Slashdot Mirror

Stop trolling.

This is an area I've been involved in researching as a graduate student so I'd like to answer some questions and direct some people to research about this issue if they would like some further information.

First, on causality. Determining causation is incredibly difficult, and I would argue, not even remotely possible within the social sciences. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me, but when we are talking about life and all the forces that impact it how can you possibly narrow things down sufficiently to determine a causal connection? Your statistical tools can't help you, nor can your models, you have to accept that you cannot determine causality, make some generalizations/abstractions (and qualify them) and move forward with the research. So really the best we can hope for here is high degrees of correlation.

Second, Income Inequality is one of the http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/Social Determinants of Health which suggests that the distribution of income has a significant impact upon the health of populations. A good place to start when looking at Income Inequality is http://www.democraticdialogue.org/documents/picket twilkinson.pdfIncome Inequality and Population Health: A Review of the Evidence. This article, published last year in a major peer reviwed Journal, examines basically every study that has been done on income inequality to determine what level the strongest correlations between health and income inequality exist. In a nutshell, the strongest relationship was discovered at the national level.

Third, there is a difference between the health impacts of 'absolute' variations in income (poverty) and relative variations in income (income inequality). Much of the discussion here has focused upon how if you are poor you can't afford: a good house, good food, good education, so you're forced to live in a poorer neighborhood and on and on. This is true and legitimate. The difference with income inequality is that the pathway for the health impact is psychosocial. You 'might' have enough income to have a decent house, live in an ok neighborhood, and eat decent food - but that's not the issue. The issue is how you are impacted by your relative social position within a society, essentially a class debate.

I hope those links are somewhat informative and if anyone wants some more links to books about these issues I'm happy to provide them,

Nathan Klassen

Its danger lies in the toxicity of dust particles that may be ingested, since it's a heavy metal.

-About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.
-The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.
-Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days

Heh, ok. If you have any specific statements you'd like to talk about, I'm available via gmail during work hours (ladlergo).

I think your example is pretty lousy (laser eye surgery, we go back to old-fashioned glasses, etc), but that's a decent point. The resulting change in frequency of A and B would depend on whether it actually reduced fitness. (Again, except for near-blindness, needing glasses is an example of a problem that can be worked around, but making it a bad example. Maybe asthma is better after all.)

Screening is the way to go. However, see my points below.

This would be great, except that:
1. How do we decide which diseases should be located and sequenced first? Most common? Worst prognosis? It could be done, but expect less than what everyone's touting. "Sequencing cancer" (HAHAHAHAHAHA) is a good example of this.
2. Screening would have to become extremely cheap and available to everyone. (You did say "everyone.")
3. There is an unknown number of genetic diseases. It is likely to be very high. If you want "almost perfectly healthy humans," you need wipe out most of these.
4. I hope someone has the money to pay for all of the research going into this.

Other than those logistical nightmares, I think it's a great idea. ;)

(To the person who spent one of their modpoints marking an earlier post as flamebait: Should I be flattered? I've never had one of those before.)

The guy was right: taxation is robbery. Residence in a place is not voluntary if you are born into it.

Scandanavia's living standards are at least a little lower than those in the US: that is why you get more people moving from Scandinavia to the US than the other way around. Even the health care is inferior: you certainly have no hospitals in Scandinavia to compare to Mayo in the US.

Also, no matter how you try to spin it, if you end up shot and killed for refusing to pay taxes, that is how it is. Resisting arrest and the threat of force are just parts of the robbery.

Yes, similarly, shoplifting can result in a "death penalty": but shoplifting is a specific and easily-avoided action that violates other's rights.

Not giving money to robbers is not an action: it is the default situation, and it doesn't violate anyone's rights except for the arrogant "right" of the ruling class to think it can steal from anyone.

The amount of money spent is rather shocking, however the potential payoff is also huge. So far it appears they've spent $480 for every patient to be served by the system, which is a lot of money. But to put that in perspective, the US averages $5,700 per patent, per year, and the UK averages $2,428 (cite). So recouping the investment is not that hard to imagine. (And by the way big bureaucracy is clearly kicking the crap out of the invisible hand when it comes to efficiently delivering medical care).

It's awfully easy to mourn all the money spent and see it as waste. What's much harder is to see the vast sums wasted every year in the form of systematic inefficiency, one paper form or redundant Windows license at a time.

I wish the huge projects could turn out better, but it's too bad people don't see them for what they are: ambitious and groundbreaking. I don't see that many people decrying the $16BN 'wasted' on NASA last year alone. And why? Because people realize it is exploratory, and the payoff is long-term. I am sick of the US sitting on our butts watching healthcare costs spiral out of control year after year and doing NOTHING to increase efficiency. We have the most wasteful system in the world, but since the excess is hidden away in private coffers instead of disclosed to the public, nobody cares.

Here is generic info for those who aren't much aware on the topic.
Yes half the people on the face of earth would say bird flu is hyped...

But for once imagine if the virus actually becomes capable of spreading from human to human, what then? infinite deaths in a very short while! It has happened in the past too.
Theoretically speaking such genetic changes in virus' RNA are possible via antigenic drift, which also has happened in past!

As the virus keeps changing genetically we are unable to have pre-made accurate vaccines against it. Immunization is out of question for the same reason. Hence the only surest hope today is to know the disease and prevent its infection.

