Slashdot Mirror

You have not proven at all that a 'system' is better then 'industry'

This was not my goal. Numerous sources have already shown that the US spend a bit more than Europe on healthcare (in % of GDP, see e.g. here), but have poorer results in life expectancy (see e.g.here). And don't tell me about correlation and causality...

North Korea also has a 'system' and I'm willing to be it does not produce results comparable to US 'industry'.

In the hierarchy of needs, food comes before healthcare...

Are you really this dense, or are you just trolling? If there are 10 types of vehicle, and 10 types of events for vehicles, and 3 types of doctor visits, you need to enter a grand total of 23 items, which makes 300 codes. Nobody is ACTUALLY going through and entering 300 different codes.

Next, ever hear of 'context'? In the context of 'Animal' a '1' can mean 'bite' while at the same time it means 'crash' in the context of 'Vehicle'. So no, you can not encode bitten by lamppost or injured in a turtle crash.

The system is not designed to perfectly capture every possible scenario. No system can do that. It is designed to provide ENOUGH information to be useful to the people who use it (researchers, doctors, health agencies, insurance, etc). The alternative is natural language, which, until systems like Watson are pervasive, is completely unsuitable for searching, categorizing, research, etc and even with Watson is probably useless internationally when different languages are involved. And even with natural language you STILL have to use the right codes (words) and spell them correctly.

Finally, these codes are not used only for living patients, they are also used for cause of death. So spacecraft does belong there.

Instead of making ill-informed rants, why don't you look at the actual purpose of these codes.

Your maths sucks because it's based on incorrect assumptions, here are some real statistics...

1. Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
2. In 2008, there were 164,000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
3. More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures. [do not take your non-immune kid overseas and make sure he does not come into contact with illegal immigrants]
4. Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2008 worldwide. [do the maths on that using point 2 above]
5. In 2008, about 83% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
6. More than 20 million people are affected by measles each year. [combined with point 2 this gives a global figure of ~8 deaths per 1000 cases].
7. The measles vaccine has been in use for over 40 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive.
Source for the above facts

Furthermore, the first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.....Although it was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, high rates of vaccination and good communication with persons who refuse vaccination are needed to prevent outbreaks and sustain the elimination of measles in the U.S. - WP

Now weigh all that against - Severe side effects of the MMR vaccine:
1. Allergic reaction (less than 1 per million).
2. Long-term seizure, brain damage, or deafness (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable).
Source. The same source also gives a figure of 1-2 deaths per 1000 cases in the US. I could not find any credible source claiming a single death from the measles vaccine despite the fact that literally billions of people have received the jab over the last 4 decades.

By putting out mis-information like this you are part of the reason for the large number of deaths from measels. From the WHO.

• Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
• In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
• More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2008 worldwide.
• In 2008, about 83% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

You clearly did not read the nature article as this is in no way a strawman. They did not just look at the relation between vaccines and MMR, but about negative effects of vaccines.

They found

We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines

Stop putting out your own knee-jerk reactions and at least read the article you are criticising before putting out dangerous misinformation.

Note that I mentioned "the West". For measles death rates in the USA see http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55 ... (I assume similar rates in western Europe), note that the rate has pretty well flat-lined since the 1950s. Didn't you realise the point of your third list item "More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures". Sure, if you have an inadequate diet and crap housing, then measles vaccination probably is a good bet. But otherwise? Anyway, you are latching on to measles. Check http://www.vaclib.org/basic/japanusa.htm ... "when Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to two years in 1975 the overall infant mortality rate improved" Oh, and in response to I'm so concerned about allergies that I'm willing to risk the death or serious illness of my child and many of the vulnerable children around him; I'm a fuckshit!! .... I have personally been hospitalised with Asthma, which in my case was 100% definitely allergic. Your concerns are indeed your concerns, but I object to my concerns being dismissed as those of a fuckshit.

• Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
• In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
• More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2008 worldwide.
• In 2008, about 83% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

You clearly did not read the nature article as this is in no way a strawman. They did not just look at the relation between vaccines and MMR, but about negative effects of vaccines.

They found

We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines

Stop putting out your own knee-jerk reactions and at least read the article you are criticising before putting out dangerous misinformation.

