Slashdot Mirror

"antioxidants "

actually that ones a myth too.
Right now all the health food shops love them and in that at least they're only a few decades behind actual medical science.
http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/epistemological-indulgences/

citation:
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/166.abstract
found
"antioxidant supplements were found to have no preventive effect on cancer"
in fact....
"the use of antioxidant supplements significantly increased the risk of bladder cancer "

"Nobody ever actually SAID it was the alcohol that was healthy numbnuts. "
lots of people do.
it's a common myth.
that you should drink a glass of wine ever day, that it's good for your heart. etc etc.
with the exception of the social stuff it's pretty much bunk.
an apple a day is the far more likely option.

Alcohol is both a muscle relaxant and a mental relaxant. Moderate use relieves stress and frankly the side effects are far less severe than any of the prescription meds you can get for the same job. Relieving average daily stress levels by itself probably does more good than alcohol can do bad.

muscle relaxant? sure.
mental relaxant? simply interacting with other people socially is what's good for that.
Drinking alone does little or nothing to relieve mental stress.

You still haven't proven that they were. When scientists from reputable institutions publish research in reputable journals it gets peer reviewed. If that research is skewed then they get blasted and their reputations (which in science IS your entire career) gets blown to hell. They have to be as unbiased as technology allows them to be - no matter who paid for the research grant. That isn't to say that some scientists aren't bought off and that some don't get away with it - scientists are only human so if this was one study - I'd take it with a grain of salt. But all the numerous confirmatory studies that have been done have ALL come to the SAME conclusion, all these independent researchers including the ones who set out to prove it false because they were raised in alcoholic home (of COURSE some of them exist and nobody is completely bias free) have repeatedly found the same results.

Did you even read the citation from the other post?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478320
should be able to get a full copy of the paper with a little googling.

No they have not ALL come to the SAME conclusion.
It's a myth.
An attractive myth.
There's countless studies which show homeopathy to work yet there's even more higher quality ones which show it's useless.
Guess which ones get more attention in the tabloids.
Guess which ones the homoeopaths talk about.

are you familiar with the concept of a systematic review or a meta-analysis?

I probably drink slightly more than you- I do more cold deserts with alcohol in them.
I take the view that any health risks are trivial enough.

Oh and I almost forgot your citation:
a systematic review.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478320

most studies fail to exclude people who don't drink because they cannot drink due to ill health or medication.
those that account for this bias the advantages of alcohol disappear.

There's anecdotal evidence that pot smokers consume less alcohol when toking up. AND, from the government itself...

So I'm just tellin' ya, Let it go... It's over Johnny, it's over...

Those behaviors would not be due to Asperger's and are very liked related to some other illness. Studies have been done dismissing a link between Asperger's and violent behavior. The condition is essentially an inability to infer meaning which makes it difficult to maintain social interaction beyond literal cues. Being extremely violent and threatening to stab people is something else.

In other words, having Asperger's--if he really does at all--is not going to make you forget that hacking another country's military computers is not a severe crime.

in the "what are you going to believe, your own eyes?" department...

Research in Phenology (the study of the seasonal changes of plant and animal life) shows significant advances in spring activity at points across the globe.

http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;324/5929/887
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15592880
http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf

These are supplemented by anecdotal evidence - particularly in higher latitudes - that things are changing rapidly, and that surroundings are changing with in a generations living memory.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-great-global-experim.html

As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"...

Taubes is a scientific and journalistic fraud, who pushes nutritional pseudoscience and misrepresents the positions of people he interviews. See http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html and http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/105/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest.htm.

A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates.

No, in fact the bulk of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now, highly refined carbs do make it easier to overeat -- as do fatty foods. But the bulk of our problem is very simple: we eat something on the order of 25% more calories now than we did three or four decades ago. When you're overeating by 500 calories a day, shuffling around the proportions of macronutrients is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on

Yeah, that's why you see so many fat Japanese people, all that rice. And why we've had all these "western diseases" for centuries, as we ate a grain-centered diet since, like, the beginning of human civilization.

