Slashdot Mirror

Stapel: "Uhhhmm lets see... Facts?... Fiction?......Same thing!"

"It has long been known that acute marijuana administration impairs working memory" Study on usage of weed and Forgetting

The irony of your suggestion is remarkable!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17319805

Actually, the problem with Heroin (as I understand it) is that it's insanely addictive and eventually kills its users due to an overdose caused by its massive tolerance curve. It also has severe withdrawal symptoms, which can include death.

As for your claim that 60 Minutes said heroin was ok... you're gonna need a citation on that. Especially since a single google search gave me over a million hits for "heroin addiction withdrawal", the first of which is this study by the National Institute on Drug Addiction - admittedly not an unbiased source. However, the Wiki article on heroin seems to agree with those facts.

My main issue with heroin is not what it does to the user, though. It's what the users due in order to achieve their next score. Users of exceedingly addictive drugs will do anything to get "just one more hit". Knock over a liquor store, prostitute themselves, pawn anything and everything they can, even kill people.

Sorry, heroin stays on the list with cocaine and PCP, in my book - it's not safe.

What We Have to Say About Legalizing Alcohol

By: Gil Kerlikowske

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about alcohol is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - alcohol use is associated with addiction, sleep disorders, increased risk for cancer, and motor vehicle accidents. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that alcohol use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that binge drinking alcohol remains common on college campuses, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential alcohol may have in lowering the risk of coronary heart disease for individuals. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of alcohol can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found alcohol consumption to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing alcohol would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.

What We Have to Say About Legalizing Alcohol

By: Gil Kerlikowske

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about alcohol is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - alcohol use is associated with addiction, sleep disorders, increased risk for cancer, and motor vehicle accidents. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that alcohol use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that binge drinking alcohol remains common on college campuses, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential alcohol may have in lowering the risk of coronary heart disease for individuals. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of alcohol can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found alcohol consumption to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing alcohol would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.

What We Have to Say About Legalizing Alcohol

By: Gil Kerlikowske

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about alcohol is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - alcohol use is associated with addiction, sleep disorders, increased risk for cancer, and motor vehicle accidents. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that alcohol use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that binge drinking alcohol remains common on college campuses, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential alcohol may have in lowering the risk of coronary heart disease for individuals. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of alcohol can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found alcohol consumption to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing alcohol would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.

It is not the White House saying it is addictive, they are saying "According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment."
On the page of the NIH, http://www.nida.nih.gov/tib/marijuana.html you will find

Marijuana and Addiction

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. According to NSDUH, in 2010 of the estimated 7.1 million Americans classified with dependence on or abuse of illicit drugs, nearly 4.5 million were dependent on or abused marijuana. Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who use marijuana may become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-50% of daily users. In 2009, 18% of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse (70% of those aged 12-14; and 72% of those 15-17), representing more than 350,000 admissions (TEDS, 2009). Along with craving, withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleeping problems, and anxiety can make it difficult for long-term marijuana smokers to quit.

This is an empirical question. A quick Google search reveals this study on withdrawal in daily marijuana users: Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment (PDF link). Bottom line is that clinically significant withdrawal symptoms were observed in that population.

Also, keep in mind that some drugs are more addictive than others based on a person's genetic makeup. According to 23andMe, I'm more prone to heroin addiction than an average person (2.5 to 9.9 times more likely to become addicted vs the typical individual). Due to the same genetic marker (RS1799971), I'm much more likely to become an alcoholic than the typical person (which makes sense, since my mother was an alcoholic, so I most likely inherited the gene from her).

http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs1799971

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=1799971

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2011/09/20/snpwatch-genetic-variation-influences-how-we-respond-to-reinforcement/

Conversely though, this genetic marker is also tied to pain tolerance (I have a much higher pain tolerance than a typical person; I was able to go under epi-lasek corrective eye surgery and required no pain medications whatsoever during my recovery period, even though the doctor expected me to need upwards of 20 doses of oxycodone).

The more you know.

I had the same eye-roll that everybody else has had about "addictive" and to some extent "cognitive impairment". (Not giving up on stuff that causes life-affecting "cognitive impairment" is pretty much a definition of 'addictive'; since the 'addictive' property is known to be very weak, those who don't probably don't have a lot of responsibility in their life; and, indeed, most of my contemporaries gave it up upon getting jobs, mortgages, kids.)

