Slashdot Mirror

I'm a scientist. We live or die by how well our theories explain the natural world. You seem to be suggesting that there's a cabal of scientists who are for various reasons trumpeting "the hoax" for precisely what? Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.

Science is an honorable profession, but it is still a human activity. Not everyone engaged in science has pure motives. The reward system in terms of grant and program money directs the money to those who are producing the desired results, generally in programs that already take global warming a given. Some people clearly understand that large emergency programs to take control of economies to curb carbon emissions to reduce global warming before the imminent catastrophe predicted represent two things: power, and enormous amounts of money. Sadly, both will be misused if recent history is any guide.

This somewhat reminds me, and here I'm betraying my own bias, of the controversy over smoking. Does it cause lung cancer or not? It took years and many "scientists" on the take form the tobacco industry to swear it didn't before it was finally resolved. And it wasn't resolved within the scientific community (they were adamant that it did), it was resolved when the public finally decided whom to believe.

And now we have states and localities moving to ban tobacco smoking and permitting marijuana smoking. We're trading off a source of lung disease for a source of psychosis and lung disease. I wonder how many bodies it will take for the next discussion to get through?

Do you feel lucky? Should we wager the planet on, "Gee, I don't think it could happen" when most scientists are telling you it could?

Should we wager our freedom, economy, and way of life on something that could happen? (With the value of could varying greatly from can't reproduce what's happening now to never happen to "Oh my God! We're all gonna die next spring!"* depending upon whose cracker jack model is being used, with what assumptions, with what scrubbed/adjusted/fudged data?) I think we can afford to let the "consensus" die down, improve the science, and make some better choices.

BTW - Good luck with your career.

*Exagerated for effect.

The metrics that actually matter to the people making use of the system, how more/less likely you are to die of ailment x in country y, shows quite the opposite. If you are diagnosed with any form of Cancer in the US you are more likely to still be alive after 5 years than anywhere else in the world (in some places, such as the UK, the survival rate is half of what it is in the US) and the numbers for almost every other medical problem shows the same pattern with the US being first or top three.

Total bullshit. US cancer death rates are in the middle of the pack on aggregate statistics. Yes, the US does pretty good for some cancers (for some people, most notably those with insurance), but not for all.

Nice of you not to buy insurance when you don't need it. Or don't think you need it. Most people I know don't plan on getting ill. It's not something that is on the calendar for "next year". But keep rolling the dice if you like.

Sorry, but you're wrong: http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

My BMI hovers between 20 and 21. That is actually incredibly healthy.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20101005/chest-compression-only-cpr-saves-more-lives

"There may be additional benefits to this method as well. The survival edge may occur because interrupting chest compressions --- even just for rescue breathing-- may further hamper blood flow, and it takes longer to get that blood flow back when it is time for more chest compressions, explains study researcher Bentley J. Bobrow, MD, of the Arizona Department of Health Services in Phoenix."

I'd call that a very reasonable dispute. If you have papers falsifying the hypothesis, please share the links. Otherwise, I think it is reasonable to maintain that there is a dispute over whether blood flow is more important than oxygen injection. You can achieve only both, to the satisfaction of the above hypothesis, if two people are involved (one involved in compressions, one doing the breathing on a periodic basis).

I'm not saying the doctor was right, wrong or purple, only that one of the researchers involved in the study disputes the interpretation that it is solely because of scare factor and that this makes it a significant hypothesis until disproven. It may have been disproven, and if so I'd like to see the evidence, but no amount of pointing to paramedics, St. John's Ambulance, etc, will convince me that a counter-claim by a knowledgeable person was not made and that it should not be taken seriously. Habits die hard and most paramedics were trained prior to 2010, so without actual hard medical evidence I cannot tell from modern practice whether practice is governed by the knowledge now or the knowledge of several decades ago.

Things change, things evolve, but not all practitioners change and evolve with them.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20101005/chest-compression-only-cpr-saves-more-lives

Evidence isn't that strong, but yeah, there seems to be some positive effect, though not necessarily due to caffeine (seems to happen with decaf coffee also).

