Slashdot Mirror

have you no shame?
bad business practices do not belong in the same category as endemic poverty and diesese.

HIV is easy to prevent, from a medical standpoint. Condoms and abstinance can irradicate it. The only barriers to stopping the spread of HIV are political and social.

That said, HIV is totally politicized, and is actually grossly over-funded compared with many other diseases.

Diarrhoea kills 4.2 times as many children as HIV, but you don't see Susan Saradon wearing a brown ribbon at the Oscars. Diarrhoea can be cured with a US$0.10 packet of rehydration salts and some clean water. A few million bucks could save all of those kids, including the logisitcal costs.

But Diarrhoea isn't a popular cause with the lefty crowd (or the righty crowd for that matter). Why? Because actors and politicians actually know nothing about public health, and are only interested in causes that promote their own images. HIV is a good "image" issue because a number of famous people have contracted it. There's little chance of anyone from Hollywood dying from Diarrhoea unless they're marooned in Ecuador on an Eco-toursim trip.

Over-use of anyibacterials encourages the spread of resistance, and may even lead to conditions such as asthma.

One wonders how much good could be done if said funds were used to keep a few more million contributing souls alive each year? An adult dose of antimalarial drugs run from $0.10 to $1.00, http://www.rbm.who.int/amd2003/amr2003/ch3.html depending upon who you ask. Add a few bucks for delivery and dissemination, and maybe one of those kids invents the $10 computer.

There are so many problems with the study you linked to.
First of all, it *does* rely on Soviet propaganda-statistics.
The Chernobyl accident resulted in a total number of 237 individuals who were suspected of suffering from acute radiation sickness (ARS). Of these, 28 died due to radiation exposure.
How else could these numbers be obtained if not from the Soviet government? What external agency would have had access to medical records?

Second, the current state of health reporting in post-Soviet countries is abysmal. What can a statement like: This is now reported as 600-800 total cases [of thyroid cancer]. There are 3 associated deaths in this population. possibly mean, when millions of people in the affected area are too poor to see a doctor (and public healthcare requires bribes to get treated). My other grandfather in Kiev would be living on a $33/month pension (if not for money my family sends him). His situation is not abnormal. On that money most people can't afford to bribe a public doctor or hire a private. The problems of the poor and elderly generally go unreported.

Even worse, how can any study tally the medical problems of the millions of ex-Soviet citizens who have left the affected area since the collapse of the Soviet Union?

The WHO puts the estimate of thyroid cancers resulting from Chernobyl at 4000 [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005 /pr38/en/%5D, a number I think is too low (for the above reasons).

Also from your link: Most (est 95%) of these cancers are treatable with no long term adverse prognosis except the need for routine thyroid medication.. Maybe a highly invasive surgery to remove your thyroid glands, followed by a lifetime dependency on thyroidal hormone supplements sounds like fun to you. But maybe you'd change your opinion if the government dumped radioactive iodine in *your* drinking water.

As for the Yuvchenko quote: I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with nuclear power. It's done safely in the US, France and other countries. But I *do* have a problem with people trying to pass off Chernobyl as "no biggie". The damage done by that disaster is literally incalculable. Just because you check some records and find "Oh ho! Not much cancer here!" only means you had a reason to not look very hard.

Every comparative study done on healthcare puts the mostly-public healthcare of Canada and Western Europe as equal to or better than that found in the US, despite the US spending a much larger fraction of its total GDP (13.6% vs. 9.5% of American vs. Canadian GDP goes to healthcare, vs. 6.8% ot 10.7% of GDP for major Western European nations).

(Before you complain about the link sites, the first study was done by the World Health Organization, the second by Johns Hopkins, the third by an author formerly from the conservative Fraser Institute. And before anyone complains that this is a Canada-vs-US thing, read especially the first study - most countries in Western Europe get better healthcare results for less money than the US, and many are better that way than Canada.)

The reason for this is, according to studies, wasteful bureaucracy in the US system. According to those who have analyzed the systems, this may be one place where a government program is actually more efficient than a collection of private programs. As plenty of posters in this thread have amply explained, that can, does, and should be expected to happen sometimes. Many governments run programs more efficiently than a collection of private companies could do; if a certain government never does so, that's a problem with that government, not with government programs in general.

