Slashdot Mirror

No, I'm not a shill (but thanks for resorting to ad homimem). I just prefer to rely on solid evidence before jumping to conclusions. Here, read this for example:

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women.

"The only appetite variable that differed between sweeteners was desire to eat, which had a higher area under the curve the day after Suc compared with HFCS. CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women."

Studies like this one repeatedly show that the small added amount of fructose in HFCS (most of the time we're talking about 56% fructose in HFCS instead of 50% in sugar) simply don't make a difference nutritionally. Other studies have shown opposite results, and so it's something we need to continue to investigate. In the meantime I'll continue to avoid HFCS just because I don't want to support unnecessary protectionist measures for agricultural corporations that leech off us taxpayers, and also products made with HFCS tend to be very low quality anyway (shown by the manufacturer's desire to save a few pennies in any way possible, so they're probably compromising in other ways too), so if HFCS is also harmful to your health then I'll just continue to avoid it.

Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the obesity epidemic is happening in countries all around the world, not just America. If HFCS were the primary root cause of obesity it wouldn't be spreading in places like Europe that consume no HFCS.

Don't drink Soda Pop and always check the labels for High Fructose Corn Syrup. It is says it has it, don't buy it. That shit should be illegalized in most foods.

Why? HFCS and Sugar breaks down to the same things in the body. Every study I've seen shows that HFCS is no more dangerous than Sugar. Studies that only look at the Fructose show that high amounts of Fructose is dangerous. The HFCS in soft drinks and sport drinks is not high in Fructose. The "High Fructose" part of "High Fructose Corn Syrup" means it has a high content of fructose compared to corn syrup itself (which has next to no fructose).

In fact, a happy paper at the NIH says pretty much this.

``According to this article http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=25694 the effect of the venom is merely "near instantaneous" as opposed to the faster claim of Eddie Carr.''

Well, it could still be faster than a _snail's_ nerve conduction.

It could have something to do with how rising temperatures can cause death.

Or it could be related to fears that rising temperatures may cause higher rates of mosquito born illnesses.

There is also evidence pointing to more potent and prevalent poison ivy.

Let's not forget rising rates of asthma, food supply problems, increasing number and severity of natural disasters, mass extinction and global economic collapse.

All of those are related to our health in one way or another--even the extinction of species. Consider it the global equivalent of the canaries in mine shafts.

It has lately been discovered that although nicotine is (probably) not a carcinogen in itself, it does promote tumor growth by stimulating nicotine acetylcholine receptors in tumor cells. here's one paper specific to lung cancer. Go search PubMed for "nicotine cancer" for some examples. It's all in the dose used, I suppose.

Oh, and if you're looking to prolong the half-life of coffee, you need a CYP450 inhibitor--such as Bergamottin or Naringin, both of which are found in fresh grapefruit juice, peel and seeds.. It's under debate which one actually affects the CYP450, but it works--trust me. So, do yourself a favor and instead of taking 600mg of caffine, take 200mg with a grapefruit juice and enjoy the better effects.

Apparently, it doesn't work.

About blue eyes. Previously I thought the reason they (and blond hair and fair skin) is common in Scandinavia, is that at high latitudes, the skin has a lower level of melanin (pigment) in order to allow more efficient Vitamin D synthesis from sunlight. At high latitudes, there is less sunlight, so the process needs to be more efficient. And the color of the iris would normally have the same relative level of melanin as the rest of the skin and hair. But this does not seem to be the case - merely having blue or brown eyes does not seem to result from differences in melanin content, see article below. However, I think in the south, to my eye almost all brown eyes are darker than the brown eyes here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retri eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1402293&dopt=Citation

J Ocul Pharmacol. 1992 Spring;8(1):35-42.
Quantitative determination of the melanin contents in ocular tissues from human blue and brown eyes.
Menon IA, Wakeham DC, Persad SD, Avaria M, Trope GE, Basu PK.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

