Slashdot Mirror

should only be consumed by women

You sure about this? Phytoestrogens can easily cause issues with the menstrual cycle unless you are menopausal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Hmm... Then could you please explain these studies?

NIH studies
- Association between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents: a population-based cross-sectional study (2014)
- Mobile Phone Use, Blood Lead Levels, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Symptoms in Children: A Longitudinal Study (2013)

Blogs
Study: Smartphone Alerts Increase Inattention – and Hyperactivity (2016)

Just because you change the word "digital media" from "mobile phone" AKA smartphone, that doesn't make you one of the first to study the matter... So TFA is just an advertising for some researchers who want to have some fames.

Hmm... Then could you please explain these studies?

NIH studies
- Association between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents: a population-based cross-sectional study (2014)
- Mobile Phone Use, Blood Lead Levels, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Symptoms in Children: A Longitudinal Study (2013)

Blogs
Study: Smartphone Alerts Increase Inattention – and Hyperactivity (2016)

Just because you change the word "digital media" from "mobile phone" AKA smartphone, that doesn't make you one of the first to study the matter... So TFA is just an advertising for some researchers who want to have some fames.

I'll buy what I believe is good for me. I don't like the government using my money against my choices. I assume that Canada has elections? Seems to me that the people voted for a government to hand them some economic freedom.

Here's why I don't like government enforced environmental subsidies. There was a subsidy on compact florescent lights, perhaps it's still there. I bought some of these CFLs and they sucked. They took a long time to light up, didn't last near as long as advertised, contained mercury (which is a toxic mess if it should break), was hard on the eyes, and tended to interfere with IR remotes (that drove me batty until I figured that out). Then came LED lights. They produced light immediately, often cost less than CFL even after the subsidy, didn't contain anything toxic, lasts seemingly forever (hadn't seen one fail yet in years), but sometimes still kind of "funny" in the color of the light. The government spent a lot of MY MONEY on these shitty lights that I hated and possibly poisoned many children from broken bulbs. I can't get this money back, I saw no benefit, and the open market beat the government to picking the winner in competition to the old Edison bulb.

I got to visit my sister recently and see her new house. Every light in the house is LED and the lights are awesome. My guess is that these were expensive lights but they will last a very long time and the lighting is a very natural color. They didn't need a subsidy for these energy efficient lights because they recognized the return on investment, both in the value of money and the value of comfort/convenience. The government chose poorly and I'm left paying the bill

While I agree LEDs are better than CFLs the irony is that without the subsidies people wouldn't have switched bulbs at all. The light bulb subsidy galvanized an unchanging market. People have complained for generations about light bulbs but until the subsidy the market didn't care. Even with your hyperbole (possibly poisoned many children from broken bulbs) there's more mercury in older thermometers and even when broken only a fraction is released, it would take weeks to poison a child and honestly even with the subsidy older bulbs would still be in fashion if it wasn't for the ban.

Formaldehyde is in everything. Well, not quite everything, but a huge number of products. New clothes? Yep. That new flooring? Certainly

https://branchbasics.com/blog/...
https://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bi...

It even occurs naturally in some foods:
https://www.foodinsight.org/ch...

Studies about health risks should probably be available through the NIH. The observed health risk of formaldehyde does not seem to have changed. My interpretation of the politico piece: EPA wants stricter rules for emission anyway, the industry doesn't.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Studies about health risks should probably be available through the NIH. The observed health risk of formaldehyde does not seem to have changed. My interpretation of the politico piece: EPA wants stricter rules for emission anyway, the industry doesn't.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Ooops. Bad cut-and-paste of the link. Got the wrong one. There's actually so much out there that it's hard to find one that states it unequivocally.

This one looks like it leads to a good bit of other papers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015237/

While the association of alcohol, drug use, and violent crime enjoys a long research history, it is only in recent years that direct measures of this relationship (e.g., physical drug tests and officially known crimes) using large quantitative data sets have been available. These studies have found that alcohol is consistently linked to aggressive and violent behavior (3, 4). In contrast, research on drug use and violence generally concludes, contrary to popular conceptions, that these relationships are unsystematic and/ or weak (5, 6).

How is DNA proprietary?

Because Fuck You, that's why.