Perhaps true. However, every comparative study done on healthcare puts Canada's healthcare as equal to or better than that found in the US, despite the US spending a much larger fraction of its total GDP (13.6% vs. 9.5%).

(Before you complain about the link sites, the first study was done by the World Health Organization, the second by Johns Hopkins, the third by an author formerly from the conservative Fraser Institute. And before anyone complains that this is a Canada-vs-US thing, read especially the first study - most countries in Western Europe get better healthcare results for less money than the US, and many are better that way than Canada.)

The reason for this is, according to studies, wasteful bureaucracy in the US system. According to those who have analyzed the systems, this may be one place where a government program is actually more efficient than a collection of private programs. (The mind boggles, I know...)

In other words - ignore most of the data, and you can get any answer you're looking for. Study all of the data, and you'll find you're demonstrably wrong.

Great. So the mosquito bites me, gives me malaria, and uses the blood to make MORE MOSQUITOS. Now, if you'd explain to me why this is a good thing?

That disease kills some 1.5 million people a year. One million, five hundred thousand people a year, every year. That's death on a Holocaust scale, and not just for a few years but year on year with no end in sight.

Now, maybe there will be unpredictable ecological knock-on effects; food webs are like that. But I'll tell you what, to prevent one point five million deaths a year, if someone offered me the chance to press God's red button marked 'Instantly Exterminate All Mosquitos' I'd do it without the slightest hesitation.

"A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease"

"If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."

The link you post to shows one refutation of a 1993 review article, and doesn't mention any of the other more recent reviews and research articles that say the same thing.

So, if you want to base your beliefs on science, then please reference more than one source!

Well the new HPV vaccine targets two common strains believed to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, would that be sufficient? HPV does have other strains (just like with any virus), but it isn't seasonal, so you don't need to be continually re-vaccinated. Read this article in new scientist about it. It's not mentioned as much, probably because it's less common, but HPV also causes penile cancer.

There's more recent ones, like for Hepatitis (various) and Chickenpox.

There are also Malaria vaccines under development by big pharmaceutical companies. You can read about the history of vaccines here.

For all I know, your friend may be right about actual deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer, but he is (quite dishonestly IMHO) neglecting to mention the large numbers of children born with severe birth defects and genetic diseases.

So far no one has found an elevated rate of birth defects (nor genetic diseases) due to Chernobyl. There will probably be a higher risk of cancer for survivors in the long term. But their descendents should be in the clear.

If you think about it, more people were exposed to high radiation doses in the atomic bomings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would guess there was more fallout near Chernobyl due to the nature of the accident, but as inept as the Soviet response was, they still got people out of the area within a few weeks. So this is not totally unexplored territory, medically speaking.

There was a UN-coordinated report this year which got some press. The report estimates that only around 50 people have died so far due to the accident (this deaths from the initial explosion). Of course, many people got very sick without dying.

If I understand the summary correctly, the report says that about 4,000 people will eventually die of cancer due to the accident, and that this would represent a 3% increase in the cancer rate among the exposed population.

So, definitely not a good outcome, but much better than was initially feared. Assuming this report is correct, of course...

If you want to throw rates around try this one, the suicide rate for males in Japan is nearly twice that of the USA's. 36 per 100,000 to our 17.5 per 100,000. For females it's over 3 times as high, 14 per 100,000 to our 4 per 100,000.

So perhaps Japan has a better handle on teen pregnancy and birth control than we do, but on the other hand, perhaps we're not doing so bad over here in the States.

My figures came from the World Health Organization, also not exactly an obscure or untrustworthy source,

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

Oh, one more comment, someone can probably verify this for me, don't Japanese children usually spend about 12 hours of their day in school 6 days a week? Sure, they're well educated, but at what cost in lost childhood?

Annnnnnd....I'm done.

Not according to the World Health Organization

According to WHO estimates, more than 75% of women over the age of 30 are now overweight in countries as diverse as Barbados, Egypt, Malta, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, and the United States. Estimates are similar for men, with over 75% now overweight in, for example, Argentina, Germany, Greece, Kuwait, New Zealand, Samoa, and the United Kingdom. Notably, the Western Pacific islands of Nauru and Tonga have the highest global prevalence of overweight where nine out of every 10 adults are overweight.