I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much

Japan. http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diets-of-world-japanese-diet

Some choice quotes:

"Thanks to the relatively healthier Japanese diet and lifestyle, Japanese women and men live longer and healthier than everyone else on Earth," Moriyama tells WebMD. Not only can they expect to live 86 and 79 years respectively (compared to 80 and 75 years for Americans), but they can also anticipate an average of 75 years lived healthy and disability-free, the World Health Organization reports. On top of that, Japanese people enjoy the No. 1 lowest obesity rate in the developed world -- 3% -- versus 11% for the French and 32% for Americans, according to the International Obesity TaskForce. "You might think it's all in our genes," Moriyama says. "But when Japanese people adopt a Western-style diet, they put on weight quickly.""

"A rice foundation. The Japanese diet includes huge amounts of rice -- six times more per person than the average American's diet,"

"Veggie delight. " Japan is kind of a vegetable-crazed nation,"

"A good catch. Fish, especially fatty fish -- like Japanese favorites salmon and fresh tuna, mackerel, sardines, and herring -- are a great source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are known for their heart-health and mood-boosting benefits, Moriyama tells WebMD. And though Japan accounts for only 2% of the world's population, its people eat 10% of the world's fish. The flipside of Japan's fish craze means the Japanese eat less red meat, which contains artery-clogging saturated fat that, if eaten to excess, can lead to obesity and heart disease."

To sum up, the vast, vast majority of the Japanese diet is rice, and they're some of the healthiest people on the planet. They supplement with veggies and fish. The only debate remaining is how much the fish are attributable to their good health, because it's the only really "expensive" part of their diet. So I'd say the OP is at least partially onto something, however deeply you're concerned with harping on a singular mistake he made.

Misleading point? Does water hydrate the body or not?

No, at least not adequately: if you are actually dehydrated (rather than simply thirsty), then just drinking water will not fix the problem. To quote wikipedia, "[p]lain water restores only the volume of the blood plasma, inhibiting the thirst mechanism before solute levels can be replenished.[17]" If a body is dehydrated, you need an isotonic drink. We've known this just about forever, and this is why you don't give pure water to a diarrhoea sufferer: it'll actually just make their problem *worse*. You mix appropriate quantities of electrolytes (e.g. to the recipe here).

People are saying this now, your quality of sleep is reduced by alcohol, even if you do pass out...

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/news/20110215/alcohol-at-bedtime-may-not-help-your-sleep

I'll copy it here:

By the way, here are some key useful health related links, and these are some of the issues I'd like to use such a system to discuss, refine, rebut, or promote.

On healthy diet:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-John-Robbins/dp/0915811812

Knife and blender skills for eating better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhfAE6McrM
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/

On medically supervised fasting (both water and juice) and health:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-dr-fuhrman-on-fasting....
http://www.healthpromoting.com/why-water-fasting
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/

And on getting enough vitamin D (in decreasing levels of recommended supplements):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d...
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx

On vitamin D and pregnancy:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20100504/high-doses-of-vitamin-d-may-cut-...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions...

On autism and health care in general:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_...

Understanding about good and bad fats:
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-deba...
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21515108

Mental health:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

Treadmill workstations for computer users (but be sure to get vitamin D being indoors so much):
http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/08/the-treadmill-workstation/
http://www.squidoo.com/wal

http://www.webmd.com/osteoarthritis/guide/arthritis-scoliosis

There are many types and causes of scoliosis, including:

Congenital scoliosis. Due to a bone abnormality present at birth. Neuromuscular scoliosis. A result of abnormal muscles or nerves. Frequently seen in people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy or in those with various conditions that are accompanied by, or result in, paralysis.
Degenerative scoliosis. This may result from traumatic (from an injury or illness) bone collapse, previous major back surgery, or osteoporosis (thining of the bones).
Idiopathic scoliosis. The most common type of scoliosis, idiopathic scoliosis, has no specific identifiable cause. There are many theories, but none have been found to be conclusive. There is, however, strong evidence that idiopathic scoliosis is inherited.

Cursive may be harder to learn, but once learned it much more efficient than block writing is. Most efficient is a combination of the two styles, but without learning cursive first students will never get there.

The internet IS a very useful source of information, but what you're describing isn't any different than learning to find the resources you need at your local library.

Could you be more specific about:

Which skills are being replaced? How the internet replaces a quality library and teacher?

Actually even though you only get Chicken Pox once the virus can reinfect and then it's called Shingles. The Chicken Pox Vacinne does not stop the potential of reinfection resulting in Shingles.

Medical treatment varies greatly from disease to disease, from country to country.
If you're looking for a general overview of the quality of care in a country, look at the survival rates of the widespread ones within a group.