Oh, wait a minute...obesity rates in Japan, where the typical diet gets about 55 to 60% of calories from carbs, are about 1/10 those of the U.S. -- but are rising as carb levels decrease and fat and protein levels increase.

And the fact that for most of human history[*] the majority of the human race has eaten a grain-centered high carbohydrate diet -- these "diseases of affluence" were awfully rare until the 20th century.

([*]To be taken literally: history starts with writing, which comes after the Neolithic revolution.)

And a high protein meal will also raise insulin levels -- good, since insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids protein synthesis.. And people who are exercising lose weight and improve insulin response on high carb diets better than on high fat ones. And a high-complex carbohydrate diet will have you lose much more weight that a low-carb, high fat diet.

So, in summary: Taubes, full of shit; low carb diets, not backed by science.

Ask guys behind the Pubmed

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

The database of scientific articles in the field of medicine and biology.

NCBI has the most generous software code licensing that is possible: the code is absolutely free, absolutely no restriction for distributing, changing, selling, even closing it. All because we, taxpayers, paid for it already.

I am surprised none of them reacted yet, I am sure they read ./

So we'll just have to suffer 75,000 murders, suicides, and accidental deaths a year.

Correction. I read Wikipedia too quickly. That's 75,000 injuries a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

The correct numbers (which vary somewhat every year) are 9,000 homicides, 17,000 suicides.

The estimate of 10 gun deaths for every life saved in defensive use (which can't be determined accurately) is from Am J Public Health. 1994 December; 84(12):1982–1984. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez

At least the right wing wackos on Slashdot aren't as crazy as the right wing wackos on the Wall Street Journal comments pages.

IF you are concerned about safety, FDA or no, there has been extensive research on it. Very many studies demonstrate no difference between GMOs and non-GM crops, and as a result, the general scientific consensus is that they're safe. Even if we assume Monsanto is influencing the FDA, I doubt they exert the same influence over countless relevant experts. Heck, even countries like Iran and China have developed their own homegrown strains of GMO. Iran made the worlds first Bt rice. Is Monsanto bribing off what one of most anti-US countries in the world?

Those who claim that GMOs are dangerous haven't done a very good job of proving their claims, either. For something to be dangerous, I think we can all agree it must have a reason, yes? Just being GMO is not a valid reason, it must have some sort of chemical compount, not present in the unmodified counterpart, that is dangerous. To date, no such compound from a commercially approved GMO has been identified. No genetic reasoning, no chemical pathways given for the production, and no proven cases of people actually hurt by them. No reason in theory, no evidence in practice. Starfruit and kiwi have presented more problems than GMOs, yet no one protests them. And of course, GMOs must be reviewed on a case by case basis, maybe someday the FDA royally screws up and one that kills people is released , but if it is, there'll be a reason for it. And since there is neither a known reason as to why any of the commercial GMOs would hurt anyone nor evidence that it happens, I guess the FDA just puts them in a catagory similar to Generally Recognized As Safe after the testing has been done.

As for the weeds, that is a very real problem. The thing there is, everyone saw that coming. Even Monsanto said it would happen. The problem was that there are only two traits for herbicide resistance, Starlink and Round-Up Ready, and only Round-Up Ready was extensively used. The problem wasn't overuse, but over-reliance. If there were more approved traits, and people used multiple herbicides, it would much more difficult for a weed to develop resistance. Even if it were to acquire the resistance through horizontal gene transfer, if there were multiple genes confirming resistance to multiple compounds, it is still very unlikely. These weeds aren't really 'superweeds' by the way, just regular weeds that are resistant to the most popular herbicide, so they can still be taken out by other chemicals and methods, but still, this never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. I don't know why it wasn't done, why those traits weren't pushed out there, maybe the FDA was lax in approving them, maybe activists protested, maybe the companies just didn't care, whatever, but yes, someone screwed the pooch on that one.

