Slashdot Mirror

Who's to say that neurons operate in the same way as a computer's multiple-add operations?

The structure of the neuron is well known and has been proven by microscopic and chemical analysis. Details can be found here and here

you'll need additional programming to tell the computer how to emulate the communication and interaction between neurons.

From studies of the human brain, two new computational paradigms have been identified this technical report.

We have far more than one completed genome! The human genome project gets the most publicity of course, but there are hundreds of bacteria, viruses and plants which have been sequenced, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genomes/index.html. Many of these genomes have also been annotated by human curators - the so called "meta information".

I'd say that there is far more sequencing going on right now than ever before, in terms of total output. GenBank provides a nice growth summary (note that the human genome was officially "completed" in 2003). It's just that we now have one nearly complete genome (human) and several largely complete, or getting there.

To me, "post-genomic" sounds like a complete misnomer (probably coined to make it all sound exciting); I mean, finally having a workable genome kinda makes it seem like we just entered the "genomic" era, doesn't it?

Popular Internet website "Slashdot" has ceased and desisted its run of distressingly unfunny April Fool's news entries. Trolls everywhere have reported repeated bouts of jealousy at the power of CmdrTaco to shit all over Slashdot - a capacity whose unhindered, total form had eluded them.

Even at high refresh rates, CRT refresh seems to be reflected in visual cortex. In some cells you can see entrainment at well above 100 Hz. It's unclear whether this has any adverse effect however.

One thing that is often overlooked is saccades. Ordinarily your eyes make sudden movements from one point of fixation to the next as you inspect the objects in a scene. When viewing a CRT, which is black most of the time, you have to wait for the next refresh after every eye movement, so that you can register what you were trying to look at. Additionally, your fast eye movements are not always accurate--thy are usually followed by small corrective movements, based on visual feedback, that zero in on the target. With a mostly-black CRT you have to wait for the next refresh cycle to acquire the feedback needed to find the target.

In two studies (1, 2) lower refresh rates caused slower performance at reading and target location. These effects were present at well above "flicker fusion" rates where the image appears to be solid to most people.

An LCD display is "always-on" if it has a good backlight, so it suffers from none of these issues.

Even at high refresh rates, CRT refresh seems to be reflected in visual cortex. In some cells you can see entrainment at well above 100 Hz. It's unclear whether this has any adverse effect however.

One thing that is often overlooked is saccades. Ordinarily your eyes make sudden movements from one point of fixation to the next as you inspect the objects in a scene. When viewing a CRT, which is black most of the time, you have to wait for the next refresh after every eye movement, so that you can register what you were trying to look at. Additionally, your fast eye movements are not always accurate--thy are usually followed by small corrective movements, based on visual feedback, that zero in on the target. With a mostly-black CRT you have to wait for the next refresh cycle to acquire the feedback needed to find the target.

In two studies (1, 2) lower refresh rates caused slower performance at reading and target location. These effects were present at well above "flicker fusion" rates where the image appears to be solid to most people.

An LCD display is "always-on" if it has a good backlight, so it suffers from none of these issues.

Even at high refresh rates, CRT refresh seems to be reflected in visual cortex. In some cells you can see entrainment at well above 100 Hz. It's unclear whether this has any adverse effect however.

One thing that is often overlooked is saccades. Ordinarily your eyes make sudden movements from one point of fixation to the next as you inspect the objects in a scene. When viewing a CRT, which is black most of the time, you have to wait for the next refresh after every eye movement, so that you can register what you were trying to look at. Additionally, your fast eye movements are not always accurate--thy are usually followed by small corrective movements, based on visual feedback, that zero in on the target. With a mostly-black CRT you have to wait for the next refresh cycle to acquire the feedback needed to find the target.

In two studies (1, 2) lower refresh rates caused slower performance at reading and target location. These effects were present at well above "flicker fusion" rates where the image appears to be solid to most people.

An LCD display is "always-on" if it has a good backlight, so it suffers from none of these issues.

The above have been correlated..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1554706 5

I'm making them buy me a nice big fat 20"
Dell LCD next month since I'm extremely
nearsighted. -8 and -8.5 diopter

Have a 20" Apple Cinema Display at home
that totally rocks!

I need the same at my place of work.

The article does a great job surveying some of the major players in the field. I think all of the cited researchers have received grants from the NIH Neural Prosthesis Program.