So whats the problem listening to them - to those who are coining such theories of a pandemic? especially when we have no unfailing measures which we can count on. All they are asking for are SOME precautions, some investment in reasearch, some bird-killings when infected on mass scale....

Hygiene and disinfection using even casual methods like washing and following general cleanliness guidelines at home can reduce the chances of flu infection by 99%. And also the need of training, in better ways of poultry farming, especially to farmers from developing countries!

>I live in Norway and I have to say that N. Europe is not all it is cracked up to be: It is not all bad, but there are some things to consider: you >have that 50% tax rate, and some of the highest suicide rates in the world ( we don't talk about that ). One in three people are involved in a >dispute with their neighbors. Dont even think about starting a tech company - It is like beating a dead horse. New ideas, are not good ideas.

Yeah, its bad, and although people keep killing themselves all the time, the suicide rate is actually lower than most other countries:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicid e_rates/en/index.html

And regarding neighbor fights, those activities seem to be very common in America as well, at least thats the impression one gets when reading about Donald Duck.

But it implies learning the science, rather than just believing what you've been told by a different source that the science is.

Depleted Uranium is certainly more radioactive than common dirt. According to the UNEP report which you referenced, and of which a summary can be found on the WHO web site Depleted Uranium "is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass." It's no use in current reactors, though we've been stockpiling it since the 50's for use in some future reactors which could make use of it. So far, none have, but it's still theoretically possible.

According to a pamphlet the US Army published for its troops back in the early 90's, DU can be relatively safe to handle, if all proper precautions are taken.

Unfortunately, I can't find the pamphlet right now, but, some of the interesting bits from it:

DU radiation is almost completely Alpha, with very little Beta, and no Gamma radiation. What this means is that it's very easy to block the radiation. A good lead-based paint (such as those used over the DU tank armor) is 100% effective. If the paint gets scratched (as tanks tend to do), covering the exposed area with duct tape will be safe enough.

It also recommends treatment for DU wounds, including making sure the wound is completely cleaned, and passing a geiger counter over the area to make sure everything was taken out.

The radiation in this case makes it actually safer, as it makes it easier to find, including areas sprayed with microscopic bits, as it has a tendency to powder if it passes through, say, steel.

The dusting is what makes it particularly dangerous to civilians: it passes through tanks on the battlefield, gets powdered, dissolves in rain, sinks into the ground, contaminates crops, and never goes away.

Uranium, whether depleted or not, is also highly toxic, on the level of arsenic, so it's not good to get into the bloodstream. (Of course, being shot with DU bullets will probably kill you long before you have to worry about it's poisonous effects.)

Funny you'd provide that link, considering that it directly disputes your own specious claim that breast cancer risk has nothing to do with nutrition, unlike (you say) CVD.

Quote me where I said breast cancer had nothing to do with diet. I said "I'm sure there is some studies pointing to dietary habits cutting the chances of getting it but it's no where near the same thing as heart diseases association with the big mac, french fries and bowls of ice cream."

If you're gonna try to bust on me at least have the good sense to read my posts.

"Most of these deaths are in developing countries."

Ok, so most of the 7 million deaths happen in developing countries, considering that WHO standards that's about 80% of the total world population and considering that other areas show that in the US and Russia alone there is over one million deaths? Don't play a numbers game, you've already lost seeings as where 2 developed nations already make at least 14% of the deaths that they're talking about.

You just didn't bother to look at my other post in this thread where I went into great detail.

Oh, so now I should go and research every post you've ever done? Get real. You don't even bother to read my posts that are in THIS thread.

Really?

Heart Disease is more common in the 3rd world, where they don't have big macs, french fries, bowls of ice cream, time to sit around on a coutch... or even couches in many cases.

That's odd, I was just over at the WHO and they seem to think differently than you. Check it out for yourself [who.int]

Another poster in this thread already linked to information that breast cancer, in many cases, is caused by constrictive bras. I heard about the results a couple years ago, so it must be rather well-known by now.

Really? It seems to not be well known because it's unfounded. I know, I know, you'll find one or maybe two studies to the contrary... after the (doubtlessly) thousands of research projects into breast cancer a couple of studies does not note a trend.

Heart Disease is more common in the 3rd world, where they don't have big macs, french fries, bowls of ice cream, time to sit around on a coutch... or even couches in many cases.

That's odd, I was just over at the WHO and they seem to think differently than you. Check it out for yourself

While the US is in a decrease for heart disease deaths it probably has more to do with advancements in medicine more than lifestyle changes. If you want to further dispute this please, quote sources. It's becoming hard to take you seriously. And when I say sources I don't mean blogs or cranks, if you think your argument is so substantial than serious reputable organizations should back your point of view.

It was a joke, dammit.

Anyhoo, since people started complaining so much about it, I had to dig this up (30kg/m^2+ is apparently the definition of "obese"). The European countries are chosen "randomly" (in other words, I scrolled up and down that list, and picked the ones I noticed, until I had a total of ten).