IF you are concerned about safety, FDA or no, there has been extensive research on it. Very many studies demonstrate no difference between GMOs and non-GM crops, and as a result, the general scientific consensus is that they're safe. Even if we assume Monsanto is influencing the FDA, I doubt they exert the same influence over countless relevant experts. Heck, even countries like Iran and China have developed their own homegrown strains of GMO. Iran made the worlds first Bt rice. Is Monsanto bribing off what one of most anti-US countries in the world?

Those who claim that GMOs are dangerous haven't done a very good job of proving their claims, either. For something to be dangerous, I think we can all agree it must have a reason, yes? Just being GMO is not a valid reason, it must have some sort of chemical compount, not present in the unmodified counterpart, that is dangerous. To date, no such compound from a commercially approved GMO has been identified. No genetic reasoning, no chemical pathways given for the production, and no proven cases of people actually hurt by them. No reason in theory, no evidence in practice. Starfruit and kiwi have presented more problems than GMOs, yet no one protests them. And of course, GMOs must be reviewed on a case by case basis, maybe someday the FDA royally screws up and one that kills people is released , but if it is, there'll be a reason for it. And since there is neither a known reason as to why any of the commercial GMOs would hurt anyone nor evidence that it happens, I guess the FDA just puts them in a catagory similar to Generally Recognized As Safe after the testing has been done.

As for the weeds, that is a very real problem. The thing there is, everyone saw that coming. Even Monsanto said it would happen. The problem was that there are only two traits for herbicide resistance, Starlink and Round-Up Ready, and only Round-Up Ready was extensively used. The problem wasn't overuse, but over-reliance. If there were more approved traits, and people used multiple herbicides, it would much more difficult for a weed to develop resistance. Even if it were to acquire the resistance through horizontal gene transfer, if there were multiple genes confirming resistance to multiple compounds, it is still very unlikely. These weeds aren't really 'superweeds' by the way, just regular weeds that are resistant to the most popular herbicide, so they can still be taken out by other chemicals and methods, but still, this never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. I don't know why it wasn't done, why those traits weren't pushed out there, maybe the FDA was lax in approving them, maybe activists protested, maybe the companies just didn't care, whatever, but yes, someone screwed the pooch on that one.

I guess I should do some research before hazarding a guess, though.

• Effect of a phytoestrogen food supplement on reproductive health in normal males

Because changes in sex hormones have a much greater effect on infants because they are actively developing, there have been even more studies showing that soy forumula has no negative effect to sexual development:

• Soy protein formulas in children: no hormonal effects in long-term feeding.
• Exposure to Soy-Based Formula in Infancy and Endocrinological and Reproductive Outcomes in Young Adulthood
• Safety of Soy-Based Infant Formulas Containing Isoflavones: The Clinical Evidence

It could also be that the EPA felt the need to be dramatic in order to reach a compromise position with congress. We may very well have extra hundreds of thousands of unnecessary cancers a year due to Dioxin exposure. And maybe if they say 1200 times, they'll get from congress a bill that is just 400 times. If they had said 400 times, they might have gotten 100 times. Of course, they've been trying to get this stuff banned since the 70's, unsuccessfully. Maybe now they have a chance.

Or it could be that our Dioxin exposure is just damned out of proportion with safe reality. The wikipedia page for Dioxin reads like a Who's Who of western country malaises.

GM crops with increased yield help no matter what the cause is.

Better transportation not GE is needed.

Famine though plant blight is common, and GE is the best way to get rid of it.