Although at least they invalidated patents on genes found in nature.

Really? Cite?

We use pigs for experimentation all the time because they are good biological proxies for human beings.

Contrary to The Guardian's "research" there are papers that say otherwise, such as: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Streptococcus suis, an opportunistic pathogen of swine, is an emerging zoonotic pathogen among humans. In Vietnam, S. suis is the leading cause of human acute bacterial meningitis. Infection in humans is associated with direct exposure to infected pigs or infected raw or undercooked pork products.

Yeah, maybe... if it achieves Lipitor-like success, which would require life-long medication.

Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010.

Type 1 diabetes is inherited, it is not from germ phobia.

Type 1 diabetes, like many other autoimmune disorders, is correlated with excessive cleanliness.

Both Type 1 and Type 2 have a genetic component, but it is actually stronger for type 2. The heritability for type 1 is about 3% if you mother has it, and about 5% if your father has it. For some Native American tribes, such as the Pima people, the type 2 rate is nearly 40%, nearly all of which is heritable because their genetic heritage isn't adapted to a modern diet.

This article describes the purpose of CD163:

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

It is a receptor for hemoglobin, and is involved in hemoglobin clearance after intracerebral hemorrhage. It is elevated for anyone with myelo-monocytic leukaemia and infection.

http://jvi.asm.org/content/91/...

My facts are mainstream science, it's yours that are alternative ;).

Anyways here is a large meta analysis on the link between alcohol consumption and various types of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is a large meta analysis on the link between red meat and cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is one for the link between sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

If you read them you will see that the link between alcohol and various types of cancer is strong, between meat and cancer is weak and that sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2 is only existing if the subjects are overeating since it's the weight gain that is the link here and not the drinks themselves.

My facts are mainstream science, it's yours that are alternative ;).

Anyways here is a large meta analysis on the link between alcohol consumption and various types of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is a large meta analysis on the link between red meat and cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is one for the link between sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

If you read them you will see that the link between alcohol and various types of cancer is strong, between meat and cancer is weak and that sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2 is only existing if the subjects are overeating since it's the weight gain that is the link here and not the drinks themselves.

My facts are mainstream science, it's yours that are alternative ;).

Anyways here is a large meta analysis on the link between alcohol consumption and various types of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is a large meta analysis on the link between red meat and cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here is one for the link between sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

If you read them you will see that the link between alcohol and various types of cancer is strong, between meat and cancer is weak and that sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes type 2 is only existing if the subjects are overeating since it's the weight gain that is the link here and not the drinks themselves.

"I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to?"

I'm a little baffled by that question. I literally address this after making that statement. Go back and reread my last post if you are seriously wondering about this.

"I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to? I have not referred to any well publicized and likely misleading sources used by the war on drugs - I have not referenced the usual claims of lowering IQ or as a gateway drug even though it is reported in a peer reviewed journal [nih.gov]. I specfically avoided such sources because I knew someone would attempt to discredit them."

So because you avoid those specific scare tactics you didn't use scare tactics at all? One thing does not follow the other there,

"And, please, a little more evidence than "snopes" here - one discredited mass media report is hardly adequate evidence."

That means you didn't read the link. There was something like a half dozen refuted cases in that link of the media or law enforcement claiming problems with laced weed and then later retracting their statements. Laced weed is a media manufactured problem, right up there with parents and teachers lecturing me as a child warning me of the dangers of "drug dealers handing out LSD to children" (What the hell kind of nonsense is that?). I am pointing to the complete lack of supporting data to refute the claim that laced weed is a real life danger here. If there is a real problem with this then there should be evidence of such,

"Trust me I know about people doing stupid things. I am a trauma surgeon and nearly half of my patients arrive with drug and or alcohol on their toxicology screen."

And this gets to the core of one of my main problems in this conversation. I'm getting anecdotal evidence from a person here who is regularly confabulating "drugs" and "marijuana". Marijuana is not alcohol and it is not all "drugs".