However, the link to gun ownership is far from clear. The US has a far higher rate of gun violence than ALL West European countries, for instance. But many of these countries, such as Switzerland and Norway have extremely high rates of gun ownership. Few Norwegians (I'm from Norway myself) would think of Norway that way, though, and our police is generally unarmed (only arming themselves when answering callouts to situations where there is a high risk the suspect is armed, and having to follow extremely strict rules for when gun use is acceptable). But what people forget is that about a third of all households have rifles (for hunting) or AG3's (for any members of "heimevernet" - a local defense force similar to the UK's Territorial Army).

There could be a link to handguns. EU countries with high gun ownership but low gun crime rates generally have few handguns in private hands. Or there might be no link at all. Or it might be tied to treatment of gun crime - carrying a gun while comitting a crime in Norway automatically puts you at risk of an armed response and adds years to your sentence, while comitting a crime without a gun means police will likely leave their guns sealed in their cars, and your sentence if caught will be far lighter. In a situation like that there is a strong incentive to stay unarmed.

But there is no direct relationship purely between the number of privately held firearms and crime.

You wrote:

So, is it really a load of crap, or are you of the belief that we should not be able to defend ourselves, and we must suffer the arrival of the police to handle all of our protection needs?

How many Americans die as a result of accidental shootings (whether pure accidents or because someone thought they were an intruder or attacker) or get shot with their own weapon, compared to the number that actually successfully protect themselves with a firearm? The problem with the idea of protecting yourself with firearms and having armed police as a routine measure is that it doesn't stop criminals driven by desperation (as the high crime rates in the US show very clearly) but it does force criminals to arms themselves or be at a significant disadvantage.

Personally I'd rather face a robber unarmed and let them take what they want, than risk a showdown with someone who likely would have more experience with a firearm than myself.

> I can't believe how even after hearing about it on TV everyday for the last 5 years, some people still don't grow tired of hearing about it.

And this year we've been treated to a steady barrage of movie ads and television specials for about the past two months.

> Only 3,000 people (a bit less actually) died. While I may sound like a troll for saying "only", it's because we need to relativize, 3,000 people dying en masse is not a lot nor even exceptional compared to what happens all the time on Earth.

"Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured."

IIRC, the annual traffic deaths in the USA is "only" about ten times the number of people killed on 9/11.

> But maybe it has to do with both happening in the USA and being very spectacular... Still, give me a break with 9/11, it's getting old, I mean I'm getting fed up.

Fed up with politicians using it to justify all manner of nonsense, while studiously avoiding doing anything the experts actually recommended.

Well, most of the deathes related to smoking are going to be in developing countries (China) anyway:
http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/press_release s/pr_20050830.htm
"Tobacco claims 4.9 million lives a year, and if the present consumption patterns continue, the number of deaths will increase to 10 million by the year 2020, 70% of which will occur in developing countries."

[Since 1987] more than 30 candidate vaccines have been tested in over 80 Phase I/II clinical trials, involving more than 10 000 healthy human volunteers. Two Phase III trials have been carried to completion and a third one is in progress.

It could help the parent of said child know that the child has measles and get them to the hospital.

This is not the US we are talking about here. Recognition of disease is not the problem. People can't just hop into the family car and drive the kid to the hospital. Poor people who make up the majority of South Asia have no cars and few hospitals. Medical care is extremely limited. Having laptops doesn't solve people's basic needs. Vaccination and antibiotics do help and are much needed. This is the problem.

Bill Gates for all his evil has realized this and made it the focus of the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation's support for public health initiatives in poor countries now rivals the aid provided by countries such as the US.

There are other foundations such as the Measels Initiative, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization working on global public health problems as well.

Knife crime in the UK far outnumbers gun crime, but for some reason knife crime is apparently not interesting enough for the media.

Before anyone thinks that means the UK just have substituted knives for guns: In '98 there were 440 recorded homicides in the UK, compared to 17893 in the US.

NOTE: Before anyone tries to make this out to be a gun control only issue: Switzerland and Norway, both countries with significant number of privatly owned or controlled guns (part of hunting traditions and private control over military equipment for homeland defense, including hundreds of thousands of AG-3's in Norway) both see similar levels of homicides as what the UK has.

My source - the WHO report on violence and health. Take a look at page 337 onwards (the statistical annex).

Go read the WHO World report on violence and death. Pay particular attention to the relative levels of firearms related violence...

Also, the most recent British Crime Survey shows 46 gun killings in the UK last year (in a population of about 60 million people). I'd rather keep it that way than risk getting shot by some idiot carrying a gun in public.

(Before anyone turns this into a matter of gun control alone, note that countries like Switzerland and Norway, with HUGE amounts of weapons in private ownership, including AG-3's in about 1/3'd of homes in Norway, have firearms related violence rates not much different from the UK - it's much more complicated than gun control or not)

That's why the most common reason why people are put in gaol ( jail for Yanks ) is for non-payment of medical bills.

Don't make stuff up, it tanks the credibility of the rest of what you're saying. Violent offenses make up over 50% of those sentenced to prison as of 2004. I've never heard of *anyone* going to jail because of non-payment of medical bills; it's incredibly rare as the system has a bunch of "safety nets" built in. There's plenty you can do before jail becomes relevant.

The US system is what everyone else in the western world points at, and say "at least we're not that fucked up yet".