Firstly, your picture says "epidemic," when it's pandemic.

Secondly, you have shown here that you don't have the mental capability to understand epidemiological data.

Facts:

• U.N. Reports Decrease in New H.I.V. Infections
• HIV infection rates decreasing in several countries
• U.N. report: New HIV infections decreasing
• 2009 annual HIV/AIDS epidemiology report

Oh, remember when I said, "given they have means, will get tested"?

Now fuck off and die, shithead.

Oh, so there aren't millions of people infected with HIV then, because in your world everyone tests immediately and tests are flawless and everyone informs everyone else. Fact.

I'm done playing the fool and arguing with a troll. I feel better. Do you?

I know it is cool on slashdot to blame religion for everything and sundry. Also, I know it is considered cool to mouth off about things that you know nothing about - especially if religion is also blamed for something in the same post.

But here are some facts:
1. The number of deaths from Malaria alone each year is around 1 million.
http://www.malarianomore.org/malaria

2. The number of deaths from TB alone each year is around 1.7 million (2009 figures)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs104/en/

These are numbers for just two diseases. I challenge you to find me statistics which indicate that religion is directly responsible for at least 2.7 million deaths each year.

Frankly, health care costs are bleeding the United States dry. The U.S. is paying a 50% premium for health care that is below average (WHO. The giant deficit that is part of the reason for the downgrade of the U.S. debt rating? There are three main parts: Social Security, Military Spending and Medicare.

There are charitable medical organizations that only operate in undeveloped nations and the United States. The free market approach is working so poorly that poor Americans are getting health care that's the equivalent to what you'd get in Ethiopia or Somalia.

According to this article 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by medical problems (link to study).

No, no, no, no, no. Just fucking no.

Vaccinations have saved the lives of Countless Millions on this planet, and have lead to the eradication and decimalization of many once life-threatening diseases. When was the last time you heard of someone getting polio?

Polio has gone from about 350,000 cases worldwide in 1988, to only 1604 cases in 2009. That's a 99% reduction. Thanks to vaccination. in 2010, only FOUR COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD were identified as being polio-endemic (Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan). Four.

To look at this amazing stuff that's being doing to a disease that once ran rampant among children, and to see someone like yourself be soooooo selfish and ignorant as to believe that you don't need vaccinations makes my blood boil. I hope you never let any of your children outside the house if you are going to be so reckless and irresponsible with their health.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/

I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..

I patiently await your reply.

Well, according to the WHO the USA spends more per capita on its nice capitalist healthcare system (that the right wing parties are fighting so hard to defend) than any other country, including all the free healthcare systems.

Of course, because that money isn't taxes that's fine and dandy, and everybody has the Gawd-given freedom to cross their fingers and hope they don't get ill.

But I guess middle-class Americans do have good teeth.

Oh, and a few years ago, most of the world listened to the ultracapitalists and removed lots of regulation from the financial industries.

That went well.

What with all the bail-outs needed to keep the credit flowing, is there any truly private industry left any more?

That's sort of hard to work out (it depends how what you mean by the average - the average of the taxed population or the average per capita, for example and the NHS's bill isn't separated off from the rest of it on your payslip). Interestingly however, it's probably less than a US taxpayer pays. According to the WHO in 2006 (latest figures I could find with a quick google) the US government spent $3,076 per capita, whereas the UK government spent $2,457 (using price purchase parity). For reference the total per capita healthcare (i.e. both public and private) was $6,719 for the US and $3,332 for the U.K.

And in 2006 revised this number in a new statement. Interesting read about that here.

9000? You massively exaggerate the death toll from Chernobyl. In 2005, the WHO found that it was less than 50.

No, as of 2005 Chernobyl killed fewer than 50 people. See the WHO report.. It's likely more will die from possibly related causes but 20 years on the cause and effect is getting arguable.

"Has the damage of any other industrial energy production caused as much environmental damage, injury or loss of life as the nuclear incidents we have seen so far?"

The kicker here is, virtually all injury and loss of life is attributable to Chernobyl, and that was actually fairly low - according to the World Health Organization, there will probably be around 4000 deaths attributable to Chernobyl, mostly from cancer, and most of the cancer is treatable (one big problem might be the issue of people whose cancer might be treatable, but unable to afford medical care).