As mentioned in the article, BCI research is proceeding along invasive, intra-cortical lines as well as more data-processing intensive EEG-based approaches. The latter methods affix EEG leads on the scalp, record brain waves, and employ powerful computer methods to decipher the results. Noise is a problem, so researchers have embraced the more invasive approach of implanting chips directly into the brain. That's what Cyberkinetics and Neural Signals are doing.

The Lab of Brain-Computer Interfaces, Technical University of Graz, has an active group researching BCI, both through EEG and implanted electrodes. I'm surprised they don't get more press. There's also interesting work going on at Anderson's Caltech lab using the posterior parietal cortex, which might have some advantages. Check out the nice slide show on their research.

Google Scholar - fast, link to articles that cite it, no reference links, multiple sources, instituitional access, reliable, good ordering

CiteSeer - slow, citations, references, multiple sources (including local), bibtex entry, not a reliable server

PubMed - monster of medical related, fast, no citations, no references, single source, fast, reliable, not best ordering

Scirus - fast, reliable, no citations, no references, single source

Best feature wise is Citeseer but for overall experience Google Scholar puts on a good show

You shouldn't have searched SwissProt, you should have searched pubmed. I'm replying to a bunch of your posts, in the hope you'll see at least one and correct your wikipedia page entry to include Dystrophin.

No, you still don't have it. Check out Dystrophin, as another posted has mentioned.

As an adult, I should have the perfect right to ingest PCP. If I infringe on someone else's rights (creating a victim) while high on PCP, then I should be punished for that crime.

PCP is a poor choice for a legalization argument... it makes people "agitated, delusional, and irrational", according to the NIH. Those qualities in a person can greatly increase their likelihood to harm others, and it'd be irresponsible to let people walk around town high on PCP and only stop them once they've attacked someone. Though I still don't agree with it the "it doesn't hurt anyone except myself" argument could easily applied to marijuana, but PCP? :-)

And in regards to the victimless crime argument...

There are different lines drawn for different situations:
- How close to your throat does someone have to get when running at you with a knife in order for it to be considered attempted murder?
- When do you start taking a stalker seriously enough to warrant a restraining order?
- When do you stop someone for carrying a gun - when you notice it nearly concealed in his coat pocket, or do you wait until he draws it on someone?

You have to be able to act somewhat pre-emptively, or else people will get hurt. If someone's aiming a gun at someone, you knock their hand away BEFORE they shoot, not after! You can't always wait for the crime to be committed.

There just has to be a balance in that gray area where your rights end and mine begin.

...when all of a sudden I get a popup for feminine product.

Really, what does that have anything to do with an egg based custard?

I guess you've never seen the vaginal discharge associated with gonorrhea.

...when all of a sudden I get a popup for feminine product.

Really, what does that have anything to do with an egg based custard?

I guess you've never seen the vaginal discharge associated with gonorrhea.

Here we report an electrochemical method for the direct reduction of solid TiO2, in which the oxygen is ionized, dissolved in a molten salt and discharged at the anode, leaving pure titanium at the cathode. The simplicity and rapidity of this process compared to conventional routes should result in reduced production costs and the approach should be applicable to a wide range of metal oxides.

I have never heard of the "eye is constantly moving so we can see" theory/idea. Sounds like BS to me.

I came across this years ago... had to drag out an old psychology book to find a reference.

Look for: Stabilized images on the retina by R. M. Pritchard

I found an associated study... and this article. But, could not find the real deal freely available.

Basically they attached a projector to a contact lens that was worn by the patient so that images could be projected into the eye yet remain in a constant position relative to the eye. (The were trying to eleminate "eye jitter".) The result was that the images were perceptible when introduced, but slowly "faded" away and disappeared.

I have never heard of the "eye is constantly moving so we can see" theory/idea. Sounds like BS to me.

I came across this years ago... had to drag out an old psychology book to find a reference.

Look for: Stabilized images on the retina by R. M. Pritchard

I found an associated study... and this article. But, could not find the real deal freely available.

Basically they attached a projector to a contact lens that was worn by the patient so that images could be projected into the eye yet remain in a constant position relative to the eye. (The were trying to eleminate "eye jitter".) The result was that the images were perceptible when introduced, but slowly "faded" away and disappeared.