Not even, the best way to combat blight is with diversity. When a monoculture is hit by blight or something else the whole crop can be lost. But that's not true when fields are diverse. Take for instance cocoa, ScienceDaily has the article New Cocoa Varieties Needed to Secure World's Chocolate Supply. Scientists at University of Reading are working to "develop new cocoa varieties better suited to likely future climates." Meanwhile Nestle is supplying cocoa farmers with disease resistant cocoa varieties. With 4 main varieties of cocoa people are working to create hybrids.

http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2010/01/gates-foundation-to-fund-cassava.html

That says nothing about genetic engineering. The 2 tymes "gene" is even mentioned is when it says they are looking for desired genes in resistant varieties of cassava. All that's needed is crossbreeding and hybrids. No fish genes need to be inserted.

But more importantly, there are many areas of the world where the problem isn't caloric, but nutritional. Golden rice is the poster child for this. Lack of vitamin A leads to blindness and death, so adding it to the rice in places where that is the staple diet can save many.

All that's needed for this is to eat crops that have the needed nutrients. For vitamin A, carrots. Carrots are filled with beta carotene which is a precursor to vitamin A. The NIH has more food sources for vitamin A. The percent of RDA is also included. And again as the BBC article GM 'golden rice' boosts vitamin A says "Not everyone believes golden rice is the best answer to Vitamin A deficiency."

For instance I am afraid Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops are creating superweeds [france24.com].

Pesticide use made that problem(if it turns out to be one), not GE. Without GE other pesticides would be used, and pesticide resistant plants would evolve.

That just goes to show how much you know. Pesticides had nothing to do with the creation of superweeds.

Bye

Falcon

All of the above was pretty much the standard at my university. Rarely would any problems in studies actually be something that could be remotely attributed to the teaching abilities of my professors.

The most common problem I found was that (especially in upper-year physics) was that nobody wanted to do more than the minimum amount of homework. This is a shame, as one would have to have endured the "weeding out" process of university for at least 3 years in order to reach this level in the first place. People typically hunted down exams and homework solutions from previous offerings of the course in an attempt to create a catalog of "probable questions" for the exams.

My approach was simple: spend the $10 per course for the student solutions manual. The questions are the same as the text book, save for tiny changes so the final evaluated answer isn't identical, and complete, worked-out solutions are provided. I also purchased the "Schaum's Outlines" series of books for every course I possibly could. This was invaluable, as most of my texts would only offer "final solutions" for a fraction of the "odd number questions" (ie: less than 10% of the questions per chapter, and none of the more difficult questions would have these answers provided; Very frustrating as these questions were typically the ones on the exams). This supplementary material was very beneficial for courses in which the textbooks explained a concept poorly, and essentially provided no means for the student to work through the homework, even after reading the chapter 3 times.

These extra materials allowed me to learn the general application of the principles, and helped me to ace my advanced math and physics courses for 3 years straight. The end result is that every week, I probably did at least 60 to 120 sample questions per chapter as opposed to the 10 we had to have on our submitted homework assignments. People have a choice with respect to how well they want to do, and this is coming from someone who worked 2-3 jobs to put himself through engineering and pay rent, so I sincerely doubt the "I have no time or money" argument is applicable here. Mind you, I do recall studies mentioning that people can be driven by adversity more than the average person with fewer obstacles in life. Although this isn't the particular example (below) I was thinking of at the time of writing this comment, it provides some insight with respect to how enduring adversity can push an individual to strive. I am willing to concede on that point, that such circumstances while attending university may have been advantageous for me. :)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10511821

New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA

That's what you think, but it in not true. As the NIH's Medline says "Genetically engineered foods are generally regarded as safe. There has been no adequate testing, however, to ensure complete safety. There are no reports of illness or injury due to genetically engineered foods. Each new genetically engineered food will have to be judged individually." Bold added by me.

There have been toxic chemicals found in food sold that have been "traditionally" engineered, but none that have been "on purpose" engineered in in what has become known as GE.

Really? So soya with brazil nut genes, which can cause serious allergy reactions including death, has not been found to be allergic as well? And the military hasn't spend a lot of money developing biological agents, such as anthrax?