In regards to your links

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
This was nice and contributes to an informed conversation on the subject. While there is certainly still wide debate on the subject a number of other studies have found similar links to the problems detailed here. What I always wonder about the issues brought up in such studies, if marijuana is seeing such widespread use that 12% of Americans admit to having used it in the last year (from this link) why is there no health crisis in regards to the symptoms described here? People dying from liver disease and diabetes due to drinking is something that I run into in my own life and there is very clear data detailing the problem. With pot, not so much.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Despite the headline all this article does is bring up that weed is more potent now and that there is no reliable source for metrics on CBD content in pot (which is what most medical users really care about). None of these things make pot bad.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/st...
This is more scare tactics. As I didn't want to meticulously read through the whole thing I did a text search for marijuana. There is no mention of the substance here. This link is completely irrelevant.

https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
Irrelevant. Ecstasy is not marijuana. It isn't even put together by a chemist. This is more of what I have been talking about in terms of scare tactics. "Other drugs are laced with crazy stuff which means marijuana could be laced which means it is laced!" seems to be the thought process with this.

https://www.journalacs.org/art...
This is just a craz

While you are certainly correct that pot is incredibly unlikely to be helpful here you veer into some pretty heavy scare tactics that dont have a lot of truth to them.

"". In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances [americanad...enters.org]"

For starters, medical pot is legal in more states than not so why are we assuming the purchase would be illegal? After that, a small amount of critical thinking quickly brings up the question, why would some one selling weed spend money lacing their product and not tell the person buying? Your own link even states there's no data on the subject.

Here's a nice snopes link debunking the latest panic of fentynal laced weed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

"And stop claiming that marijuana is harmless. I see too many people land in our ED as a result of this type of self-medication."

While, much like drinking, there are those who will do truely stupid things while high pot is far safer than every day activities like sober driving or manual labor professions.

While you are certainly correct that pot is incredibly unlikely to be helpful here you veer into some pretty heavy scare tactics that dont have a lot of truth to them.

I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to? I have not referred to any well publicized and likely misleading sources used by the war on drugs - I have not referenced the usual claims of lowering IQ or as a gateway drug even though it is reported in a peer reviewed journal. I specfically avoided such sources because I knew someone would attempt to discredit them. What I have given you is clinical experience (19 years now) of issues that I have encountered with actual patients that I have treated. I have had people so strung out on drugs that they failed to recognize a decline in their health that made their condition worse. I have stuporous individuals who have serious medical derangements that we could not determine from their history (they weren't able to talk or were exhibiting paranoia) or from physical exam (they were so out of it I couldn't get they to react to any exam or they refused to cooperate with the exam) Related reference here. It is still illegal to drive after using marijuana in Colorado and California.

In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances [americanad...enters.org]"

For starters, medical pot is legal in more states than not so why are we assuming the purchase would be illegal? After that, a small amount of critical thinking quickly brings up the question, why would some one selling weed spend money lacing their product and not tell the person buying? Your own link even states there's no data on the subject.

Here's a nice snopes link debunking the latest panic of fentynal laced weed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

While an increasing number of states are allowing "medical marijuana", there are very few registered patients in most states (

This is not a joke. Try smoking (or vaping, or eating) some marijuana. It tends to relax internal muscles and may help you pass it. At worst, it's a cheap, harmless, fun thing to try before going in for a more complicated, potentially needless procedure.

This is not a joke, this is some of the worst advice. Please stop posting uninformed advice that is more harmful than helpful.

Muscle relaxants (of which marijuana is a poor one) are not useful here and are actually contraindicated. This capsule is not hung up on a sphincter, it is likely caught in a stricture and inhibition of peristalsis is not going to help and may make matters worse.

In addition, by consuming marijuana and getting "high" he or she may miss changes in their condition that indicate that they need to get to the hospital emergently (e.g. abdominal pain indicative of intestinal rupture). If they decide to take themselves to the ED, driving while impaired is illegal in all states not to mention just plain dangerous. Once there, again, being under the influence of a psychoactive drugs they may not give a thorough medical history, or it may alter the physical exam findings, possibly leading to a misdiagnosis (even with EMRs - I have seen this happen). Marijuana may also interact with other more useful medications that need to be given leading to further complications. In addition, diagnostic tests may be delayed as they won't be able to properly consent after consuming an substance that alters cognition. In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances

In short, please don't self-medicate. This is especially true when you have a complex medical condition. Leave the medical advice to someone who is trained and qualified.