The prior article on the research they did on this is at PubMed Article, or you can look up the current article at PubMed yourself.

The prior article on the research they did on this is at PubMed Article, or you can look up the current article at PubMed yourself.

You are persuasive but biology is also involved. The enzymes that detoxify alcohol vary considerably among humans, which could contribute to the behavioural differences (for example).

There has already been an initiative from the NIH that NIH-supported research be freely accessible after 6 months.

Unfortunately, after the publishing lobby got through with this, the final NIH policy is so watered down as to be rendered toothless and meaningless. The policy, best explained in the FAQ PDF, indicates that authors are only encouraged to place their papers in the public domain. There is no policy binding on them or on scientific publishers to allow public access, even when the work was fully funded from public coffers.

Since few publishers will accept a manuscript without insisting on owning the copyright, the author will not be able to comply with the NIH "encouragement," even if he/she wanted to.

The NIH has biology texbooks online already, A great way to find meaningful information easily while doing research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=B ooks&cmd=search&term=

Yes, most of these things hurt more than needles. A thin needle irritates far fewer nerve fibers than a rather traumatic hydropneumatic blast o' vaccination.

Most of the pain from an injection comes from the injection of the fluid itself rather than the needle puncture

There are interesting efforts to use microporation (through vaporizing the top layer of skin, using ultrasound, etc) to deliver vaccines/insulin/etc which could be less traumatic.

While Dr. Stuart Meloy was working on a new device to treat chronic pain, he was surprised to discover it could also bring pleasure to his female patients.

While Meloy, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist in Winston-Salem, was putting an electrode into the spine of a female patient with chronic back pain, the woman reported a decrease in her pain and a delightful, but very unexpected, side effect.

"When we turned on the power in this case, she let out a moan and began hyperventilating," Meloy said on ABC News' Good Morning America. "Of course we cut the power and I looked around the drapes and asked her what was going on. Once she caught her breath, she said 'you're gonna have to teach my husband how to do that!' "

Try this one then:
PubMed reference ... The real article seems to be published in Nature Neuroscience.

Personally, I wouldn't call New Scientist a garbage journal by the way, its aim isn't to be a strict scientific journal, but rather to bring news about science to the reasonably well educated masses. A bit like Nature was before they split off into many many subjournals.

This reminds me of the DepthX submarine which was described in a recent issue of Wired. The probe would drop down, melt through the ice, and then autonomously search for hydrothermal activity on the sea floor.

The group working on it is currently putting together a version to explore and search for life in a rather hostile water-filled cave in Mexico. They've got a progress report here, with many details and pictures.

Some other links related to a Europa probe:

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/design/europa/
http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio/por tfolio351/pages/352-EuropaProbe.htm (neat painting)
http://www.cascadia.ctc.edu/facultyweb/instructors /jvanleer/astro%20sum01/astro101/missions_to_europ a.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/fob3r ef.asp

Scientific articles:

The Challenge of Landing on Europa
Possible ecosystems and the search for life on Europa
others

Even a service such as Medline which allows you to search through abstracts - not complete articles - isn't free to any member of the public.

There is PubMed, which includes MEDLINE citations and is free.

What was it called before? I'm curious since 2 presidents before Bush would be around 1986.

The Clinton Administration published guidelines governing the use of human embryonic stem cells in the Federal Register on August 23, 2000.

Of course, an approach sometimes used in treating lupus (see the section "Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy for Autoimmune Diseases") could always be used to overcome the autoimmune problem for good - destroy the immune system and repopulate it from scratch. A bit dangerous, though.

So, IEEE is big for /., yes. But this debate has been going on in most clinical science fields for a decade at least! Just the idea of paying (through tax dollars) to fund the research and then paying again to be able to read the results of something I already paid for is ridiculous!!! . . . and that's just an abbreviated cycle.

If you work at a university and have ever talked to your librarian, you know that the university is paying SEVERAL MORE TIMES in that process! For those of us who publish, talk to a librarian before you consider publishing in a particular journal. Ask about cost per page data, cost per use data and the publisher's copyright practices (just to name a few things), before you just select the journal with the highest impact!

Several journals are already implementing Open Access with different levels of success. I develop and publish a relatively successful online Open Access journal, the Journal of Medical Internet Research (apologies for the plug), and we use the author-pays model based on a $750US fee to cover (most of) the costs. Often this amount can be written into or otherwise covered by a grant supporting the research in question.

