Slashdot Mirror


Is Lack of Sleep a Public Health Crisis? (washingtonpost.com)

According to The Washington Post, "a growing number of scientists, not normally known for being advocates, are bringing evangelical zeal to the message that lack of sleep is an escalating public health crisis that deserves as much attention as the obesity epidemic." "We're competing against moneyed interests, with technology and gaming and all that. It's so addictive and so hard to compete with," said Orfeu Buxton, a sleep researcher at Pennsylvania State University. "We've had this natural experiment with the Internet that swamped everything else." From the report: The sleep research community, formerly balkanized into separate sleep disorders such as insomnia and sleep apnea, has begun to coalesce around the concept of "sleep health" -- which for most adults means getting at least seven hours a night. But time in the sack has been steadily decreasing. In 1942, a Gallup poll found that adults slept an average of 7.9 hours per night. In 2013, the average adult had sheared more than an hour off that number. In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a third of adults fail to get the recommended seven hours. In the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms, humans have radically altered a fundamental biological necessity -- with repercussions we are still only beginning to understand.

For years, animal studies have shown that learning activities are reactivated during sleep, a critical part of how lasting memories are formed. More recently, Princeton postdoctoral researcher Monika Schonauer asked 32 people to sleep in the lab after they had been asked to memorize 100 pictures of houses or faces. By analyzing their patterns of electrical brain activity, she found she could effectively read their minds, predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them. [...] Sleep problems have long been recognized as a symptom of psychiatric and neurological disorders, ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. But increasingly, researchers are exploring the two-way street between disrupted sleep and disease. And researchers who started out interested in cognitive functions such as memory or brain development are finding themselves focused on sleep because it is so fundamental.

9 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"

    I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.

    I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.

    1. Re:ahemm... the new Church by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've noticed that too. The word "scientist" is meaningless. Who is a scientist? Some guy who wrote a paper? What is a sleep researcher going to say? "Yeah, everything is fine and everyone is getting enough sleep". No, everything is a "crisis" according to the "scientists" who get paid to make the claims.

    2. Re:ahemm... the new Church by shess · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.

      Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!

      I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science.

      I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer".

      Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here.

    3. Re:ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science."

      No, talking about the real science. Sure journalism is also to blame but that is a red herring or straw-man argument. Just stick to the science parts keep the journalism out of it. You are pulling it in because you already know you are wrong and hate being called out on it.

      "I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer"."

      Completely unrelated arguments. Doctors all over whom are supposed to be trained to properly disseminate the science to their patients said butter was bad because science said that. Is this just another attempt to lay the blame on the journalists? Are we to treat the doctors, "Scientists of the Body" in this case like courts treat the police? Not expected to know or understand the information/laws they enforce/act upon? Are you saying you knowingly put your life into the hands of a person that ignores the science and follows the journalism?

      "Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here."

      And that is why I called it a Church, your arguments are just as unreasonable as theirs. You are not even intelligent enough to understand you look and sound like those you hate, just on the opposite side.

      Science has made all sorts of contradictory statements, and people like you treat a lot of it as gospel. I am trying to get you stop making it a Church and just leave it as it should be... science.

      If God exists with the power they claim then Science cannot touch that. Put yourself in the shoes of a developer that creates a virtual world. Constructs in that world cannot know they are virtual for it is real to them as you have defined it. Unless you give them the capacity to see outside of that reality they are like you. They see a 13.5 billion year old existence... even if it is only just 3 seconds in the frame of time of a dimension above it. You cannot see past 3 dimensions because that is where you exist... how do you describe a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional being? They might be able to conceptualize it, but can they fully understand?

      I am not expecting Science to do anything, what I am expecting is for folks like you to stop making it into a church and worshiping it like it has a God... one where YOU just like those that ridiculed Copernicus for thinking the Sun was at the Center of the universe instead of Earth. The problem is that Copernicus was not right either, he just was not as wrong as the others. But because of people like you, the ones in the major, become the oppressors because they did not parrot your views.

      This is the current Science, sure it has always had elements of this problem, scientists are humans, but even the scientists themselves ridicule each other for their ignorance and stupidity.

      A couple of my favorite quotes on this subject.

      Einstein ~ "Only Two Things Are Infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I Do Not Know About the Former."

      You are one of the humans he was talking about, along with those the modded my comments down.

      Freeman Dyson ~ "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to mo

    4. Re:ahemm... the new Church by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong.

      Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.

      If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. For a start... by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just another reason to get rid of daylight "saving" time. (and, no, that doesn't mean go on it year 'round)

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. If you make everything a public health issue by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then what are things going to be such as an outbreak of polio? If you can fix a 'disease' by changing your habits and lifestyle, it's not really a 'disease', it's slow, assisted suicide.

    A public health issue is something the CDC can fix with strategic quarantine, a vaccine or antibiotics/antivirals. Changing behaviors is not the job of the government.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Public health crisis" doesn't mean you have to set up white tents and guys in hazmat suits to deal with it. It means that you designate it something that gets significant resources directed to it as a matter of urgency, and hopefully everyone starts to take it seriously.

      At the moment people tend not to even think of sleep as a major problem that affects many people, or something that we can tackle on more than an individual basis. This designation will help with things like getting companies to consider employee's sleep needs when setting schedules.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:So, what's the baseline? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    was 1942 a typical year,

    Not really. There were a lot of explosions keeping people up throughout Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Most factories were working three shifts.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!