Here is a very comprehensive FAQ that the WHO has published. To all those who posters who are questioning the severity of the threat: the FAQ indicates that 2 of the 3 necessary prerequisites for the flu becoming a pandemic have been met.

http://www.who.int/entity/csr/disease/avian_influe nza/avian_faqs/en/index.html

The virus is dangerous to humans! It is the same H5N1 string of flu virus that has infected humans in South East Asia, claiming 60 lives. For now the virus can not spread from human to human. It could pose a serious threat if this virus infects someone who is also infected with a 'normal' flu virus. Exchange of genetic material between the human flu virus and the bird flu virus could form a new pathogenic flu virus and cause a pandemic. More info on the WHO web site: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2005_10_13/en/index.htm l.

Billions of dollars have been spent on mosquito eradication using methods ranging from spraying DDT to reducing breeding sources. These methods have not succeeded, and even the WHO's much vaunted Rollback Malaria initiative is floundering.

The fact is that that this approach is worth trying. The challenge is that your stealth males must be at least as evolutionarily "fit" as the wild males they are competing against. That's not easy to do.

Keep in mind, there have been too few get the Avian Flu for the statistics to be even remotely useful. Accorinding the WHO, about 39 of 52 people who have contracted it have died. This means that about .0000008% of the entire world population has contracted it, and about .000000848% of the entire world population has died from it. This is not exactly the same as the 1918 "Spanish Flu" pandemic.

This absolutely does NOT mean that 60% of the people who would get it in a pandemic would die. To even use the 60% number is totally insane considering the insignificant sample we are talking about, UNLESS you are honest enough to mention the miniscule numbers that have been infected so far, to put it in perspective. Otherwise, it is just pure fear mongering.

So to put it in perspective, it has only infected a very small tiny number of people, and it has killed 60% of them, thus the potential for deadliness is real, but the sample is too small to be of any statistical significance.

... (no pun intended). What in earth can make scientists behave so irresponsible. They eliminated smallpox from almost all laboratories a few years ago to make sure it could never be used again. Now they are reviving an old virus that was completely eradicated. This does not make sense, other than for the nobel-prize signs in the scientists eyes (which they should not get).

What if this secured facility gets compromised, an accident happens that leads to the infection of one of the staff, testtubes are improperly sterilized. I could name hundreds of things that could go wrong, and will not even start wildly speculating what would happen if 5HN1 somehow mutates with this virus.

Ofcourse, I am not a biomedical researcher, but some common sense tells me one thing: don't start digging in shit if you can't stand the smell.
I am in favor of medical progress, but recreating extinct live viri should be absolutely banned.

Then again, this article is hugely outdated, as a simple wikipedia article tells us they recreated the virus in 2002 already. That leads to an even more doubtful stance on the exact reasons for creating this particular strain today...
Maybe we should start detonating H-bombs above ground again to see if we can learn something new from that ?

I suggest you start with the World Health Organisation.

It is all WHO does it...

I knew it! It all makes a bizaare kind of sense... yes... Perfectly obvious. This is all another sinister plot of the... World Health Organization!

The fiends!

Having millions exposed to radiation, hundreds of thousands having to leave their homes for decades, swaves of Ukraine and Belarus uninhabitable, and having children die of thyroid cancer are not profound negative impacts?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/ pr38/en/index.html

Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes:

The Chernobyl accident caused the deaths of 30 power plant employees and firemen within a few days or weeks (including 28 deaths that were due to radiation exposure). In addition, about 240,000 recovery operation workers (also called "liquidators" or "clean-up workers") were called upon in 1986 and 1987 to take part in major mitigation activities at the reactor and within the 30-km zone surrounding the reactor. Residual mitigation activities continued on a relatively large scale until 1990. All together, about 600,000 persons (civilian and military) have received special certificates confirming their status as liquidators, according to laws promulgated in Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine (UNSCEAR, 2000).

In addition, massive releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere brought about the evacuation of about 116,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor during 1986, and the relocation, after 1986, of about 220,000 people from what are at this time three independent republics of the former Soviet Union: Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. Vast territories of those three republics were contaminated to a substantial level. The population of those contaminated areas, from which no relocation was required, was about 5 million people.

Very considerable uncertainty remains over the possible long-term health effects of the accident. On the one hand, the nuclear industry acknowledges only very limited and closely defined consequences. On the other, some politicians, researchers and voluntary movement workers claim that the accident has had profound and diverse impacts on the health of many millions of people. This uncertainty is a cause of widespread distress and misallocation of resources and needs to be addressed though rigorous and adequately funded international efforts.