There will likely be far fewer deaths/cancers from Fukushima (but time will tell).

I think we can still do a lot to make reactors safer than they already are, but they are *already* one of the safest sources of power generation on the planet.

Back to TFA - only an abstract is posted, so I can't read about the proposed mechanism, but as all the people who work with MRI's have pointed out this amount of effect on blood viscosity at such a "low" field strength is hard to imagine unless there is something unusual about the shape or duration of the pulse that makes it substantially different from the static field in an MRI. Previous work with static fields has shown maybe a 1% change at 1T field strengths, with the more significant, 15-20% changes not evident until 5T or so (which is much higher than a typical clinical-use MRI, although some research MRIs certainly are in this range)

see fig 5 of this article if you have institutional access for the work cited above http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030488530001249X

similarly, the WHO summary of health effects of exposure to magnetic fields only cautions against cardiovascular effects for fields > 8T http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/index.html

Here is some good info. Plenty of information from just about every government and university in the world. Just need to look.

This article would seem to go counter to your claims that GM crops were the cause of a soy allergy increase.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-15-roundup-ready-soy-is-safe-6/

1. No allergies were found and the studies did not measure soy allergy. These studies have not been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature–they appeared on the York Laboratories’ website. The most significant problems with the claim that GM soybeans caused an increase in soy allergies are that the assays reported in the study cited don’t measure allergies (that is to say, allergies weren’t counted). York laboratories reported that antibodies against soybean proteins were measured in 10 percent of 4,500 individuals in 1996 and that number grew to 15 percent over six-months. The problem is that they measured normally occurring antibodies and did not measure the type of antibody that is specifically associated with soybean allergy. True soybean allergy in the UK remains well below 1 percent (see #4 below) that fact being no consolation for the unfortunate few who suffer from soy allergy.

The World Health Organization would also seem to go counter to your claims as well.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

Yes. The suicide rate in China looks like bullshit, and you could question the competence of the countries engineer leaders for that crap but the the foxconn rate looks pretty normal especially if the majority of those 400k workers are young men. The point being that 10 suicides per 400k workers in a 6 month period does not indicate slavery.

Also radon (and daughters) only last a few days.

And this is exactly why radon exposure, unlike iodine and cesium exposure, will actually kill you. Iodine exposure will cause thyroid cancer. Survival rate > 99.9%. Cesium exposure can only kill through radiation sickness, which requires massive doses (you need > 10g in the lungs before levels get truly dangerous. Even smoking the stuff will not cause that).

Radon, on the other hand, will cause lung cancer. Survival rate ~ 30% (and that's 5 years after the diagnosis. 20 years after diagnosis we're not even talking 10%, but that's partly because people hardly ever get diagnosed with lung cancer before they're 55). Generally you will end up ingesting radon through drinking water, which is doubly bad. It's a naturally occuring element, that is linked to cancer increases where the natural exposure is higher than normal (ironically, fresh spring water is the main cause of increased radon exposure).

According to the WHO, radon (the natural background level) is the leading cause of cancer after tobacco.

I think you misunderstand the burden of proof, the party making the affirmative assertion provides proof. I'm not making an affirmative assertion, you are (that levels are presenting a significant health risk). The WHO website has a FAQ here:

http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index.html

EPAs link to radiation monitoring:

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/data-updates.html

But if you have an independent source that shows there is a release that presents a significant threat to health of the public, I'm a big enough man to acknowledge facts.

Have you read your link?

What it says (among many other things not related to the number of death, it's a rather thorough report), is that 28 people died from acute radiation syndrome in 1986, possibly a few more in the following years.

Additionally, the report says that 4000 thyroid cancers cases (most of them children) were probably caused by low radiation exposure. Out of these 4000, 15 died.

There is mention of a possible increase of cancer mortality in a larger group of 600,000 people which might account for up to 4000 deaths.

You own link says 28 + 15 + a few, or roughly 50. The 4000 number is an upper bound not an estimate. And if you don't trust the IAEA, you can ask the WHO. They say that "up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure." and "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster".

If you dig into the actual study, it's 5k thyroid cancer cases, most easily treated and highly survivable. Not good, but not fatal either.

