audigy cards degrade the signal, which could be a source of confusion. Has anyone also ever considered that 60 people isn't enough to confirm this; perhaps some people can detect higher freqencies than others, just like some people see TVs flickering at 60hz and others don't. The paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2332838 talks about neurons with base frequences up to 75khz, a fair bit above 24 khz that is represented by 48 khz sampling rates.

The "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, alzheimers), are all variants of chronically elevated insulin levels, which, fun fact, is caused by excess carbohydrate consumption.

Not quite. I'll give you one out of five (diabetes -- and that's only Type II. Type I is entirely autoimmune and is not caused by insulin levels, diet, etc.). As for the rest...

• Heart disease? Limited hardening of the arteries can occur due to high blood glucose levels, but this manifests in the extremities, not the heart. More important is the progressive age-related thickening, combined with the buildup of the cholesterol plaques which cause heart disease. Note that the American Heart Association states that low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets such as the Atkins diet actually increase the risk of heart disease.
• Cancer? So many different causes are known, from viral to radiation-related chromosomal damage to genetics to potential telomere issues... Insulin? It seems odd that our body would produce a carcinogen. I've never heard of this before, got any references?
• Obesity? Calories are calories, and they make you gain weight. It is certainly cheaper to eat a high-carbohydrate diet than it is to eat a high-fat/high-protein diet, but the diet is a cause of high insulin levels, not an effect of them.
• Alzheimer's? Where did you get this one? Alzheimer's is caused by the brain failing to properly cut and fold its own proteins, creating plaques that travel throughout the brain and destroy neurons. In fact, research shows that Alzheimer's patients have reduced levels of insulin in the cerebrospinal fluid. There has been quite a bit of research on this horrible disease posted to Slashdot recently,

Not arguing either way, but how how about using exercise to treat depression? - link here

It works (see here) but is viewed as an "alternative therapy".

If I was to walk into a doctor, get told "you have clinical depression", and the medicine was "go out for a bike or run every day" I would personally be quite happy - but it would be very unconventional given how many people I know on antidepressants.

Sorry, here's a link to the meta-analysis I quoted.

If shark cartiledge was shown to be effective "many times", then how come the best clinical research we have on glucosamine/chondroitin still inconclusive?

Researchers found that:

        Participants taking the positive control, celecoxib, experienced statistically significant pain relief versus placeboâ"about 70 percent of those taking celecoxib had a 20 percent or greater reduction in pain versus about 60 percent for placebo.
        Overall, there were no significant differences between the other treatments tested and placebo.
        For a subset of participants with moderate-to-severe pain, glucosamine combined with chondroitin sulfate provided statistically significant pain relief compared with placeboâ"about 79 percent had a 20 percent or greater reduction in pain versus about 54 percent for placebo. According to the researchers, because of the small size of this subgroup these findings should be considered preliminary and need to be confirmed in further studies.
        For participants in the mild pain subset, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate together or alone did not provide statistically significant pain relief.

And here's the result of a 2010 metaanalysis of the literature:

For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

So, does it make sense now why nobody paid attention to the research showing that shark cartilidge was efficacious? That research was almost certainly flawed, because serious research institutions have been unable to reproduce any effect.
You have been duped.

OK, how's this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

They're saying that outcomes are recorded as fetal deaths in the U.S. which would be recorded as infant deaths in the U.S. Maybe.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

This isn't peer reviewed. In fact it's an advocacy organization.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

Their conclusion is, "The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."

That makes sense. Of course, preterm births are associated with poor access to health care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449857/?report=abstract

It's possible that there is bias in reporting infant mortality in different countries. If I see a bunch of articles coming to that conclusion in reliable publications like AJPH, I'll believe it.

OK, how's this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

They're saying that outcomes are recorded as fetal deaths in the U.S. which would be recorded as infant deaths in the U.S. Maybe.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

This isn't peer reviewed. In fact it's an advocacy organization.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

Their conclusion is, "The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."