No reliable evidence has emerged of an increase in leukemias, which had been predicted to result from the accident. However, some two thousand cases of thyroid cancer have so far been diagnosed among young people exposed to radioactive iodine in April and May 1986. According to conservative estimates, this figure is likely to rise to 8-10,000 over the coming years. While thyroid cancer can be treated, all of these people will need continuing medical attention for the rest of their lives. A significant number have potentially serious complications. It is likely that the coming decades will see an increase in other solid cancers resulting from exposure to radiation. However, there is no consensus over how many cases will occur.
...........

From the above discussion and recommendations, the following conclusions may be drawn with regard to the impact of the Chernobyl accident on risk of solid cancers other than thyroid cancer on the populations of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

With regard to the dosimetry to be applied to liquidators, considerable caution should continue to be employed in the use of the "official" doses contained in the various state registries. This is due to inaccuracies in the doses, large uncertainties affecting many dose estimates and the variability of that precision according to the source of doses. The time and motion method of RADRUE described in Section II seems the best hope at present for constructing individual doses received by liquidators for use in analytical epidemiological studies. However, until more validation studies on the method are completed, caution must be used in applying the RADRUE method, again, because of uncertainty as to its accuracy and precision.

For doses applying to the general population, registries of such doses have been developed in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. These can be adapted and applied to analytical and ecological epidemiological studies, though,

The reason these limitations exist is because of how little is known about vCJD (Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). The bit about prions is still debated, although it is the widely accepted theory.

There is no case of vCJD that has been caught from a blood transfusion, although there have been cases from cornea or dura mater transplants or the administration of human-derived pituitary growth hormones (this from WHO).

There is also some question about the possibility of transmission from people who have had beef insulin (from before we could grow human insulin in sterile conditions). Any of these items automatically mean an indefinite deferral until there is a test available for vCJD that can be performed easily (i.e. not in a big research lab by post-doctorates), like the EIA or PCR tests that exist for HIV, Hepatitis C virus, or Cytomegalovirus.

The blood donation community as a whole got really burnt, first when HIV came out, then when Hepatitis C virus was discovered (a close family member of mine caught HCV from a blood transfusion years ago). So, the FDA, which governs blood donations, (blood, since it is transfused, is considered to be a drug by the FDA, and is held to all the same standards as any pharmaceutical company) is incredibly jumpy about any disease which exists or can exist in the blood getting transfused, and contributing to an epidemic amongst people that are already unhealthy (you don't get blood transfused unless something's wrong, right?).

You should have seen how quickly they clamped down on SARS. We had to start asking all potential donors if they had SARS or SARS-like symptoms, and if in the last 14 days, they had travelled to any SARS endemic countries, and we still do.

Europeans are donating blood, just not in America. Those countries make their own laws, and, since it's considered endemic, as well as very rare, they ask certain questions to find risky history, but do not defer for vCJD based on location to the best of my knowledge. The FDA has chosen to do so to prevent the spread from Europe to America.

As far as the risks, vCJD is a fatal disease with no cure, no matter how you slice it, just like HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis C. To ask the question like that is to ask if it's worth the risk to have Chronic Hepatitis C in 10 years in exchange for a blood transfusion when you need it. Some people that have caught it from a transfusion say it was worth having their life saved, and some say they would rather have bled to death. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution, and use what blood we have, instead of making that decision for another person.

"Probably"? Every time I see that, I read it as "I don't actually know, but my prejudice is that...".

So, here are some actual numbers, courtesy of the World Health Organisation. As it turns out, you underestimated it, at least for the period in the report.

Still, it's worth pointing out that the UK population is in the region of 60million or so, so the number of cases is tiny.

I wouldn't worry about contracting CJD from beef. there were 129 cases of CJD in the UK in the period spanning 1996-2002 , the second highest incidence rate was in France with 6 over that period , the remanning 4 countries with cases had 1 a piece .
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en /

So the world incidence rate over the period spanning 1996-2002 was 1 in 35,971,223(assuming the world population of 5,000,000,000)
The risk in the UK was roughly (assuming a population of 60 million) was 1 in 465,116 this is in England remember .. the chances in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are far smaller (I'm not sure if there have even been any reported cases there)
if you remove the probable and suspected cases the numbers drop significantly(93 cases) and there is still no evidence to prove that these cases were all caused by infected beef

I would worry more about driving to work , crossing the road , falling down stairs or being murdered by a close friend or relative

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en /
About 132 deaths over a 6 year period(not all are definite) , you have a far greater chance of the beef itself killing you by being stuck in your throat, slipping on a bit you spilled on the floor ,contracting nasty food poisoning or a bowel obstruction

> Way to go poster, this is a new low.

