Slashdot Mirror

I can't speak for everyone, but I do bioinformatics/computational biology and often telecommute when consulting or to continue the days work at home when deadlines are tight. Depending on the project or analysis task, having local copies of public scientific databases is very useful (eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Database/). These databases are rather large and are growing rapidly. Since terabyte drives have become affordable, it's become feasible to maintain up-to-date personal copies at home rather than accessing them via NFS at work or working with representative subsets.

Perfectly legal, legitimate and probably more useful to society than streaming HD content. This is the kind of stuff we used the internet for back before it hit the bigtime, so as legitimate a use of the internet as what people now consider "normal use" (web browsing, shopping, watching video, streaming music, and yes I do those too).

I think being startled has much more to do with the ability to concentrate than with fear.

That's nice that you think that. Psychology being an empirical field, though, what you think is not really relevant. What is relevant is the ample evidence linking the startle response to fear. Oh, and not to attention.

All in all, this research is probably crap.

Must... resist... making... FTFY... joke...

But where are the studies that show that "reliving the trauma" is better in general?

There's so far evidence that the popular method of "reliving or talking about it" isn't such a good idea:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/06/venting-emotions-after-trauma-predicts.php

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1296912

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/11/mentalhealth.healthandwellbeing

I'm inclined that like most memory stuff, repeating something over and over again just makes it easier for you to remember it.

For some people the "reliving" session may itself be yet another traumatic event to add to their "wonderful life" so far. Imagine if you're a rape victim, getting raped in virtual reality over and over again.

Of course the trouble is it's often hard to conduct experiments in the field of psychology to prove efficacy. You can't go around giving 1000 people PTSD and do a "double blind" on the treatments. I suppose you could try it on rats first, but how well is that going to translate?

IMO I believe if people don't feel a strong _urge_[1] to talk about it tell them to think about something else and get busy with other more enjoyable things.

Same goes for the conventional wisdom on "bottling up anger". You let people bash stuff up because they feel angry, all it does is makes it become a trained/learned response. Fine if you want to learn to bash stuff up whenever you get angry, but not fine if you are trying to learn something else.

[1] Not because they _feel_ it's the right thing to do - based on "conventional" stupidity aka wisdom. If they do feel a strong urge, then yes let them do it.

This controversy concerns just the works created by NIH (government) employees. The policy of open access should extend equally to academics who receive NIH funding.

You are incorrect. As of this spring, all NIH funded research, not just work by NIH intramural researchers, is covered by NIH's open access policy.

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

The reason federal funding puts the IP rights into the hands of universities is a result of the Bayh Dole act. Regardless, it only makes universities the bad guys rather than the government. Its worth noting, though: the NIH has taken steps so research tools (patents granted for processes that do not lead to commercialization) that are developed with federal funds must be made available to other scientists under reasonable terms. Not ideal, but its a step. Read NIH 64 FR 72090 for the full details.

There is no copyright infringement that I can see or any from infringement of intellectual property rights in what is giving out by PubMed Central. They only show you a short abstract of your full article what is published and they link you to the full article to publisher.

I'm having difficulty parsing your words. The articles in Pubmed Central are free.

All the articles in PMC are free (sometimes on a delayed basis). Some journals go beyond free, to Open Access.

PubMed Central is a small subset of PubMed, which also indexes non-free articles. For most of those, free access is limited to the abstract or, occasionally, the first 100 words or so.

It depends on what you wanted access to, at least historically. Before the public access to publication initiative, NIH only really required that the data be made publicly available - i.e. if after reading a publication I wanted to look at the data from that publication for my own use, the lab I requested it from had to provide it (given that they had published it at that point). This is elaborated in NIH NOT-OD-03-032 and the NIH grant policy statement. Of course this all requires that I have access to the publication that talks about the data in the first place, so it was a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

So along came the initiative to make the publication itself open access (see the nih public access site for more info). Publishers are worried they'll lose cash, and thus the shitstorm you see in front of you.

