I'll note that private schools in the USA are mostly attended by middle class, even poor people. Most of them manage to educate kids more on less money.
US public schools are in many cases vastly bloated with uncaring, ineffective administration. I hate to say it, but there are regions where paying the private schools to take the public school kids is effective at reducing costs and increasing education.
In the USA, there is a negative correlation between per pupil spending and actual achievement. Even accounting for rural schools that lose efficiency due to being so small so have to bus kids from many miles away just to get enough for classes together, it's true. DC public schools are near the top of spending, but near the bottom for actual achievement.
Part of this is cultural - the students don't value their education(and thus don't learn), but there are other issues.
It might help if the money did go towards teacher pay, but we have a real problem with getting the money to the teacher - First you have the school administrators that need to be paid, then the principal. We can't have just one vice-principal anymore at many schools - we need 6. All of which need to be paid more than the teachers. Oh yeah, and a half dozen or so secretaries, at the high school level a dozen counselors. Can't forget private security. When I left my high school, I'd be surprised if there were as many teachers as other employees in the school. It was crazy.
Before we start paying the teachers more, we also need to spend money setting up networks, giving all the kids laptops/ipads, worrying about redoing the sports area, etc...
Wasn't proposing shutting down the RTG, more 'you need a smaller one for the number of people you have". If you can get 50% of your food and O2 needs from the algae, that's 50% fewer other crops you need. I mentioned algae because it's about the shortest lifecycle for photosynthetic Iife I know. I don't know of any other food crops that can handle 2 weeks of light followed by 2 of night.
First, I've never heard the 50 sq meters (538 sqft) to sustain 1 human before. It's about the same area as an ultra-efficiency apartment. I assume that's for high-efficiency hydroponics. Interesting. I wonder if it'd be possible to grow some sort of edible algae to suppliment the more traditional crops? IE have an intense 2 week growing season, harvest when the sun goes down, then reseed when it comes back up? That would reduce the need to use your nuclear generator to keep the plants alive/in the proper growing cycle.
The gravity might mean you needing a slightly different breed, but given what I've seen with hydroponics/areoponics, I doubt that 1/6th gravity will have that much of a negative effect - but that would be something for the ISS to figure out!
Interesting. I don't know if I ever got the small-pox vaccine.
Well, my shot records used to be kept in a small book I kept with my passport, and copies in medical records; it's now kept online by my employer(who provides my healthcare).
If you're under ~50 you probably didn't get it; it's my understanding that the USA didn't stop vaccinating until the disease was confirmed dead in the wild.
Just out of curiosity, was it your option to be receive the small-pox vaccine? Did you have a specific reason you would share, for having received that vaccine? Does it have something to do with your work?
Very much work; option was 'get the vaccine or don't work here anymore'. Smallpox, Anthrax, Hep-A&B are the 'unusual' ones. TDAP, MMR, Pneumococcal, Meningococcal. I haven't been shot up with Varicella because I had chickenpox as a kid, but I'll get the Shingles shot when I hit 55. Flu shot every year, normally the nasal spray. Haven't had any side effects yet. Note: Risk of side effects are the highest the first few years, after that you 'probably' have some immunity already.
I don't think my mom ever had the TB vaccine but she did receive treatments when it was detected about 40 years ago.
TB Vaccine is highly contra-indicated when you already have TB. The vaccine also makes the scratch test ineffective - you'll always show positive.
So, after some body gave an infant 100X the RDA every day for a month, the infant showed signs of toxicity. I'd venture the signs of toxicity probably went away when they stopped supplementing
Okay, we know that 100X the RDA generates toxicity in one month. Does 50X the dose take 1.5 months? 3 Months? What? Thus the 'tolerable upper limit', which I'll admit is probably set to a paranoid level, because that's what the USDA does. Still, for infants paranoia is generally better.
In any case, please remember that my reaction to the low TUL was to recommend sunlight/sunlamp ~20 minutes a day. Kind of like how if you propose supplementing vitamin A I'd recommend going with a supplement high in Betacarotene vs the denser, more direct retinoids that you can poison yourself with.
The bottom line is that humans are adapted to a life outdoors in the sun. That includes pregnant women getting enough sun.
I agree; Heck, over at fark there was a posting about victorian beauty tips for women. This involved 'vapor baths', where the woman would essentially sit nude in the sun for an hour or so(probably through their pane glass windows, which would block some UVB, but not all). If they were 'energetic', dancing nude was recommended. It reminded me of this discussion - back then they tended to wear very covering clothing, thus the 'vapor bathing' would be a way to get the necessary vitamin d.;)
(as they do not know yet to supplement with 6000 IU D3 daily when pregnant and nursing):
6k should be fine, but from the wiki - while maternal hypercalcemia during pregnancy may increase fetal sensitivity to effects of vitamin D and lead to a syndrome of mental retardation and facial deformities..
Screwed if you don't get enough; screwed if you get too much. And the toxic amount is a 'mere' 10X what you recommend(50k IU daily). I'd recommend first listening to their doctor; and getting ~20-40 minutes of sun a day.
ut on this one issue, you are certainly echoing the conventional wisdom that has caused so much suffering over the past few decades (including bad advice we got from our own pediatrician).
There are so many quacks out there that I, by default, listen to the conventional wisdom, because it has the highest rate of being correct. Despite this, keep in mind that I've recommended, multiple times, using nature's way to get vitamin D - SUNLIGHT, in moderation. Fallback of an appropriately tuned sunlamp.
Briefly a member of a volunteer fire department. Trucks and most equipment - second hand from the nearby USAF base, bigger towns, etc... New Purchases - while the members were not paid, the department itself got some money from the town, county, state, and even federal government. ALL of this money came with strings on what it could be used to purchase. All of it went to things like New Suits (waiver had to be obtained so we wouldn't have to buy a survival tent for each suit) Hoses Nozzles ($240 for the cheapest) Rebuilding the pump on one of the trucks(the other one needed a rebuild almost as bad, but there was no money...) etc...
An extra $5k for some sort of fancy radio system just wasn't in the budget, short of a grant dictating money be spent on said radio system. Cell phones were generally the member's own.
good way for the various first responders to develop the initial maps of the disaster, identifying where equipment is needed for rescue operations, etc. And ideally link back to the Internet.