Now, this part has more truth to it. The WHO lists the US as 37th in Healthcare, well below most other developed nations and 72nd in overall health (that's right down there with Iraq at 75th, althogh in the US's case obesity is probably largely the issue). Of course, this data is from 1997 and healthcare has changed since then, but you get the picture. Many people in the US are starting to go to India to have medical procedures done (yes this is true) because it's cheaper to fly to India and have an Indian doctor perform the surgery or whatever procedure than have a US doctor do it. See here if you're interested.

Yes, the AIDS pandemic in Africa is all to do with those swarthy Africans and their ravenous sexual appetites...

Of course, according to a UNAIDS overview there are two million children in sub-Saharan africa living with HIV or AIDS; The "vast majority of children who are infected with HIV" are infected via Mother-to-child transmission or through contact with infected blood or unsterilised needles. The WHO estimates that unsafe blood transfusions result in around 5-10% of new HIV infections, and according to Safe Blood for Africa around half of the 6,000,000 blood transfusions which take place in sub-Saharan Africa every year use blood not tested for infectious diseases. Are we to also disregard rape victims? According to estimates from the United Nations Population Fund, around two-thirds of the 60,000 women raped during the course of the Rwandan genocide may have been infected by AIDS. As per the previously cited article, the use of rape as a weapon of war is becoming more common and resources to help reduce infection rates in the immediate onset of rape are stretched.

Public education projects will consistently fail unless accompanied by a systematic response to institutional weaknesses: Efforts to improve transfusion safety, the state of hygiene and nutrition and, yes, medication. A leaflet on abstinence will not save children infected through mother-to-child transmission, but antiretroviral drugs can help treat their disease and prevent the ravages of AIDS from carrying on from generation to generation.

Some stress ? Sir, you have a Panic Attack Disorder
Having up and downs ? Well, you have a Bipolar Disorder
Sometimes bored ? That is Attention Deficit Disorder

No, you don't know what you're talking about. A disorder is diagnosed when someone experiences feelings and/or impulses that are well beyond that which a person could be expected to cope with. The experiences could be normal in their content (panic is a normal response to a stressful situation) or in the case of a psychosis totally bizarre.

To take the example of panic, if it can be controlled by some positive thinking, breathing deeply and carrying on, then it's not a disorder by definition. If the individual cannot control it, and it is beginning to seriously affect their life, then it is appropriate to consider diagnosing a 'disorder' and giving treatment. That treatment might just be reassurance and some breathing exercises, it might be medication or a formal psychological therapy - whatever will help.

Someone with bipolar disorder cannot function and live a normal life - they really can't. Their ability to function in the world is severely affected by what they are experiencing, and the change when given treatment can be dramatic. To say they have "ups and downs" is insulting. Same for ADD. There are formal diagnostic criteria for most psychiatric diagnoses that must be fulfilled: DSM-IV and ICD-10.

I do agree that often psychiatric disorders are over-diagnosed, often becuase of a desire not to 'blame' someone for their predicament and find a reason why it's not their fault. But occasional or even frequent mis-diagnosis doesn't mean something isn't real. Lots of people say they have 'flu' when in fact they just have a common cold. If someone really has influenza they will feel absolutely awful and may need medical care (older adults in Britain are given influenza vaccine because many will die if they contract it). Just because lots of people claim to have 'flu' doesn't mean that those who really are suffering from it should be dismissed as 'someone with a cold who's just whineing'.

Of course... nothing you are talking about is propaganda. I stand corrected.

oh wait... yes it is.

If you *really* think we are on par with third world countries you have a very warped view of america.

Yes- I agree with you that the rich need to be taken down a notch. The main reason they have so much power right now is the abortion and gay rights issues. The religious conservatives are giving the republican part a free ride to the wealthy as long as they make some pitiful efforts at working on those two issues. I suspect that the republicans really don't want to win on those issues and I've spoken to democrats that think abortion has to be defeated before the republicans will lose power.

However.. a casual search of the web shows Norway has about 2/3 the unemployment of the US and in BOTH countries I have considerable doubt about what that number really means. However, since Norway has a grand total of LESS than 5 million people, there may be very particular reasons why it can maintain a lower unemployment rate.

Let's do a little digging...
http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/who/progs/chhn or/demographic/20050131_1
Population profile
About 4.6 million people were living in Norway in mid 2004. Compared to the averages for the Eur-A countries, Norway has a higher proportion of the population in the 0 to 14 years age group and a lower proportion aged 65 and over. ...
Norway is the only OECD country where child poverty rates are very low and continue to fall. ...
It should be kept in mind that national rates are based on estimates of the numbers of people available for and seeking employment and that the definitions of "labour force" and "unemployment" differ from country to country.

Like it or not- Europe made itself into a unit as of the EU. You are not quite a bunch of states like the united states yet but you are well on the path. And that's probably rightly so since many european countries have less population than some states in the united states.

As of 2004 this quote provides a basis for my earlier statement...
Second, the evolution of the average European unemployment rate hides large cross-country differences. In the four large continental countries -- France, Germany, Spain, and Italy -- the unemployment rate has increased steadily and remains very high, around 10 percent. (The Spanish unemployment rate has been cut in half since its peak, but remains above 10 percent.) In a number of smaller countries, notably Ireland and the Netherlands, unemployment increased until the early 1980s, but has steadily decreased since then. Unemployment is less than 5 percent in both countries today. In a number of other countries, notably Sweden and Denmark, unemployment has remained consistently low -- except for a bout of high cyclical unemployment at the start of the 1990s. Unemployment is below 5 percent in both countries today.