It depends on what you wanted access to, at least historically. Before the public access to publication initiative, NIH only really required that the data be made publicly available - i.e. if after reading a publication I wanted to look at the data from that publication for my own use, the lab I requested it from had to provide it (given that they had published it at that point). This is elaborated in NIH NOT-OD-03-032 and the NIH grant policy statement. Of course this all requires that I have access to the publication that talks about the data in the first place, so it was a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

So along came the initiative to make the publication itself open access (see the nih public access site for more info). Publishers are worried they'll lose cash, and thus the shitstorm you see in front of you.

It depends on what you wanted access to, at least historically. Before the public access to publication initiative, NIH only really required that the data be made publicly available - i.e. if after reading a publication I wanted to look at the data from that publication for my own use, the lab I requested it from had to provide it (given that they had published it at that point). This is elaborated in NIH NOT-OD-03-032 and the NIH grant policy statement. Of course this all requires that I have access to the publication that talks about the data in the first place, so it was a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

So along came the initiative to make the publication itself open access (see the nih public access site for more info). Publishers are worried they'll lose cash, and thus the shitstorm you see in front of you.

Or maybe you can ask the NIH itself:
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf

In addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A (⥠0.0024 mg/kg bw/day) that are more similar to human exposures.

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for âoelowâ dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed

Or maybe you can ask the NIH itself:
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf

In addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A (⥠0.0024 mg/kg bw/day) that are more similar to human exposures.

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for âoelowâ dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed

Why should I be modded down for other peoples laziness to do a simple google search to see if the the article is correct?

Just because you or others don't like the source or hate the fact that a source tries to make money to continue their profession doesn't mean the source is biased. I don't see anyone bashing CNN for having advertisements on their websites.

Since you were too lazy to type "BPA NIH" into google I'll do it for you.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

"some of which have been debunked"

Snopes is good at debunking (urban) myths. They are not, however, good at evaluating science. Debunking is not even an appropriate term or activity to apply to science (as stated by the poster, and as performed by Snopes). Their FAQ lists other forms of common fiction which are not urban myth, but fail to list badly researched statements by or about science among them.

Snopes reports the "debunking" coming from the International Bottled Water Association. Nobody conversant with science would accept a statement from such as biased source as authoritative. Their major hint should have come from the statement that the master's thesis was "not peer reviewed". A thesis is conducted by a student under a committee of professionals, at least one of which (the thesis supervisor) is an expert in that field. Peer review is conducted by the committee. A thesis is intended to be material suitable for rewriting into a publishable paper. It will have the committee members' names on it, in reference if not in the by-line. As professionals they will at least see to it that the result is worthy of carrying their names.

As for the quote in Snopes supposedly from Rolf Halden of Johns Hopkins that there are no dioxins in plastic, do your own research, as Snopes should have done to follow up, and as the Johns Hopkins people should have done before making the statement. Go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in the search terms "plastic" and "dioxin".

Snopes should also have done their research on the link they provide to the Johns Hopkins PR release (not a scientific publication of any sort, and certainly not peer reviewed) making the "hoax" claim. It is not from Halden, it is from Kellog Schwab. In addition to misattribution, they fail to note that the statement is made in the context of J.H. distancing themselves from misattribution in the emails titled "John Hopkins Cancer Update" and such, not in the context of research conducted or reviewed. There is a similar J.H. missive listed among the 150 results from PubMed. It is in a J.H. publication (peer review?) and has no authors credited.

Snopes appears to have found a way to become a subject of their own scrutiny, as they have delved into science and come up as debunkable urban science myth. Stick to urban mythology, Sponesites. Science can and does take care of itself, if you dig for it in science rather than press releases. Evaluating science requires taking the specific hypothetical statements and applying scientific expertise, not merely quoting vested interests (!) who happen to disagree for reasons other than replicable evidence.