And stop claiming that marijuana is harmless. I see too many people land in our ED as a result of this type of self-medication.

This is not a joke. Try smoking (or vaping, or eating) some marijuana. It tends to relax internal muscles and may help you pass it. At worst, it's a cheap, harmless, fun thing to try before going in for a more complicated, potentially needless procedure.

This is not a joke, this is some of the worst advice. Please stop posting uninformed advice that is more harmful than helpful.

Muscle relaxants (of which marijuana is a poor one) are not useful here and are actually contraindicated. This capsule is not hung up on a sphincter, it is likely caught in a stricture and inhibition of peristalsis is not going to help and may make matters worse.

In addition, by consuming marijuana and getting "high" he or she may miss changes in their condition that indicate that they need to get to the hospital emergently (e.g. abdominal pain indicative of intestinal rupture). If they decide to take themselves to the ED, driving while impaired is illegal in all states not to mention just plain dangerous. Once there, again, being under the influence of a psychoactive drugs they may not give a thorough medical history, or it may alter the physical exam findings, possibly leading to a misdiagnosis (even with EMRs - I have seen this happen). Marijuana may also interact with other more useful medications that need to be given leading to further complications. In addition, diagnostic tests may be delayed as they won't be able to properly consent after consuming an substance that alters cognition. In addition, buying drug on the street is very dangerous because you do not know exactly what you are buying (a pharmacology professor of mine proved this in the 80s) - even marijuana can be laced with even more dangerous substances

In short, please don't self-medicate. This is especially true when you have a complex medical condition. Leave the medical advice to someone who is trained and qualified.

And stop claiming that marijuana is harmless. I see too many people land in our ED as a result of this type of self-medication.

Maybe you can use some strong rare-earth magnets to help it along?

This is highly unlikely to work. The problem? You think of the intestine as a linear tube from mouth to colon (then anus), but in reality there are many twists and turns in the intestine (which happens in real time - aka peristalsis). So for any placement of the magnet, you are just as likely to hang it up as to move it along - so doing this yourself won't help - and may actually be harmful if the magnet is strong enough and left in one area too long. That being said....someone has already thought of this. But if you look at the article, it looks like a pretty elaborate setup that likely only exists as a handful centers in the world as this would need to be done in real-time with imaging (looks like a mini CT scanner).

After 12 weeks, the likelihood of this passing on its own is virtually nil, so it will need some help. Double balloon enteroscopy (aka push enteroscopy) can be used if not too far in, and is performed at most university/academic medical centers. Other medical options are descried here. A more aggressive, but not maximally invasive choice would be to bring a surgeon into the mix to do a combination of double balloon enteroscopy and a laparoscopy or just plain old laparoscopy.

Best of luck.

Maybe you can use some strong rare-earth magnets to help it along?

This is highly unlikely to work. The problem? You think of the intestine as a linear tube from mouth to colon (then anus), but in reality there are many twists and turns in the intestine (which happens in real time - aka peristalsis). So for any placement of the magnet, you are just as likely to hang it up as to move it along - so doing this yourself won't help - and may actually be harmful if the magnet is strong enough and left in one area too long. That being said....someone has already thought of this. But if you look at the article, it looks like a pretty elaborate setup that likely only exists as a handful centers in the world as this would need to be done in real-time with imaging (looks like a mini CT scanner).

After 12 weeks, the likelihood of this passing on its own is virtually nil, so it will need some help. Double balloon enteroscopy (aka push enteroscopy) can be used if not too far in, and is performed at most university/academic medical centers. Other medical options are descried here. A more aggressive, but not maximally invasive choice would be to bring a surgeon into the mix to do a combination of double balloon enteroscopy and a laparoscopy or just plain old laparoscopy.

Best of luck.

In the early 20th century, human living conditions, including improvements in sanitation, hygiene, and dietary needs being met likely all contributed to a net rise in human cogitative performance, however atmospheric CO2 levels have also been steadily rising in that time.

Then there's this.

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

So yeah. Probably CO2 level rise has caught up to the benefits of improved standards of living.

There's no evidence such tests aid in education.

I was rather skeptical of this claim (typically, though not always, something isn't done for no reason at all) so I did some quick Google searches.