---

To sum up: In my opinion, the countries comprising the EU can reasonably be treated as a unit (and it becomes more reasonable
with each increase in power of the central authority). Norway is a very nice cherry picked example with some particular reasons why it is doing so well. The united states has problems -- MAJOR problems-- but you sir have drunk the kool-aid with regard to it being some kind of 3rd world country.

I'm implying that human life is longer now than it ever has been, primarily because we broke off from methods of doing things for the last million years.

OK, I understand. It was a broad generalization suggesting that I'm anti-progress. I'm not.

But flouridated water leads to cleaner teeth, which indirectly leads to a longer lifespan, so yes.

Why don't we add vitamin C to the drinking water? Wouldn't that improve life span even more?

Longer lifespans and improved dental health have been seen equally in all industrialized parts of the world, yet few places outside the US add fluoride to the water. Indeed, many regions have to remove fluoride from water where it occurs naturally, due to its well-known toxic effects. (See, for instance, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/disease s/fluorosis/en/)

I brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste. If you want to take fluoride internally in larger than trace concentrations, you can take supplements. I don't want to.

Bioengineering is dangerous because of unintended consequenses. A lot of times the food proves safe but it takes a lot of time to arrive at that conclusion.

Besides Oral Rehydrations Salts already provide an effective and inexpensive treatment for the problem. Many Humanitarian organizations like UNICEF already use them extensively.

My brother-in-law flys navy seahawks and has to land them on ships and carriers with huge radar arrays. The ship's crew is suppose to turn off the radar before they land since it interfers with brain function. As my brother-in-law puts it, "...your hair starts to stand on your arm and you being to get really angry for no reason. Then you call the radar tower and yell at them to turn off the radar array."

Here is a pretty interesting link to the WHO (World Health Organization) on electrical and magnetic fields and what they do to your body.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/inde x1.html

..when someone would bring this up. Both the nymph stage and the adult stage of dragonflies primarily eat mosquitoes. Along with mosquito eating minnows, it's a great way to let nature balance things out better. There's a few companies out there now that do dragonfly breeding and sales, just so people can have dragon fly ponds, etc. Some municipal areas have tried it on a mass scale as well, introducing thousands of the insects. The deal is, you have to *choose*, you can't both spray or go the dragonfly route, spraying will kill off the dragonflies pretty quickly. The other method I have been reading about is breeding just humongous hordes of sterile male mosquitoes and releasing them en masse in critical areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4318356.stm

The largest problem with malaria control-treatments for the victims I mean- has been the use of single drugs. WHO has very forcefully and lately gone around the world and REALLY got down on that practice and is advising for the multiple drug approach for treatments.

http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/TreatmentGuideline s2006.pdf

or short version with all the links

http://www.who.int/malaria/

..when someone would bring this up. Both the nymph stage and the adult stage of dragonflies primarily eat mosquitoes. Along with mosquito eating minnows, it's a great way to let nature balance things out better. There's a few companies out there now that do dragonfly breeding and sales, just so people can have dragon fly ponds, etc. Some municipal areas have tried it on a mass scale as well, introducing thousands of the insects. The deal is, you have to *choose*, you can't both spray or go the dragonfly route, spraying will kill off the dragonflies pretty quickly. The other method I have been reading about is breeding just humongous hordes of sterile male mosquitoes and releasing them en masse in critical areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4318356.stm

The largest problem with malaria control-treatments for the victims I mean- has been the use of single drugs. WHO has very forcefully and lately gone around the world and REALLY got down on that practice and is advising for the multiple drug approach for treatments.

http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/TreatmentGuideline s2006.pdf

or short version with all the links

http://www.who.int/malaria/

The Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, OMS...) did publish the ''4000'' figure. Please access to those documents: OMS and IAEA, then let's read:

-=-=-=-=-=
20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -- A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
=-=-=-=-=-

It was not UN-approved, it was not definitive (it was a draft, the definite one was published a few days ago, read below), the names of the scientists endorsing the ''A total of 4000 people could eventually die'' was not published, this very information (''total 4000 people'') was not in the draft report... In a word this abstract was pure BS.

Moreover they had a big press conference in order to announce this ''4000...'' thesis.

The the press relayed this ''4000, total'' thesis, and they did not publish a corrective document (from Sept, 2005 to April, 2006)

And now they discreetly publish the real definitive ONU-approved report, with a totally different info (''9000 in a small subset of the concerned population, and for a single illness'')

I know that the press is not always efficient but on this particular matter, well.. you decide. If you are a taxpayer don't forget that those IAEA/OMS/... people eat thanks to you in order to ''inform'' us, in order to decide.

Here is another funny excerpt (from the sharp'n good Nature):
-=-=-=-=-=
Melissa Fleming, a press officer working at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who helped coordinate the report's publicity, says [ ... ] a decision was made to focus on the lower 4,000 figure [ ... ] "It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom." The figure has been removed from the final summary, however, published this month.
-=-=-=-=-=

Therefore, in a nutshell, "it is not true (this 4000 figure is not anymore a grand total in the definitive report) but we published it in order to lower other estimates, and it was a bold action. Is there a way to lie boldly?