GM food is safer then it's counterparts. I'll take the GM food, please..

Citation needed for the safety. As for taking it, go ahead and keep it. Just don't force it on me.

I recommend the Whole Earth Discipline. Where he talks about his expertise (he's an ecologist/biologist by training) he's spot on. I don't agree with him on all the topics included in the book

If his expertise is "spot on" why don't you agree with everything he says? After-all he's an expert. Because the rest doesn't agree with what you want?

Falcon

NYC is a big place with many boroughs where density is lower and people don't walk as much. If you look at the obesity in Manhattan, it is much less.

In fact, there is a study on relationship between BMI and urban environment factors (like public transportation and density). They concluded that urban environment does reduce obesity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17465178

While it's a cute and funny Panny-arcade strip, it's not true.

Actually, there is research that suggests that under anonymous circumstances, otherwise normal people begin to behave in anti-social ways.
Article
Research paper
Another paper
One more

Do you think people would behave better when they drive if their real name was on their car? No. However retaliation for precieved slight would certainly increase.

The better question to ask is if people drive with less regard because they feel they are unidentifiable. Would you shout at a driver who cut you off if you knew they could hear you and find you? Would you drive around a line of backed up cars and force your way into line if you believed your reputation could be affected?

As for retaliation, privacy is already a myth. Anyone who wants to retaliate already can with a little bit of investigation. Physical retaliation is still rare, though. Using real names just removes this facade of privacy, making it obvious to those who speak that they can be held responsible and accountable for their actions (as they already can), and thus reinstating the disincentive to behave badly.

The article by Li et al doesn't show that the forest has anything to do with the change in NK activity. They base their claim that NK activity increased after a forest walk by comparing NK activity to a baseline obtained from the same subjects on a normal working day. Why couldn't the difference have been due to the exercise itself? They should've had a control group of folks taking a city walk, and a third group using treadmills to exercise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16332418

Only one study though.

Sigh.

narCONon is a $cientology front group. It has repeatedly been found either ineffective or downright harmful.

Narcotics Anonymous, on the other hand, is an actual treatment program, the name of which $cientologists deliberately mirrored in their scam setup in order to confuse people into thinking narCONon is somehow legitimate.

Which is modeled after AA, which, in turn, has its origins in the Oxford Group, which was based on Christianity. Meetings start with prayers, members are encouraged to accept that only a "higher power" can save them from alcohol, and the meetings are frequently held in churches (sometimes called Christian AA groups).

It has also been found to be ineffective, offering no increase in success over other methods of trying to "quit.":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The intentions of AA/NA might be slightly better than narCONon, but they are no more effective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed mission accomplished

getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment

I am getting tired of reading malarkey like this. Very few cancers can be traced to environmental contamination. The primary sources of cancer in humans are:

Smoking.
Solar radiation.
High fat diets.
Diseases like HPV and Hepatitis.
Biological changes due to aging.
Physical inactivity.

Best available estimates put 6% of cancer levels due to environmental contamination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7017215

YES, apparently if you read the sequence.index file, you know, this one: ftp://ftp-trace.ncbi.nih.gov/1000genomes/ftp/sequence.index The second tab is an MD5 check-sum, so don't go about freaking out =)

Although they offer FTP access to the genomic data--including population, alignment and sequences (traces, calls, etc.)--the NCBI has hosted the files with a README and guide (aspera_transfer_guide.pdf) about Aspera's "fasp technology" that the NCBI claims to incorporate automated checksum verification for both casual downloaders, via a browser plugin, and bulk downloaders, via a cross-platform command-line application. Aspera is new to me; they claim to have some throughput (bandwidth) advantages as well.

Nevertheless, the sequence data files embed MD5 checksums directly, per NCBI documentation, which I would expect bulk downloaders to take advantage of independent of any third-party "technology."