That makes sense. Of course, preterm births are associated with poor access to health care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449857/?report=abstract

It's possible that there is bias in reporting infant mortality in different countries. If I see a bunch of articles coming to that conclusion in reliable publications like AJPH, I'll believe it.

OK, how's this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

Real men have slower reaction times? Or Real Men are Rh+ too? ;)
Toxoplasma and reaction time: role of toxoplasmosis in the origin, preservation and geographical distribution of Rh blood group polymorphism.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752708
Increased incidence of traffic accidents in Toxoplasma-infected military drivers and protective effect RhD molecule revealed by a large-scale prospective cohort study:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/9/72
Toxoplasma gondii: from animals to humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/11113252?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

Real men have slower reaction times? Or Real Men are Rh+ too? ;)
Toxoplasma and reaction time: role of toxoplasmosis in the origin, preservation and geographical distribution of Rh blood group polymorphism.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752708
Increased incidence of traffic accidents in Toxoplasma-infected military drivers and protective effect RhD molecule revealed by a large-scale prospective cohort study:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/9/72
Toxoplasma gondii: from animals to humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/11113252?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040284/

The study I linked above says that sleep-disorders are linked to an increase in morbidity by a factor of 2.4 to 3.5 (95% confidence). TFA says that the use of sleeping pills is linked to an increase in morbidity depending on dose, by a factor of 2.92 to 6.30 (95% confidence). Only the smallest dose level of 0.4-18 per year jives with the results of the study I linked.
THEREFORE: There seems to be a statistically significant increase in morbidity for people who take more than 18 sleeping pills per year, versus people prescribed with sleeping disorders by a physician.

It's considered ok because there isn't any real scientific evidence there is an issue. And it's been studied since at least 1990.

Do you want to cite some of those studies to back up your claim? A quick Pubmed search turns up a whole lot of papers indicating that the use of antibiotics in animal feed is a major contributor the rise of resistant strains.

And a hush settled over the thread, as all fell silent.

It's considered ok because there isn't any real scientific evidence there is an issue. And it's been studied since at least 1990.

Do you want to cite some of those studies to back up your claim? A quick Pubmed search turns up a whole lot of papers indicating that the use of antibiotics in animal feed is a major contributor the rise of resistant strains.

Since you're an EMT and should know what you're talking about, is this site bogus?

What are the symptoms of heroin withdrawal?
Regardless of dosage, these reactions may appear:

Convulsions
Increased heart rate
Abnormal heartbeat
Heart attack
Sudden, sharp blood pressure increase
Stroke
Extreme depression
Suicidal behaviour

Yeah pretty much. Sounds a lot like advertising too. If I'm given that kind of scare, I might just pay those guys a bunch of money to give me detox.
More accurately, here is a good reference of what you can expect with opiate withdrawal http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000949.ht

m

Not really. There's a reasonable chance that the development of autism could be avoided or minimized if we understand what causes it. Many genetic diseases can be treated (e.g. MSUD, catch it in time and the child can live a fairly normal life).

Cataracts are one possible effect; clouding of the lens due to exposure to bands of UV light. Certain medication can also contribute to the effects of light on the eye, but the common one that many people use without knowing the potential effect is St. John's Wort.

I'm profoundly affected by the shortened (and usually sunless) days beginning in the fall, through the awful winter, and into the spring. (I'm self-diagnosing, but I'd say it qualifies as SAD.) I've used St. John's Wort in the winter months with a reasonable degree of success, but I think adding bright light to my work area helped a lot more. As in, four 300W fluorescent bulbs.

Much to my chagrin, however, I learned that St. John's Wort and Bright Light don't Mix.

Cataracts are (generally) easily treated, thankfully, but that might not be the extent of the possible effect. And I don't particularly want cataracts before I hit 40.

Sorry bro....

You are telling that AFTER they FRY this oil is 'necessary' for the brain?
Even cooked the oil is not anymore the same oil.

Biochemicals 101...

Serious... You may do not like nanny state and value freedom as even for 'unhealthy' decision.
I support you.