--

Nat, rants

The Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, OMS...) did publish the ''4000'' figure. Please access to those documents: OMS and IAEA, then let's read:

-=-=-=-=-=
20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -- A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
=-=-=-=-=-

It was not UN-approved, it was not definitive (it was a draft, the definite one was published a few days ago, read below), the names of the scientists endorsing the ''A total of 4000 people could eventually die'' was not published, this very information (''total 4000 people'') was not in the draft report... In a word this abstract was pure BS.

Moreover they had a big press conference in order to announce this ''4000...'' thesis.

The the press relayed this ''4000, total'' thesis, and they did not publish a corrective document (from Sept, 2005 to April, 2006)

And now they discreetly publish the real definitive ONU-approved report, with a totally different info (''9000 in a small subset of the concerned population, and for a single illness'')

I know that the press is not always efficient but on this particular matter, well.. you decide. If you are a taxpayer don't forget that those IAEA/OMS/... people eat thanks to you in order to ''inform'' us, in order to decide.

Here is another funny excerpt (from the sharp'n good Nature):
-=-=-=-=-=
Melissa Fleming, a press officer working at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who helped coordinate the report's publicity, says [ ... ] a decision was made to focus on the lower 4,000 figure [ ... ] "It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom." The figure has been removed from the final summary, however, published this month.
-=-=-=-=-=

Therefore, in a nutshell, "it is not true (this 4000 figure is not anymore a grand total in the definitive report) but we published it in order to lower other estimates, and it was a bold action. Is there a way to lie boldly?

--

Nat, rants

Moreover let's scrutinize all this Chernobyl 'material' because disinformation rulz.

Sept. 2005: the Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, in fact), during a press conference, publishes an abstract of its draft report stating that 4000 people have and will die. But the name of the authors abstract and report was not known, it did not state that those 4000 people are from a small subset of the human beings concerned, the report did not contain the key sentence of the abstract, the report was presented as an UN report albeit it was not (it is published by agencies, and not published by UN), it was only a draft...

The abstract (''4,000 people will die from the effects of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl'') was largely propagated (see for example this BBC's account). It was not definitive nor adopted by the UN, albeit presented as such.

April 2006; the very same Chernobyl Forum discreetly publishes the definitive version of the report, where this 4000 figure was replaced (see page 106) by ''9000'', which was stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers (numerous other illnesses are radiation-induced). It was then accepted by the UN. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/440982 a.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4922508.stm

Therefore those guys induced the whole media into spreading the ''Chernobyl: 4000 people will die globally'' during 7 months, albeit their ''best'' minimization is ''9000 people will die from from solids cancers amongst the approx 7 million who were in the vicinity''

Lies, damn lies... and the Atomic Guys

The United Nations
The European Union
NATO
Interpol
World Health Organization
International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Telecommunications Union
The Red Cross

I don't know what to say about this one though:
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)

And more: Google it

Not to mention the sloppy rules for registration:

To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name.

An epidemic merely is a disease that is occuring at a rate far more prevalent than it's long term rate in a region. AIDS easily fits that definition on every continent in the world (excluding Anartica). For example, the Center for Disease Control, the International Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and the US Census Bureau all call it a pandemic. It's not just a matter of semantics either. For example, in the US, death from AIDS or related illnesses is among the top ten causes of deaths in people aged 20-54 (see this CDC report).

The Hepatitis B vaccine is normally done in three shots over a period of six months, not years. Smallpox vaccines have a chance of adverse side effects, even in otherwise healthy adults. For details see:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/r eactions-vacc-public.asp

Effective treatment for Malaria--research for which Gates has donated a small fortune--would have major economic and health benefits throughout Africa and the developing world. For details see:

http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/363/RB MInfosheet_10.htm

I know that actually giving references on Slashdot isn't in fashion, but your foolishness was annoying me.

We know that there are less than 200 human cases of the avian flu over the last three years, any avian cases are being closely monitored, and there are no human-to-human transmission cases.

Compare that to the flu of 1918, where the virus had probably years to mutate, there was no surveilance, and on top of that there were 4 years of war and starvation, so an enormous number of people with weekened immune systems were exposed to it.

If you rationally compare the known evidence and history of epidemics and pandemics, it is not hard to see that at this point what is needed is good epidemiological sureveilance, and quick response if something more serious develops. And that is what the scientists are saying, not "Lock youreselves in!" as the originial article tries to imply.

It is too bad so many people fall victims of fear mongering, instead of trying to think rationally about world events...

How can an illness with less than 200 total cases worldwide and no easy vector of infection be called an epidemic? You are comparing that to HIV/AIDS, where a human interaction could lead to infection - and even then, it took years of disragard and neglect to make it an epidemic...

While it is true that a pandemic may eventual strike, it is a waste of resources to panic. Any bisuness needs to have an emergency IT plan if, for example, fire destroys the IT staff's offices. There is no need to go beyond normal emergency preparedness at this point. Panic has never solved anything...

The general concern is that if it mutates into a form which spreads easily from human to human (like normal human influenza) that we're in trouble.