Although they offer FTP access to the genomic data--including population, alignment and sequences (traces, calls, etc.)--the NCBI has hosted the files with a README and guide (aspera_transfer_guide.pdf) about Aspera's "fasp technology" that the NCBI claims to incorporate automated checksum verification for both casual downloaders, via a browser plugin, and bulk downloaders, via a cross-platform command-line application. Aspera is new to me; they claim to have some throughput (bandwidth) advantages as well.

Nevertheless, the sequence data files embed MD5 checksums directly, per NCBI documentation, which I would expect bulk downloaders to take advantage of independent of any third-party "technology."

Although they offer FTP access to the genomic data--including population, alignment and sequences (traces, calls, etc.)--the NCBI has hosted the files with a README and guide (aspera_transfer_guide.pdf) about Aspera's "fasp technology" that the NCBI claims to incorporate automated checksum verification for both casual downloaders, via a browser plugin, and bulk downloaders, via a cross-platform command-line application. Aspera is new to me; they claim to have some throughput (bandwidth) advantages as well.

Nevertheless, the sequence data files embed MD5 checksums directly, per NCBI documentation, which I would expect bulk downloaders to take advantage of independent of any third-party "technology."

It's not a justification. There's an observed correlation in multiple studies between both absolute and relative lower income and crime rates, especially theft and burglary.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-harvardberkeley.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683374

Pretending there's "good" and "bad" people is incredibly naïf, and it's not validated by real data. By the way, there's also no real evidence of capital punishment being an effective deterrence to crime, no matter what petty revengers claim.

As Henry Buckle said, "Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it".

Oh yes.. Also:

(yes, Wikipedia is not a valid citation. I understand that. It does make a good aggregator for good citations, however.)

Wikipedia on "Cancer Stem Cells"

Study on human lupus, and effects on bone marrow

I think that pretty much covers all of the assertions I made earlier, but, Meh.

(same AC as above)

To be fair, a Lipoma is a benign fatty tumor, which is often hereditary. My dad and my sister both have had lipomas, and I was not fortunate enough to not get one myself. (I suspect I have another forming between two of my ribs, but I will have to get checked to be sure.)

Genuine lipomas are perfectly harmless. Just ugly, and awkward.

However, since this is slashdot, and the inevitable [citation needed] will appear, here is said citation concerning inflammation and the production of primary tumors.[1]

Yeah, I guess you are right. The first anonymous coward claims to be a doc, then said 'unusual tumors localized to the kidneys don't kill people'.

A doc would/should know, you don't know what genetically altered cells might be up to, or what their effects might be.

He'd also (should) know that sometimes folks do seemingly die of localized tumors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592276

"Among the 33 patients who died from seemingly localized RCC (localized renal cell carcinoma )..."

Oh, BTW. I'm a medical researcher. I just didn't think it was necessary to state that in my previous post, because the lack of evidence in the grandparents post was so obvious, I thought you regular folks would get that.

I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies, which I have a huge moral problem with.

You have a moral issue with embryonic stem cell research because you have not clue what it entails.

Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
"Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."

A blastocyst is the embryonic clump of cells, approximately 70 to 100 cells, that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb. As noted in the basics these blastocysts are not in a womb, they will never develop a placenta or form into a human.

Also, adult stem cell research has led to over seventy approved treatments being used today. The number from embryonic research? Zero. But for some reason all the noise is made about embryonic research. I really do not understand why.

Using political power and social pressure to hold back embryonic stem cell research does not mean it has no potential uses, it means there has been limited research, that's all.

I'm glad you admitted that you do not understand because that truly is the root of the entire debate.

Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
- Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
- Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

In conclusion, there is no sane reason to be morally opposed to embryonic stem cell research due to a need for dead babies as no babies ever die for embryonic stem cell research.

Or perhaps you believe that virtually every man and woman on the planet are baby killers because they do not ensure that every single spermatozoa and ovam is given a chance to become a baby.

Perhaps you think that manufacturers of sanitary napkins and condoms are the enablers of baby killing.