We've been busy evolving chlorine tolerant bacteria in our drinking water systems for a long time now (it goes back to Robert Koch). See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7149722 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=238566 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3896142 for a good scare.

We've been busy evolving chlorine tolerant bacteria in our drinking water systems for a long time now (it goes back to Robert Koch). See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7149722 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=238566 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3896142 for a good scare.

We've been busy evolving chlorine tolerant bacteria in our drinking water systems for a long time now (it goes back to Robert Koch). See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7149722 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=238566 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3896142 for a good scare.

That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.

When the Federal government gets involved in a market, it often takes over the market inefficiently. See: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers). It's not correct to say that private institutions DON'T fund research, the reality is that decades of Federal intervention in research have made it difficult to compete with public dollars, public regulators, public mandates and public approval systems that defeat the heavy investments made by private institutions.

For example:

Wisconsin private funding of stem cell research better than public funding
25 charities in US fund $1.2 billion in private research
Private funding resources

There are thousands of organizations that fund research privately. Competing with taxpayer-funded research is difficult, though, but not impossible.

sure: resistant to lead but with an average IQ of about 10 and big-time antisocial disorders. Good luck with that. "Delinquent behavior and anti-social outcomes (crime, violence, drug abuse, etc.) associated with childhood lead exposure correlate with differences in quantitative MR measures of brain structure and metabolism." from www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/project/enviro/projects/cehc/project-5.htm and then there's this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1567775

You are not making any sense. Barak? Tiger? All mixed races. Is that so hard for you to understand? The highly mixed people are highly mixed, they are no longer of any one race. They are irrelevant to the discussion.

You also seem to highly overestimate the amount of mixing between races. If you look at the multitude of studies available, and they are getting better with the modern genetic technology we have now, you will see that there are still plenty of pure Europeans left. Just as are there pure Asians and pure Africans. These are the three major races, and the mixtures of them, like Arabs, do not change anything.

Even if every Mongoloid person was at least 1% Caucasian, would that mean that the Mongoloid people should just let their 99% distinctness become extinct? That is ridiculous. You are advocating genocide.

Go read this paper, it should help you in your confusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378

Also, wow, are you ever wrong about Arabs and Persian, so wrong in fact, that I will disregard anything further you have to say because it is all as based on ignorance as what you say of the Persian/Arab divide.

From the Commiepedia itself:

"Genetic studies conducted by Cavalli-Sforza have revealed that Iranians cluster closely with European groups and more distantly from Near Eastern groups. Preliminary genetic tests suggest common origins for most of the Iranian peoples. [44] This study is partially supported by another one, based on Y-Chromosome haplogroups.[45]

Basically, the findings of this study reveal many common genetic markers found among the Iranian peoples from the Tigris to the areas west of the Indus."

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples

Your submission has failed.

What you say is a load of pseudo-scientific egalitarian bullshit.

Modern science does recognize it. Richard Lewontin has been discredited, get over it already!

Here are some currently living, in this century, real biologists, and they agree with that race is a biological reality:

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease
Neil Risch,Esteban Burchard,Elad Ziv,and Hua Tang

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378

Well, even if cats are carriers, they are also predators.

One cat will dispose of multiple rats, therefore even if cats are carriers, the total number of carriers diminshes. In the absence of predatory checks on the rat population, the numbers of carriers increases (esp. with all these scrummy corpses around to eat!).

I was able to find a charming letter from 1899 to the British Medical Journal on the subject of cats as plague carriers though.

If you weren't already weeping for health care as well, weep some more. Since Bush came into office, the government has already spent over $1 billion promoting faith healing, strokes...err, chiropractic therapy, and other snake oils and pseudosciences.

I didn't believe it myself until I saw the ".gov" on the end of the URL.

The carbon stored in oil was all in the atmosphere at the same time before it became locked up in plants and animals.

