Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover Compound In Baby Diapers Can Enlarge Brain Cells
An anonymous reader writes with news of a breakthrough in brain imaging thanks to a compound found in diapers. "A team of researchers has discovered that a compound used in baby diapers to absorb the liquids can help enlarge the size of the brain cells for a better imaging. The scientists work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and were experimenting with new ways that could help them enlarge the brain cells for a better resolution photos. They discovered by accident that sodium polyacrylate, a compound in baby diapers can enlarge brain cells and can be used in their research. The scientists termed the new technique of enlarging the brain cells 'expansion microscopy.' This new technique will help the scientists increase the brain cells tissue samples and see it in a better image resolution."
By putting baby diapers on her and her children's head to make them smarter.
one single cell is all that is required to fill the skull.
n/t
Have gnu, will travel.
Quit making these dumbass comparisons between everyday products and something scientific unless there's really something to be concerned about. Crap like this leads to people like Foodbabe telling us that the same ingredients in water are also used to degrade iron. It's true, but the fact it's true doesn't mean that water will cause us to rust.
Shit for brains.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Is there a proof the process has no side effect whatsoever?
The title should have been "shit for brains".
How does one get diaper mixed in with their brain cells by accident?
LSD
This compound is used in many areas where holding water is important. It's used in transport of seedlings to provide a water reservoir and keep them moist. It's used in diapers. It's used in many creative areas to absorb and hold water.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
the fact that someone uneducated will think uneducated things based on noting a compound's everyday use simply means that uneducated people need to educate themselves
in fact, even if we censored such notable common uses as you ask us to, uneducated people will still think stupid, dangerous, and fearful things. so what you ask us to do doesn't even provide the protection you think it does
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Being close contact with diapers, how this chemical might be effecting babies ?
No, it is not enlarging live brains. It enlarges the cells in tissue samples.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
so we all have heads like beach balls now , and do you need hte baby to use the diaper first ????
I've been eating diaper liners for YEARS and I still haven't gotten any smarter.
Get all the hipsters eating baby poop to enhance their intelligence. No GMOs or gluten!
chode is that you
Soooo....sh*t for brains?
Obligatory racist remark.
Asking for a friend.
First link goes to wallstreetotc.com. sounds like this is link baiting
The problem isn't the uneducated, it's the ignorant. And especially the willfully ignorant.
The uneducated can educate themselves. The ignorant cannot, and the willfully ignorant resist attempts at education.
...or just an exercise in how many times one can put "enlarge brain cells" in a single paragraph?
Oh Come on! You are just making s**t up! *
*And if you are you are very intelligent at it!
Pretty crappy research.
What about the "blue liquid" effect?
...MIT does crap research.
Let me explain how it works, shit-for-brains...
Ooo... Bad.
Compound In Baby Diapers Can Enlarge Brain Cells
a compound used in baby diapers
enlarge the size of the brain cells
enlarge the brain cells
a compound in baby diapers can enlarge brain cells
enlarging the brain cells
increase the brain cells
I think that thinking about reading this article makes me think that reading it and thinking thinking is thinking reading is for thinkers thinking thinking reading is reading.
Maybe unrelated, but acrylamide monomer is known to be highly toxic to the nervous system.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.rebellesociety.com/...
http://www.wildcrafted.com.au/...
http://www.optimumhealthnatura...
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them. During the process of eating, the enzymes in your saliva and stomach help break these chemicals down and flush them out of your body. But when you slather these chemical concoctions onto your skin, they are deposited directly in your internal organs and body fat. And unlike things ingested orally, there is no "gate keeping" liver there to protect you from these chemicals entering into your body through your skin."
That's a rule of thumb, obviously -- everything has its limits...
Makes me wonder though if there could be any link between disposable diaper chemicals absorbed through the skin and autism or other early childhood issues?
Although, on autism specifically, see also:
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...
https://www.vitamindcouncil.or...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them.
Which chemicals? This statement could be true for some, and patently false for others. Ditto for all the stuff you said about the liver. (IANAD but I've taken biochem, so, come at me if you like)
That Dr. Hyman article is BS.... I can't believe how hard that fucking vaccine myth is to stamp out. THE RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT! (and abusive!)
Concerning autism and vitamin D, correlation and causation....