You do see how irrational one can be when the probability of cells becoming a human becomes the basis for a moral standard, don't you? If you ever experience a nocturnal emission or go through a menstrual cycle without producing offspring then you are the same type of baby killer as the embryonic stem cell researchers. Obviously you did not kill any babies and neither did the researchers.

I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies, which I have a huge moral problem with.

You have a moral issue with embryonic stem cell research because you have not clue what it entails.

Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
"Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."

A blastocyst is the embryonic clump of cells, approximately 70 to 100 cells, that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb. As noted in the basics these blastocysts are not in a womb, they will never develop a placenta or form into a human.

Also, adult stem cell research has led to over seventy approved treatments being used today. The number from embryonic research? Zero. But for some reason all the noise is made about embryonic research. I really do not understand why.

Using political power and social pressure to hold back embryonic stem cell research does not mean it has no potential uses, it means there has been limited research, that's all.

I'm glad you admitted that you do not understand because that truly is the root of the entire debate.

Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
- Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
- Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

In conclusion, there is no sane reason to be morally opposed to embryonic stem cell research due to a need for dead babies as no babies ever die for embryonic stem cell research.

Or perhaps you believe that virtually every man and woman on the planet are baby killers because they do not ensure that every single spermatozoa and ovam is given a chance to become a baby.

Perhaps you think that manufacturers of sanitary napkins and condoms are the enablers of baby killing.

You do see how irrational one can be when the probability of cells becoming a human becomes the basis for a moral standard, don't you? If you ever experience a nocturnal emission or go through a menstrual cycle without producing offspring then you are the same type of baby killer as the embryonic stem cell researchers. Obviously you did not kill any babies and neither did the researchers.

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892037/

Citations:

http://www.bookrags.com/research/suicide-and-substance-abuse-dat-03/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml

The commenter was right, you cannot compare the suicide rates of employed people of one country in one factory against the entire suicide rate across all demographics of another country.

Not exactly. The NIH Public Acess Policy requires that articles based on research funded by NIH be made available to the public no more than a year after publication, by submitting the paper to PubMed. So you don't have to publish your article in both, say, Nature and BMC Biology; you just have to make sure that if the paper is published in Nature, PubMed gets a copy and posts it on their server. Alternately, the PubMed listing may link to the paper at the publisher's site if it's open-access. Wellcome Trust has a similar policy. A number of traditional journal publishers (e.g. Oxford University Press) are automatically making NIH- and/or Wellcome-funded papers available on their sites to ensure compliance -- in fact, most OUP biomedical journals just open everything up after six months to make sure. At a guess, at least three-quarters of the biomedical research published in English depends on NIH, Wellcome, or both, so this is really the easiest way to do it.

I really do believe it's possible for traditional journal publishing, open access, and other methods of disseminating research to peacefully coexist. Just a lot of folks haven't got the message yet.

In severe cases exposure to fragrance can lead to coma and even death.

I'd be interested in some good references for that assertion. A search of PubMed for "fragrance" (also tried "perfume" and "scent") and "coma" yielded nothing of the sort. Searching for "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity MCS" doesn't bring up any useful case studies either. It did however bring up this study(my emphasis):

INTRODUCTION: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is an acquired disorder with recurrent symptoms referable to multiple organ systems. No widely accepted test of physiologic function correlates with symptoms and it has not been recognized as a distinct entity by the scientific community. Few double-blind placebo-controlled studies have been done. The objectives of this study were to test two hypotheses: that patients with MCS can distinguish reliably between solvents and placebo, and that there are significant differences in objective biological and neuropsychological parameters between solvent and placebo exposures. METHODS: Twenty patients with MCS and 17 controls underwent six exposure sessions (solvent mixture and clean air in random order, double-blind) in a challenge chamber. Positive reactions were defined as subjective perception of being exposed to solvents, blood pressure or heart rate change of > or = 10%, rash or clinical signs of hypoxia, or symptom severity rise after exposure. RESULTS: No differences between the groups with regard to sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were found. Cognitive performance was not influenced by solvent exposure, and did not differ between the groups. There was no difference between the groups in serum cortisol levels measured before and after exposures. CONCLUSION: The hypotheses were not confirmed.