I don't believe your claim is true from the following: https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/03/11/do-higher-satact-scores-indicate-college-readiness/, https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2016/10/34716_Kwon_Jamie.pdf, and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090148/ which showed among the top results when searching for whether or not these tests were correlated with college GPA.

The short answer is that yes, they are correlated. Are they a perfect measure of success, of course not. It's pretty easy to come of with a plausible example of a person with a high score that has been driven by their parents all their life coming unraveled in college because they never learned to function for themselves, or an instance where someone did poorly in school in their youth or teens due to a terrible home situation that begins to excel once they're in college and removed from that environment.

If you wanted to show that these tests were useless you'd want to show that any of their predictive ability can also be captured by some other measurement (e.g. high school grade, ASVAB, midichlorian count, etc.) that does could be used as a prediction for success. However, as it's unlikely for any one thing to be a perfect predictor, using these tests is probably useful. There was even one study that found the ACT/SAT to still posses predictive ability after controlling for general intelligence measurement aspects of the test. The study is paywalled so I can't read it to determine if it's actually any good, but that's what's being claimed.

If you have a test that's supposed to measure educational attainment and it does a reasonably good job of that (which you could check based on comparisons with high school GPA) and you find it isn't correlating well to college outcomes, you might want to check what the hell it is you're teaching in college. If there's no difference in outcome between people at the very top of the SAT and those at the very bottom for a course, I'd question if it has any educational value. We could probably come up with an easy example where we have a course the assign's grade based on height. It's possible that there may be a correlation (suppose people with better nutrition are on average taller and smarter as a result of physical development, which makes sense) between test score and height, but it's unlikely. We can see that ACT/SAT would have no predictive ability for success, but that doesn't mean those tests are useless, just that the course is worthless in terms of education content.

Of course you don't want to use these tests as the only factor either. I've known plenty of people with what could be described as some type of test anxiety who are incredibly brilliant, but buckle under pressure or when put on the spot. In and ideal world, we'd identify those students and help correct this problem early in life, but we're clearly not there yet. So while we shouldn't use these tests of tests as the sole criteria for college admission, it's completely false to say that they have no ability to measure educational outcome. Maybe if you're handing out degrees in underwater basket weaving, then having a good ACT/SAT score does fuck all for students, but you're probably not going to find a lot of doctors, engineers, programmers, etc. that have scores in the bottom quartile for those tests.

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

I did not find the study the GPP referred to, but I have seen several studies indicating that drug and explosive sniffing dogs tend to signal where the handler thinks there is something to be found. Here is a link to an article about one such study: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/w...
And I believe that this is the paper on the study referenced in that article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
If this technique is used solely to locate hidden devices which are known to exist, and not as an excuse to search for hidden devices which are suspected to exist, I would find it acceptable. The problem is that I am quite confident that if the handler suspects that the person has a hidden External Storage Device, the dog will signal that the person does have one, giving the handler and excuse to conduct a warrant less search of the person and/or their belongings...and if the handler finds such a device it will be admissible even if it is not in the location the dog signaled.

How do you define feelings and thoughts? Metacognition (the ability to reflect on one's own thoughts), for example? Be careful if that's your basis, because even rats do that. The same may some day be shown for bees (although I'm not aware of any experiments at present that have attempted to test this).

It's an uncomfortable thought that the world around us is not just mindless automatons, but that it's thinking beings, regularly having their lives snuffed out by others. Including by us, whether by necessity or choice.

But, the world doesn't care what makes us comfortable.

Not original AC, but, like, facts?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/produ... (2014, males represent 78% of US suicides)
https://afsp.org/about-suicide... (WHITE males represent 70% of US suicides in 2016)
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/healt... (2016, males represent 78% of US suicides)

Given that men kill themselves ~3.5x as much as women, with a *vast* majority being white men, phrasing this as a "mens issue" isn't particularly out of line.

From the results of your own link:

Analyses at the community level are significantly more likely to demonstrate lower rates of suicide among higher socio-economic areas than studies using larger areas of aggregation. Measures of area poverty and deprivation are most likely to be inversely associated with suicide rates and median income is least likely to be inversely associated with suicide rates. Analyses using measures of unemployment and education and occupation were equally likely to demonstrate inverse associations.