You do get an anticipated 4k extra cancer deaths from the highest exposed, and 5k from the population in general, but that's not 9k kids dying from thyroid cancer, like the UN News Center article suggests. Heck, the article itself suggest that the effects are hard to confirm due to smoking, drinking, and other pollution. Increase in cancer is expected at 3-4% for the highest exposed, .6% for the rest.

I'm not going to suggest that this doesn't suck, but it's still minor compared to the deaths from air pollution from coal power. Heck, I think just coal mining accidents has added up to more than Chernobyl's total anticipated deaths over the years.

Slightly different numbers than the UN Study I found earlier - UN Source, 6k cases, 15 per this report, and only a 'large fraction' of the 6k from the iodine contamination.

The WHO article is from 06, the UN one is from 08, which could explain some of the different numbers.

Just a small correction: we don't really know how many victims Chernobyl made. The '50 fatalities' figure was at some point an official Soviet figure, which included only about 47 workers who died of acute radiation poisoning, and is hopelessly optimistic.

The WHO and the AEIA estimates the number of direct victims of Chernobyl to 4,000, but this figure is suspected to be low, as the AEIA has vested interests in the nuclear industry.

The TORCH report (The Other Report of CHernobyl), commissioned by the European Green Party, estimate about 60,000 extra cancers deaths due to Chernobyl. This figure does not include non-fatal cancers, which still have notable effect on victims.

A recent book, written by reputed scientists and based over 5,000 survey, puts the number of victims at about one million. Of course, some people disagree with this figure, however, there is no doubt that the scope of the accident was massive, and continues to make victims today.

The Ukrainian government has claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million people, including 500,000 children, have suffered adverse health effects from the Chernobyl disaster. This does not include the effect on people displaced due to the disaster. Of course the Ukrainian people are the ones left with the very hot potato and they would dearly like some help.

Also you may want to take a look a this photo essay and reflect on your "50 victims" figure. The bottom line is that there were definitely way more victims than the 50 you claim, and quite possibly way way more.

I'm right now totally in favor of nuclear energy, but we need to all understand the very significant risks, and try to mitigate them as much as possible.

Actually, nuclear is safer than basically everything else.

Also, yes, so far less than 50 have died of radiation exposure from Chernobyl.

Oh, and since the disaster Chernobyl has become a thriving wildlife sanctuary.

The WHO argues otherwise.

In brief, that article says that up to 4000 may die of radiation exposure ventually- but as of 2005, less than 50 actually have.

According to the WHO, the biggest impact on public health of the disaster of Chernobyl was to the mental health, thanks to a lack of accurate information. I'm with the Japanese Government. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

It's 1.2 million deaths per year, according to the World Health Organization. I'm surprised too. But perhaps most of these deaths are in poor countries with lax automobile safety standards.

Your suspicion is due to a deficiency in googlitive capabilities. I found this in the Wiki:

"According to the World Health Organization motor vehicle collisions are the 6th most common cause of death in developed nations[1] with an average rate of 20.8 per 100,000 populations in the year 2000 (30.8 for males, 11.0 for females)." It's citing this PDF from the WHO.

And just think about it: Just because India has much fewer private drivers per capita doesn't make the streets of Delhi safer! (The lack of safe expressways that goes along with the dearth of private cars usually means it's just the opposite...)

Anyway, I RESEARCHED now the tower "inhabitant" issue.

then you're almost there!

you're gone away and read up on it!

now all you have to do is open up those document, click on the address bar in your browser, press ctrl-C then reply to this post and hit ctrl-v so that people reading this can see the things you have found, can judge the quality of your source and see how very very wrong I am.

almost there!

so close!

nearly!

almost got a coherent, solid, cited argument!

"and you put it down to 50 in total."

I don't , the world health organisation came to that conclusion.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf

but of course they're part of the machine, the conspiracy, the plot and can't be trusted.

First: no the 40K for the twin towers is completely wrong, the world trade centre consisted of 7 buildings, not just the 2 which were attacked, in total they could have 50K people working in them.
not 40K per tower.

Do you ever do any research?
do you even google any of this or do you rely on your gut feeling the whole time.
Yes I could google this, I just did.
You apparently can't be arsed.