Good way to put it. The way I'm picturing it now: Police car #4 happens to be within cell tower range; data connection established. It then meshes with car #3, Engine #2(Engine #1 is also there, but not in the optimal path), which reaches Ambulances #1-4, providing them with a (probably slow) internet connection. In addition, it'd probably be good if all of the above could utilize some sort of group chat - the radio might be busier talking back to home station, plus with some sort of 'virtual whiteboard' you could have people sharing drawings/maps/notes.
A number of previous posters seemed to 'buttenhole' a lot of the stuff to purely medical. It could be medical, or fire, earthquake, tornado, collapsed buildings, chemical leak, whatever. The responders could be spread over a wide area.
That being said, while you might be able to get a 'mesh' composed of linksys routers*, I have the feeling that that would actually be of limited use unless you have software designed to work with such networks.
I know the army was working on such a system for itself, however I don't know if random cheap linksys routers have the memory/processor power to manage the crazy routing logic necessary to prevent loops/get packets to their destination in a continuously changing wireless network. Adding some sort of server to each vehicle would somewhat defeat the purpose - and part of it being a true mesh is that you should need some sort of special device in the mix to make it all work.
*I'd go with dual radio units, personally. 2.4Ghz for the 'mesh', 5ghz for local devices. Unless you can hook up custom antennas and have the firmware actually transmit at the highest power allowed on outside 5Ghz channels. Then I'd flip them.
BCG is that vaccine that leaves that lifelong scar on the upper arm... I don't have a scar on my arm so either I didn't get that one, or a new scar free vaccine is used stateside.
The scar on the arm vaccine, at least for the states, was the smallpox vaccine. Oddly enough, I'm one of the considerably less than 1% of those under 40 in the USA to be vaccinated against it. I very much had an immune response(so we know the vaccine took), but due to my reaction the infection spread more along the skin rather than going deep - I have no visible scaring from it. Had minor blistering down to my elbow though. Knew another guy they ended up giving two sets of pokes, only to determine that he's naturally immune.
Reading up on BCG - it's used when babies are exposed to people with TB, it's 80% effective(in infants) for ~15 years, and it's not really used in the USA because it's less effective on adults and the risk analysis people here decided we don't have enough adults with uncontrolled TB running around exposing babies to make the vaccine worth it. Brazil has recommended the vaccine since 1967-68, the USA has depended upon 'detection and treatment of latent tuberculosis'.
I've been vaccinated against a lot of stuff (shot records are now 3 pages long), but not TB. Of course, I get the annual scratch test for TB, which goes in my records... That and the flu shot are probably a page alone...
Working with a doctor is hard because very few people can listen and/or learn from someone they believe to be less knowledgeable. The credibility barrier.
As I understand it, the trick is a combination of a good doctor, a frank honesty that you're a specialist in YOUR condition(s), and building up a good working relationship.
No scientific evidence exists to suggest that mothers or babies are healthier because of the incision rather evidence shows it's unnecessary, but it's performed anyway because that's the way they teach it in med school. Doctors believe it's part of the procedure and that without it birth is hindered/obstructed.
Then your doctors/surgeons are particularly non-scientific; here in the USA they tend to at least pay attention to such studies.
Hmm... CDC has only HepB at birth-1 month. I don't see BCG at all; must be a thing for your country.
Just because an infant gains 'most' of it's immune system from nursing doesn't mean that it doesn't have one or that vaccines don't work.
Still, I'd like to point that just because somebody is a doctor doesn't mean they're a scientist. They're human too; which means they can be lazy.
I support doing your own research to help ensure your own health; just realize that there's a lot of kooks out there with bad information. It's up to you, at that point, to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's entirely possible to know more about your own condition than a doctor. You're right there, after all, and only need to become expert on 1-6 syndromes. The doctor needs to know hundreds. Finally, I'd suggest working to find a doctor willing to work with you.
My first car was a automatic. My second was a manual. I'm not going back short of a hybrid/EV where a manual transmission makes no sense. It's a matter of learning; once you've learned how to use a manual you generally prefer them(worldwide).
My Anecdote: last 2 times I went car shopping I had horrible times finding them; 'Oh there's not much interest in them' combined with 'Whenever we get one in it's sold in a few days'. From the same dealer... Of course, I'd also get the 'but an automatic has a higher resale value!'. Tough cookies; I buy a car for a decade, not it's resale value. I'm not going to pay $1-2k more for a car that I don't like, to get $500-1k more in resale. There's plenty of used car buyers who like manuals as well.
When I did the math, you only need to have ~2 weeks of usage for the larger vehicle to justify buying it in the first place. The math changes if you can get super-cheap rentals, of course.
On thing I didn't see on your list was 'Medical Reasons'. My grandfather is disabled; he can still walk, but not well. Getting out of a seat is difficult for him. Cars are built too low for him - he buys trucks because he can step into them, and drop out. He can't climb out of a seated position. Mom has a different issue but the same difficulty - can't get out of low seats. She drives a small SUV because of this.
I can't imagine that with our, on average, aging population that these issues are all that rare.
I own a truck for towing/hauling. I do so about twice a week. 90% of the time though, you'd count me as 'has truck, isn't doing anything needing a truck'. Fact is that my truck is fuel efficient enough that I can't justify buying a car to leave the truck home - the extra insurance would cost more than the saved gas.
On being surprised at the short people wanting a taller vehicle to see better - It doesn't surprise me. Shorter body = shorter in the seat, losing critical inches out on the road.
On NYC - one can argue that the construction workers, most of them, don't 'need' trucks either. Their employer needs the trucks.
The belief that what is observed and measured is truth, in fact, observation and measurements are still faculties a human beings.
The true difference between science, at least good science, and religion is that when something happens to call a belief of science into question, the beliefs are changed, or at least tested in new ways. With religion it often simply results in entrenchment. With science, if I really wonder how my TV works, I'm free to go back to the basic principles and test them on my own. With Religion, you very quickly hit the 'you just have to take it on faith' point. The belief part comes in that the world, and many of the systems in it, are simply too complicated for a single human to understand, and many others are too complicated without spending years of study in the effort. You could say that life gets in the way. But I'm free to investigate anything.