And the Conclusion:

Resources for suicide prevention should be targeted to high poverty/deprivation and high unemployment areas.

This is the most ignorant thing I have read this year so far. Everybody knows that the poor do not commit suicide at higher rates.

CO2 is harmful apparently even at 600ppm in terms of clear thinking. CFCs are delicious though. I am drinking a cocktail of 1 part chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC22) to 3 parts cranberry juice with a splash of seltzer and it is yummy. No adverse affects afaict aside from brain death.

The term "Natural Monopoly" refers to a business with very high natural barriers to entry. A condition which lends itself to monopoly or even oligopoly. And the resultant monopolistic or oligopolistic pricing.

Industries like utilities, airlines, communications, railways are natural monopolies.

"Hormesis" is a medical term. It means something that in low doses is beneficial and high doses is harmful. Regulation may be the same way, as it is for beneficial drugs.

Some folks need the world to be digital - all one way or all the other. It's really an analog world.

Donyou mean this PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

How is removing insurance companies and inserting Government going to be cheaper or more efficient?

Because insurance companies have exactly the opposite motivation that we want in a health provider. What we want is to maximize health. What they want is to maximize profit. For insurance companies, actually treating people is a *cost*, which they will try to avoid. On the contrary, extracting more money in any kinds of ways is a benefit, and they'll try to maximize it. They have no motivation to reduce the customer's cost - on the contrary, the worse they treat the insured, and the more they bill them, the better.

The government has no such perverse incentives; moreover, a large single payer system, such as Medicare, could use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate great reductions in prices (as any reasonable business does). In the USA there are however LAWS forbidding Medicare to negotiate, which is just crazy.

This is not just idle banter - look at this study, provided by the NIH. Private insurers have an average overhead of 18%, while public insurers (Medicare and Medicaid) have an average overhead of 3.1% (table 1 in the study). As another point of interest, the overhead of the Canadian single payer system is 1.8%. The study concludes that removing the insurance companies overhead would save a staggering 350 billion dollars a year - which would be enough to cover the cost of treating all uninsured people in the USA, and leave enough over to improve everybody's current health care.

You should have a relatively good idea what algorithm COMPAS uses from the independent attempts at replicating it's result in your community.

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

When you have two wildly different approaches (human jury and SVM) produce nearly the same results and the same "unfairness" I feel rather safe taking as a working hypothesis that it is perceptional and actually a result of the underlying statistics when you purposely try to ignore race. If you want to bring false positive rates closer together, you'll have to include race into the equation. Although that will almost certainly lead to all else being equal whites being judged more harshly than blacks. You exchange one measure of fairness for another.

You wanted references:

https://detoxproject.org/glyph...

https://www.wellnessresources....

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

https://www.cornucopia.org/201...

http://glyphosate.news/2017-01...

And btw regarding your "close to a million of studies" a simple search for "genetically modified food" on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... shows a total of 6115 studies. So out of these 6115 I will be able to find your millions of studies that show that GMO food is dangerous to humans?

Submitter here. There was so much more I wanted to put into the submission, but didn't have room for.

How would you feel if somebody took away your $100 or $1000 cellphone and gave you a dedicated pager that only worked for alerts? Pretty bad, right? The primary use cases for cellphones are

1) making/receiving phone calls (dohhh)
2) listening to built-in FM radio (if your model has one)
3) listening to music or podcasts in storage
4) listening to streaming internet music
5) receiving messages when at meetings

Given that the alert sound is *DAMN LOUD*, and cannot be turned off easily...

1) So you're in a phone call and holding the phone up to your ear, or using earphones/earbuds... AND THE DAMN LOUD KLAXON GOES OFF

2) FM radio requires earphones/earbuds, so that the wire can be used as an FM antenna... AND THE DAMN LOUD KLAXON GOES OFF

3) You're listening to pre-recorded music or podcasts... AND THE DAMN LOUD KLAXON GOES OFF

4) you're listening to streaming internet music... AND THE DAMN LOUD KLAXON GOES OFF

5) You're at a meeting, or at a movie, or at church, or whatever with your phone set to vibrate-only "meeting mode"... AND THE DAMN LOUD KLAXON GOES OFF

From https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/heal...

> What is noise-induced hearing loss?