For example, if judging cancer survival, you might look at prostate, breast, colon, and rectal.
"The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports."

I have no idea exactly how it was "experimental." It wasn't done by a random dude in a mall:

Perry underwent a spinal fusion procedure from Stanley C. Jones, MD, a Houston orthopaedic surgeon. But it wasn’t as routine as it sounds. During the operation, Jones gave Perry an infusion of adult stem cells in an effort to speed recovery.

(source).

Exactly how sanctioned that is I suppose is debatable... companies in other countries Japan, China, South Korea) are mentioned.

Everything is made into a crisis to get more funding.

Therefore it's absolutely safe to conclude that there can be no possible crises ever.

[/s] SARS, the bird flu, and the swine flu were made into crises by the media, not scientists. If you equate what you hear in the news with science, you've got big problems. As far as MERSA goes, it does seem to be fairly bad. I don't know if some scientist told you that everyone was going to die in 3 years if they didn't get funded or what, but this anti-science thing you've got going on is stupid.

What about pharmaceuticals that are excreted in urine or carcinogenic chemicals that are poured down the drain? I imagine that many of those compounds are small enough to pass through an osmotic filter.

Yep.

I doubt that had anything to do with aspergers. Sounds like the person was just a douche. Everything I've gathered from the barrage of media attention (and slashdot attention) on this over the years has made it pretty clear that Aspergers is to Autism what beige is to pitch-black. People wanting to make it popular often like to suggest that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and many others of their group have Aspergers. They're of sound mind the same way you and I are

Here. Go look at a list of the symptoms (you don't have to hit on them all to be diagnosable). Tell me the a good chunk of the list doesn't apply to at least 80% of the people you know. It's ridiculous.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/tc/aspergers-syndrome-symptoms

This seems to find quite a few fatal accidents.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana

and from the article you linked:

Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.

Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.

Just because someone tests positive for marijuana does not mean they were high when the test was done.

One of the ridiculous things about pot is that the metabolites stay in your bloodstream for several WEEKS. Doesn't mean the person was high at the time the test was taken.

This seems to find quite a few fatal accidents.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana

and from the article you linked:

Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.

Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.

You shouldn't operate machinery under effects of alcohol, either.

Alcohol is detectable when there is enough to impair you. Marijuana on the other hand "hangs around in your system for as long as 24 hours after smoking. The lingering effects mean you're impaired for several hours after the high wears off." http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects. There is a demonstrable difference in the duration and severity of each of these substances. Marijuana has the longest duration of the three, and the abilities that are compromised are mostly cognitive http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm.

While all three of these substances are comparable in terms of causal use, marijuana very clearly stands out from the other two in terms of effects and duration. I don't think it's a strong comparison.

It looks like aluminum likely doesn't cause alzheimer's. There was also some evidence that high doses of zinc can cause problems.
On the other hand, a recent study suggests that too much zinc might be the problem. In this laboratory experiment, zinc caused beta amyloid from cerebrospinal fluid -- the fluid that bathes the brain -- to form clumps similar to the plaques of Alzheimer's disease.

My general rule of thumb is to stay physically active, eat well, and stay mentally sharp. Mega doses of whatever likely aren't going to help much.

Yawn, turn it into to a baseless personal attack if that makes you feel better, did I hit a nerve or something? Examples of studies showing:

1. Men think more about sex.
2. Men seek sex more avidly.

"Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it,"

Men (...) are more interested in casual sex.

The rest of it basically goes on to say that women need lots of effort from the man on feelings, setting, foreplay etc. while the man is much more ready to just do it.

Of course that's on average... I have at least on two occasions have people comment on her wanting more sex than him, but usually it's the other way around.

But I'm sure you'll reply with another snarky comment to show your superior sexual prowess. You go, champ.

There have been many, many studies into this, and there is no evidence to suggest that what you say is the case.

Really? So I guess the medical community is completely wrong when they say residual effects of marijuana can stay in your system anywhere from 20 hours to 10 days, meaning you are impaired for that time, right?

Smoke a joint on Sunday night, come in with the residual effects on Monday still in your system. Yeah, nothing wrong with that. I like having to deal with stoners in addition to the morons who can't follow simple directions such as don't press the red button.

It's time to grow up and think for yourself.