Half the world scientists can't agree on the cause of global warming,
Most of the world's scientists aren't climatologists. This isn't the days of Ben Franklin where one man could hold an appreciable degree of knowledge in every known subject. That being said; most climatologists agree on most points. There's a lot that goes into 'global warming', 'climate change' and such, and yes, scientists do disagree on specific percentages, but they're fairly close. That being said, I think it's still very much up in the air as to whether the economic cost of stopping it is worth it, or whether simply absorbing the economic costs of rising oceans is. I've seen studies, for example, that say that amount of potentially productive farmland would increase if global temperatures went up a bit.
I initially got a hold of this paper reading some anti-vaxx materials.
I'd be careful about those. I'm not a biologist, but from what I've seen of them they pull many of the same tricks with misinterpreting scientific data and deliberately using bad sources as the intelligent design, anti-smart meter/wifi, chemtrail, and other wacko/conspiracy theory types do.
Simply put, there's lots of scientific studies and they don't recommend a new vaccine until the odds of it helping you are overwhelming over the odds of it causing any harm.
If those observations are not impartial because of some political motivation, then there truly be more merit in concerns regarding vaccines.
That's why the recommendations are made by committees of doctors; multiple levels of them.
To put it another way: The whole 'vaccination causes AUTISM!!!!' was started by a doctor with an interest in a lawsuit against vaccine companies; he stood to gain if it succeeded. Instead he eventually ended up losing his license.
My "ref needed" point is because I gleaned that information from someone in a conversation but haven't researched the claim. No wikipedia ref there sorry.
Part of the reason I asked is that the phrasing seems disjointed/odd to me and was seeking more context. Still, I think I understand it now. Do you realize that 'equilibrium' in that context could be examined in light of the 'Black Death' and Malaria? Basically, you suffer through up to a 90% death rate for the population in question until those who happen to be naturally immune repopulate. Or, in the case of Malaria, spread a genetic abnormality that kills those that get both copies, but provides immunity to those that get one, through most of a population. Sure, it might kill the 25% that gets both copies, and the 25% that get neither die from the disease, but hey, women can have a dozen babies easy!
Google "Average US electricity Use'. EIA reports the average as 11,496 kWh/year.
Tennessee was highest at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh, for state averages.
From these twodocuments, it seems mostly a matter that you in the Netherlands use a huge amount less electricity for space heating and cooling, combined with fewer energy-intensive appliances such as dryers, and when you do have them, they're more efficient.
The documents also showed that, on average, electricity use is tending up in the Netherlands, while it's tending downwards in the USA.
.50BMG to the head(and most other.50 caliber rounds) - humane to the target, not so humane to those who have to witness it. Works well in combat conditions.
Nitrogen asphixiation - humane to the target - CO2 exchange is allowed, human body detects CO2 levels, not O2 levels, so asphixiation reflexes are never triggered. You just pass out/go to sleep. Often faster than you would underwater/holding your breath, because with no O2 in the air, with each breath you actually breath OUT O2. Doesn't work well in combat conditions. Cheap if you can build a reasonably air-tight room. No need to bargain with medical supply companies, the local welding shops have what you need. Many gasses would work, but nitrogen has the advantage of being the cheapest, on average.
Considered humane by some: CO2 asphyxiation: Quick, but I wouldn't consider it humane because it does trigger asphyxiation reflexes. Lethal injection: At the least I'd change up the drugs. Go to a straight opiate overdose. Worse, I don't like the idea of having to tie down the condemned and have somebody stick a needle in his vein. With Nitrogen, you just put them in the appropriate room and turn a valve. Electric chair: Problems are obvious at this point Short drop Hanging: You have the problem that you have to restrain the condemned, but if done right it's excellent. Problem is that it takes some practice to 'do it right'.
Really, the problems with execution is that we want an intact head afterwards.
California and Texas have almost no money spent on them despite their huge number of electoral votes. If you live in those states, your vote REALLY doesn't matter.
Yeah, in non-swing states the politicians only really spend time there to raise capital to better campaign in the swings.
Anyone who's seen the sort of crazy stuff cutting edge RC hobbyists are doing with rapid charging/discharging li-ion packs knows that these things can take some serious abuse!
That's for their hobby though - an actual EV/Hybrid battery is big enough that economics take over; you can't abuse the battery and just eat the shortened life.
Ironically, one of the best buffers could be used EV battery packs, bought on the cheap because of their reduced capacity, and strung together.
Interesting. Assumptions: EV battery, new 53kwh (Using the Roadster as a model): Cost isn't good at $36k, but I've said 'there's nothing wrong with EVs that a battery that lasts twice as long for half the price wouldn't fix'. So let's say that 'futuretech' and economy of scale has reduced the price to $9k. Recycle value: 50%; Most car batteries are retired at 80% capacity(42 kwh). Power: 'Demand' is 20c/kwh. 'time of use' is 40c/kwh peak, 10c for lowest demand load balancing. Statistics: Average power usage per household is ~1k kwh/month. Average car miles 12k. Average of.25 kwh per mile for an EV. 2 cars per household(2.28, I'll round down). Charge efficiency: 90%
At 20 cents a kwh(expensive, but green!) you're looking at $1333/year(it'd be $1200, but charging isn't 100% efficient) for your fuel bill(2 vehicles, 12k miles each). Compare this to an estimated $3,200/year for 30 mpg gasoline vehicles @$4/gallon. Savings: $1.9k/year. Not bad. If my thus far theoretical $9k battery lasts 5 years, its' worth it. Minus the battery, electric cars are as cheap/cheaper than an equivalent gasoline burner, and will probably last longer.
If you're charging overnight, every night, on average you'll need to transfer 18 kwh to recharge from the average 66 miles driven that day(actual results WILL vary, these are household averages!). At 240V, that's 75 Amp-Hours needed. If we figure you need to do that in 5 hours(remember load balancing), that's 15A.
On to the battery at home: Let's say that you drive DOUBLE the average(IE it's a good case). You'd need 30A for 5 hours to, or 15 for 10, and the power company isn't happy about it. You'd like to save more money as well. You use an average of 36kwh a night charging your cars.
You buy a used 42kwh 80% battery for $7.2k and install it. Let's say the fancier system raises the total cost to $10k*. However, you sign up for the time of use charge system and thus, if you can shape your electricity use well enough they only charge you 10c/kwh. If all electricity for charging the car goes through it, it should drop your bill from $2666 to $1480($1333*2/(2*.9)). Remember the extra efficiency loss! Save $1.2k/year. Little over a 10 year payoff. At this point, not worth it.