This paper deals with our findings on the quantities of melanin in the tissues from blue and brown eyes. The amount of melanin in the iris, ciliary body and retinal pigment epithelium-choroid was separately determined. The results are expressed as the amount of melanin in mg tissue as well as the amount of melanin in the whole tissue. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the melanin content of the iris in blue and brown eyes. However the ciliary body and retinal pigment epithelium-choroid from brown eyes had more melanin than the corresponding tissues from blue eyes. Blue and brown eyes with higher colour intensity had more melanin than the corresponding eyes with lesser intensity of colour. It is suggested that the differences between brown and blue eyes in their melanin content may have relevance to the pharmacokinetics of drugs that bind to melanin. This would mean that the larger amounts of melanin would decrease the initial levels of the drugs and would increase the drug levels after prolonged periods.

With over 75 deaths from stun guns in the four years before 2005, it seems these weapons can be lethal. If the recipient has a heart condition, or is on stimulants, there is a significant risk of death from the taser. Very little research is being done on the use of tasers on people, but it is somehow considered 'safe' - seemingly by mere assumption.
In my research, I found this article: Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006 Oct-Dec;10(4):447-50 "Taser use in restraint-related deaths."
You can search pubmed for this article.

- ABB Cynic's Report

There's little to no evidence that asthma is primarily linked to genetics. Pesticides, herbicides, tobacco smoke, paints, carpet fumes, colds and bronchitis early in life, lack of exposure to certain infections, bird droppings, and lots of other possible causes are being looked at as environmental causes or triggers of asthma.

http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Causes_of_As thma
http://www.lungdiseasefocus.com/articles/about-ast hma/asthma-causes.php
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/asthma_caus es.htm
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/asthma/causes.htm
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthm a/Asthma_Causes.html

It's terribly cold-hearted and factually wrong to blame the guy for his son having asthma.

The autism spectrum includes a range of conditions from severe symptoms in which the afflicted is non-functional to high-functioning autism like Aspbergers. The reason it is considered a spectrum is that most of those diagnosed with autism have some combination of traits that are found somewhere on the spectrum. Common traits usually involve sensory processing issues and nonverbal communication deficits.

The autism spectrum includes a range of conditions from severe symptoms in which the afflicted is non-functional to high-functioning autism like Aspbergers. The reason it is considered a spectrum is that most of those diagnosed with autism have some combination of traits that are found somewhere on the spectrum. Common traits usually involve sensory processing issues and nonverbal communication deficits.

The autism spectrum includes a range of conditions from severe symptoms in which the afflicted is non-functional to high-functioning autism like Aspbergers. The reason it is considered a spectrum is that most of those diagnosed with autism have some combination of traits that are found somewhere on the spectrum. Common traits usually involve sensory processing issues and nonverbal communication deficits.

One thing to note is that this isn't a drug; it's a dominant negative transgene, so you're not going to popping pills for this any time soon.

"The DNA of the people back then was perfect.."

Perfect DNA would not be subject to degrading. It would replicate perfectly. It would be the bio equivalent of digital duplication - so I guess it was never perfect, was it ... Its only imperfect cellular mechanisms that don't replicate perfectly all the time. Or was your "perfect DNA" still somehow subject to the effects of mutations as per natural selection? You can't have it both ways. Perfect DNA would be able to replicate perfectly despite radiation or other mutagenic effects - the transcription mechanism would snip off and replace those chain sections that are not perfect duplicates, and restore damaged sections from another repeating backup sequence elsewhere in the chain. Or didn't you know that DNA has error-detection?

"Jesus came into the equation to save everyone's soul."

That's not what Jesus said - he said he was come to set brother against brother:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." -Jesus

-- Matthew 10:34-36

Matthew 7:21 NKJV) "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

So, since Jesus didn't come to save everyone, your arguments fail. Or do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, atheists, unbelievers, gays and lesbians and transexuals all get saved?

"Just because he didn't say 'slavery is bad' doesn't mean he was ok with it.... and those commands were changed later."