250K dead recruits is fantasy.
it is made up.
it is not real.
it never was.

"Greenpeace scientists" is an oxymoron. they get their figures out of thin air and imagination and anyone with realistic figures are just denounced as part of some kind of conspiracy.

Yes a lot of people worked briefly in the area.
Do you know why they worked so briefly?
it was to keep their exposure to manageable levels.

even still some of them died.
but not many.

If they'd just set out to let them die then they would have had those soldiers keep working until they collapsed from radiation sickness rather than cycling them out after minutes because it would have made the work vastly easier.

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

"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.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."

People have NOT died or suffered in any meaningful numbers from any application of nuclear power technology, at all, ever.

I learn that the people who suffered in Chernobyl, and who still suffer today, are not a "meaningful number".

Don't be obtuse. The GP meant that when compared to the number of people killed in, say, road traffic accidents or in the production of energy by burning fossil fuels, the number is insignificant. By claiming that he's cheapening the suffering of people who survived Chernobyl, you're putting words in his mouth.

The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Development Programme and the World Health Organisation.

But about 4,000 people could eventually die from exposure to radiation released when a reactor caught fire in the Ukrainian forest and showered Europe with a plume of radioactive particles.

Source:The Guardian

Compare and contrast with the numbers of people killed on roads: List of countries by traffic-related death rate. Your argument that parliaments (the same parliaments who also legislate on nuclear safety) legislate to try and prevent avoidable road traffic accidents and to prevent fatalities on the roads, is irrelevant. The GP's point was that there is no culture of hysteria surrounding cars which kill far far far far far more people than nuclear power. Nor is there a culture of hysteria surrounding falling, but an estimated 424,000 people a year die from falls. Should we avoid showing the Simpsons episode Stealing First Base because Bart falls from a roof?

The quotes you give that are meant to support the notion of rightful hysteria regarding nuclear power do no such thing. They give the figures for the radiation exposure of workers on the site of the nuclear reactor who are knowingly in harms way. There's very little threat (if any) at the moment to the population at large. They also give the figure for the lowest level at which there is *any* increased *chance* of causing cancer. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because those workers were exposed to more than that level that they definitely will suffer from cancer.

That's the trouble. Nuclear plants are held to a massively high standard of "safe" already.

Did you know, for example, that Coal kills 4,000 (not a typo) more people per wattHour than Nuclear does? But its a slow, boring kind of killed, like the 40,000+ who die every year in automobile accidents in the US alone, not the fun exciting kind of killed that you get every couple of years when an airliner crashes and kills 200 folk halfway around the globe, making national news.

To have a meaningful discussion you need to compare nuclear safety to other power-generation mechanisms (more people fall off roofs installing solar panels and die every year than have been killed by nuclear power generation disasters). And then scale them to account for the power generated. Once you do so, you realize just how unsafe many of the alternatives actually are.

The interesting thing is to follow up your numbers (you don't give a citation and nor does this seth guy). Looking at them, we see that he includes a low figure for Chernobyl deaths (4000) and even then discounts those saying "cause and effect becomes more tenuous" whilst completely failing to take into account other studies. Now, as this article points out it's incredibly hard to work out which numbers are correct, but even the WHO which put out the 4000 death number has since published a correction which says that there have been more than 9000 deaths. Numbers of deaths go up to a million in other studies of varied credibility.

My fundamental conclusion has to be that we have yet another nuclear safety "expert" who's telling us that it's safe, but turns out to have no clue what he's talking about. Numbers of deaths go up to a million, and studies like that seem to be deeply dubious too, but I'm really not going to accept these numbers without a big bit more clarity. The worst thing about this is the open admission by the IAEA that "the total of 4,000 deaths was highlighted to counter much higher figures" - in other words they set out to manipulate perception.

Going on from there; I agree with your point about visible public death being more worrying than hidden death. If the death rate in planes was anything like the rate in cars they would be banned. However, there's another bias factor in here. The small nuclear incidents are not really so worrying. What is worrying is outlier major events. We seem to have come close to a reactor melt down; the reactor containment failed but still we have been lucky. If cooling had failed for longer what might have happened? I see lots of assurances that nothing. These come from the same people who tell us that exposure to beta decay and gamma rays is the same as exposure to UV light (see recent articles in the Register)

You might want to start arguing with the WHO. The concern in the aftermath of radiation exposure is not millions dying suddenly; it's significant numbers having their lives shortened and their quality of life affected in the long term. With wind power, you can say, "OK, this guy died instantly because a blade fell on him"; with nuclear power, you acknowledge that many people die of cancer in the long term and compare age/severity/etc of cancer in the general population vs those exposed to higher levels of radiation during some period.