However, odds are that not ALL of the charge for your cars will come from the battery(saving some of that.9), and you bought the 'extra fancy' system. It also provides load balancing* and UPS protection for the house. Most HOMES only use 33kwh/day, so if you're not driving you can enjoy a full day with power even if the grid is down. That alone can cost $10k to get a generator, so it would make a huge difference.
Conclusion: If we can get the batteries and other components cheap enough, it's certainly an interesting option.
*IE it switches to battery when the power company sends the 'time of use' cost of electricity above 20c/kwh.
Wow... It's like you wrote a paper for me. Sorry it took so long to reply, had to digest your post in bits between work.
In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue.
RDA is trumped by individualized advice by a doctor, which you should be talking to if you have a 'serious health issue'. I was talking about the impression you gave that more Vitamin D could prevent autism, in which case you DO need to concern yourself with toxicity. Oh, and the 5X dose was for babies, I'm sorry didn't make that explicit enough. Baby = 0-1 years of age. Heck, Canada is even tighter - RDA of 400 IU for 0-1, Max of 1k IU. A baby's food supply should be strictly monitored and controlled, but that's still a fairly tight range. As I was talking about infant levels I'm going to ignore the rest of the OD stuff(and calling me an idiot) as irrelevant, especially given that my response was simply 'expose them to a light designed to stimulate natural production of Vitamin D, that way you don't have to worry about OD'. A sort of 'infant tanning/Vitamin D light' with a 20 minute timer should work excellent(might need to dose twice with really dark infants).
Oh, and I found the retardation angle - OD of vitamin D in the mother during pregnancy can do it(per wiki).
The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)
How can that make sense? Metabolism, basically. Kids are growing, most 300 pounds adults should be shrinking. Cell division, bone growth, all take relatively massive amounts of resources. Thus, and I was a bit surprised about this myself, starting at around 6 years old kids have the same 2k calorie recommended diet as adults. 600 IU vs 40k for the start of toxicity is a difference of 67 times, much safer, but like I said, I was going off the infant recommendations.
mRDA = minimum recommeded daily allowance. As for your rant about not specifying duration of the dose; well, it's in the acronym - DAILY Dose, presumably over an extended period of time. You wrote a paper, I wrote 2 paragraphs, one of which was about something completely different. You expect me to be entirely scientific accurate in a 2 sentence paragraph? I was rounding, not trying to hit every case, etc...
So, that is why your statement is very misleading. It may well scare some vitamin D deficient people away from supplementing at the appropriate levels.
Hey, I was recommending a sun-lamp for infants(assuming the caretakers aren't willing to expose them to actual sunlight); not an adult supplementation schedule. Even then you need to be careful to not exceed the 20 minute schedule for light skinned infants - don't want to burn them.
Reading your paper, I can't help but think that there is a difference between dietary D3 and D3 generated from solar exposure - you can OD from dietery(though in adults it takes massive amounts), but natural reactions prevent OD from the generation from solar exposure. It's also fat soluble; any negative effects of not enough can take quite a while to show up.
But when have you ever heard of a kid eating a container of vitamin D and having any problems?
The most common supplements out there are multivitamins, and Iron is the first thing in them that you'll OD on? You don't have incredible numbers of people out there with kids and VitD pills.
However, producing all your Vitamin D through the skin exposes your skin to the aging process of sunlight exposure, so it is problematical to get it all that
I've taken a flu shot once, I caught a mild flu. I can't say I experienced any clear benefit.
The way it's been described to me is that 'most people' can't tell the difference between the common cold and actually contracting 'the flu'. Basically, a 'mild flu' is a different virus and is actually a 'bad cold'. Besides, the flu vaccine isn't 100% - it's the most common multi-virus vaccination. In the USA(don't know about Brazil, your formulations might be different) it's a combination of the 3 'best guess' vaccines for the varieties they think are going to be big. If they guess H1N1, H3N4, and H5N2 but you're exposed to H2N3, well, you're not vaccinated against it. They'll also sometimes take that they stuck vaccine X into last year's shot, figure that protection still exists in most of the flu-shot getting population, and put candidate #4 in, because it's 'almost as probable' as #3 which was in last year's. Yes, statisticians, studies, and committees are involved.
While I wouldn't think I need a polio vaccine If I didn't have one, I admit I'd wish I'd taken one if I contracted the disease.
I think this is part of what fuels my firm belief in vaccination - All I have to do to see the effects of disease is look at my grandfather; he never fully regained the use of his legs after contracting polio as a child. He talked about how when he had it he ended up in the Shriner's hospital and he was so close to death that they did the final rites 3 times.
The issue is a doctor doesn't want to lose a weekend at the beach to accompany the labor period of a patient when he can do his job on a friday and have a weekend off. So it's common practice to schedule a caesarian with a mother explaining that her hips are too narrow or that the birth cord is wrapped around the infants neck... regardless of scientific studies or World Health Organization recomendations.
Umm... Wow. Here in the USA I think the C-Section rate is lower because, as you say, the risks are higher, and a doctor could very quickly find himself being sued, perhaps even part of a class action(profit motive gone). In Europe they'd get investigated for going with the ultimately more expensive option, and get told off. Plus, natural-birth movements in both.
It comes down to a doctor performing his job the way he studied and learned it and what is convenient for him, not necessarily because science has elaborated a method to be better.
Yeah, it's quite possible that they were trained that 80% of women need C-Sections, and it takes somebody with a certain 'spark' to sit up and realize 'wait a second...'
And it costs more yet to need to reverse a previous assumption to implant a practice that is more suitable. Do they really know what's going on or are they guessing, the fewer times they revise the protocol, the less such a question is asked. If something works why try to fix it? Also, I have no evidence that one area of medicine is inclined to be more devoted to their work than any other.
When it comes to disease prevention through vaccination, what generally happens is that they do all their studies and such before approving a vaccine for general use. This includes having a population vaccinated before everybody else, they're the ones they track to determine whether 1 shot is good, whether multiple are needed, the best times to give them, etc... After a point, it's more about optimization (is 7 or 8 years between vaccinations good?). How much does vaccinating the public cost, how much does the disease cost, how much disease cost(between death, medical care costs, lost work, etc...) is prevented, whether 'herd immunity' levels of immunity are reached, etc...