Ether you're lying, or you're ignorant. The New Testament teaches that slaves should NOT actively seek their freedom. So much for the rules changing "because Jesus came." This was the teaching even after Jesus' death (1 Cor. 7:20ff).

20:Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21:Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.

"Now it seems you are the less intelligent one for having such a narrow view."

Unlike you, who have obviously never read it, but STiLL accept it as "revealed truth" because someone tells you to. No wonder you post anonymously, coward.

Of course, belief in an afterlife for the obedient is nothing new - rulers have been using that to keep their subjects in their place since well before christianity popped up. In this respect mainline christianity is no different from the jehovah's witnesses, christian science, the mormons, pentacostalism, or other variants. The only real difference between it and other cults, such as scientology, is the methods used. The results are the same - loss of independent critical thougth.

Also, there are several studies that indicate both maternal and paternal age effects the IQ of the child. They seem to indicate either physiological or social and psychological factors as the parent suggests. Maternal Age and Autism More Autism Studies Paternal Age

The way I see it most journals (even the closed access ones) actually require that you make your data available. This is especially true for DNA microarray studies, where you will be required to deposit the data in a public database - for example ArrayExpress or the Gene Expression Omnibus at NCBI. Personally I see the publication of the data as a very important way to drive citation of your papers. When I link to data on the department webserver, I group the data into specific directories depending on the area of research - that way a person look for data from one particular paper will also find data and reference to our other papers within that area (for example see: Probe Design datasets and Cell Cycle datasets).

Regarding the fee for Open Access publication: In my personal experience this has not really been a problem - performing the experimental work behind the datasets has always been the expensive part and the Open Access fee has been paid using the same grant as the one paying of the experiment. For non-experimental papers ("pure" Bioinformatics) the department or the University pays the fee (of cause it may not be as easy everywhere - I work at the Technical University of Denmark).

It should also be notes that for some new grants your are actually required to publish your finding in an Open Access journal (I think this may the true for the EU grants, but I am not completely sure).

While it's certainly very nice that the big journals like Nature take steps towards offering Open Access to (some of) their material, it has already been a growing trend in certain research areas for the past, say, five years or so. I do research in the field of Bioinformatics/Molecular Biology and except for high-profile stuff that could go into Science or Nature, I simply will not publish anything in a journal that is not Open Access.

The journal being Open Access is of tremendous importance to the researcher as it makes it _much_ more likely, that your paper will actually be found and read by other scientists. I know this from my own literature searches: hits found the PubMed database links to the journal webpage, and if no Open Access version is available, it really have to look like a promising paper, before I spend my time ordering through the University Library.

Also, it should be noted that an ever increasing number of Open Access journal exists in the areas of Life Science in general - for example all the BMC journals, the PLoS journals and even journals from "old school" publishers such as Oxford University Press (e.g. Nucleic Acids Research) have gone Open Access. Also an increasing number of traditional journal now offer an Open Access option, where your pay to make your specific paper availably under Open Access.

Five minutes of thoughtful searching brought up useful, important information for anybody willing to take these sciences and technologies seriously. The National Institute of Health (NIH) stem cell page has some paper abstracts as well as listed universities with programs in these United States (and some online resources). Useful sources of information at this bibliography re: human reproductive cloning, at Boston University and this one. CiteSeer popped up the paper on nuclear transfer / human cloning. Apparently there's at least one dedicated research foundation out there.

Granted, most of these links are preliminary- check those deep databases, like over at PubMed Central, for those detailed reviews of the state of the art. And just for kicks, one last link which (still) impresses me.

Some Psychologists agree with you.

Here's most of it (you can select other chromosomes for downloading through that interface):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/seq_reg.cgi?ta xid=9606&chr=1&from=1&to=247249719

The rest is just a matter of a few million mutations scattered throughout the genome. Oh, and the bits of the genome that are proving to be very difficult to sequence.

That's like painting a DELL white and calling it "Macintosh". No candy for you.

Anyone got a bittorent to Pamela Anderson's DNA?