But the lung disease link sat me up in my chair - I've been waiting for years to see an equivalent to the 1964 surgeon general's report about smoking and cancer.

But it wasn't a link to a cancer study, it was about "bullous lung disease" which is rare enough, I'd never heard of it. (It is rare, and mostly hits smokers, surprise) It's based on a Jan 2008 paper in Respirology that noted the ten (10) cases they'd been presented with that were chronic cannabis smokers in a year, averaged 41 years old, when the mean for all cases is 65 - so they concluded it can cause this disease up to 20 years earlier than tobacco.

The ten cases weren't overwhelming, though, especially not when presented as the proof of something by the White House. And, oddly enough, the first thing I found when googling for it was actually this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360494/ in Britain, with the headline "Bullous disease of the lung and cannabis smoking: insufficient evidence for a causative link". Mind you, they were tracking a mere 117 cases, still very small, though 12x bigger at least.

Interestingly, they offered the hypothesis that it related not so much to the chemicals in cannabis vs. tobacco, nor even to the respiratory harm from smoking ANYTHING, but to the WAY that cannabis is often inhaled:

"There is a quite separate way in which cannabis smokers are reported to present with abnormal air in the chest (pneumothorax and/or pneumomediastinum). Instances in case reports are attributed to extreme breath holding, Valsalva, and Müller's manouevres.8-11 This is a form of barotrauma which is a well-recognized cause of pneumothorax in intensive care units. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis smoking and acute rupture of previously normal lung air spaces due to extreme pressure change, it falls under the diagnostic heading not of spontaneous but of traumatic pneumothorax. The focus in our investigation was on bullous lung disease in cannabis smokers." ...in short, don't inhale until your lungs are full to the max and then hold that. It can cause a physical trauma. (Also, don't stick your finger in your eye.)

That does not mean that smoking anything, even dried leaves off of trees, is a good idea for your lungs, of course!

But, frankly, this is very weak tea indeed, as evidence that cannabis is "not a benign drug", to be used at such a level. All of their links pointed to effects that happen to users that were heavy, or chronic, or both. Man, I'd like to hear of ANY over-the-counter drug that is so benign that you can use it heavily or chronically, without adverse side-effects. ASA and Ibuprofen certainly wouldn't qualify.

I couldn't find find a really good source for addictive potential in the literature (which is not to say there isn't a good source).

However, you may find this article in the Lancet (Pubmed link) to be of interest. The study is "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". One criterion used was abuse potential. Long story short: (a) cannabis ranked as a middle-of-the-road substance in terms of harms, and (b) legal classification of drugs in the UK does not correlate well with degree of harms.

Evidence for the presence of Legionella bacteriophages in environmental water samples.

That reckless abandon in thought is the new diabetes, the new extremely near sightedness. And this will soon grow out of control, not in 1000 years, but more like 50.

Now that is pretty clearly one of those 90% of statistics that were made up on the spot. What, if anything, do you base that on? Gut feeling?

Of all the possible things to point to and say the sky is falling, I think you've chosen one of the more ridiculous. Worry about the economy and climate change before you worry about people with an uncontrollable urge to have ten babies overtaking the earth since, again, the economy and climate change have the potential to affect you during your natural life. Population growth is slowing in developed countries.

This is based on decades and decades of social experiments throughout history. Scientists have studied the adults who were born during the 1918 influenza epidemic and have seen they have a lifetime of cognitive and health issues. We also see these adverse health effects from the Dutch famine of 1944 and the Romania Abortion Ban that led to an unsustainable influx of children to poorly-supplied orphanages, and even more recent studies of children who were in utero when their mothers encountered the stress of natural disasters are just a few examples of scientists stepping in to observe the long-term effects of tragic circumstances, and the effects clearly last a lifetime.

Let me be clear about this because the science is clear on this: growing up in poverty results in a lifetime of major health and cognitive development issues. People too easily forget that there is a strong scientific imperative behind social welfare. If society allows poor children to go malnourished or grow up under intense stress, then society pays for the rest of that person's life through health care costs, imprisonment, and other maladaptations.