But do not try convince the kids need potato chips to fuel the need for fat in brain.
Serious...from all sources they can get (milk, meat, eggs,etc) they will choose potato chips...

Serious.. Is ok to loose an argument..

And one present for you :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697046

My old doctor told me this, too. But like most things doctors tell me, I've learned to trust it about as far as I can throw it.

Here's a citation to the contrary (that is to say, agreeing with you), from the NIH: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003051.htm I'm not sure where to begin searching the literature, so I'll pretend that link proves the point for the time being!

Death rates:
http://chickenpox.emedtv.com/chickenpox/adult-chickenpox-p2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

Time limited protection, Search on "Booster":
http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/varicella-chickenpox-vaccine.html The booster shots are now recommended because the vaccine failed after a half dozen years. Chance of death due to High School Football (for those exposed): 1.21:100000
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155424/table/T5/
Chance of death due to childhood Chicken Pox (for those exposed):
http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/surveillance.html

A small amount of math has to be used on the Chicken pox number. Of the 4 million people a year that catch chicken pox 5% of them are adults so 4 million must be reduced to 3,800,000. 55% of the deaths are in adults, so the 100-150 (lets just go with the worst number of 150) must be reduced to 67.5.

That leaves you with 1.18:100000. Just a bit less than High School Football.

Of course, this doesn't take into account what will happen when the vaccine wears off for the adult population where the chance of death is: 27.5:100000.

The question of how little exercise is needed for the beneficial effects was asked scientifically by Arthur Jones, inventor of the Nautlius workout equipment. It was further refined by bodybuilder Mike Mentzer who was a Jones acolyte. The books Body by Science and Congruent Exercise is a relatively up to date compilation of what Jones observed over his career. Also, the concept of intervals was made popular by a Japanese researcher named Tabata, who observed that anaerobic training improved aerobic capacity, whereas aerobic training did not improve anaerobic capacity. That is, anaerobic metabolism drives aerobic metabolism.

We've known for years that Doctors have over prescribed Antibiotics for many ailments,

NO WE DO NOT KNOW THAT, please shut the fuck up and keep your popular culture non science views to your self, asshole.,

I guess the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health are now qualifying as non-science, huh
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/11.10/11-sore.html

Or how about this study, in which 44% of doctors "admitted sometimes prescribing antibiotics to patients who may not need them"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18196886

Losing weight via exercise requires quite a lot of work. It is doable, and worth doing, but that paper suggests 250 mins/week of fairly intense exercise. That's quite a lot - I get it through running 25 mins/day during the week and a fifteen minute cycle commute, but not everyone has the luxury of being able to find that much time in a week.

Do you have any links that show that it's wrong, or at least some non-circular arguments for why it is wrong?

How about you backup your claim that vaccine-resistant strains occur as a result of vaccination? Because after searching on this all I can find is conspiracy sites mixing this in with their other bullshit claims.

A quick search on pubmed turns this interesting looking paper up - Vaccines and their impact on the control of disease.. From the abstract - "Despite intense (and often successful) attempts to control infectious diseases through vaccination, there is still rather little evidence of the emergence of strains of pathogen resistant to vaccines.". It goes on to say it's certainly possible and should be planned for, but seems extremely rare.

Quite a few, actually:

Those pressures are only against being in the same host body as another virus. The proportion of people with a given virus at any one time is pretty low, low enough that this is pretty irrelevant. You're not talking about competition between strains in general.

What you are arguing for is for people to be permanently infected and suffering from a disease, in order to try to prevent another disease emerging or spreading - a state which would more likely lead to adaptation of viruses to these conditions.

Many elderly people were immune to the 2006 H5N1 "bird flu" because they had antibodies against a close sibling, whereas those previously inoculated did not have the same resistance, and required re-inoculations against the particular strain.

Sure, because nobody had been vaccinated for a close sibling to that sort of flu either. Not entirely sutre what you're trying to say here, but if it's the old "Natural Immunity is better!" canard then I'd ask you to think about how many of the older generation are not carrying forward such immunity because they're dead. Those currently getting vaccinated against particular strains don't have to be.