I did. I looked at the studies not done by High Times. The residual effects of marijuana use are real, whether you want to believe them or not. I don't need to deal with people who think it's okay to come in buzzed and not thinking clearly.

How about you grow up and realize that doing shit like that affects those around you.

For reference:

WebMD>

Disocery Health

They will claim that people born at a certain time of year share some traits... (like it's some kind of scientific measurable proof. sigh)

Here is something interesting then for you - this has nothing to do with astrology but there is scientific measurable proof that people born at a certain time of year share some traits - Specifically

• 
  http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/news/20041206/birth-month-tied-to-multiple-sclerosis-risk

Combining those results with a database from Denmark and Sweden, researchers found that there was an overall 13% increase in multiple sclerosis risk for people born in May compared with November and a 19% decreased risk for those born in November compared with May.

They say the seasonal effect appeared strongest in Scotland, where the prevalence of multiple sclerosis is highest.

Researchers say previous studies have suggested that exposure to sun or seasonal variations in vitamin D exposure during pregnancy -- by affecting the brain development of the fetus -- may explain the seasonal differences in multiple sclerosis risk. But more research is needed to explain the link between month of birth and multiple sclerosis risk in adulthood.

--jeffk++

I see very little practical use for controlling worms.

Horatio, here are some ideas for future.

From your article "That's because Western astrology strictly adheres to the tropical zodiac, which is fixed to seasons. "

that is a simple one. The seaon one is born is affects people. e.g. baby's get more light in the summer in their first 3 months when born in the start of the summer.

In school the child born in march are a half year older then thos born in august, but are put in the same class (at the age of 5 that is is a huge difference. ) and will affect their behaviour.

And yes there are real studies on this.

And yes, unless you are karma capped your karma can rise from this.

Did he have heavy metal poisoning? If you look up the symptoms you'll see they are quite similar.

In order to get heavy metal poisoning from vaccines, you'd have to get vaccinated on the order of multiple times daily. There are much easier ways to get yourself an accumulation of toxic metals.

On the other hand, there's every chance Scott Shoemaker's kid was chewing on shitty chinese-made Cadmium-laced or lead-laced toys. Or chewing lead paint from the house's walls.

Blaming the vaccines is stupid.

Access to information is what elevates us above cavemen. The net may be full of filth but it's also full of real information, even vital information—on geography, health, science, and even entertainment. The more time I spend in rural areas, the more I am awed by the sad paucity of information available to people who actually would like to learn about the world outside their town. Increasing numbers of critical documents are available online. Broadband affects quality of life and encourages growth of business.

Now, if you'd said "someone might not get his WoW fix, oh noes" I probably would have agreed with you.

Actually, one might argue that there is a real social problem in female body image (and judging from the proliferation of drugs intended to increase penis size, male as well) in western society.

It could further be argued that much of this has to do with both the "soft porn" of the fashion industry, and the exaggerated bodies of "hard core" porn as well.

To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.

I've noticed that there is a range of extremely hot girls, none chubby, from the skinny-but-not-annorexic petites I love to the shapely-but-extremely-curvy sweeties that are eating just a bit more pie.

The funny thing is there's a LOT of girls like this.

It's not a matter of working their ass off doing 5 hours of aerobics a day. Any girl that plays a sport is going to stay in shape (lacross, soccer). Sure they might not be the "slim/athletic" girls that go in "super hot model" jobs, but they're not going to be "a little chubby" either... there's a size in between where they're slim, shapely, and extremely curvy. Most girls that aren't shoving down unhealthy amounts of food manage to have a soft body with just enough padding that they're girl shaped, not egg shaped (or columnar for that matter).

Healthy bodies are different: humans are sexually dimorphic, and there is a point where you stop looking like a man/woman and start looking like a fat asshole. That is where you're going downhill. There's no shortage of happy, healthy girls though. It's a little ridiculous when they're 130 pounds and complaining they need to lose 10 pounds ... they're just going to lose hips, or boobs, or soft curves along the legs... no cellulite, no ugly unsightly ripples or bulges, just shape. 180... 200 pound girls that are 5'2 and carrying 50% body fat are well out of shape though.

Actually, one might argue that there is a real social problem in female body image (and judging from the proliferation of drugs intended to increase penis size, male as well) in western society.

It could further be argued that much of this has to do with both the "soft porn" of the fashion industry, and the exaggerated bodies of "hard core" porn as well.

To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.