It makes sense for historians of science, but for the sake of real science one need not go that far back. Once the science is in the textbook there is very little value when talking about Chargaff rules to cite http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15421335 (there is very little value even mentioning them in the first place, but that's not my point here).

It is much more important to freely open to the scientists the articles that were published tomorrow than those published 61 years ago. I pity ambitious researchers from small sci start ups begging their colleagues from academy and government for pdfs.

Download all that you want, but in my book it's called compulsive hoarding.

From http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-01-005.html

The precise reasons for the sex-based differences seen in immune responses are unclear. The increased incidence of many autoimmune diseases after puberty, as well as the effect of pregnancy on the course of disease, suggest a role for sex hormones in these illnesses.

As a trans person, I find this intriguing. My brain, supposedly, is the same as a female's (sounds like a plausible theory, and it'll have to remain a plausible theory until I become independently wealthy enough to order an MRI and PET scan just for the lulz). My hormonal balance is the same as a female's because of my meds (I used to be able to tell you even what part of the menstrual cycle, but I don't care anymore, it's the one without the bitchyness, just because why try to be something I never can be because of stupid biology and you did NOT want to be around me when I was cycling and it was that time). My level of testosterone is below the normal female level. Immune system? Well, give this a read which seems to indicate that immune system differences are based on hormone levels: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511180740.htm

There are some differences between male and female that are entirely genetic. For example, about half of females (don't remember where I read that) are pseudo-tetrachromats because one copy of X encodes for a different frequency of light to be absorbed by the green cone than the other copy of X. Everyone else writes stories about a guy who turns into a girl somehow and it's a wild sex adventure, and I want to write a story about a guy who turns into a girl and suddenly sees a new dimension of color he hadn't been able to perceive with a boy's genetics.

Now, here's the thing. Your chest is the same as a female's chest, but it hasn't been exposed to a sufficient estrogen level at the correct age range.

The way I see it, GP is basically correct although you get a cigar for correctly guessing that there may be some differences somehow.

I used to have bad allergies when I used to have to suffer through the level of testosterone my body produces naturally, not to mention bad headaches all the time. My parents figured I was possessed by a demon or just lazy and faking the headaches, but my doctor had a better idea. I got some meds and magically both problems went away. I really didn't expect estrogen would make my allergies go away.

You aren't using the data correctly.

2010 NIH Research grants awarded totaled 21 billion.

The VAST majority (16.2billion, 77%) went to higher education. 1.9 billion (9%) went to research institutes.

How much went to for-profit organizations? 853 million. Less than 5%, or in other words, less than 2% of the pharmaceutical industry's research spending.

You *could* be talking R&D contracts...but in 2010, that was only 1.5 billion for domestic for-profit. Still a far shade from half of 57 billion.

see: http://report.nih.gov/funded_organizations/index.aspx

There's a lot of value in going to the library, finding the books you need, and using them to take the notes you need for the research you're doing. On it's own there's a lot of value in the simple process of taking notes down on paper itself:

http://www.slideshare.net/luscher/optimising-the-use-of-notetaking-as-an-external-cognitive-aid-for-increasing-learning

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636926/

A physicist doesn't need to know calculus? How does that physicist make it through basic college physics classes without understanding some of the math behind their chosen field? And CAD is still drawing out a blueprint, it's just a different medium. I guarantee you though, if you talked to any architect these days they'd tell you that their ideas all begin as rough sketches on paper. There are still architectural schools that require taking classes with a drafting board and a parallel rule.

These people that use Wolfram Alpha, or CAD for everything are your low level monkeys in their field. They're no different from a help desk tech that uses google to solve every problem.

Call me when you get medical researchers to sign up for something like this.

All papers whose work was funded by the NIH is required to be open access.

This is big. There are a lot of parasitic journals today, that is, journals that take work the public paid for, and lock it behind paywalls. Parasitic journals typically use big-name free labor from to do the peer reviews. If the world removes from the parasites many good peer reviewers, as well as many good papers (through policies like the NIH Public Access policy), then they will have to change or fold. I don't have a problem with organizations paying for work to be done, and then charging for use of the result. For example, most fiction authors get at least some money for their labor (not a lot, but at least some). In contrast, parasitic journals typically take publicly-funded stuff away from the public; time to change. By the way, there are a number of journals and publications that have always done this, like ACSAC. If authors would simply ONLY submit their works to open access journals and publications, the parasites would disappear.