We also have additional sources of revenue, including advertising (albeit very little), and one of the most promising areas is what would traditionally be called "value-added" content. While the full-text of all articles is freely available, "extra" things like PDF versions, on-demand printed versions, etc. are on a fee/membership basis. This seems to work quite well in covering costs while not restricting access. As well, other journals such as BMJ use time-delayed access (ie. articles older than 6 months become open), which is just another way of creating "premium" content. Another interesting publisher is PLoS, who have several resources on the costs of OA publishing.

As some have said in other threads, the main cost is in the actual process of reviewing/copyediting/proofing, not the actual hosting/bandwidth. Open Source journal publication software such as OJS is lessening this barrier, as are other tools. For example, we use OpenOffice to convert articles to the NLM XML schema, automating XML/layout editing and decreasing the cost. By finding alternative, "non-traditional" sources of revenue (like tiered access/content), and using Open Source tools to simplify and automate the publishing process, bringing the overall cost of online academic publishing down to a level where Open Access is cheap is already being realized.

I'll feel like no one if you don't mod this up, of course. And if you have any empathy and would like to help my situation support mental health parity in the insurance industry (which would help afflicted minors in the transition to adulthood). Please also oppose cuts to the nations Medicaid system at a time when it's imperative it reach out more to mentally ill citizens.

It really depends upon what he wants to do. A Masters or doctorate in bioinformatics combined with a bachelors in CS will get you a job very quickly and would be a much better choice than biochemistry if he really wanted to do that kind of work. Look at any one of these programs for bioinformatics training.

Chemistry, economics, business, biology, genetics, physics, computer science, neuroscience are all fields that could use folks with some training in computer science to help with modeling and other problems related to their work.

SGI is one possibility, but most folks doing this sort of work are looking at more inexpensive hardware and building clusters of commodity hardware to do their work. Also Apple's Xserves are proving to be quite cost effective and screaming performers for genetics work.

Can you point us at a cancer rate by nation breakdown? Just curious, I spent a few minutes googling for one without success.

I managed to find this after a few minutes of googling myself. I guess your success can depend on your googling skillz. It seems that overall cancer rates show no noticeable correlation with cell phone usage--Japan and Korea are in the middle to lower end of the scale in fact, at least in comparison to natinos not known for such widespread cellphone usage.

In any case, the data is for overall cancer rates, not brain cancer specifically. In fact, brain cancer is quite uncommon in comparison to lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, etc. It seems quite silly to me to worry about the cancer risk of cellphones when things like tobacco smoke and industrial toxins are much more obvious problems to worry about.

Well, let's be fair: the microwave oven is designed to keep its emissions inside.

What is unfair about a comparison to microwave ovens? Or household cordless phones or wi-fi access points for that matter? They all emit high-frequency radiation. And yes, microwaves are shielded and meant to CONTAIN radiation, but they are not perfect. If they were, then setting your wireless access point too close to a running microwave oven wouldn't mess up your network access (it does--my cordless phone didn't play nice with the oven either). Keep in mind that a typical cellphone emits less than a watt of power and a microwave oven is over a thousand times more powerful. The shielding may be 99.9% effective, but even at that rate the oven will emit radiation at rates on the same scale as that of a cellphone (this is not just a wild guess--microwave ovens may emit up to 5 mW per cm^2 from its outside surface, as measured from 5cm from that surface).

It's certainly difficult to isolate from the risk factors we bathe ourselves in daily, yes.

I think that researchers could conduct a study that proved ANYTHING caused cancer, and that a lot of these studies are influenced by pre-conceived prejudices--it is a goal to establish some link to cancer then muck with the study until there is evidence to back that link. There isn't a substance in the world that could not harm us if misused, and any data could be interpreted to sound urgent. Ever seen the parody site about "dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)"? There are no lies in that site at all, but it makes DHMO (better known as pure water) sound like a dangerous toxin.