It's a fairly general argument, and you're absolutely right that, just like evolution, there's a spectrum of varying theories. The publications that show a low or minimal interaction, really just show that there's at least a low or minimal interaction, but they make no attempt to rule out a stronger interaction (to the best of my knowledge). They say the evidence for a stronger interaction is inconclusive, which certain people in the industry take to mean that AGW isn't real. On the other hand, a relatively recent article in Science demonstrates the validity of some of the previous predictions made using an AGW model.

Before flaming this post based on the subject line, read this article and this one, which are about studies demonstrating the mechanism for learning disability caused by exposure to 700MHz RF fields.

At the risk of taking a joke seriously, "masonry" is a particularly apt analogy. Indeed, the arrays of oligonucleotides that were used to identify the RNA encoded by DNA (previously thought to be junk) are called "tiling arrays" because they comprise probes to contiguous regions on the DNA molecule (see the description here, at the bottom of the page). The Wikipedia entry doesn't really get to the heart of the tiling array advantage, which is it's agnostic, comprehensive, exhaustive approach to querying DNA transcripts. Previous arrays would only probe regions expected to contain protein-coding genes, for example, so they would not detect transcripts from other regions of the genome (the vast majority). Here is a free, full-text review of the novel challenges that such arrays pose for analysis.

At the risk of taking a joke seriously, "masonry" is a particularly apt analogy. Indeed, the arrays of oligonucleotides that were used to identify the RNA encoded by DNA (previously thought to be junk) are called "tiling arrays" because they comprise probes to contiguous regions on the DNA molecule (see the description here, at the bottom of the page). The Wikipedia entry doesn't really get to the heart of the tiling array advantage, which is it's agnostic, comprehensive, exhaustive approach to querying DNA transcripts. Previous arrays would only probe regions expected to contain protein-coding genes, for example, so they would not detect transcripts from other regions of the genome (the vast majority). Here is a free, full-text review of the novel challenges that such arrays pose for analysis.

You need to take a look at things like this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=123103. The issue with the precambrian period is not that stuff suddenly appeared, but that some features that make fossilisation more likely (or easier to detect) appeared. There is now quite a large body of work showing that life and evolution was running just fine before the Cambrian explosion.

You don't sound much like a statistical genetics insider to me.

Statistically speaking, you don't need 10 subjects per covariate. Where did you pull that number from? Let's say we have 100 subjects (50 cases, 50 controls), and 100 tests that we're performing. Let's say one of those tests segregates perfectly with our subjects. Bam! Huge result statistically. The probability of that result is astonishingly small (p ~ 10^-30). That means unless we are performing close to 10^30 tests, we can believe this result. So there's no law about number of subjects per covariate tested--with more tests, you just need a stricter p-value. By the way, hundreds of thousands of tests were performed, since one tests for association to genetic variability (in this case single nucleotide polymorphisms (aka SNPs)), not to genes. Genes reported are typically the nearest gene to the SNP.

So, in a good study, with appropriately stringent tests, one can believe the results. However, I agree replication is necessary, especially since many labs don't hold to the rigor that is required. However, you are wrong about two things. First, negative results are in fact published in this field. Second, many many associations have been replicated in completely independent cohorts (and oftentimes even different populations!). See here for an example about this very study! or here for another diabetes replication.

You don't sound much like a statistical genetics insider to me.

Statistically speaking, you don't need 10 subjects per covariate. Where did you pull that number from? Let's say we have 100 subjects (50 cases, 50 controls), and 100 tests that we're performing. Let's say one of those tests segregates perfectly with our subjects. Bam! Huge result statistically. The probability of that result is astonishingly small (p ~ 10^-30). That means unless we are performing close to 10^30 tests, we can believe this result. So there's no law about number of subjects per covariate tested--with more tests, you just need a stricter p-value. By the way, hundreds of thousands of tests were performed, since one tests for association to genetic variability (in this case single nucleotide polymorphisms (aka SNPs)), not to genes. Genes reported are typically the nearest gene to the SNP.