Actually I find it a very important article.

Not as it seems to "bash Microsoft" (and then I could not care less) but because it might wake my North American friends up to the fact that there are these things called "diseases" out there in the real world and that "yes, unbelievable or not" Americans can contract them and die from them.

You think I am joking?

I remember talking to my family doctor in his 60s, a few years back before he died. We were talking about infectious diseases. He mentioned that he had met young doctors in their 20s who would probably never see a case of measles in their lives.

"Why?" I asked. "Because immunisation is so effective." he answered.

That was in Ireland.

An outbreak of measles is incredibly rare in the "west". Can someone please explain to me how one of the U.S.A.s most important companies just suffered an outbreak?

Do you Americans not immunise your children?

http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/measl es/en/

cheers

front

So maybe we'll be dethroned as having The most overweight teens because of the global obesity problem

well, what would you rather have a country of obese programmers who die of heart disease at age 40? or some of our smarter more talented people going into teaching kids how to exercise and diet properly, so they can lead longer heathier lives.

I guess gates would rather have the former... and rely on computers to design the medical technology to replace a 'frail' human cardiovascular system ith a 'easily replacable' mechanical system..

I was curious about this, and I decided to try to find out how well an American's life expectancy compared with the rest of the world.

I've not done a detailed study, but according to the WHO most european countries (which tend to have 'socialized healthcare' beat the US.

Of course there may be many reasons for this, such as genetic predisposition etc, and perhaps in the US the best healthcare is better (i.e. the rich live very long, with the statistics dragged down by the poor)... but still, I'd be a little bit careful about assuming that 'socialized' countries do worse: from the little research I've done this is not true. F'r instance, it actually looks to me as if you'd be better in Canada if you want to live longer! ;-)

From the article: "cheap, environmentally friendly".
From who.int: "Billions without clean water": link
The guy has no clue how lucky he is in his "student ghettos don't have gardens" home to have clean water to throw around.

then there's the ICD-10 codes for morbidity and mortality related to spacecraft:

X52 - Prolonged stay in weightless environment

V95.4 - Spacecraft accident injuring occupant

here's the full ICD-10

http://www3.who.int/icd/vol1htm2003/fr-icd.htm

at the WHO site - use the searchbox on the left to find more fun stuff.

Perhaps you should check out these two pages.

http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/
http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/

They don't appear to be doing any worse than the U.S. In fact, it seems they are doing better than the U.S. Even more interesting is they are spending less per person than the U.S. Now there is some other important material to know, such as the typical U.S. diet, but fact is they are far from doing worse when it comes to health.

Perhaps you should check out these two pages.

http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/
http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/

They don't appear to be doing any worse than the U.S. In fact, it seems they are doing better than the U.S. Even more interesting is they are spending less per person than the U.S. Now there is some other important material to know, such as the typical U.S. diet, but fact is they are far from doing worse when it comes to health.

What do you really expect? DARPA gives out lots of grants to people researching science and technology. The WHO, not so much. So regardless of whether you actually intend for a humanitarian use of your discovery, you couch it in military uses, to get the grants for continuing your research.

Well said!

Add to the list WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO.

Water is probably the best example anyone can give. Pull your Libertarian head out of your ass for a minute ruminate on the following.

Water is a REQUIREMENT for ALL LIFE.

Water in the USA is the safe and you can drink all of if you want without getting sick. Feel free to buy your bottled water from CocaCola Co. at your SuperWalMart for more than the price of gasoline, while BILLIONS of people across the globe (i) don't have running water, (ii) wouldn't drink it if they did and (iii) can't drink what they have. Do you know why our water is safe? Because our evil government mandates that it be so.

Did you know that unsafe drinking water is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world? REF.