> Every day, we experience sound in our environment, such as the sounds from
> television and radio, household appliances, and traffic. Normally, these
> sounds are at safe levels that don't damage our hearing. But sounds can be
> harmful when they are too loud, even for a brief time, or when they
> are both loud and long-lasting. These sounds can damage sensitive
> structures in the inner ear and cause noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).

Fortunately, my phone has the option to be forced down to 3G-only. Since the Canadian alert system is LTE-only, that protects me. The other options are rooting the phone and/or flashing LineageOS on it.

The link between HIV and HPV. BeauHD is a faggot democrat cocksucker who loves to spew hate and vitriol. The perfect example of fascism is BeauHD.

However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are known carcinogens in large doses.

This is a blatantly false alarm, because A. no study has ever shown coffee to increase risk of cancer in humans with any real confidence, and B. multiple studies have shown that coffee reduces the risk of multiple varieties of cancer, including liver cancer, endometrial cancer, oral cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. And for all other types of cancer, results are neutral. The sole evidence in favor of coffee increasing cancer risk came from one study that suggested a weak correlation with increased childhood leukemia in children of mothers who drank coffee while pregnant, and even the evidence there is not very strong.

In other words, it's worse than a false alarm. It's exactly the opposite of what science is saying.

It's entirely reasonable to think that small doses might also have this effect.

No, it flies in the face of mounting evidence to think that, so it is entirely unreasonable.

Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals.

That anyone escapes high school without a solid foundation in economic marginalism is a national catastrophe, but there it is (from economics, also comparative advantage; from psychology a few select cognitive biases; finally, from statistics a fair list of sanity principles—these collectively essential to achieving 100% military power Iron Manchild / Iron Maiden batshit escape velocity).

Obviously (at least to anyone with a passing grade), the background rate is not on the margin (refer to definition of economic margin).

Preventable cancer is on the economic margin.

We talk about the margin (where change is possible) rather than the base rate (where change is still a twinkle of a some sketchy garret innovator that no-one is yet willing to believe) because that's where today's action resides (Willie Sutton: "I rob banks because that's where the money is"—which is surprisingly uncommon wisdom, once the zen origami is fully unfolded).

People struggling to assimilate this reality (how important something is at base rate / what gets the most air time) need to review their earliest childhood encounter concerning how a large nickel is worth less than a small dime. Oh, cruel world, very difficult! My heart goes out to you. Truly, I feel your pain.

But then these same people dial into the margin real quick when it's introduced to the talk-radio leprosy mosh pit as a "death panel" (modern leprosy is an incurable attitude, on a short, repeating, call-in loop).

Quality-adjusted life year

With an entire wonky literature, all to itself:
Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment

"Death panel" batshit escape velocity: impulse power hip wader.

And what about esophageal cancer or oral cancer? Eating a known carcinogen deserves a Darwin award. In a terms of risk, it would be more appropriate to be more concerned with any caffeine and theobromine, which is what caffeine is metabolized into, in cocoa products. Caffeine and theobromine would seem to be easier targets for being labeled as carcinogenic than acrylamide if the actual purpose was to label just coffee as a carcinogen, but acrylamide is found in more products. So, seeming as how it would allow for more lawsuits, it seems to have had a higher desirability to be labeled as a carcinogen.

Science is not static and California did not bypass it. Science is a constant process of discovery and the results are seldom binary.

A better opinion piece with citations: https://www.healthline.com/nut...

Has anyone ever heard of Acrylamide before reading the original article?

I'm still going to enjoy coffee regardless of the warning label informing me of exposure.

Why stay ignorant?

When new science comes out, I'll adjust accordingly.*

People are still going to do whatever they want https://youtu.be/wGI3rL7smN8

We left a generation dead from "No Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer".

And who kept singing that chorus?

* DRINK UP the science:
Acrylamide is NOT known to occur as a natural product. pg 392 https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG...
but wait?! it does roast naturally .. roasting process had the most significant effect on acrylamide levels in natural coffee https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cancer is just ...bad luck... these results suggest ... 0.81 correlation http://science.sciencemag.org/...
It's really safe to drink no warnings needed https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Right now, the US pays more per capita than any other OECD country.

Your outcomes are worse.