For that matter, I was shocked to discover that porcelain teeth emit a surprising* amount of radiation. For a 5th grade science fair project, I took a handful of dental X-ray films (my father is a dentist) and attached them to various everyday objects folks (or 5th grade kids) might be suspicious of emitting radiation, then developed them in batch after one month of exposure. For the youngsters who have never seen a dental x-ray using real film, they are small (about 4x5cm) squares of photographic film sealed inside a lightproof jacket. They are developed in a darkroom using a metal 'clipboard' of sorts that holds maybe 16 films at a time, making the development process very consistent across a batch.

Things like microwave oven (none) and CRT television (almost imperceptible amount) were unsurprising, but a porcelain denture tooth showed a clear dark blob where it was taped to the film. It turns out trace amounts of uranium were a routine additive to give them the natural fluorescence of real teeth.

*Surprising, but not deadly.

Wrong. Such studies have been done. A significant increase in melanoma was found in those exposed compared to the control group. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009703/ Read "Cross Currents" by Dr. Robert Becker (an established and credible physician with dozens of published scientific articles to his name). You'll be shocked.

The form of mercury in vaccines is actually known to be toxic in humans -fatally so in some cases - it's just not dangerous in the amounts contained in vaccines. Well, probably not anyway.

From TFA: In addition, early subscription holders were on average more exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from their mobile phones as the early phones had a higher output power than newer generation phones.
If I am not wrong, the BTS controls the power used by each connected GSM handset, so that reciprocal interference and power consumption are minimized. This means that the amount of radiation dose received by each GSM user depends also from the BTS-to-user distance, and from the number of handsets simultaneously operating under the same BTS. It is a mistake to assume that the radiation dose received by each user is constant, and the study shouldn't be taken as conclusive.
It looks like that the same error has been made here as well: the dose received by each radio operator varied wildly.
This probably means that the studies set up a low boundary to the effect of RF on human health, bu these effects could be more severely related to the amount of RF power exposure. However better measurements are needed to confirm or deny this. In the meanwhile, it is probably safer to stay away from strong RF fields, after all...

Thimerosal has been marketed as an antimicrobial agent in a range of products, including topical antiseptic solutions and antiseptic ointments for treating cuts, nasal sprays, eye solutions, vaginal spermicides, diaper rash treatments, and perhaps most importantly as a preservative in vaccines and other injectable biological products, including Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations, despite evidence, dating to the early 1930s, indicating Thimerosal to be potentially hazardous to humans and ineffective as an antimicrobial agent.

Anyone with access want to pull the paper and take a read? :)

We're not talking about elemental mercury here. We're talking about thiomersal. Compounds and elements have different levels of toxicity. While thiomersal is toxic at high levels, it is easily handled by the body. It is broken into ethylmercury, which is excreted and does not bioaccumulate. source There is still some question as to how much of the compound degrades into inorganic mercury, but it's not nearly as much as you get from living within a few miles of a coal power plant.

Thimerosal is not methylmercury.

So congratulations on writing a lot of utter gibberish.

Mod parent up. From Wikipedia: "Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative." And here's the citation for that.

Gee maybe there is some similar chemical componenet between chilies and Mace....guess you should google that ;)

Ok...sarcasm aside.... from wikipedia:

In large quantities, capsaicin can cause death.[50] Symptoms of overdose include difficulty breathing, blue skin, and convulsions. The large amount needed to kill an adult human and the low concentration of capsaicin in chilies make the risk of accidental poisoning by chili consumption negligible.

Blue skin is "cyanosis", usually caused by rather low blood oxygen. Now inflammation can block breathing, and the article talks of it causing general inflammation. So it sounds to me like an extreme sort of "death by acute inflamation".

I was looking for info on first aid, which would corroborate this, or "capscasin poisoning", but, best I can find online is to "call a poison control center". I did find one case study of an 8 month old who was given it orally and admitted, but I can only read the abstract on pubmed, relevant info is not in the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11741759

This one looks at "in custody deaths" of people who had been maced
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7495257

Again.... not much in the abstract.