You then have to factor in the amount of work which has to be done to minimise the effects of a nuclear containment breach: clean-up; sealing; long-term evacuation; treatment.

Nuclear power remains more risky than wind power unless you deliberately restrict what counts as harmful. The solution is not to abandon nuclear power; it is to employ modern designs and to force existing plants to keep up with improvements in safety. Fukushima was only running because it was given an inappropriate stay of execution, and this incident only occurred on the scale observed because Fukushima was still running (and perhaps because TEPCO were unwilling to quickly employ reactor-destroying measures to help with cooling). Nuclear power will now suffer a setback. People who make simplistic analyses such as your own are their own worst enemy.

... Even Chernobyl only killed 50 people! If you want to account for cancer diseases and such, bring that up to 500 or even 1000 if you want, but it's an unrealistically high estimate. ...

Actually there have been 5000 cases of thryroid cancer in children diagnosed (though this is treatable). The World Health Organizations's Expert Group investigating Chernobyl expects cancer deaths in exposed groups to be 4000 or so.

I got my information from the WHO survey of their health and health care. http://www.who.int/gho/countries/cub.pdf

You could be absolutely right that all that data if propaganda, but if we're not going to use any data at all due to our inability to verify it personally (at least I can't), that doesn't mean we should resort to single data points either. Again, I'm not saying it's paradise there and no one ever gets sick and there are no health problems or systemic problems at all, but it certainly isn't nearly as bad as the US would have you think.

The report reads practically like many other countries, better than a good portion of them. Comparing with the US, despite having lower infant mortality rates, lower adult mortality rates, the same life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, lower incommunicable disease death rates, lower injury death rates, they spend 1/20th per capita to achieve that.

From the fact that leaving certain bodily parts uncovered at all times is unhygenic (e.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no service"... and they don't mention shorts/underwear only because someone walking around with that part uncovered would violate indecent exposure law anyways).

From the fact that we'd prefer that most of the population not to expose certain things at certain times (let's face it, some of the people who walk around in spandex... ewww).

And then of course, it's not just "Christian" religions that do this kind of thing. Take a look over at Japan if you will.

Of course, the Japanese didn't have a hang-up about boobs the way the Xtians do. Then again, when you get to anthropological study, you can determine that a society covers up what it considers "indecent." You were busy attacking christians, when female genital mutilation is amazingly common in Muslim society. And there can be NO purpose for the Burkha other than to dehumanize women by making them "unseen" in society.

Or maybe we should be a little clearer: A Burqa is a tool for dehumanizing the wearer. For making it difficult for them to have any individual interaction outside the home. This is not a bug, this is a feature. It depersonalizes women who wear it. It makes it difficult for them to work outside the home, to have a conversation with a stranger or to even be seen as an individual. And again, that is the entire point. Burqas are the product of a culture and religion in which women are not supposed to have any function outside the home. In which they are supposed to remain in Purdah, walled off inside the home.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

As for that narcolepsy link: If it's on the Huffington Post, it's automatically wrong. They are setting themselves up as the internet epicentre of pseudoscientific crap.

How about a link from the Finnish National Institute For Health And Welfare? Link is to the English version of their pressrelease.
Or...World Health Organisation?

However, the World Health Organization reports 164,000 deaths per year from measles (which is the leading cause of death among children), not the millions claimed by Mr. Gates.

Gates was speaking about all preventable diseases in children - and from here it looks like he got his numbers right.