No, it wasn't all in the atmosphere at the same time. Most of it was in the ocean, same as most of the carbon dioxide is in the ocean now. Isn't this how the scientific theory goes: There was heaps of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Primitive plants developed, which absorbed the carbon dioxide, and produced oxygen. This switched the atmosphere over from a mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a mix of oxygen and nitrogen. Therefore, before the plants, the atmosphere had a huge amount more carbon dioxide than it has now.

And yet, despite the much higher levels of carbon dioxide than we have now, life flourished. Mosses and ferns grew to gigantic sizes in the carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. Then they died and got squished and turned into coal and oil. So if anybody tells you that we have to "save the planet" from carbon dioxide, ask them why the planet wasn't destroyed when the carbon dioxide levels were much higher than now. Where did the coal, oil, and all fossil fuels come from? From plants and animals which got their carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the ocean. Isn't that the standard scientific theory?

The objection that "it wasn't all in the atmosphere at the same time" is interesting. It implies that back in the olden days, when the coal seams and oil reservoirs were forming, the carbon dioxide was "somewhere else". Where was it then? How did the plants and animals get it into their bodies? Surely it must have been in the ocean or the atmosphere for a plant to absorb it, and from there an animal could eat the plant to get it.

The objection also implies that if we burn coal, oil, and gas, that all of the carbon dioxide will end up in the atmosphere at the same time. Of course, that won't happen. Think about the carbon dioxide from all the coal people have burned in all of human history. Where is it? Is it all in the atmosphere right now? No it isn't, a lot of it has been absorbed by the ocean, by plants, and by rock formation. Therefore, all the carbon dioxide we've released into the atmosphere isn't all still in there. So it can't all be in there at the same time, can it?

Secondly, all of the carbon dioxide from all of the oil, gas, and coal won't be in the atmosphere at the same time, because we haven't burned it all yet. We don't even know where all of it is, and of the stuff we do know about, we haven't dug it all up and burned it. There is still heaps left. For example, you may have heard of coal fields with hundreds of years of supply left. If we've got hundreds of years of coal left, obviously all the carbon dioxide won't end up in the atmosphere at the same time, because it's still locked up in the coal, in the ground.

So what's different about now than in prehistoric times? One difference is that there are much more efficient plants living here. Back when the coal was formed, it was giant moss and suchlike that were dominant plants. Look at moss now, it only grows a few millimetres high. Now we have plants like C4 plants and CAM plants, that can really suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. They are best at absorbing carbon dioxide from even very low concentrations, and when it's hot. When carbon dioxide concentrations are high, then even the not-so-efficient C3 plants can easily absorb it.

Therefore, if we burn the fossil fuels, we should expect to see increased plant growth. If we collect up things like plant fibres and use them for long term things, this will store the carbon from the fossil fuels in a non-atmospheric form. One technique for doing this is to build a house and furniture out of wood. We could grow plantations of trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Then we could cut down the trees and use the wood. So if we have plantations of various plants which produce large amounts of carbon-rich fibre, we can harvest the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Pretty simple huh.

Or we could believe all the doom-and-gloom merchants.

I am willing to stand by my statement that reducing caloric intake will help in weightloss. Perhaps what I should have done is qualify it with the statement that there are other metabolic and nutritional concerns that need to be simultaneously addressed.

The essence of what I am saying is portion reduction. In other words, forgoing a shift in proportions - ie, don't overdo any one category of food in order to shift metabolism, but maintain a balance at a lower caloric intake.

an article on high protein intake
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267211?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

You can find similar data on almost all forms of diets that take too highly from one category. If I conveyed that other concerns aren't important than I am sorry, but it still doesn't change my point of view, nor does anything that you have put forth done anything to change it. I have extensively read the medical literature on this subject and continue to do so.

I make my claim secondary to considerations of compliance with diet, outcomes measured by the use of each diet as well as the ease that each can be done.

Furthermore, I refer anyone with additional medical concerns to a nutritionist if it is necessary. I have had plenty of people report good outcomes though most continue being noncompliant with a diet.