Did you know that our buddies over at Bechtel tried to "privatize" water distribution in some cities in Colombia and basically took a working service, shut it down and told the citizens that they would have to pay 10 times more for the exact same crappy water they were getting in the first place. SEE

If I weren't at work I would find references to show that a cheap and reliable power infrasctructuer, running water, and sewer systems all are keys to moving human beings from cycles of disease and poverty into a more healty and productive existence, which benefits ALL of us on EARTH. Furthermore if profit motive (Corps) instead of sacrificing a little to help those around you (Govt) is the driving force behind building a safe water, sewer and power infrastructure, the those poorer cities, municipalities, counties, states, countries and continents would never move forward. You see providing the basic necessities of life should never be a corporate issue...it is a human rights issue.

Uh, the glaciers on Antarctica are continuously moving, and rebuilding. Snow falls year after year, after year, and the glaciers keep moving, and rebuilding.

They are continuously moving, but the sea ice shelf is holding back the glaciers from moving a lot faster, which has allowed so much ice to form on Antarctica. If the sea ice melts, all the glaciers would be able to "dump" their ice (which is currently over land) into the oceans, which would raise the water levels. It is not necesarrily the melting of the ice over Antarctica itself that will cause the sea levels to rise.

And, yes, the glaciers are moving faster. And, yes, this could - eventually - effect water levels. And, no, there is no possible way that this would happen within 10 years time. There is a mere outside chance that it may happen over the next 200 (two hundred) years.

Its not that it will occur in 10 years, but if we don't change the way that we currently use fossil fuels etc... it will be very hard to stop Antarctica melting within that 200 year timeframe, due to positive feedback in out atmosphere. (look to Venus for how positive feedback can occur, and how its atmosphere ended up as a 400 deg C maelstrom, as opposed to Earth, an essentially similar planet)

What we don't know is how much we can effect this change - in either direction.

What we do know is that CO2 levels are the highes they have been since known atmospheric history (420,000 years) and that CO2 levels have had a close correlation to temperature over that period. (Although we dont know that they are causally linked.)

Whilst we don't know how much we can affect this change, we do know that if we carry on as we are, things will certainly not get better, and warmer weather is not necessarily better, ~14,000 excess deaths occurred from heat related problems in France during Summer 2003, which is a lot more than the ~3,000 who died in 9/11. (Although 9/11 showed how bad the USA's homeland security was at the time - all the flights took off from US airports on internal flights.)

Since you ask, yes, I'm a software engineer.

And I live in New York City, which gives me a little appreciation for death and disaster.

With respect, I think you've been making some of your points badly. You've been saying "10,000 people died, but that's not important, because lots more people die from other things." Try this instead: "20,000 people died, and millions more are homeless, and millions more are at increased risk from disease. And that's an epic tragedy. But look at this: another 15,000 people are dying every day from protein-energy malnutrition. Reputable Link. That's a big problem, too."

That is, if you want to offer a radical critique, it helps to start by acknowledging the validity of the conventional wisdom, and then going beyond it.

Errr, I'm preaching at you. Anyways, that's my two cents and my soapbox.

Actually, the simple flu is a serious killer here on earth...and although the percentage of the population killed isn't as high, it has certainly killed more people over time than the black death has.

From the WHO:

The most infamous pandemic was "Spanish Flu" which affected large parts of the world population and is thought to have killed at least 40 million people in 1918-1919.

There is some controversy surrounding the actual deadliness of the flu (most 'flu deaths' are actually flu+pneumonia, and it's the pneumonia that kills), but the handful of flu pandemics are well known killers.

The point is: we have plenty at home to worry about that people tend to ignore, so why bother inventing exotic worries?

I saw a similar idea a few weeks ago on a TV show (Next@CNN).

Adaptive Eyecare's adaptive lenses are fluid- filled and the power is changed by varying the amount of fluid in the lens.

The lenses are built into a universal fitting pair of glasses frames, which allow the wearer to adjust the amount of fluid in each lens using a syringe-like device. This results in an individually tuned custom set of corrective vision lenses without an eye-doctor or expensive equipment for vision testing or lens grinding.

From their website: "The starting point for the development of Adaptive Eyecare's technology was the astonishing statistic that according to the World Health Organization there are currently around one billion people - including 10% of school children - in the world who would benefit from vision correction, but are as yet uncorrected. Most of these people live in the developing world, and the problem arises principally because the numbers of personnel trained to deliver vision correction in the conventional way are simply inadequate to meet the needs of the people. These statistics have profound implications - they mean that hundreds of millions of adults do not have the vision correction they need to be socially and economically active, and many children are educationally and socially disadvantaged."