Major Causes of Death in Children Under Five in Developing Countries and the Contribution of Malnutrition [source: WHO and The Lancet, 2005]

Pneumonia 19%
Diarrhea 17%
Malaria 8%
Measles 4%
HIV/AIDS 3%

Although approximately 10.5 million children under 5 years of age still die every year in the world, progress has been made since 1970, when the figure was more than 17 million. ...
Today nearly all child deaths occur in developing countries, almost half of them in Africa. While some African countries have made considerable strides in reducing child mortality, the majority of African children live in countries where the survival gains of the past have been wiped out, largely as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Surviving the first five years of life [2003]

Organizations like SBRI are doing really interesting work on genetically attenuated malaria vaccines, and the research isn't as scary as TFS makes it out to be (e.g. comparing it to Jurassic Park). (Here's a detailed slideshow if you want to know the specifics.) The "runaway breeding" the article alludes to is ridiculous — we already have "runaway breeding" of anopheles mosquitoes, and as a result malaria kills a million or more persons per year, mostly in poor countries. The main issue with malaria vaccines is not "runaway breeding," but that eventually mutations may render the vaccine ineffective.

My main question here is: why is Microsoft filing for these patents? They have been involved in biomedics, afaik, only on the software and infomatics side. Bill Gates, through his foundation, is generously giving grants to many organizations doing promising research. I didn't realize that Microsoft was directly involved in the research side of things. Did they buy assignment rights to this research (and potential patent)? Develop it themselves? That, I think, is the bigger story for me — not that this patent has been filed for, but that it's MSFT that is the assignee.

... The problem is that once you fuck up herd immunity, you've fucked it up for everyone, including the very young, the very old, and those with compromised immune systems. ... In short, and pardon my directness, but speaking as a parent, fuck those who don't get the shots for themselves and their kids right in their entitled, self-centred, arrogant asses. They and their spawn should be given the choice to get them, and then airdropped on a remote island with all the rest of the assholes who think that the chance of their precious little snowflake having a disability is more important than the life of other people's so they can't screw it up for the rest of us.

In short, and pardon my directness, but speaking as a parent, what about those who don't breastfeed their children for at least two years and beyond (WHO advised), and who don't get enough vitamin D, and who don't read about nutrition and "disease proof" their children?
    http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Proof-Your-Child-Feeding-Right/dp/0312338058
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
    http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/infantfeeding_recommendation/en/index.html

And what about all those parents who spread disease by sending their children to day prisons so they can work, rather than homeschooling?
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/734486

Not to mention the socio-psychological fallout:
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue.htm

Should they and their "spawn" be airdropped on a remote island with all the rest of the "assholes" who think that the habit of feeding their precious little snowflake junkfood or putting them in school for convenience is more important than the life of other people's so they can't screw it up for the rest of us?

How many people would that leave in the USA? 1%?

Measles deaths worldwide fell by 74% between 2000 and 2007, from an estimated 750,000 to 197,000. Do you know anyone who died from malaria (1,000,000/yr), yellow fever (200,000/yr), aids (1,800,000/yr), lukemia (600,000/yr), flu (500,000), rabies (55,000)?

I threw away a few mod points to reply so I hope it sinks in that after a 74% drop in measles deaths it is now as harmless as yellow fever, if it drops by a further 74% it will be as harmless as rabies.

A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten

You're full of it. Here are some quotes from the World Health Organization (not an environmentalist organization in any way). You can read the original document here.

A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident.

In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs).

Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population [ Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine] from radiation exposure

The numbers in this report are contested by a Greenpeace study (available here). Greenpeace estimates the number of cancers attributable to the Chernobyl accident to 270000, out of which 93000 fatal.

Even discarding the Greenpeace numbers, your assertion that more than 9000 people die every year on the road outside your window proves you're too ignorant or too deranged to qualify for any normal discussion.

A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten.

The reality is more people die each year on the road outside my window (the A14, in the UK) than due to all the after-effects of Chernobyl put together.

Ironically, the reason the A14 is so dangerous is that car-hating enviroists keep diverting the funds to improve it onto stupid "alternative" transportation schemes.

The WHO appears to disagree:

A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident....In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

source

I'm sick of people on both sides of this debate exaggerating. No, it didn't mean "instant radioactive death for ten thousand years", but pretending like it was a minor mix up and no one got hurt is simply silly and irresponsible.

Not that there's any special danger associated with depleted uranium in the envronment

You are correct that pure DU would essentially be no more hazardous than other types of heavy metal pollution. However, the situation is more complex in reality.