I have also found that keeping things simple for the lay person is often necessary to ensure compliance and to ease understanding of the subject.

When working to change someones diet, you need a concrete starting point. To say that "its complicated" may not be sufficient. While saying cut calories and increase exercise may not provide sufficient information, anything more would require feedback on a one to one basis.

I have never advocated extreme diets such as Atkins though I have used them personally with success. It just does not seem to be a physiologic way to reach the desired goals of prolonging a healthy lifespan.

as for what I meant by "the diet" in that statement, I was considering established, published diets - not home grown diets, so at least I know the source of your statements, and will say that I agree with you in that "the diet" is important in that sense. My main point was what I posted later - the Jama article (reference posted earlier) that had compared a few established diets and showed similar efficacy.

If you consider this back pedaling, than so be it and thank you for clarifying this point. It just hadn't occurred to me that you were interpreting that statement in such a fashion.

>Or maybe current ideas about "healthy eating" are incorrect in some ways.

Probably not... the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet which forms the basis of current National Institutes of Health dietary guidelines has been shown to lower blood pressure, cut the risk of having a stroke by 18% and the risk of a heart attack by 24% over a period of 24 years.

The diet consists of lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and up to 2 servings of meat a day; dairy should be low-fat or non-fat. In other words, lots of vitamins, fiber, and complex carbs. Moderate protein content, low in fat and sodium.

What does your fad diet do for you?
 

Let me ask you this, when someone says "eat less", how does that translate to "drink only alcohol"?
anyway, you wanted information on calorie restriction, here you go:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/1/43 - shows equivalence of various diets though attrition rates do vary. Overall one of the best studies of its type currently available in the medical literature.

a small study showing benefits of calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18602635?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

on the following page about Atkins, please take a look at the section on ketones and increased calorie loss - which balances the higher calorie intake.
http://www.publix.com/wellness/notes/Display.do?id=Diet&childId=Atkins_Diet

In all the diets studied, there is either a change in metabolism enabling increased energy (calorie) loss or there is a limit on its intake.

bottom line - energy must be conserved, the actual diet itself appears to be less meaningful in how it is achieved. Also, please don't assume I mean all diets provide alternative necessary nutrients to maintain a healthy life.

There is evidence that both populations in Southern Asia and the Americas are genetically related. One is the fact that both are susceptible to alcoholism.
When Han Chinese settlers first arrived in Taiwan, they used alcohol against the aboriginal population there as means of control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#History
and now we know why:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=9066994&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

In the United States, pioneers and frontiersmen always brought whiskey with them on meetings with Native American chiefs to sign "treaties".
now we know why:
http://www.essortment.com/all/nativeamerican_ragq.htm

Possible link or coincidence?: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

The problem is that obesity causes 1) my health insurance to go up to pay for obesity-related health problems, and 2) huge losses in productivity due to obesity-related health problems, which results in a weaker economy. Read this.

I agree with you that if people want to engage in risky or unhealthy lifestyles they should be able to, but not when it costs everyone else.

BTW, smoking is worse, as it is no longer just about money. After Scotland banned smoking in public places heart attacks in NONSMOKERS decreased by 21%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7575459.stm
This one also states that the herd orientation is different around the South Atlantic Anomaly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
Probably due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetite
And can't forget us.. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=49775

Most people know "natural" sand from holiday at the beach, where it is washed too:
The surf will take away the finer particles and deposit them somewhere else as silt. So it should not come as a surprise that most people know sand as harmless.

A Google search for [sand cancer bedouins], however, turns up http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1694965. It seems you are right about unwashed sand...

Birds are in general a lot smarter than we've given them credit for. It might be time to rethink the term 'bird brain'.

The avian community has been advocating a change away from the derogatory nature of the term 'bird brain' after it was discovered that the similarities between avian and mammalian brains are more homologous than they are analogous [pubmed]

I should also add that tDCS has been experimentally shown to boost working memory, memory consolidation during sleep, and verbal fluency. Is that what you would expect from outright electrocution?