And the worst thing you could possibly do to someone?

wget -r http://webmd.com/

Vitamin D is needed by the immune system: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7379094/Vitamin-D-triggers-and-arms-the-immune-system.html
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--NqqB2nhBE

And whole foods (especially vegetables, fruits, and legumes) help you have a disease resistant body:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm

Though a good mental attitude, exercise, infrastructure, good sleep, thankfulness, meditating on the great mystery, etc. can help with general wellness, too.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
http://www.marcinequenzer.com/creation.htm#The%20Field%20of%20Plenty
http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/important-sleep-habits

I managed to dig up the article, you can find it here.

Stellar post, with just one flaw:

it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke

Maybe not.

From the pulmonologist who completed the 2,000+ subject study mentioned above:

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Perhaps you should read the article: "Worcestershire Royal Hospital only has the facilities to care for premature babies born from 28 weeks onwards and doctors wanted to transfer her to a specialist unit at Birmingham's Heartlands Hospital but there wasn't time."

If more American hospitals are equipped to deal with babies born earlier than this that could explain a difference in survival rates, but I don't know if that's the case.

Note that Sweden and Germany count the birth rate in the same way as the USA, but do better. At the end of this article are some survival results for full-term births. On Wikipedia there's the 5-year survival rate.

The oft-cited report about infant mortality in the US leaves out some important factors -- namely that socio-economic diversity in the US, and racial heterogenoy correlate with and explain some of our increased infant mortality.

You could say the same about Britain. (From the article, we know this is a teenage (17) mother with an older (24) father, they aren't married, and they all have stereotypical working-class names.)

Finally, we measure mortality much differently here than do most other places.

Yet your own government (see here) "concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking."

The way your body handles food (burn/save) now is different than it will in ten years. Keep up the bad habits and most likely you will be overweight rather than under.

WebMD's article on testosterone is interesting. Basically, your testosterone levels peak at around 25 and decline gradually until death.

Also, food allergies seem to be a symptom of lack of breastfeeding and using formula instead. Obviously, virtually everybody breastfeeds in third world countries.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20080107/breastfeeding-may-lower-allergy-risk

Unfortunately for me, my mom bought into that whole 'we know everything a baby needs and formula is better than breastfeeding' nonsense that was popular back then.

I am equally suspect of dog food. Yeah, like you really know everything my dog needs. Translation: Here's a bunch of cheap, rotten crap we can't sell to people for health reasons. Let's spray it on a soy/cereal mixture... I mean, we know everything your dog needs and I can't believe you don't give your dog dog food! What a terrible dog owner giving them table scraps like they've been eating for thousands of years.

This might partly have something to do with the diabetes and how alcohol affects you. I had a diabetic roommate once who drank like a fish, and when he did, the alcohol seemed to push him into the "falling down, blacked out, stupid" phase much quicker than anyone I know. He once got so drunk he broke into a bunch of cars in our apartment parking lot looking for something he lost. No memory of that the next day. Another time he decided it'd be a good idea to not take his insulin and then drink. Paramedics were called that night as he was unresponsive.

See the relevant WebMD article.

* While moderate amounts of alcohol can cause blood sugar to rise, excess alcohol can actually decrease your blood sugar level -- sometimes causing it to drop into dangerous levels.
* Alcohol can interfere with the positive effects of oral diabetes medicines or insulin.

Can you give me some link to that research? To the best of my knowledge about 5-7 hours is the norm for a typical adult. Not all people need the same amout, but 8-10 is well more than most adults need.

I'm not suggesting you sleep-deprive yourself, I'm suggesting you don't sleep more than you need to. For children and teenagers there are reasons for longer sleep, for an adult it's just a waste of time.

Personally I usually sleep for about 5 hours. Doesn't matter how late or early I go to bed, I always wake well rested in about 5 hours.

Non-authoritive links, these were just the first few to show up on google.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812420,00.html
http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-needs
http://www.wikihow.com/Know-How-Much-Sleep-You-Need

Again; please provide some backup for your claim of what "every sleep scientist on the planet" will tell me.

"I'm very sorry that a can of Pepsi killed your mother"

My mother does not have type 2 diabetes, but I know many others with it.

And for some that may suggest diet soda, sorry but that also leads to weight gain and diabetes.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

"last time I checked no one is marching into people's homes and forcing cola down people's throats."

You underestimate the power that marketing has over people.