As far as modern science can tell us, those with MCS cannot distinguish between solvents and placebo AND there are no significant differences in objective biological and neuropsychological parameters between solvent and placebo exposures.

It has been suspected as being bad sense the 1930's but there is no direct link to it causing any notable issues.

"The first evidence of the estrogenicity of bisphenol A came from experiments on rats conducted in the 1930s, but it was not until 1997 that adverse effects of low-dose exposure on laboratory animals were first reported."

It also seems to me that in 3 generations we would have seen a difference or at a minimum science should be able to say "It causes XXX"

I've got one:

"Bisphenol-A causes you to develop smaller genitals."

Also, how about: "Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight,
Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and Plasma LH Levels" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1240370&blobtype=pdf

Any material in contact with food that has such a confirmed, physical affect should be eliminated, nothing else needed. If it was some form of medicine, fine, it has side effects. I don't want my food, or it's packaging to have medical side effects.

A lot of papers were published in the 1990s claiming that endocrine disruptors such as BPA will cause children to have delayed onset of puberty.

Citation? Everything I've seen says BPA exposure advances puberty:

• A great overview of the research in Environmental Health Perspectives
• "Exposure to bisphenol A advances puberty", in Nature: like it says in the title, for female mice at least
• "Low dose effect of in utero exposure to bisphenol A and diethylstilbestrol on female mouse reproduction" in Reproductive toxicology: BPA makes female mice sexually mature faster.

Since it's been shown that aerobic exercise can improve reaction time, I can't help but wonder how much better of gamers they would be if they also exercised a bit as well. They wouldn't need to go to a gym. Just some running, or crunches, or something on a regular basis would help, I would bet.

Since it's been shown that aerobic exercise can improve reaction time, I can't help but wonder how much better of gamers they would be if they also exercised a bit as well. They wouldn't need to go to a gym. Just some running, or crunches, or something on a regular basis would help, I would bet.

The sick thing is a lot of the research is government-backed, but then used to figure out a way to patent genes.

... so she flew to Malaysia (which she was going to do anyway) and got it done for ten bucks (our money)... Those things were obviously invented to trick smart people like her out of their savings.

Trick smart people? Huh?

According to this journal entry written in 2007, the Malaysian government subsidised 98% of healthcare bills. It costed US$0.30 for an entire outpatient visit in a government clinic. I presume similar rates applied to dental treatment as well.

How do most advanced drugs get created? By socialist governments? Or maybe by underground tech communities? Small businesses? Humanitarian groups? Nope, American and other free market Corporations.

In reality significant funding for pharmaceutical R&D in the USA comes from most of the sources you mention, not just corporate funding. First, there is direct funding from the the Federal Government through the auspices of the National Institute for Health or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, along with some agencies (like both the FDA and CDC) doing direct research. Second ,there still is a lot of research done by universities and other primarily academic institutions (many of which receive some State and Federal funding). Third, there are non-profit funding groups, usually founded to support research into specific diseases, but some are more general. Corporate funding is only the fourth source of R&D funding, and by actual dollars only account for about one third of the money going towards pharmaceutical research. So in summation, while corporate dollars are useful, they are far from the only thing driving modern pharmaceutical R&D.

Hypertension, Heart Problems.

No

and

No

Hard to prove a negative, but for a drug, caffeine has been remarkably safe.

(Appropriate Heinlein quote "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal".

You can access the actual research paper through this pubmed (national institutes of health) link. You may need to access it through your local university library to get further than the abstract. If you follow through as far as the link from the publisher (Wiley Interscience) you'll see that the paper was actually accepted and published online back in February.