Quoth the WHO:

Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.

Somehow, I don't find that very reassuring ("Yay! Heavy metal toxicity with a side of biosequestered alpha & beta emitters!"). It seems much more likely that spent-fuel DU production would have less quality control care than the original enrichment process, but I could very well be mistaken.

I have heard it alleged that only the US uses spent reactor fuel to create DU for weapons and that other countries that produce DU weapons use only the byproduct from the enrichment stage. However, since I have no cite at the moment, I wouldn't assign that much credulity. Regardless, it does seem that in practice DU is not always pure as the driven snow.

Oh you mean the ozone that protects everyone here on earth is suddenly gone when flying?

No, the ozone isn't gone, but you are flying partly outside of its protection. At ground level, the entire atmosphere offers you maximum protection from cosmic radiation. The higher you go, the more you'll get, and aircraft aluminum has little to no shielding effect.

The "ozone layer" is not something like a Star Trek shield that offers 100% protection from everything until it suddenly vanishes. Protection from cosmic radiation is offered because the Earth has a very thick atmosphere and most (not all) cosmic radiation is absorbed into that atmosphere at various levels. While it is true that the actual ozone layer offers a lot of the protection, the rest of the atmosphere plays a significant role, and the higher up you go the more your exposure to radiation.

Fortunately, even at 50,000 feet, it's not a massive megadose of radiation, but if you fly a whole lot (like, say, a pilot), it's something you need to be aware of.

I have heard lots of people saying that but absolutely no science to back that statement up.

According to the EPA, radiation exposure on a cross-country flight is 2-5 millirem(1). The World Health Organization agrees with that number (2). The FAA has a web page dedicated to the levels of exposure for their pilots (3). NASA is even more concerned about the radiation exposure on polar flights, where protection is even weaker (4).

(1): http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html
(2): http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/cosmic/en/
(3): http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/reports/
(4): http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html

If you mistrust scientists and want to see the science for yourself, carry a radiation dosimeter on your next flight (provided you buy one that measures in millirem or lower) and test it for yourself.

Obesity is not a physical disability (with the exception of obesity caused by physiological disorders such as Thyroid disease) because it can be managed through diet and exercise. Becoming obese is not something that happens overnight, you don’t wake up fit on Monday, go on a buffet bender and wake up obese on Tuesday, it requires a long term pattern of self-destructive, self-indulgent behavior. Obesity is the number two (fast approaching number one) preventable cause of death according to the CDC. Obesity is not some mystery disease that strikes people at random without warning, it is caused by having too high a caloric intake for your individual metabolism, size, and activity level over an extended period of time. Obesity has a simple, cheap, effective, well known cure: diet and exercise. The problem with the cure is that people don’t like changing their diet or altering their sedentary lifestyle. In other words, they don’t want the cure.

Disability status should only be given to those who have a physical impairment that is beyond their control. Thyroid disease induced obesity fits this category, but the vast majority of obesity cases can be controlled by diet and exercise, which is why both the CDC and WHO call it a preventable disease. I honestly don’t care if someone is fat, if you’re happy and fat and that’s how you want to live your life, by all means go for it. It has no impact on me. What I do care about is people who are fat who want to be given special legal status because they’re fat.

It’s absolutely absurd that you would bring racism into this argument as though it were a valid comparison. Race is something you’re born with, and have no control over. It is not a behavior pattern. Judging someone by their physical appearance, heredity, or any other external factors they can’t control is wrong. Judging people by their behavior patterns and attitude, however, is perfectly acceptable in my book. I’m not judging people just for being obese, if people want to engage in self destructive behavior, I’m fine with that so long as they don’t start asking for special legal protections simply because they are engaging in bad behavior.

If you’d like to dispute the fact that obesity is a preventable disease in the general case, the burden of proof is on you, because both the CDC and WHO think that it is.

If you'd like to dispute whether legal 'disabled' status should be given to people with preventable, curable diseases, then I question what you think should disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it seems pretty insulting to me that you would give the legal protections intended for someone suffering from real, incurable diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Polio, Cerebral palsy, or paralysis to someone who just eats too much McDonalds and hates exercise.

Here you go!

http://www.who.int/uv/intersunprogramme/en/