Gee maybe there is some similar chemical componenet between chilies and Mace....guess you should google that ;)

Ok...sarcasm aside.... from wikipedia:

In large quantities, capsaicin can cause death.[50] Symptoms of overdose include difficulty breathing, blue skin, and convulsions. The large amount needed to kill an adult human and the low concentration of capsaicin in chilies make the risk of accidental poisoning by chili consumption negligible.

Blue skin is "cyanosis", usually caused by rather low blood oxygen. Now inflammation can block breathing, and the article talks of it causing general inflammation. So it sounds to me like an extreme sort of "death by acute inflamation".

I was looking for info on first aid, which would corroborate this, or "capscasin poisoning", but, best I can find online is to "call a poison control center". I did find one case study of an 8 month old who was given it orally and admitted, but I can only read the abstract on pubmed, relevant info is not in the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11741759

This one looks at "in custody deaths" of people who had been maced
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7495257

Again.... not much in the abstract.

A single avalanche biased zener diode junction will produce all the random noise ever needed. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1338337/pdf/jeabehav00162-0045.pdf

Much simpler than messing with CCDs and radioactive materials.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

"This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates."

It is extremely common particularly within women. But it does not mean they actually want to experience rape.

I'm against child porn and producing it very often actually harms the children - they can't defend themselves and it is shamefull and selfish act on part of the producer. On the same take fantasy should not go be punishable, and I have trouble of seeing that if pictures of clothed children used in fantasy actually harm anyone.

As I teach in my biochemistry class it is entropic cost of not separating them that causes their separation, but I have yet to really wrap my head around this study. Nonetheless, here are some links to the original research:

* Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896718
* PNAS (paywalled): http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/15699

This blog article has an analysis of the action. It appears, essentially, that Astrolabe publishes an altas that the tz database is based on (in terms of reproducing time zone information from the atlas in the db):

Defendant Olson's unauthorized reproduction of the Works have been published at ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/tzarchive.qz, where the references to historic international time zone data is replete with references to the fact that the source for this information is, indeed, the ACS Atlas.

I thought the issue of whether you could copyright facts (e.g., phone numbers, timezone values for specific locations) was already settled law.

COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTRAINING ORDER,
DAMAGES AND TRIAL BY JURY
Parties
1. Plaintiff, Astrolabe, Inc. [hereinafter “Astrolabe”], is a for-profit
Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business at 350 Underpass
Road, P.O. Box 1750, Brewster, Barnstable County, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 02631, and is engaged in the business of publication, marketing
and sale, including computer software publications and/or programs
pertaining to the field of astrology.
2. Defendant, Arthur David Olson [hereinafter “Olson”], is an individual with a
last and usual residence at 7406 Hancock Avenue, #2, Takoma Park,
Maryland 20912, and with a usual an ordinary place of business as a computer
specialist at the Laboratory of Experimental Carcinogenesis, Building 37,
Room 4146A, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, 37
Convent Drive, MSC 4262, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
3. Defendant, Paul R. Eggert [hereinafter “Eggert”], is an individual with a last
and usual residence in the State of California, who is engaged in the business
of computer services and programming, and employed as a lecturer with the
University of California, Los Angeles, Computer Science Department, with a
principal business address of: UCLA Computer Science, Box 951596,
4532JBH, Los Angeles, Calfiornia 90095-1596.
Case 1:11-cv-11725-GAO Document 1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 5
Jurisdiction
4. Pursuant to a written agreement, Astrolabe is the copyright assignee of the
copyright owner, of certain copyright-protected computer software programs
and information contained therein, pursuant to the Copyright Protection Act,
17 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq., known as the “ACS Atlas,” consisting of both
the “ACS International Atlas,” and the “ACS American Atlas,” in the form of
computer software program(s) and/or data bases, and in the form of electronic
output and future electronic media from said programs [hereinafter “the Works”].
5. These atlases set forth interpretations of historical time zone information
pertaining to innumerable locations throughout the world, based upon the
compilation of historical research and documentation regarding applicable
time zones officially and/or in actuality in effect, given the actual latitude and
longitudes of specific locations throughout the world.
6. Upon information and belief, defendants Olson and Eggert have unlawfully
reproduced the Works, in violation of the Copyright Protection Act, without
proper permission and/or authorization from the copyright holder, and without
paying royalties due and payable to the copyright holder and/or its assignee,
Astrolabe, in computer software format.
7. Plaintiff, Astrolabe publishes, markets and sells its ACS Atlas programs (the
Works) for commercial profit purposes to, inter alia, those interested and/or
engaged in the business and field of astrology seeking to determine the
historical time at any given time in any particular location, world-wide.
8. In connection with its rights to reproduce the Works, plaintiff Astrolabe is
contractually obligated to pay royalties to the owner/assignor of the copyright
and the authors of the same.
Facts
9. Defendant Olson’s unauthorized reproduction of the Works have been
published at ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/tzarchive.qz, where the references to
historic international time zone data is replete with references to the fact that
the source for this information is, indeed, the ACS Atlas.
10. In connection with his unlawful publication of some and/or any portion of the
Works, defendant Olson has wrongly and unlawfully asserted that this
information and/or data is “in the public domain,” in violation of the
protections afforded by the federal copyright laws.
11. Defendant Eggert’s unauthorized repro