Read this

As a grad student in Political Science and Population Health researcher (but I am not an expert in either field), and a 26 year old gamer, the suggestion that the CDC explore the link between Gaming and Health is not as ludicrious as you suggest. What concerns me is that the kind of study likely to come out of the CDC, perhaps a focus upon individual, rather than social, impacts.

I.e. Gaming can promote sleep deprivation, alteration of tradition behaviour, exposure to violent material in a form that may (or may not) be more negatively impactful due to its interactivity, which may negatively impact individual health.

BUT, We've seen a few recent studies, and stories on slashdot, regarding the possible benefits of guild participation, and perhaps online gaming in general. In population health this may be linked to the concepts of social cohesion (or social capital depending upon your background) which have strong correlations to health status.

I.e. Individuals may not feel particularly attached to their physical communities, you may not feel you have much in common with your neighbor or trust them (social exclusion), and compensate for that by interacting within virtual communities with positive health benefits (due to possible reductions in stress, social inclusion, feelings of personal achievment/respect).

As long as they are balanced and take a look at both the social and physical determinants of health, although physical determinants which are the terms most people conceive of health are likely to be the focus, it is not necessarily a bad thing. The CDC is a reputable institution, and I would like to see additional research in this area, and I'm not alone.

If your interested in learning more about the Social Determinants of Health check out: The World Health Organization's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/ This summary report on the Social Determinants themselves http://www.who.dk/document/e81384.pdf.

If you are interested, some important authors in the field include: Kawachi, Marmot, Syme, Wilkinson, Putnam, Lavis, McCracken, Labonte, Feinstein, and many more.

To be absolutely clear about this: Cancer has nothing to do with 'frequency', at least, not in absolute terms. What causes cancer is a wavelength of radiation that goes far enough through the dead skin on your body (can't cause cancer in dead skin) and screws up your DNA once it does so.

An interesting postulate, but unfortunately, it's not correct. As you know, frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic ratiation are inversely related; Higher frequencies correspond to smaller wavelengths. If you have two equal-power beams of light at two different wavelengths, then power *density* of the beam with the smaller wavelength is higher. So, if you shine these two beams on your skin, the beam with the smaller wavelength will not hit as many of your DNA molecules, but the molecules that *do* get hit will receive more energy than they would if the wavelength was lower.

Higher frequency means higher power density, which means a higher probability of ionization, which means a higher probability of cancer.

If it does not do that, it cannot cause cancer. If it does do that, it might cause cancer.

Nobody knows exactly what *cannot* cause cancer. We know of some of the things that *do* cause cancer, but that's about it.

Getting back to wifi, microwaves, and other gigahertz wavelength, which are smaller than visible light,

No, they aren't. Visible light has wavelengths between about 400 and 700 nanometres. 2.4 GHz microwaves are around 125 millimetres, that is, about 180-310 thousand times larger.

This is, contrary to what people think, proof that it is not harming us, because our skin can take a hell of a lot of heating before anything bad happens, and heat cannot cause cancer. (By the time you apply enough heat to screw up DNA, you've already killed the cell. Which is good, because otherwise people would get cancer from burns.)

There are several problems with this:

1. See my comment above about what "cannot cause cancer".
2. We know, for example, that exposure to certain chemicals can increase the risk of cancer. This means that radiation is not the only mechanism by which people get cancer, and that changes in the chemical environment of your cells can cause cancer. When you change the temperature of a cell, you have a significant impact on the chemical reactions that occur inside it. These two facts make your assertion that "heat cannot cause cancer" unconvincing.
3. Cancer is not the only thing that can harm people. Even if heating does not cause cancer, as you claim, it does not follow that the heating of the brain (or the testes!) is not harmful for other reasons.

The current 'theory' about how cell phones mess you up has nothing to do with any of this, it's that EM fields somehow mess with chemical reactions in your body, reactions that are unrelated to DNA. That's magnetic fields, not radiation. When things move through a magnetic field, they generate electricity. (Erm, in essence, although that's a bit simple.) The theory is that cell phones generate a strong enough field that your head moving right there can generate enough power to mess up your head.

Of course, this is completely idiotic

I fail to see how it's "of course...idiotic". It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but before I judge, I'll see how you support your statement:

but whatever.

A very convincing argument, to say the least.

It's basically the exact same claim as the one made living near power lines, which also has no evidence for it. The only place our body uses electricity is our nervous system, and if the minute amounts of electri

In Sweden this is officially recognised as a possible health concern check out:
http://www.feb.se/FEB/Links.html

  Also note that Sweden (the home of Ericsson) has one of the highest cell phone per capita of any nation.
I have worked in a Swedish office where an employee has her room proofed for electromagnetic exposure at significant cost to the employer- and noone is allowed their cellphones on within 20 meters of the office.

Try the world health organisation:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en /index.html

Personally I have formed no opinion on the risks involved here - I agree that there seems to be insufficient research - but there is certainly strong evidence indicating that a small percentage of people suffer from this condition.

"According to a study currently being carried out by the World Health Organization.

"Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances. As part of its charter to protect public health and in response to public concern, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz."