I should also add that tDCS has been experimentally shown to boost working memory, memory consolidation during sleep, and verbal fluency. Is that what you would expect from outright electrocution?

I should also add that tDCS has been experimentally shown to boost working memory, memory consolidation during sleep, and verbal fluency. Is that what you would expect from outright electrocution?

Glucose is the form of sugar that travels in your bloodstream to fuel the mitochondrial furnaces responsible for your brain power. Glucose is the only fuel normally used by brain cells. Because neurons cannot store glucose, they depend on the bloodstream to deliver a constant supply of this precious fuel.

Complete glucose deprivation has been shown to induce neuronal apoptosis, but the effect of moderate glucose deprivation under normal and pathological conditions is not fully understood.

Glucose is the only source of energy usually available to the brain. Without oxygen or glucose, neurons will die.

The K+ and Na+ is freely available in the bloodstream and intracellular fluid. Nerves use selective ion channels to establish the ion gradients used for depolarization but they don't require a specific source for them: they're everywhere in the body.
In contrast, without glucose your nerve cells will die. They require glucose to power aerobic metabolism and produce the ATP that they use to maintain the ion gradient.

high dose epa/dha (pharmaceutical grade fish oil) has shown promise in reducing adhd symptoms.

From google:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=epa+dha+adhd&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1971271

adhd children can have aa/epa (arachidonic acid / eicosapentaenoic acid) ratios on the order of 40+, well above the japanese average of 1.5 (longest lived, highest longevity and some of the lowest depression rates in the world). you can have your ratio checked and getting down toward 1.5 should help your symptoms.

Education is pointless when the gay community is beset with people that feel AIDS is just something that happens to you. I'm not saying the folks with the "gift giving" and "bug chasing" mindsets are all that common, but come on! Treating it with privacy, secrecy and protection isn't sensible either - people that have it can spread it, and they do. Sometimes intentionally. If we treated people infected with AIDS as we treated people infected with syphilis 200 years ago we would be much further ahead of the game.

AIDS is primarily a behavior-driven problem. It is harder to cure than syphilis but just as behavior driven. Most of the people that got syphilis before 1900 died from it in one way or another. And it wasn't pretty. However, syphilis wasn't viewed the way that AIDS is today because it was pretty clear how not to get syphilis even in 1700. It is just as clear today how not to get AIDS. Why is the infection rate 100 or 1000 times what the syphilis infection rate was, even factoring it by population?

Until we can convince people that it isn't fun, necessary or invitable that they will get AIDS we aren't going to do anything about it in the US. Until incredibly ignorant people stop spreading silly lies about AIDS in Africa and elsewhere, nothing is going to improve.

Trying to frame this as a rich first-world vs. poor third-world problem is pointless. For the most part, drugs that allow infected people to live longer in some places are pointless. The point is to reduce the level of infection the same way it would have been reduced long before there were antibiotics or treatments for other diseases. Why aren't we doing that?

Wrong. A 1990 report by the Institute of Medicine called for a weight gain during pregnancy of 25-35 pounds (for women with normal weight for height.) - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1695171

How have these recommedations stood up? A meta-analysis of studies from 1990-2007 found: "Regarding outcomes of weight gain within or outside 1990 IOM guidelines, moderate to strong evidence suggests an association between weight gain below IOM recommendations and preterm birth, low birthweight, SGA birthweights, and failure to initiate breastfeeding, and strong evidence for the association between weight gain above IOM recommendations and high birthweight, macrosomia, and LGA birthweights. Moderate evidence supports an association between weight gain above IOM guidelines and cesarean delivery and postpartum weight retention in the short, intermediate, and long term." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18620471

Clinical evidence calls for a weight gain of 25-35 pounds. What baby is 25-35 pounds? When was this idea supposedly disproven?