Tobacco TV advertisement has been banned for some time because of the power of marketing, but currently soda advertisement has little regulation, so they are free to "march into peoples homes [television]".

http://www.alternet.org/story/45498/

I've noticed this effect myself, I'll sneeze for the first week or two that i'm around a new furry critter until I get acclimated.

However, it turns out you may be wrong about the nuts part at least. I had heard about this from a nanny friend of mine.

As for adoption, I know gay couples who have adopted, and in all cases the kid is far better off than they were in the care of the government.

Almost ALL kids are better off after being adopted then being in the care of the government. Gay or straight adoptive parents has nothing to do with it.

Most of the f'd up people in this world are the direct result of a HETEROSEXUAL union.

With the exception of the relatively very small amount of sperm donations to lesbian mothers, ALL f'd up people are a result of a heterosexual union. Coincidentally, and with the same exceptions, ALL non-f'd up people are also a result of a heterosexual union.

I'd love to see a study following kids who go through foster homes vs. kids in homosexual adoptions.

There was a study not that long ago showing the children of lesbian parents fare better than most of their peers. However, as the linked article explains, the biggest reason for this is "[t]hese are not accidental children".

I'm guessing the GP was referring to: This article but it may have been this one
--
JimFive

wrong answer, try again!

Infant mortality rates: the US ranks an embarassing 33rd according to the UN, 46th according to the CIA

US also ranks pretty shittily in heart attack rates too

Do I really need to go on pointing out what a farce the supposed "superior" US healthcare system is?

wrong answer, try again!

Infant mortality rates: the US ranks an embarassing 33rd according to the UN, 46th according to the CIA

US also ranks pretty shittily in heart attack rates too

Do I really need to go on pointing out what a farce the supposed "superior" US healthcare system is?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/internet-makes-hypochondria-worse

Would the smartphone version be any better?

I remember awhile back that there was a study that found that only drinking diet pop still affected a person's obesity, even though it did not contain any calories. http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight .

I'm not saying that there is solid correlation here, I'm fine with the opinion that people who drink diet pop are probably the people making the worst food choices anyway. But what if it's not just the sugar, but the propensity to drink pop from cans with BPA and continue to drink them.

I'd be interested to see European BPA levels contrasted to American BPA levels. What if it's not just caloric intake that is making America so fat, maybe it's our increasing exposure to this, along with calories. There is an obvious increase in childhood obesity and diabetes, what if on top of bad food and poor exercise, it's our increased exposure to this, pre-cradle to grave, that is accelerating our poor health?

Health effects of coffee

Health effects of tea

You can find more by searching at the obvious places, but needless to say, in recent years, coffee consumption (even high consumption) has been linked to health benefits. Of course, all things in moderation; I personally have one cup of coffee and one cup of tea a day, before noon (no caffeine after noon). It's more for taste and custom than anything else.

I used to only drink tea (and lots of it), which I had switched to because I used to drink so much coffee I started getting chest pains. I used to drink a *lot* of Dr. Pepper before that, but soda is probably the worst thing you can drink, besides bad moonshine or paint thinner. Seriously, the amount of sugar and other things that will leach the minerals right out of your bones in soda is criminal. Of course, getting a mocha-latte-frappe-choco-swirl from you-know-where probably isn't much better for you.

Just get yourself some whole beans, grind them right before you brew, and use a decent brewing system, and don't drink too much, and you will be better off. Or get some good tea, and make sure the water is boiling if it is black tea.

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years.[47] Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch [48] and the World Health Organization[49] found similar risk reductions of 80–95%.

The verbiage here supports your claim, almost. It isn't just using a condom it is "correct and consistent use of latex condoms"

Three parts there that MUST be applied, "correct", "consistent" and "latex". Rates go down the moment one doesn't do these things. In addition, these statistics are for normal intercourse only and not for other sexual activities, which don't usually assert condom usage, such as "oral sex", and other activities that have exchange of bodily fluids.

And the transmission rate is for AIDS only, and not other sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV (warts)the cause of Cervical Cancer and Herpes.

Nor does it include having unprotected sex with your normal partner who is having unprotected sex with people you don't know about.

Of course it is really nice of you to paint such a rosy picture of Disease Free Sex, but the reality is that HPV is at epidemic levels, and while most men* don't have to worry about cervical cancer, women do.

*New version of throat cancer due to HPV are being seen, effectively cervical cancer of the throat.