You know what else they don't label? Naturally mutated varieties, plant sports, food produced with hybrid seed, wide crossed varieties (member the Lenape potato?), embryo rescue, chemical mutagenesis, radiation mutagenesis, somatic variation, plants produced with tissue culture, grafted plants, polyploid plants, crops treated with colchicine, ect. Pretty inconsistent to think that inserting a single very well known and well studied protein (even one like the cry protein that people have been eating for decades) should be labeled, meanwhile give all the other things that cause a lot more genetic change a free pass. Allergies are caused by just a few proteins out of the tens of thousands you eat every day...saying that genetic engineering is any more likely to spontaneously produce one than other crop improvement techniques (with a well understood protein anyway, particularly one already in the food supply) is just magical thinking. And if allergies are you concern, I notice no one is protesting the hundreds of new proteins and compounds in biodiverse foods. Fun fact: more people have died from starfruit than GM crops (granted, not from allergic reactions, but people have had reactions to relative newcomers to mas production like kiwi). Of course, it is no coincidence that only one of these things is well known by the public (although when hybrid seed first became big, people said the same thing about it, hell, there people who were against grafting...both things are now ubiquitous in grain/vegetable and fruit production respectively). And because there is not a shred of evidence to suggest the GM food is in any way different than non-GM food, it is no different than mandatory labeling for Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, ect. dietary laws. Of course, you could say that there is no proof that they're not causing allergies, but you could say the same thing about everything else I listed, or pretty much anything, including invisible pink unicorns.

And yes, the term frankenfoods is just an overly emotional appeal, just like calling resistant weeds 'superweeds'' or calling cross pollination 'genetic contamination.'. Fearmongering. Anyone who knows anything about crop domestication knows everything we eat is already 'frankenfoods.' Of course, that's natural, so it's totally different. By the way, the Rainbow papaya isn't labeled either. It was produced by the University of Hawaii. So, what was that about evil corporations again? Here's an idea. Maybe if people want a specific thing labeled, they should stop lying about it. Of course, telling lies to scare people into buying fancy overpriced organic food is somehow morally superior to making people do 15 seconds of looking it up

This is a bold first step in changing the face of how research (especially when taxpayer funded) works in the country, and a step towards weakening the current culture of charging increasingly exorbitant prices to view academic research publications.

However for some time now all work funded by new and renewed grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are required to be published in publicly accessible journals. It has been this way now for over two years, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) has implemented a similar policy for work they fund.

So while it is nice to see Princeton, as an academic institution, take a similar stance, it is mostly redundant as the vast majority of taxpayer-funded research - at least that funded by US taxpayers - is already covered by the policies of the two largest funding agencies.

the free market failed to keep up in this country,

So let me get this straight. It's the fault of the free market that Japanese built better cars than we did?

No, it's the fault of the free market that the Japanese building better cars than we do by default can lead to massive underemployment here without government interference. See, when people go hungry, the system has failed. From that standpoint, government interference is better. Unfortunately, the interference came in the form of rubberstamping mediocrity, instead of subsidies for the competent.

If these batteries could totally destroy the oil business then why doesn't Chevron produce them and win over all ground vehicle business from their competitors in the oil business?

What a sophomoric question.