All this is boiled down to a set of pamphlets that are easy for doctors throughout the country to understand. Brazil likely has different diseases and vaccination concerns, but it shouldn't be that diff
I currently pay ~ $.21 per kwh, one of the highest rates in the nation. Back in the states $.12 is closer for residential customers, commercial and industrial users tend to be even lower. I figure that 'Sewage treatment plant' is probably pretty steady and counts as an industrial user; it might be paying closer to $.07 a kwh, they get some massive discounts.
So the first thing this system would do is reduce their bill - allowing them to draw less power. If it's efficient enough(and they don't otherwise waste any power), they MIGHT switch to feeding back, on average. In which case they'll probably only be paid wholesale - $.05 or less, though the deals can get complicated. If you have variable production and the proper monitoring equipment the power company will often pay more for the power during peak periods - sometimes like $.25; it depends. Aluminum smelters often take advantage of this with onsite power generation equipment - they'll stop producing metal and instead sell the power during the price peaks.
While I'm sure that flipping a current electrical drain(pumps, valves and such) into a electrical source will make waste treatment/disposal cheaper, I'm not sure it'd truly make it profitable.
Right now the cost sheet might be something like: Electricity $A, Manpower $B, Chemicals $C, Maintenance $D, etc... You might have a few positives - fertilizer products, chemical/mineral recovery, something, but it's insignificant.
If B+C+D is greater than our new -A, and it likely is, then waste disposal is still negative. However, in many areas sewer(waste water disposal) costs more than providing the fresh water to the home. This might reduce that cost a bit. Or they might put the extra money(after the system has recouped it's costs) into treating the water better. We're releasing a lot more hormones and drugs into the water today, for example, even after the sewage has been treated. This might save enough to keep expenses the same while cleaning the water up a touch more.
That being said, we only need a few industries that produce consumables like paint or whatnot, even though the quantity of mercury is very low, and cause exposure (in small quantities) and create a future problem. This example (paint used on toys) has recently been addressed in the US.
When it comes to biology, form matters. Mercury locked up in the organic compound Thimerosal is different than the elemental form, which is different than the methyl form. While I'm interested in science and biology, I make no bones that beyond that point it's too complicated for somebody without a large amount of specific training in the matter(IE a degree).
One modification to Drinkypoo's post - while there are still flu vaccines in the USA that contain Thimerosal, two of the major manufacturer's of the flu shot are making vaccines free of the material. Though current production is ~50% of what would be necessary to totally eliminate it for children if you followed the recommended schedule. Duplicating information - that would be ~18% of the shots recommended by the CDC might contain the mercury.
It seems that many of the routines and strategies are more related to their personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation, or economics before patient well-being. It's for that reason that I seek results from independent studies that support information they may provide me.
While doctors are supposed to treat the individual, I fail to see how NOT following medical studies, published risk mitigation, and economic recommendations is a bad thing. If they aren't spending the money to to serum studies* on everybody, following the published vaccination schedule is the 'best' way to ensure immunity in their patients. They're using medical studies on immunity from vaccination to follow a risk mitigation strategy that is geared to provide maximum risk mitigation at minimum economic cost. It's also a personal convenience to be able to follow a chart pasted to the wall, rather than need to interpret tests for other vaccinations.
On the Silver Nitrate eye drops - are you sure that it's main use is to prevent the irritation from gonorrhea, or is it possible that it's mainly to prevent a problem common in hospitals?
*It costs more to determine whether you're immune to a given disease than it does to simply hit you with a booster for it. Thus they really only do serum studies when doing research into the effectiveness of vaccines.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll note that private schools in the USA are mostly attended by middle class, even poor people. Most of them manage to educate kids more on less money.
US public schools are in many cases vastly bloated with uncaring, ineffective administration. I hate to say it, but there are regions where paying the private schools to take the public school kids is effective at reducing costs and increasing education.
In the USA, there is a negative correlation between per pupil spending and actual achievement. Even accounting for rural schools that lose efficiency due to being so small so have to bus kids from many miles away just to get enough for classes together, it's true. DC public schools are near the top of spending, but near the bottom for actual achievement.
Part of this is cultural - the students don't value their education(and thus don't learn), but there are other issues.
It might help if the money did go towards teacher pay, but we have a real problem with getting the money to the teacher - First you have the school administrators that need to be paid, then the principal. We can't have just one vice-principal anymore at many schools - we need 6. All of which need to be paid more than the teachers. Oh yeah, and a half dozen or so secretaries, at the high school level a dozen counselors. Can't forget private security. When I left my high school, I'd be surprised if there were as many teachers as other employees in the school. It was crazy.
Before we start paying the teachers more, we also need to spend money setting up networks, giving all the kids laptops/ipads, worrying about redoing the sports area, etc...
Misplaced priorities all around.
I'd argue that there's quite a few up north, but I don't know about 'most'. Where I am heat is one of the biggest expenses.
Wasn't proposing shutting down the RTG, more 'you need a smaller one for the number of people you have". If you can get 50% of your food and O2 needs from the algae, that's 50% fewer other crops you need. I mentioned algae because it's about the shortest lifecycle for photosynthetic Iife I know. I don't know of any other food crops that can handle 2 weeks of light followed by 2 of night.
First, I've never heard the 50 sq meters (538 sqft) to sustain 1 human before. It's about the same area as an ultra-efficiency apartment. I assume that's for high-efficiency hydroponics. Interesting. I wonder if it'd be possible to grow some sort of edible algae to suppliment the more traditional crops? IE have an intense 2 week growing season, harvest when the sun goes down, then reseed when it comes back up? That would reduce the need to use your nuclear generator to keep the plants alive/in the proper growing cycle.
The gravity might mean you needing a slightly different breed, but given what I've seen with hydroponics/areoponics, I doubt that 1/6th gravity will have that much of a negative effect - but that would be something for the ISS to figure out!
Interesting. I don't know if I ever got the small-pox vaccine.
Well, my shot records used to be kept in a small book I kept with my passport, and copies in medical records; it's now kept online by my employer(who provides my healthcare).