If I seem shrill about this, well, my brother is autistic, and I am extremely BS-averse.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens
Bigger brain cells -> bigger brain -> bigger smarts. So everyone should obviously PUT the diapers on their babies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
"Skin absorption is a route by which substances can enter the body through the skin. Along with inhalation, ingestion and injection, dermal absorption is a route of exposure for toxic substances and route of administration for medication. Absorption of substances through the skin depends on a number of factors, the most important of which are concentration, duration of contact, *solubility of medication*, and physical condition of the skin and part of the body exposed.
Skin (percutaneous, dermal) absorption is a term that describes the transport of chemicals from the outer surface of the skin both into the skin and into the systemic circulation. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the skin was thought to be completely inert and impermeable to chemicals that might otherwise enter the body, however we now know many chemicals can get through the skin. Skin absorption relates to the degree of exposure to and possible effect of a substance which may enter the body through the skin. Human skin comes into contact with many agents intentionally and unintentionally. Skin absorption can occur from occupational, environmental, or consumer skin exposure to chemicals, cosmetics, or pharmaceutical products. Some chemicals can be absorbed in enough quantity to cause detrimental systemic effects. Skin disease (dermatitis) is considered one of the most common occupational diseases.[1] In order to assess if a chemical can be a risk of either causing dermatitis or other more systemeic effects and how that risk may be reduced one must know the extent to which it is absorbed, thus dermal exposure is a key aspect of human health risk assessment."
Te precautionary principle suggests that the burden of proof should not be to prove things are dangerous when they plausibly could be (like chemicals on skin). The burden of proof should be to show they are safe, or at least worth the risks and costs. I have pointed out the plausibility that these chemicals could be getting in through the skin and affecting the infant brain; that does not prove anything of course. It;s just a plausible idea...
Dr. Hyman's theory (and anecdote) is that many cases of autistic behavior are probably from a combination of environmental toxic challenges (mentioning heavy metals in vaccines, but only as one of many issues and sources) and/or deficiencies that can in some cases be unraveled (and he presents an anecdote on this, including a reversal). Still, as the vitamin D hypothesis suggests, there are changes that happens in the developing brain in utero if the pregnant mother is vitamin D deficient, and those structural changes likely can't be completely fixed. Since our modern lifestyle is so indoors-oriented compared to 50 years ago, and we eat so many things we never did before with artificial ingredients and refined grains and eat less vegetables, it is not a surprise that might cause health issues -- especially if the RDA is too low for vitamin D or other key nutrients.
Vitamin D deficiency is a complex topic, made even harder to discuss because skin color relative to geographical latitude is an aspect of it. The best single example of vitamin D deficiency causing autism-like behaviors may be probably that of Somali women moving to the USA or the UK and remaining covered all the time in Western housing, compared to typical indigenous Somaila life either outdoors a lot or having housing with sun courts and such specifically for women (which US housing typically does not have, especially for poor immigrants). See also for more on various links
http://www.environmentalhealth...
See also, emphasizing development during pregnancy, but probably with other confounding factors:
http://sfari.org/news-and-opin...
"Swedish migratio
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
> They discovered by accident that sodium polyacrylate
Looks like somebody took his/her work home, or took the baby to work and let it waddle around freely....
Very misleading for people to conclude from this headline that diapers somehow pose a risk of "brain swelling" for babies! I found a New York Times article about the process the researchers used. It requires a sequence of steps that begins with a tissue sample. The scientists "infuse" the tissue with the chemical **building blocks** of the polymer (not the polymer), making sure they evenly permeate the sample. The polymer forms inside the tissue (destructively chopping it up in the process at the chemical level), and then they add water causing the polymer to swell. The polymer itself does not ever cross the cell barrier, and it can't. That is why they inject the chemical building blocks. This is not something that can happen by touching or ingesting the polymer itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
Nonsense, malarkey, and hocus pocus. That's 5 links to articles, all of which make assertions that are not tested or are too vague to be easily testable.
"Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them.
Which chemicals? This statement could be true for some, and patently false for others. Ditto for all the stuff you said about the liver. (IANAD but I've taken biochem, so, come at me if you like)
That Dr. Hyman article is BS.... I can't believe how hard that fucking vaccine myth is to stamp out. THE RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT! (and abusive!)
Concerning autism and vitamin D, correlation and causation....
If I seem shrill about this, well, my brother is autistic, and I am extremely BS-averse.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens
Oh I like this person. Short, sharp and surgical.
zzzing
Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
Every time I see the word AFFECT, the word EFFECT was the word they were after-- and vice-versa. Get a dictionary, guys because Spell Check won't help you at all.