The initial cost is on the order of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars more for hybrid and electric vehicles. I wouldn't call that "limited" and neither would most other Americans.

People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time. Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions, they are getting Baby Huey style and lots of noise, plus an unnecessarily massive car.

butanol is not a perfect substitute for gasoline. It has some problems which make it less desirable as a substitute for gasoline.

None of those problems are serious at all. Let's go over them one at a time. To match the combustion characteristics of gasoline, the utilization of butanol fuel as a substitute for gasoline requires fuel-flow increases (though butanol has only slightly less energy than gasoline, so the fuel-flow increase required is only minimal, maybe 10%, compared to 40% for ethanol.) Comes with its own built-in "this is not a problem". 10% is well within the adaptive range of most ECUs. Alcohol-based fuels are not compatible with some fuel system components. This is precisely NO more problem with Butanol than it is with Gasoline, because MTBE has already been thrown over for Ethanol as a fuel additive, and everyone who was going to lose their seals already has. Alcohol fuels may cause erroneous gas gauge readings in vehicles with capacitance fuel level gauging. This is a vanishingly small slice of the market and no one ever should have used capacitance because it fails when fuel is contaminated. While ethanol and methanol have lower energy densities than butanol, their higher octane number allows for greater compression ratio and efficiency. Higher combustion engine efficiency allows for lesser greenhouse gas emissions per unit motive energy extracted. Another point which contains its own "this is not a problem". Butanol is toxic at a rate of 20g per liter and may need to undergo Tier 1 and Tier 2 health effects testing before being permitted as a primary fuel by the EPA. are you fucking kidding me? Okay, so since none of the concerns about biodiesel affect 99% of the market, I conclude that it is vastly more suitable than electric vehicles, which have the capacity to serve only 95% of the market. I have also concluded that you do not. know. what. you. are. talking. about.

To suggest that the "free market" (which simply does not exist, especially in this nation of subsidies and tariffs)

Again, you blame the private sector for government meddling.

Again, you are a naive idiot or an industry shill, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The automotive industry BOUGHT that legislation.

US government is drowning in precisely two things; needless war, and undertaxing the rich.

Actually, we need to raise taxes somewhat across the board while lowering them so that nobody pays more than about 25%.

The simple fact of the matter is that humans are social animals, and therefore find social interaction very intellectually stimulating. That is not a controversial statement.

While we're poking at each other for over generalizations, it might be wise not to make any without evidence. I said some people have difficulty learning in social environments and some people thrive in them, I wasn't pulling figures out of my ass or making blanket statements about the entire human race. If you even dip a toe into the theory of human interaction you'll discover that you can't paint everyone the same colour when it comes to individual learning behavior and especially not when dealing with individual learning within a group. The most basic things that are going to fly out at you are people with mild to moderate social phobias 6.8% and anxiety disorders 3.1%, people with learning disabilities such as Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, or other information processing disorders 15%, the biggest group is going to be people with an introvert personality type or mixed introvert-extrovert type depending on how they relate to group activity and are going to account for a good 50.7% of the population (Source: Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. )

My point is that learning institutions need to provide options for people who have different learning styles and needs. Methods of education should not be based solely on tradition or the individual experience of certain people, be they administratiors, lecturers or students. It is a shame that people and even our colleges and universities are trying to push back against these alternative learning tools when what they need to do is embrace and improve them. I would be the last to argue that these methods don't need a lot of further development to reach their full potential but we need hands on experience to get there. If history has shown us anything, you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

The simple fact of the matter is that humans are social animals, and therefore find social interaction very intellectually stimulating. That is not a controversial statement.

While we're poking at each other for over generalizations, it might be wise not to make any without evidence. I said some people have difficulty learning in social environments and some people thrive in them, I wasn't pulling figures out of my ass or making blanket statements about the entire human race. If you even dip a toe into the theory of human interaction you'll discover that you can't paint everyone the same colour when it comes to individual learning behavior and especially not when dealing with individual learning within a group. The most basic things that are going to fly out at you are people with mild to moderate social phobias 6.8% and anxiety disorders 3.1%, people with learning disabilities such as Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, or other information processing disorders 15%, the biggest group is going to be people with an introvert personality type or mixed introvert-extrovert type depending on how they relate to group activity and are going to account for a good 50.7% of the population (Source: Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. )