Truth is, it is quite EASY to isolate some obvious risk factors. When people live and work around synthetically produced chemicals that'll make your eyes water and give you a headache, or you notice a town that has 5 times the cancer rate of the rest of the nation, then it's pretty easy to figure out there is a problem there. But this cellphone thing? We've had 20 years to look at this, and there've been no big cancer clusters, no obvious cause-and-effect relationship, etc, and studies that have been made indicate no solid consensus. I think there are much more important things to worry about right now.

on a treadmill while working. His paper found that: Humans expend energy through purposeful exercise and through changes in posture and movement that are associated with the routines of daily life [called nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)]. ...If obese individuals adopted the NEAT-enhanced behaviors of their lean counterparts, they might expend an additional 350 calories (kcal) per day.

As reported in the mainstream press (including NPR), he finds he can type etc walking 0.7 mph - a very slow stroll. Here's a lay summary with a picture of the author on his treadmill. This addresses the key problem with recommending excersize - many people (think they) have no time.

Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. This means eating bad foods not eating too much food. Mainly due to corn syrup and refined sugars, coke, pepsi and starches.

Now, if you don't like the discover article that I dug up quickly, how about a peer-reviewed journal article? Here's an abstract of one (there are more -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8354179&dopt=Citation

Now, you're right, it's mercury compounds that cause serious problems, but elemental mercury is still an issue (another peer-reviewed publication, this time a case report that illustrates my point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1645633&dopt=Citation ) -- the sticky point with your argument is that mercury compounds end up being formed by mercury loose in the environment and it's also not all that hard for it to be vaporized. Additionally, I should note, that the mercury in the compact fluorescent bulbs ends up as a vapor, especially if they're broken.

My point in all of this, was and is, that compact fluorescent bulbs are not as perfect of a solution as it may seem at first blush. How it all shakes out in the end wasn't completely my point, in fact, as you can double check, I said that I expected CFB's come out the better -- but after a bit more reading, I revise that and say that they're only better inasmuch as they use less power and, while most power (in the US, at least) comes from coal that's an important difference. However, when we move away from coal, the issues with CFB's become more compelling.

Now, if you don't like the discover article that I dug up quickly, how about a peer-reviewed journal article? Here's an abstract of one (there are more -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8354179&dopt=Citation

Now, you're right, it's mercury compounds that cause serious problems, but elemental mercury is still an issue (another peer-reviewed publication, this time a case report that illustrates my point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1645633&dopt=Citation ) -- the sticky point with your argument is that mercury compounds end up being formed by mercury loose in the environment and it's also not all that hard for it to be vaporized. Additionally, I should note, that the mercury in the compact fluorescent bulbs ends up as a vapor, especially if they're broken.

My point in all of this, was and is, that compact fluorescent bulbs are not as perfect of a solution as it may seem at first blush. How it all shakes out in the end wasn't completely my point, in fact, as you can double check, I said that I expected CFB's come out the better -- but after a bit more reading, I revise that and say that they're only better inasmuch as they use less power and, while most power (in the US, at least) comes from coal that's an important difference. However, when we move away from coal, the issues with CFB's become more compelling.

Some links on lactose intolerence (from people not pushing agendas): http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/lact oseintolerance/ (This one notes that something like 75 percent of African Americans and 90 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerence (This explains why: the mutation which allows humans to produce the lactaze enzyme occured in Western Europe.)

Personally, I find the campaigns that use lactose intolerance as a reason to discourage drinking milk kind of silly. I am lactose intolerant, and hence avoid milk, but I don't think that means others shouldn't either. After all, just because milk is bad for ME doesn't mean it's bad for EVERYONE, right?

No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
That's and out and out lie.

Fact: Researchers at mixed funding facilities only have to properly account for federal funds according to normal guidelines. There is no extra baggage at all. Here is a link for you to read, from the NIH, who is responsible for this policy.

Fact: Virtually all embryonic stem research going on in the country currently operates in partically federally funded scenarios. There is no "effective ban".

Fact: The Bush administration is the only administration to fund any embryonic stem cell research. Period.

As far as the rest of your post, you are using classic red herrings which is not surprising.

Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Yes, however, none of those killed cells are capable of developing into a fully seperate heathly human life. They are *part* of our body, but they are not *our entire body*. Embryo's are entirely capable of developing into fully heathly living beings, while skin cells, liver cells, and blood cannot.

Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
Yes, of course they. We are the only species who can question our own existenance. Provably, we are a unique lifeform within our realm of knowledge. It is at least reasonable to *think* and *question* what makes us unique, and whether that is worth protecting.