If you're under ~50 you probably didn't get it; it's my understanding that the USA didn't stop vaccinating until the disease was confirmed dead in the wild.
Just out of curiosity, was it your option to be receive the small-pox vaccine? Did you have a specific reason you would share, for having received that vaccine? Does it have something to do with your work?
Very much work; option was 'get the vaccine or don't work here anymore'. Smallpox, Anthrax, Hep-A&B are the 'unusual' ones. TDAP, MMR, Pneumococcal, Meningococcal. I haven't been shot up with Varicella because I had chickenpox as a kid, but I'll get the Shingles shot when I hit 55. Flu shot every year, normally the nasal spray. Haven't had any side effects yet. Note: Risk of side effects are the highest the first few years, after that you 'probably' have some immunity already.
I don't think my mom ever had the TB vaccine but she did receive treatments when it was detected about 40 years ago.
TB Vaccine is highly contra-indicated when you already have TB. The vaccine also makes the scratch test ineffective - you'll always show positive.
So, after some body gave an infant 100X the RDA every day for a month, the infant showed signs of toxicity. I'd venture the signs of toxicity probably went away when they stopped supplementing
Okay, we know that 100X the RDA generates toxicity in one month. Does 50X the dose take 1.5 months? 3 Months? What? Thus the 'tolerable upper limit', which I'll admit is probably set to a paranoid level, because that's what the USDA does. Still, for infants paranoia is generally better.
In any case, please remember that my reaction to the low TUL was to recommend sunlight/sunlamp ~20 minutes a day. Kind of like how if you propose supplementing vitamin A I'd recommend going with a supplement high in Betacarotene vs the denser, more direct retinoids that you can poison yourself with.
The bottom line is that humans are adapted to a life outdoors in the sun. That includes pregnant women getting enough sun.
I agree; Heck, over at fark there was a posting about victorian beauty tips for women. This involved 'vapor baths', where the woman would essentially sit nude in the sun for an hour or so(probably through their pane glass windows, which would block some UVB, but not all). If they were 'energetic', dancing nude was recommended. It reminded me of this discussion - back then they tended to wear very covering clothing, thus the 'vapor bathing' would be a way to get the necessary vitamin d. ;)
(as they do not know yet to supplement with 6000 IU D3 daily when pregnant and nursing):
6k should be fine, but from the wiki - while maternal hypercalcemia during pregnancy may increase fetal sensitivity to effects of vitamin D and lead to a syndrome of mental retardation and facial deformities..
Screwed if you don't get enough; screwed if you get too much. And the toxic amount is a 'mere' 10X what you recommend(50k IU daily). I'd recommend first listening to their doctor; and getting ~20-40 minutes of sun a day.
ut on this one issue, you are certainly echoing the conventional wisdom that has caused so much suffering over the past few decades (including bad advice we got from our own pediatrician).
There are so many quacks out there that I, by default, listen to the conventional wisdom, because it has the highest rate of being correct. Despite this, keep in mind that I've recommended, multiple times, using nature's way to get vitamin D - SUNLIGHT, in moderation. Fallback of an appropriately tuned sunlamp.
Briefly a member of a volunteer fire department.
Trucks and most equipment - second hand from the nearby USAF base, bigger towns, etc...
New Purchases - while the members were not paid, the department itself got some money from the town, county, state, and even federal government. ALL of this money came with strings on what it could be used to purchase. All of it went to things like
New Suits (waiver had to be obtained so we wouldn't have to buy a survival tent for each suit)
Hoses
Nozzles ($240 for the cheapest)
Rebuilding the pump on one of the trucks(the other one needed a rebuild almost as bad, but there was no money...)
etc...
An extra $5k for some sort of fancy radio system just wasn't in the budget, short of a grant dictating money be spent on said radio system. Cell phones were generally the member's own.
good way for the various first responders to develop the initial maps of the disaster, identifying where equipment is needed for rescue operations, etc. And ideally link back to the Internet.
Good way to put it. The way I'm picturing it now: Police car #4 happens to be within cell tower range; data connection established. It then meshes with car #3, Engine #2(Engine #1 is also there, but not in the optimal path), which reaches Ambulances #1-4, providing them with a (probably slow) internet connection. In addition, it'd probably be good if all of the above could utilize some sort of group chat - the radio might be busier talking back to home station, plus with some sort of 'virtual whiteboard' you could have people sharing drawings/maps/notes.
A number of previous posters seemed to 'buttenhole' a lot of the stuff to purely medical. It could be medical, or fire, earthquake, tornado, collapsed buildings, chemical leak, whatever. The responders could be spread over a wide area.
That being said, while you might be able to get a 'mesh' composed of linksys routers*, I have the feeling that that would actually be of limited use unless you have software designed to work with such networks.
I know the army was working on such a system for itself, however I don't know if random cheap linksys routers have the memory/processor power to manage the crazy routing logic necessary to prevent loops/get packets to their destination in a continuously changing wireless network. Adding some sort of server to each vehicle would somewhat defeat the purpose - and part of it being a true mesh is that you should need some sort of special device in the mix to make it all work.
*I'd go with dual radio units, personally. 2.4Ghz for the 'mesh', 5ghz for local devices. Unless you can hook up custom antennas and have the firmware actually transmit at the highest power allowed on outside 5Ghz channels. Then I'd flip them.
BCG is that vaccine that leaves that lifelong scar on the upper arm... I don't have a scar on my arm so either I didn't get that one, or a new scar free vaccine is used stateside.
The scar on the arm vaccine, at least for the states, was the smallpox vaccine. Oddly enough, I'm one of the considerably less than 1% of those under 40 in the USA to be vaccinated against it. I very much had an immune response(so we know the vaccine took), but due to my reaction the infection spread more along the skin rather than going deep - I have no visible scaring from it. Had minor blistering down to my elbow though. Knew another guy they ended up giving two sets of pokes, only to determine that he's naturally immune.
Reading up on BCG - it's used when babies are exposed to people with TB, it's 80% effective(in infants) for ~15 years, and it's not really used in the USA because it's less effective on adults and the risk analysis people here decided we don't have enough adults with uncontrolled TB running around exposing babies to make the vaccine worth it. Brazil has recommended the vaccine since 1967-68, the USA has depended upon 'detection and treatment of latent tuberculosis'.