Wrong. A 1990 report by the Institute of Medicine called for a weight gain during pregnancy of 25-35 pounds (for women with normal weight for height.) - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1695171

How have these recommedations stood up? A meta-analysis of studies from 1990-2007 found: "Regarding outcomes of weight gain within or outside 1990 IOM guidelines, moderate to strong evidence suggests an association between weight gain below IOM recommendations and preterm birth, low birthweight, SGA birthweights, and failure to initiate breastfeeding, and strong evidence for the association between weight gain above IOM recommendations and high birthweight, macrosomia, and LGA birthweights. Moderate evidence supports an association between weight gain above IOM guidelines and cesarean delivery and postpartum weight retention in the short, intermediate, and long term." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18620471

Clinical evidence calls for a weight gain of 25-35 pounds. What baby is 25-35 pounds? When was this idea supposedly disproven?

knew the child was mentally ill and chose to provoke her, I think there should be consequences, but any such law should require preexisting knowledge of mental illness.

One in four people in America is mentally ill Citation. Now look at the number of people who bully one another, who are mean to one another - who are downright despicable to one another. You cannot charge one person solely because it has been a publicized case like this without looking and seeing that bullying/mean-hearted-ness is the norm rather than the exception. Then throw the weight of the entire legal system behind one person? No way.

Are you honestly going to tell me PCP doesn't cause violence/insanity (which leads to violence most times)?

That's what the studies referenced say.

And here's another that notes that "Within this group, violent episodes were found to be rare, mainly involving efforts by law enforcement or hospital treatment staff to restrain users, thereby seeming to set off panic reactions and struggle." And here is more on the study that found PCP users no more violent then heroin users.

Do you have peer-reviewed studies saying otherwise, that PCP use causes violent behavior? Or are you just parroting more bullshit from the drug warriors?

I'm not recommending PCP - it's got nasty toxic effects, and better drugs will get you the effects you want, if that's your thing, with less danger. But paranoia about PCP is dangerous to us all, as you so well illustrate by your apology for the assault on Rodney King under the excuse "PCP! PCP!"

Links:

HSV1 and Alzheimer's link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000512083302.htm and http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/cold-sore-virus-might-play-role-in-alzheimers-12283.html and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18300070

Oh, and scratch that 3 years... make it 8, at least.

Sometimes people talk about their friend when they're really talking about themselves, like now.

This whole notion that weed can't do harm is so insidious that every time someone has an adverse reaction to weed it's written off somehow as it being laced, often times when that doesn't make any sense. Here's a clinical trial, was that laced too?

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

There are other examples, you're free to search them Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

And the Erowid Experience Vault has reports of people who've had adverse reactions and many of those who report smoking weed alone go to the ER and testing shows only weed. Additionally some of them report prolonged experiences and flashbacks, from marijuana alone.

So while these people seem to have smoked weed, we'd have to assume that all those instances were laced with an invisible and tasteless mystery substance X and they were all too incompetent to tell the difference, including experienced users in clinical trials, and Occam's razor tells us that's less likely.

The fact is, and it's reported in the literature, cannabis causes adverse reactions including LSD-like hallucinations, psychotic reactions, and depersonalization, especially in higher doses, and flashbacks are reported. That however is not reflected in the public or the media.

Sometimes people talk about their friend when they're really talking about themselves, like now.

This whole notion that weed can't do harm is so insidious that every time someone has an adverse reaction to weed it's written off somehow as it being laced, often times when that doesn't make any sense. Here's a clinical trial, was that laced too?

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

There are other examples, you're free to search them Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

And the Erowid Experience Vault has reports of people who've had adverse reactions and many of those who report smoking weed alone go to the ER and testing shows only weed. Additionally some of them report prolonged experiences and flashbacks, from marijuana alone.

So while these people seem to have smoked weed, we'd have to assume that all those instances were laced with an invisible and tasteless mystery substance X and they were all too incompetent to tell the difference, including experienced users in clinical trials, and Occam's razor tells us that's less likely.