My point is that learning institutions need to provide options for people who have different learning styles and needs. Methods of education should not be based solely on tradition or the individual experience of certain people, be they administratiors, lecturers or students. It is a shame that people and even our colleges and universities are trying to push back against these alternative learning tools when what they need to do is embrace and improve them. I would be the last to argue that these methods don't need a lot of further development to reach their full potential but we need hands on experience to get there. If history has shown us anything, you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

I looked it up and found that John Adams signed a law mandating sailors to purchase health insurance. Here is a link to the law: 5th congress passed law and an article talking about it: daily KOS article So if precedent means anything it doesn't look like the law will be struck down. Though stranger things have happened before.

And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year

Not enough research, apparently. Try up to seven years.

Yeah, we can debate the meaning of "correctly repositioned" and due diligence. Also no permanent damage to any of the patients in the study, which is good. Overall low chance of it happening makes for a relatively safe procedure. Still, it's most certainly not "absolutely no chance."

According to this NIH study an enormous amount of LEO astronauts have reported seeing phosphenes while in orbit. These are speculated to derive from background radiation in space. Clearly, more study is needed--and more shielding.

One could ask if they are they less vulnerable than rats
in acquiring the resulting albumin-induced
brain damage.

Actually, I forgot to mention that since this research is almost certainly NIH-funded, the article is required to be made public in the near future by depositing the manuscript in PubMed Central. I forget whether the requirement is six months or a year after publication - until then, it remains exclusive to Nature Publishing Group - but eventually it will be freely available.

To support what the OP says about the safety of nuclear power, this paper compares the mortality risk from a major radiation accident to that from other environmental factors including air pollution. It concludes that living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone poses a lower mortality risk that does living in the air pollution of central London.

Are passive smoking, air pollution and obesity a greater mortality risk than major radiation incidents

A rare nuclear accident is .... an accident. Air pollution is business as usual and it's not going to go away without abandoning fossil fuels.

IANADoctor but I can't think of a medical emergency that causes that sort of erratic manoeuvring, passing out certainly doesn't.

Passing out? That's the limits of your imagination? It's called cardiac arrest, it is utterly common in men of seventy-five (and increasing) and it often causes muscle contractions. If you're holding the stick, which presumably you will be doing while racing, then there is a risk of such happenstance. I don't know a lot about airplanes but it's my understanding that you can rip control surfaces off by trying to make them do things they can't do... especially if there is a mechanical defect.

Because you can grow them in your backyard, or cook them up in a workshop any chemistry student could have. Maybe cocaine and heroin could be monopolized just because the plants don't grow everywhere, but so what? Let it happen, nobody cares. Diamonds are monopolized, nobody cares. Coke and heroin are numbers 2 and 3 on the NIH's most-addictive list though not even close to tobacco. But pot and its kin, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, God knows what else? There's no way they get monopolized. The gangs going to raid all of suburbia? Hunt down grad students in every college in the land?

Really, why do you think they're illegal in the first place? And, please, show some self-respect: don't spout the drug-warriors' party line. Take away the thrill of forbidden fruit, the actually bad ones will drop right off the radar, far down into the noise of all the other ways kids get themselves killed. Actually, they're already down there, but never mind that. Tops of course is driving a car, and people hand their kid the keys how often? What do they say? "Drive safe, drive responsibly, if you get in trouble, call me."

I think they're illegal because the ones that have intrinsic barriers to entry as a business can't compete.

T cells with chimeric antigen receptors have potent antitumor effects and can establish memory in patients with advanced leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21832238 Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21830940

T cells with chimeric antigen receptors have potent antitumor effects and can establish memory in patients with advanced leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21832238 Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21830940

Looking over the abstracts of some of Dr. Whitbourne's recently published works, it looks like Dr. Whitbourne's group is developing the hypothesis that how a person feels about aging has an impact on their psychological well-being. This might seem obvious, but put in plain language, do old people get depressed because aging causes depression, or do old people get depressed because they have a negative attitude about aging? It's actually not an obvious question. With that in mind, knowing how older adults feel about their cognitive abilities after playing games is of value.

TFA mentions the study is ongoing. A different article about the study indicates the researchers will also have participants take objective tests of cognitive abilities, so the research isn't only looking at subjective self-report.