I've been vaccinated against a lot of stuff (shot records are now 3 pages long), but not TB. Of course, I get the annual scratch test for TB, which goes in my records... That and the flu shot are probably a page alone...
Working with a doctor is hard because very few people can listen and/or learn from someone they believe to be less knowledgeable. The credibility barrier.
As I understand it, the trick is a combination of a good doctor, a frank honesty that you're a specialist in YOUR condition(s), and building up a good working relationship.
No scientific evidence exists to suggest that mothers or babies are healthier because of the incision rather evidence shows it's unnecessary, but it's performed anyway because that's the way they teach it in med school. Doctors believe it's part of the procedure and that without it birth is hindered/obstructed.
Then your doctors/surgeons are particularly non-scientific; here in the USA they tend to at least pay attention to such studies.
Hmm... CDC has only HepB at birth-1 month. I don't see BCG at all; must be a thing for your country.
Just because an infant gains 'most' of it's immune system from nursing doesn't mean that it doesn't have one or that vaccines don't work.
Still, I'd like to point that just because somebody is a doctor doesn't mean they're a scientist. They're human too; which means they can be lazy.
I support doing your own research to help ensure your own health; just realize that there's a lot of kooks out there with bad information. It's up to you, at that point, to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's entirely possible to know more about your own condition than a doctor. You're right there, after all, and only need to become expert on 1-6 syndromes. The doctor needs to know hundreds. Finally, I'd suggest working to find a doctor willing to work with you.
My first car was a automatic. My second was a manual. I'm not going back short of a hybrid/EV where a manual transmission makes no sense. It's a matter of learning; once you've learned how to use a manual you generally prefer them(worldwide).
My Anecdote: last 2 times I went car shopping I had horrible times finding them; 'Oh there's not much interest in them' combined with 'Whenever we get one in it's sold in a few days'. From the same dealer... Of course, I'd also get the 'but an automatic has a higher resale value!'. Tough cookies; I buy a car for a decade, not it's resale value. I'm not going to pay $1-2k more for a car that I don't like, to get $500-1k more in resale. There's plenty of used car buyers who like manuals as well.
When I did the math, you only need to have ~2 weeks of usage for the larger vehicle to justify buying it in the first place. The math changes if you can get super-cheap rentals, of course.
On thing I didn't see on your list was 'Medical Reasons'. My grandfather is disabled; he can still walk, but not well. Getting out of a seat is difficult for him. Cars are built too low for him - he buys trucks because he can step into them, and drop out. He can't climb out of a seated position. Mom has a different issue but the same difficulty - can't get out of low seats. She drives a small SUV because of this.
I can't imagine that with our, on average, aging population that these issues are all that rare.
I own a truck for towing/hauling. I do so about twice a week. 90% of the time though, you'd count me as 'has truck, isn't doing anything needing a truck'. Fact is that my truck is fuel efficient enough that I can't justify buying a car to leave the truck home - the extra insurance would cost more than the saved gas.
On being surprised at the short people wanting a taller vehicle to see better - It doesn't surprise me. Shorter body = shorter in the seat, losing critical inches out on the road.
On NYC - one can argue that the construction workers, most of them, don't 'need' trucks either. Their employer needs the trucks.
The belief that what is observed and measured is truth, in fact, observation and measurements are still faculties a human beings.
The true difference between science, at least good science, and religion is that when something happens to call a belief of science into question, the beliefs are changed, or at least tested in new ways. With religion it often simply results in entrenchment. With science, if I really wonder how my TV works, I'm free to go back to the basic principles and test them on my own. With Religion, you very quickly hit the 'you just have to take it on faith' point. The belief part comes in that the world, and many of the systems in it, are simply too complicated for a single human to understand, and many others are too complicated without spending years of study in the effort. You could say that life gets in the way. But I'm free to investigate anything.
Half the world scientists can't agree on the cause of global warming,
Most of the world's scientists aren't climatologists. This isn't the days of Ben Franklin where one man could hold an appreciable degree of knowledge in every known subject. That being said; most climatologists agree on most points. There's a lot that goes into 'global warming', 'climate change' and such, and yes, scientists do disagree on specific percentages, but they're fairly close. That being said, I think it's still very much up in the air as to whether the economic cost of stopping it is worth it, or whether simply absorbing the economic costs of rising oceans is. I've seen studies, for example, that say that amount of potentially productive farmland would increase if global temperatures went up a bit.
It seem that resisting vaccines becau
I initially got a hold of this paper reading some anti-vaxx materials.
I'd be careful about those. I'm not a biologist, but from what I've seen of them they pull many of the same tricks with misinterpreting scientific data and deliberately using bad sources as the intelligent design, anti-smart meter/wifi, chemtrail, and other wacko/conspiracy theory types do.
Simply put, there's lots of scientific studies and they don't recommend a new vaccine until the odds of it helping you are overwhelming over the odds of it causing any harm.
If those observations are not impartial because of some political motivation, then there truly be more merit in concerns regarding vaccines.
That's why the recommendations are made by committees of doctors; multiple levels of them.
To put it another way: The whole 'vaccination causes AUTISM!!!!' was started by a doctor with an interest in a lawsuit against vaccine companies; he stood to gain if it succeeded. Instead he eventually ended up losing his license.
My "ref needed" point is because I gleaned that information from someone in a conversation but haven't researched the claim. No wikipedia ref there sorry.
Part of the reason I asked is that the phrasing seems disjointed/odd to me and was seeking more context. Still, I think I understand it now. Do you realize that 'equilibrium' in that context could be examined in light of the 'Black Death' and Malaria? Basically, you suffer through up to a 90% death rate for the population in question until those who happen to be naturally immune repopulate. Or, in the case of Malaria, spread a genetic abnormality that kills those that get both copies, but provides immunity to those that get one, through most of a population. Sure, it might kill the 25% that gets both copies, and the 25% that get neither die from the disease, but hey, women can have a dozen babies easy!
Google "Average US electricity Use'. EIA reports the average as 11,496 kWh/year.
Tennessee was highest at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh, for state averages.
From these two documents, it seems mostly a matter that you in the Netherlands use a huge amount less electricity for space heating and cooling, combined with fewer energy-intensive appliances such as dryers, and when you do have them, they're more efficient.