So, in a good study, with appropriately stringent tests, one can believe the results. However, I agree replication is necessary, especially since many labs don't hold to the rigor that is required. However, you are wrong about two things. First, negative results are in fact published in this field. Second, many many associations have been replicated in completely independent cohorts (and oftentimes even different populations!). See here for an example about this very study! or here for another diabetes replication.

since this isn't about SCIENCE yet - nothing has been proven

Sure about that? SCIENCE would seem to disagree:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1553528
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11058483

since this isn't about SCIENCE yet - nothing has been proven

Sure about that? SCIENCE would seem to disagree:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1553528
http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11058483

The gene is called TRPV1 or simply vanilloid receptor, discovered around 1997.

It is activated by noxious heat - >42C - or by the molecule capsaicin commonly found in hot chili peppers and alike. And yes, if you knock-out this gene the resulting animals show decreased sensitivity to heat

a very nice example experiment was done with fruit-fly larvae: they normally wriggle away when touched by a hot metallic rod but only stop moving when the rod is at ambient temperature. larvae deprived of the "hot" receptor did not show a difference in their reaction when touched by a 42C or RT rod.

a few links to those really interested:

• discovery of the heat and chili pepper receptor: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=934 9813&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
• Drosophila lacking the above mentioned receptor: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=127 05873&query_hl=15&itool=pubmed_docsum

An interesting point not to miss: we both have proteins that act as molecular thermometers but can also be tricked using small molecules - like capsaicin for the heat receptor and menthol for the cold

Regards,

K

The gene is called TRPV1 or simply vanilloid receptor, discovered around 1997.

It is activated by noxious heat - >42C - or by the molecule capsaicin commonly found in hot chili peppers and alike. And yes, if you knock-out this gene the resulting animals show decreased sensitivity to heat

a very nice example experiment was done with fruit-fly larvae: they normally wriggle away when touched by a hot metallic rod but only stop moving when the rod is at ambient temperature. larvae deprived of the "hot" receptor did not show a difference in their reaction when touched by a 42C or RT rod.

a few links to those really interested:

• discovery of the heat and chili pepper receptor: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=934 9813&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
• Drosophila lacking the above mentioned receptor: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=127 05873&query_hl=15&itool=pubmed_docsum

An interesting point not to miss: we both have proteins that act as molecular thermometers but can also be tricked using small molecules - like capsaicin for the heat receptor and menthol for the cold

Regards,

K

It's not a torrent, but you can in fact download the complete sequence and traces.

I'm not sure if skin/nerve temperature is the answer either.

Frostbite, or even actual freezing of the extremities, can occur with only a "pins and needles" feeling beforehand, although in some cases there is throbbing and aching. (link)

Since the skin and nerves would have to drop through the 10C (50 f) temperature range before freezing, I don't really see what they are basing their "painful" temperature on. I would guess it is a sustained temperature in that range, but the article doesn't give enough information to really tell.

Since when is the Washington Post a respectable neuroscience journal? Now, if the author had even cited the original paper (PubMed) I might be impressed, because that would imply he read it. That said, the original was published in PNAS (see link above), which is pretty prestigious, but I haven't actually read it, and I've seen some god-awful stuff get printed in PNAS (and Nature and Science) simply because it sounded cool.

Too many doctors try to push stuff off on whatever it the popular motive of the day. I have seen them do this first hand.

My mother has never smoked a day in her life. She has been exposed to second hand smoke on casual occasion but there is no smoking in her house, she doesn't hang out in places were people smoke and she works in the medical profession so it isn't a matter of exposure there either. In all her exposure to smoke or very limited compared to most who goto bars and such and don't themselves smoke.

She was having some repertory problems and went to the doctor. this doctor insisted that her problems was from her smoking and refuse to believe she didn't smoke. He then suggested that it was because she was around someone who smokes and it was their fault. Turns out, she has sarcoidosis and the doctor blatantly missed it in favor of placing the blame on smoking. This diagnosis came after I convinced her that someoen was trying to hide something from her. She went to another doctor outside her insurance plan and explained the problem with it being smoking. A biopsy of a lump confirmed the new doctors initial diagnosis and she took this information back to the doctors inside her medical plan. They then started treating her for it. I don't think there is a cure available and it is an on going treatment.