It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Finally, this is extremely poor reasoning. A baby child can live without life support outside the womb well before 9 months. It depends on the baby, but some premature babies have survived as early as 30 weeks (7 1/2 months) and others with life support as early as 26 weeks (6 1/2 months). Scientifically, there is no difference between a baby that is two days from delivery from one that is two days past delivery. As a lifeform, each is equally developed. Science coldly is incapable of handling the emotional difference between the unborn and born.

I am not arguing one or another, but you are clearly distoring the facts and ignoring complex non-religious facts that science is incapable of addressing.

This is getting ridiculous with all the posts trying to use this to justify the effective ban on embryonic stem cell research. IF you belIeve that this research is immoral that's fine - I do understand your opinion and I have no problem with it though I disagree.

BUT stop claiming that the denial of federal funds doesn't make embryonic stem cell research in the US very difficult. Stop claiming that there is no merit to embryonic stem cell research - that is just patently untrue (yes I am a scientist and I have worked with EC but not ES cells). Look up Parkinson's and Diabetes and get a developmental biologist to explain to you why embryonic stem cell research provides hope for a cure to these diseases. Or read NIH's own summary on stem cell research

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp

Like I said if you have strong opinions that embryonic cell research is immoral - stand up for yourself and just say so. I respect that much more than trying to trick other people into accepting your agenda with naked FUD.

...ummm...if you block the research (and I do mean block, because not only can't you use NIH funds for the work, if you get NIH funds for anything at all you can't use any other funds to do the work, and there is still some question as to how far this "poisoning" of a research environment extends) then yes, you won't see a cure, and industry won't get interested in your cure, and then you won't see a great many cures.

At least in the U.S. - other countries will of course move on, for example extending this work into humans...

As a quick google would have told you.

Ooh, never mind, found it. Yay for google scholar:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7538699&dopt=Citation

Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber.

Cano RJ, Borucki MK.

A bacterial spore was revived, cultured, and identified from the abdominal contents of extinct bees preserved for 25 to 40 million years in buried Dominican amber. Rigorous surface decontamination of the amber and aseptic procedures were used during the recovery of the bacterium. Several lines of evidence indicated that the isolated bacterium was of ancient origin and not an extant contaminant. The characteristic enzymatic, biochemical, and 16S ribosomal DNA profiles indicated that the ancient bacterium is most closely related to extant Bacillus sphaericus.

> Studies paid for by the alcohol industry?

Try peer reviewed scientific journals instead:

Beer and health: Preventive effects of beer components on lifestyle-related diseases.
Plant polyphenol antioxidants and oxidative stress.
Flavonoids in food and their health benefits.

> Studies paid for by the alcohol industry?

Try peer reviewed scientific journals instead:

Beer and health: Preventive effects of beer components on lifestyle-related diseases.
Plant polyphenol antioxidants and oxidative stress.
Flavonoids in food and their health benefits.

> Studies paid for by the alcohol industry?

Try peer reviewed scientific journals instead:

Beer and health: Preventive effects of beer components on lifestyle-related diseases.
Plant polyphenol antioxidants and oxidative stress.
Flavonoids in food and their health benefits.

I'm not sure if that is true. One of the sibling posts to this one provides a link to a full-on prospective study which confirms environmental tobacco smoke is a risk factor for lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. It's a January 2005 publication, so I don't blame you for not seeing it before.

I would also argue that elements of tobacco smoke are known carcinogens. To take one example, a lot of recent work has demonstrated that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) like benzo[a]pyrene causes specific mutations to the p53 gene which are identical to mutations found in cancers of the lung and other organs (abstract). It's very difficult to tease out all the different factors at work in an epidemiological study, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest:

PAHs are present in tobacco smoke;

p53 is mutated in ~60% of human lung cancers;

p53 mutations mostly occur at a few 'hotspots';

PAHs bind to and disrupt the p53 gene at the same sites as mutations are observed;

PAHs cause cancer in rats;

Therefore it is likely that cigarette smoke can cause oncogenic (cancer-inducing) mutations.

Yes, there are questions about the relative effect of these compounds compared to other environmental carcinogens. Based on the evidence available, it would seem that the burden is on the tobacco industry to demonstrate that these known mutagenic compounds don't cause cancer in this particular case.

I would put global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide in roughly the same category. The reasoning seems sound, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and we should probably act on a preemptive strategy of harm reduction.