This is a very cool technology that could really change the lives of many disadvantaged people worldwide. I hope that whatever patents are out there do not stifle this sort of use...

It turns out we were both right and both wrong. Although both youth and middle-age suicides are bad and getting worse, the highest number comes from the elderly, which is surprising considering they are only 19% of the population (2004 statistics)

Anyways, an excerpt on the youth rates:

"The latest NPA data confirm that suicide by elementary- and middle-school students is a serious social problem. The suicide rate for this group rose by a massive 57.6%, representing a total of 93 innocent lives lost, 34 more than in 2002. Among high-school students there was also a sharp rise of 29.3%. In total, 225 young lives were lost in this category. There was also an increase in the number of college students killing themselves. The overall suicide rate among people aged 19 or younger rose by 22%."

And generally:

"Based on provisional data for 2003, Japanese male and female suicide rates per 100,000 people are now roughly 40.2 for men and 14.9 for women, approaching levels normally witnessed in countries suffering severe economic hardships such as Russia, Latvia or Lithuania."

Anyways, here's another source for more up to date statistics.

I thought the japanese had the highest life expectancy.

This says they are #1 on the list while the US is #24...

Please explain what you think the strawman argument was. Where did I say anything about your position unless you are a radical socialist or communist? Am I supposed to assume you have those beliefs? Was it that I find the information inaccurate? How does me finding the information inaccurate form a strawman argument? As for "insulting the authors" I don't think the authors would be insulted because someone disagrees, or where you talking about yourself? If it was my opinion which insulted you then don't bother replying.

Perhaps we misunderstood each other. The reason why I disregard most of this type of information is that generally the only groups that makes a noise about this sort of thing are the same groups that make a lot of noise about for example depleted uranium (I live in Europe and there's no shortage to what you linked to, I only need to go to a political bookstore). Most "information" I've read from these groups fail closer scrutiny. Me using that experience has nothing to do with strawman arguments: I'm not saying their position is anything different than they are saying (if I distorted their position and attacked it in that way it would be the definition of strawman argument).

Btw are you familiar with false strawman arguments? It's when the strawman argument is falsly invoked as a means of escaping debate or the topic in question. So please remember my question wasn't "are there people believing he is a war criminal", the question was if anyone could back up the statement "most of the world considers him a war criminal".

If this response only insults you then don't bother, enjoy a nice day instead.

Guess what the WHO agrees.

The consistent and correct use of condoms significantly reduces the risk of HIV and other STIs;

the only thing that prevents the spread of HIV is not having bodily fluid contact with an infected person and Condoms don't absolutely prevent that. they reduce risk by 50-90% depending on a wide variety of factors, but they don't PREVENT the spread of AIDS.

Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).

Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions:
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally ;)
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.

I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom) :)

If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course) ... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me :)

Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).

And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:

For the lazy the WHO/UN conclusion is that DU isn't that much of an issue, but I expect to see the DU fearmongering (DU FUD) to continue unabated...

Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).

Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions:
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally ;)
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.

I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom) :)

If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course) ... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me :)

Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).

And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:

For the lazy the WHO/UN conclusion is that DU isn't that much of an issue, but I expect to see the DU fearmongering (DU FUD) to continue unabated...

Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).

Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions:
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally ;)
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.

I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom) :)

If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course) ... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me :)

Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).

And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:

For the lazy the WHO/UN conclusion is that DU isn't that much of an issue, but I expect to see the DU fearmongering (DU FUD) to continue unabated...

#2 -- Medicare is ~22% of the Federal budget. Which is in the vicinity of $400 billion per year. Or about $1500 per person per year. Since my health insurance is closer to $5000 per year than to $1500 per year, I seriously doubt we could cover ALL healthcare costs for Medicare's budget, even if things were done correctly.

Actually, if you look at what Western European countries spend on health care, it's about $2000 per capita per year with bit over $1500 spent by the government. In the US, it's closer to $5000 per year with $2000 per year spent in the public sector. It doesn't therefore seem unreasonable to suppose that if the US chose to run a European style national health system, it could do so on the current public health sector budget.

The source of the above figures is the World Health Organisation 2004 Annual Report. Figures are approximate and based on the 2001 figures which are the most recent available.