Low cost preventive care is sort of a myth

The evidence suggests otherwise.
There's a bunch of other articles with lower standards of rigor that all say much the same thing if you google 'cost of preventative care vs emergency care', for example. I'd be fascinated to see evidence to the contrary.

Extremely indulgent free medical services

Straw man. I'm arguing that socialised medical care as used by other OECD countries costs less and has better outcomes. You're arguing some fantastic exaggeration you're calling 'extremely indulgent free medical services'.

You're not even consistent. You argue first that people don't just avoid medical care because of cost, but then argue that were it free, people would use it too much.

The people advocating for universally free non-critical care (i.e 'free checkups') are generally the vendors of said services

Ad hominem.

Just be honest. The hot dog seller in the street is honest about his advocacy, and you can be too.

When you can back up your statement with something resembling facts, and avoid some fairly basic logical fallacies, your adoption of a patronising tone will probably ring less false.

Caveat. I'm from Australia, and while there are problems with our health care, I consider myself damn lucky to be able to live in country and period in history with access to the levels of civilisation that I enjoy. I'm more than happy to pay taxes to fund these services, both for myself and my fellow citizens and recognise that probably makes me a 'socialist' in the eyes of some. I consider the plight of those in the US who cannot afford medical care to be a tragedy. I've nothing to sell, and your assumption that this can be the only motivation for someone to advocate equitable access to the wealth of society says more about your motivations than anything else.

But everyone having a windmill creating low frequency vibrations is fantastic for neighborhoods? And we all know that the wind blows sufficient to create power 100% of the time so you don't have to get a "super-complex grid-power-when-air-is-calm tie in", and there's a massive abundancy of companies making residential wind power equipment. And, because wind power doesn't have moving parts, there's never any maintenance that has to be done many feet off the ground.

All of your arguments are nonsense, and apply equally if not more so to wind power in a residential context.

Just to be clear, in case you couldn't get the dripping sarcasm:

- there are no possible health effects from the daily operation of solar power.
- everyone knows when the sun is going to go down, so the grid-tie usage is far more predictable than wind.
- solar has no moving parts, so the maintenance is cleaning them off every once in a while, on a roof you should already be inspecting regularly.

I agree. But we can do better. California should make 2 new laws:

1) Everything good is required.

2) Everything bad is against the law.

That will simplify what is happening now: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224

The California notice:

"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"

Chrome causes cancer: Epidemiologic studies of chrome and cancer mortality: a series of meta-analyses.

Vanadium causes cancer: Toxic Substances Portal - Vanadium Quote: "Everyone is exposed to low levels of vanadium in air, water, and food; however, most people are exposed mainly from food."

You might want to educate yourself before you go around correcting others.

Chromosome 20 (p11) is covered in multiple studies. We don't fully understand the mechanisms, but the data is there and has been reproduced.

Enjoy!

So, no matter what, the cells live too long, or they don't live long enough, and either immune stimulation is a problem or it's a missing feature. Your thinking is dominated by why things can't work, and how you need really complex and costly solutions, and how risky everything is. I don't blame you: it's traditional, safe, academic thinking. It's what you might have heard from an IBM researcher in the 1960's. It seemed reasonable until, well, personal computers came out in the mid-70's and changed everything.

I think you demonstrated more clearly than I ever could (1) why gene therapy has made such ridiculously slow progress, and (2) that the way to change that is to have outsiders come into the field without preconceptions and take their chances.

Actually, assuming you're talking about 2000-4000 PPM like it was back in the age of dinosaurs, we could absolutely survive as there is a vast wealth of medical data about living in CO2 levels at 2500 to 11,000 PPM.

"Toxicity was evaluated in male and female rats" - IOW just as I said you need to be a rat to survive.

Meanwhile, back in the real world: https://www.kane.co.uk/knowled...

2,000-5,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. 5,000 Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions.

And last but most certainly not least: what makes you think I was talking about the CO2 level in the first place? The problem is the heat. Land mammals above a certain size can't exist at these temperatures.

Actually, assuming you're talking about 2000-4000 PPM like it was back in the age of dinosaurs, we could absolutely survive as there is a vast wealth of medical data about living in CO2 levels at 2500 to 11,000 PPM.