I don't know if this happened this way to push the treatment out or if the doctor is just this incompetent. I don't think it has to do with her insurance plan but that is a possibility. I have spoke with a few other doctors about this and there were two basic sediments that came back. One was that patients lie and doctors have just started assuming they are when something like this happens. The other was that some doctors when there is something they cannot "fix" attempt to push the guilt of never being able to cure someone onto the patient. if it was their fault it happened, they don't have to feel guilty about not fixing it. Either way, complaints were made to the medical board and the doctor still practices medicine today. Whatever made him miss this diagnosis and insist it was something else even when the sympton didn't fit the steps required for it to happen, wasn't enough to question his integrity.

Second opinions is something I suggest every person gets. Specifically because of this, but there is another non related situation that I will spare the boring details of. I can't help but wonder how many people were incorrectly diagnosed or treated wrongly because of this type of behavior. My mother's quality of life has increased dramatically after treatment. She is doing things she hasn't been able to do for 20 years before this diagnosis. I'm sure she would be almost if not dead by now had the other doctors diagnosis stayed much longer then the 4 years it took to have another doctor figure it out on the first visit.

When we talk about the benefits and the damage certain habits cause, I can't help but question if they are really true to the extent they are telling us, or if it isn't some oversight or outright lie to shift the guilt of treating a dieing patient from the doctor who cannot fix them (make them better) to the patient who did it to themselves.

And more precisely to your question, I don't think it is as much a matter of living longer as it is living comfortably longer. When a 70 year old goes to the doctor for joint pain and muscle cramps, the fact that they smoke or not should be too much concern until after they figure out whats causing the joint pain and muscle cramps. And yes, I have heard of some doctors blaming that on smoking. But there are plenty of 70 year old nonsmokers who have the same symptoms, could it be possible smoking just gets the rap for it?

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

PubMed, baby. It's a powerful tool. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=p ubmed

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food". We should take health issues seriously, and Sodium Benzoate needs to be further tested."

Could be coincidental. There are reasonably strong indications the modern US diet is unhealthy.

Obesity to Lower U.S. Life Span
Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999.

Maybe because with diabetes the insulin level is the very problem. People with type 1 diabetes can't produce enough insulin and the level is therefore controlled by regular injections, not the body itself. Type 2 is an insulin resistance, so even if the levels rise due to drinking diet soda it might not have any effect. But this is just my guess...

I heard of that effect, too. When eating sweet food the tongue registeres this and the pancreas reacts with increased insulin production. This effect has been confirmed in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2887500&dopt=Abstract

Um, if you can't prove that it's 100% safe, then why are you so upset like there IS no threat? You have to be honest with people. Some people will be crazy no matter what you do.

And if over-reaction is such a bad thing, why don't you stop. Just like you, when I hear people over-reacting, I start to suspect they're crazy, especially when they start telling me about how safe cars and sharks and vaccines are, relatively, because it starts to sound like they're bullshitting me on their side, when all they have to do to win me, is be honest, and less dramatic.

"...despite massed ranks of scientific and medical studies and scientists saying there was no danger from MMR vaccinations..."

Thimerosal Linked To Autism: New Clinical Findings
The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, an authoritative journal featuring original toxicological research, has published, "A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders," by Geier and Geier (2007).

This new study leaves little doubt there is a direct causal link between mercury exposure from Thimerosal-preserved biological products (vaccines and Rho(D) products) and mercury poisoning diagnosed as an autism spectrum disorder
(ASD). --medicalnewstoday.com

Yargh! Boiled coffee has more cafestol and kahweol even than French pressed!! Something like twice as much. Time to get your cholesterol checked!! :-)

NIH's review of current toxicology reports on cafestol and kahweol describes, on pages 2, 9, 10, and 23:

NIH Toxicology Literature Review