Any one of these would be enough to give an advantage to a virus without less deadly siblings in the wild. Do we want to increase this risk to save a whole bunch of lives today? Apparently, yes. I won't say it's the wrong decision, but I do respect those who think otherwise.

I disagree, the first four only apply to the case of multiple infection and are irrelevant. The last is effectively a vaccination anyway (see cowpox and smallpox.)

There's little evidence that this risk you point out is increasing is really increading. besides which I do not believe for a second that this is a real concern to many people who are against vaccination.

Yes, there have been large scale studies of the rates of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated and there are absolutely no difference at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124634/

Of course the anti-vaccination fucktards will dispute anything.

Go to this link and look at the Vitamin D deficiency studies in Australia. (the first one is the second search result)

There are a lot of studies backing up what I said. It was big news that the cover up campaign was making people worse not better.

[citation needed]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/stretching-before-exercise-is-useless-738097.html

“The basic science and clinical evidence today suggests that stretching before exercise is more likely to cause injury than to prevent it.”
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-241-287--7001-0,00.html

Several authors have suggested that stretching has a beneficial effect on injury prevention. In contrast, clinical evidence suggesting that stretching before exercise does not prevent injuries has also been reported.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15233597

“stretching before exercise is more likely to cause injury than to prevent it.”
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Program-Results/dp/0071597174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329369249&sr=8-1 p. 218-9, emphasis in original

The link you should have provided is either to Human and Experimental Toxicology or pubmed. Copyright infringement is just plain stupid when there's already a free, legitimate, and superior source.

These guys have a strong statistical link (remember correlation does not imply causation) when they look at the data in certain ways. They thought about possible biases and commented upon them, such as:

Ecological bias occurs when relationships among individuals are inferred from similar relationships observed among groups (or nations). Although most of the nations in this study had 90%–99% of their infants fully vaccinated, without additional data we do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying in infancy at higher rates.

Now they give some reasons why possible ecological bias should be discounted, but this paper is certainly not a proof of any kind. What it does do is ask some tough questions that require direct research. They do not address a number of other variables between the US and Europe (and other lower IMR countries). We need to look into this further, but it is no reason to suspend our current immunization scheme as it is. If a parent is overly concerned they can elect to wait an extra six months or so for the regimen.

So it hasn't occurred to you that maybe our understanding of the biology of DDT might have advanced just a little in the last fifty-plus years? You seem to have this weird obsession with a book published in 1962, and the only credible source you've cited so far is six years older than that! How about you read some more recent sources, and if you have arguments with their observations or analysis, let us know. And by "sources," I mean scientific publications, not echo-chamber blogs. Here's a place to start.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields.

Of course their is always obfuscation with other cancer causing toxins, not our pollution their pollution.

The real decision here is twelve years plus of schooling, eight hours a day, for about 220 days per year, plus all other loads, inlcuding being out in the sun (I never get how some people reckon an existing natural load, eliminates new lesser radiation sources, isn't marketing wonderful, somehow cumulative effects cease to exist).

Want to add more loads other than those under which people evolved a resistance too, let's start getting rid of existing artificial loads before adding more on.

Regular (and NPH) insulins have the advantage of being out of patent for over 10 years and not requiring prescription in most (all?) states. That's not the case with analogs, although I believe the patent on Humalog runs out next year.

And actually, yeast is used in the production of insulin, Novo Nordisk's Novolin insulin, for instance. Extraction is easier, but production is lower. However, research published in 2010 (open access) describes techniques for significantly boosting the production using a modified yeast Pichia pastoris.

This is great news. The cost-reduction ship has sailed, perhaps, at least in the US, but I still look forward to having more choices available.

This is not a troll, I'm trying to help. I recommend you read the Directives for Human Experimentation and discuss them with your father's doctor before you actually begin an experimental treatment. If you can convince yourself you're in compliance with these directives (called the Nuremburg Code, how's that for a Godwin) then you'll feel better having thought them through; and if you can't convince yourself you're in compliance, then you may avoid a mistake.