The fact is, and it's reported in the literature, cannabis causes adverse reactions including LSD-like hallucinations, psychotic reactions, and depersonalization, especially in higher doses, and flashbacks are reported. That however is not reflected in the public or the media.

But where did you get this opinion? Did you do a lot of clinical research or did you just hear everyone else and the media saying it? The truth is the latter, making you the traditionalist. So how much of your argument is derived from popular opinion?

I used to think weed was benign even after I smoked it and found it was a nightmare. I had pseudo-hallucinations, I felt like I was dying, I was trapped in a time loop, I became painfully detached from my body, yet I still thought it must have been laced, and everyone told me the same or they said that sounds cool. It wasn't cool, and the detachment lasted for a long time.

It wasn't until I did some research about it and found those are all effects of weed alone, and they match negative experiences in the Erowid Vault, but you and everyone else like you overlook that and propagate a myth that weed is harmless and the stance about it is irrational.

I think alcohol should be restricted MORE; it just isn't. That doesn't mean that I irrationally think it's okay. And that alcohol is worse by this 'comparison' doesn't mean weed is now SOFT. Moreover, that we can't eliminate substance abuse is hardly a reason to do nothing about it.

As Gateway: cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis"

Psychological Responses To Cannabis

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

The parent is correct. As one of the linked articles mentions, cell phones can cause an increase in the production of stress proteins as well as increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier. In fact, it increases the permeability of albumin, for example, which can be damaging to the brain. Some exogenous toxins that might be in the blood stream would also have an easier time crossing into the brain.

For example, using 900mhz cell phones increases the phosphorylation of a number of proteins, including HSP27 and alters the expression of HSP27 and P38MAPK. These were all non-thermal changes (that is, there was no direct heat transfer in the experiment, just radiation exposure, and the temperature of the cell cultures was maintained at a steady temperature).

I'm not saying that cell phones, for sure, cause cancer or other brain damage. I think the jury is still out, but I certainly see some very plausible paths to brain injury and disease from cell phone usage. Only time and more studies can tell for sure. Cell phones haven't been around long enough for conclusive studies, as cancer can sometimes take 30+ years to develop.

Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).

Would you like to hear some more recent studies? No? Too bad.

A study examining the method by which SHS triggers allergy attacks.
Demonstration of how SHS promotes the growth of existing lung cancers.
How SHS impedes the ability of fibrolasts to respond to a wound.

The last one in particular contains a great number of references by which you can better educate yourself. Penn & Teller can go to hell for all I care; the data is out there for people who don't get all their scientific information from comedians.

Try spending 5 minutes on scholar.google.com before blathering about "no studies" and "no research."

1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality
2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words

personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.

Also, to answer the comment about "burying the data" - the medical literature is full of research on this very topic - ipsilateral gliomas are associated with cell phone use in a metastudy analysis
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/article.jsp?article_id=ijo_32_5_1097

The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.

some more from pub med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063591?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.

You will notice consistent lack of power in the studies described.... hope this is useful stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903030?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality
2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words

personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.

Also, to answer the comment about "burying the data" - the medical literature is full of research on this very topic - ipsilateral gliomas are associated with cell phone use in a metastudy analysis
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/article.jsp?article_id=ijo_32_5_1097

The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.

some more from pub med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063591?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.

You will notice consistent lack of power in the studies described.... hope this is useful stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903030?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

How much is being spent doing serious federally-funded medical research to cure, say, paraplegia/quadroplegia? Well, I don't know if there's even a program.

Pleased to be introduced to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

And yes, it's relatively underfunded but neurological stuff is hard. Even if the President announced a 'War on Disabilities' results would not come magically dropping from the sky. So, it is much more sensible to make web sites accessible via little coding tricks and practices and building more wheelchair ramps. Not very intellectually satisfying, but welcome to the real world...