Wireless LAN
Although it is generally agreed that EMF levels for wireless LAN devices are much lower than mobile phones, there seems to exist less public understanding of the safety or otherwise of wireless LAN devices than there is for mobile phones. Many wireless LAN manufactures seem to indicate that they are operating towards specific predefined standards which are totally safe. Wireless LANs work by setting up microwave communication in the ranges of 2.4 to 5.8 GHz, depending on the technique that is used (WiFi, WiMax, OFDM, etc). The system is comprised by a base station (called access point, or AP) which establishes point-to-multipoint communication with a number of subscriber units or SUs, to which client computers are connected. Both devices are bidirectional and have antennas that emit at a certain RF power. By definition, the SU stands very near to the computer operator, and the communication link is constant, i.e., not only when there is a call, such as in a mobile phone. In small work and home environments, the AP is also usually very near to human beings, sometimes a few centimeters away. Therefore, the situation, in terms of safety standards, such as ICNIRP, may be surpassed and a higher danger to health may be posed, in relation to other mobile wireless techniques."

Cow dung for power generation seems to have some problems.

One of the problems is that particular air pollution is a big killer in the developing world. That is the problem with having lots of little, pollution-uncontrolled fires instead of a large pollution-controlled powerplant.

What, you've never heard of Hiri Kiri?

Whereas western culture and religion have always forbidden suicide, and have threatened to send you to hell if you do it,

The Western nations of Russia, Ukrane, and several other Slavic nations have higher suicide rates than Japan. Finland's is close.

Check out these WHO statistics, posted by earlier on in this discussion:

Belgium has a population density of 339 p/km^2 and a suicide rate of 29.4 (males) 10.7 (females) per 100k (I assume deaths).

Japan has a population density of 337 p/km^2 and a suicide rate of 36.5 (males) 14.1 (females) per 100k (I assume deaths).

The Netherlands is has a significantly lower relative suicide rate though. I'm not agreeing with the gp but there does at least with the above examples appear to be correlation, if not causation.

I don't just mean those killing themselves via internet, I mean the notoriously high general suicide rates of Japan. They are quite real,

No, they are not, and you're perpetuating the same stereotype as the article submitter. See here for actual suicide rates around the world. Japan's are higher than the US but lower than many other countries (Russia's suicide rate, for example, is about double that of Japan's) - overall, Japan is about average. Finland's suicide rate is comparable to Japan's, but you wouldn't know it based on media coverage - I don't recall seeing any news stories on Slashdot about those crazy, depressed Finns.

The world health organization shows the opposite, twice as many males commiting suicide as females in japan.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicid e/suiciderates/en/

"(repressive Muslim countries have a *far* lower AIDS incidence rate than their economic class would suggest, and indeed places like Afghanistan and Iran have lower rates than developed nations like the United States)."

First I would like to say that blaming HIV/AIDS transmission on infidelity is incredibly short sighted and flat out wrong. Is it a component? Certainly, but the degree to which it is a factor is radically different in different countries. Looking at Pakistan, who you give as an example... From UNAIDS.

"Of the reported cases with known transmission routes, the most predominant during the quarter ending June 2004 was injecting drug use (73.72%), followed by heterosexual relations(22.18%), men who have sex with men (4.0 %) and mother-to-child transmission (0.1%). " http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/pakistan.asp

Furthermore there is some debate about the quality of the data coming out of regions where these issues are very highly stigmatized. I would suggest to you that the challenges of dealing with a disease that has a religious and social stigmatization, as HIV/AIDS does through most of the world, makes estimates difficult as people are going to be very unwilling to report that they have it. Looking at the UN Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections on Pakistan http://data.unaids.org/Publications/Fact-Sheets01/ pakistan_EN.pdf We see that in total only 210 cases of HIV/AIDS have been reported (Page 6) but estimates of prevalance are between 24,000-150,000.(Page 1)

Regarding Afganistan. UNAIDS http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/afghanistan.asp doesn't even have an estimate in place for the infection rate so I don't think you can accurately make any sort of argument about HIV/AIDS prevalence in that country based upon punishments surrounding infidelity.

Regarding your comment that Iran has a lower HIV/AIDS incidence than the United States. First, is that a reasonable and fair comparison? Treatment programs are much more likely to exist within the United States. As well it is likely that HIV/AIDS is more likely to be diagnosed, and sooner, within the USA than in less developed countries due to less social stigma, better technology, etc.
USA: Between 470,000 and 1,600,000. (0.3% - 1.1%)
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countri es/united_states_of_america.asp
IRAN: Between 10,000 and 61,000. (0.0-0.2%)
http://www.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/E FS2004/EFS_PDFs/EFS2004_IR.pdf

From the World Health Organization report on Iran:
"Based on the reported data, the HIV epidemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to be accelerating at an alarming trend. According to reports by the National AIDS programme , the number, 1159 of newly diagnosed HIV infections and AIDS cases in 2001 shows a three-fold increase in comparison to both years 2000 and 1999.

This considerable increase may indicate another outbreak The previous dramatic increase had occurred in 1997, when the number of HIV/AIDS cases had reached 815 new infections.

Injecting drug use drives the epidemic in the I.R.of Iran. In 2001, 64% of all AIDS cases were injecting drug users. The data on HIV seroprevalence among IDUs shows the highest rates of infection compared to all other tested groups. IDU have tested positive in 1996 and a prevalence was found of 5.7% of cases in 1996 , 1.7% in 1997. 8.5% in 2002 and 29% in 2002 among clients of counseling centers. The data is variable as it r