The documents also showed that, on average, electricity use is tending up in the Netherlands, while it's tending downwards in the USA.
.50BMG to the head(and most other .50 caliber rounds) - humane to the target, not so humane to those who have to witness it. Works well in combat conditions.
Nitrogen asphixiation - humane to the target - CO2 exchange is allowed, human body detects CO2 levels, not O2 levels, so asphixiation reflexes are never triggered. You just pass out/go to sleep. Often faster than you would underwater/holding your breath, because with no O2 in the air, with each breath you actually breath OUT O2. Doesn't work well in combat conditions. Cheap if you can build a reasonably air-tight room. No need to bargain with medical supply companies, the local welding shops have what you need. Many gasses would work, but nitrogen has the advantage of being the cheapest, on average.
Considered humane by some:
CO2 asphyxiation: Quick, but I wouldn't consider it humane because it does trigger asphyxiation reflexes.
Lethal injection: At the least I'd change up the drugs. Go to a straight opiate overdose. Worse, I don't like the idea of having to tie down the condemned and have somebody stick a needle in his vein. With Nitrogen, you just put them in the appropriate room and turn a valve.
Electric chair: Problems are obvious at this point
Short drop Hanging: You have the problem that you have to restrain the condemned, but if done right it's excellent. Problem is that it takes some practice to 'do it right'.
Really, the problems with execution is that we want an intact head afterwards.
California and Texas have almost no money spent on them despite their huge number of electoral votes. If you live in those states, your vote REALLY doesn't matter.
Yeah, in non-swing states the politicians only really spend time there to raise capital to better campaign in the swings.
Anyone who's seen the sort of crazy stuff cutting edge RC hobbyists are doing with rapid charging/discharging li-ion packs knows that these things can take some serious abuse!
That's for their hobby though - an actual EV/Hybrid battery is big enough that economics take over; you can't abuse the battery and just eat the shortened life.
Ironically, one of the best buffers could be used EV battery packs, bought on the cheap because of their reduced capacity, and strung together.
Interesting. .25 kwh per mile for an EV. 2 cars per household(2.28, I'll round down).
Assumptions:
EV battery, new 53kwh (Using the Roadster as a model): Cost isn't good at $36k, but I've said 'there's nothing wrong with EVs that a battery that lasts twice as long for half the price wouldn't fix'. So let's say that 'futuretech' and economy of scale has reduced the price to $9k.
Recycle value: 50%; Most car batteries are retired at 80% capacity(42 kwh).
Power: 'Demand' is 20c/kwh. 'time of use' is 40c/kwh peak, 10c for lowest demand load balancing.
Statistics: Average power usage per household is ~1k kwh/month. Average car miles 12k. Average of
Charge efficiency: 90%
At 20 cents a kwh(expensive, but green!) you're looking at $1333/year(it'd be $1200, but charging isn't 100% efficient) for your fuel bill(2 vehicles, 12k miles each). Compare this to an estimated $3,200/year for 30 mpg gasoline vehicles @$4/gallon. Savings: $1.9k/year. Not bad. If my thus far theoretical $9k battery lasts 5 years, its' worth it. Minus the battery, electric cars are as cheap/cheaper than an equivalent gasoline burner, and will probably last longer.
If you're charging overnight, every night, on average you'll need to transfer 18 kwh to recharge from the average 66 miles driven that day(actual results WILL vary, these are household averages!). At 240V, that's 75 Amp-Hours needed. If we figure you need to do that in 5 hours(remember load balancing), that's 15A.
On to the battery at home:
Let's say that you drive DOUBLE the average(IE it's a good case). You'd need 30A for 5 hours to, or 15 for 10, and the power company isn't happy about it. You'd like to save more money as well. You use an average of 36kwh a night charging your cars.
You buy a used 42kwh 80% battery for $7.2k and install it. Let's say the fancier system raises the total cost to $10k*. However, you sign up for the time of use charge system and thus, if you can shape your electricity use well enough they only charge you 10c/kwh. If all electricity for charging the car goes through it, it should drop your bill from $2666 to $1480($1333*2/(2*.9)). Remember the extra efficiency loss! Save $1.2k/year. Little over a 10 year payoff. At this point, not worth it.
However, odds are that not ALL of the charge for your cars will come from the battery(saving some of that .9), and you bought the 'extra fancy' system. It also provides load balancing* and UPS protection for the house. Most HOMES only use 33kwh/day, so if you're not driving you can enjoy a full day with power even if the grid is down. That alone can cost $10k to get a generator, so it would make a huge difference.
Conclusion: If we can get the batteries and other components cheap enough, it's certainly an interesting option.
*IE it switches to battery when the power company sends the 'time of use' cost of electricity above 20c/kwh.
Wow... It's like you wrote a paper for me. Sorry it took so long to reply, had to digest your post in bits between work.
In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue.
RDA is trumped by individualized advice by a doctor, which you should be talking to if you have a 'serious health issue'. I was talking about the impression you gave that more Vitamin D could prevent autism, in which case you DO need to concern yourself with toxicity. Oh, and the 5X dose was for babies, I'm sorry didn't make that explicit enough. Baby = 0-1 years of age. Heck, Canada is even tighter - RDA of 400 IU for 0-1, Max of 1k IU. A baby's food supply should be strictly monitored and controlled, but that's still a fairly tight range. As I was talking about infant levels I'm going to ignore the rest of the OD stuff(and calling me an idiot) as irrelevant, especially given that my response was simply 'expose them to a light designed to stimulate natural production of Vitamin D, that way you don't have to worry about OD'. A sort of 'infant tanning/Vitamin D light' with a 20 minute timer should work excellent(might need to dose twice with really dark infants).
Oh, and I found the retardation angle - OD of vitamin D in the mother during pregnancy can do it(per wiki).
The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)
How can that make sense? Metabolism, basically. Kids are growing, most 300 pounds adults should be shrinking. Cell division, bone growth, all take relatively massive amounts of resources. Thus, and I was a bit surprised about this myself, starting at around 6 years old kids have the same 2k calorie recommended diet as adults. 600 IU vs 40k for the start of toxicity is a difference of 67 times, much safer, but like I said, I was going off the infant recommendations.
mRDA = minimum recommeded daily allowance. As for your rant about not specifying duration of the dose; well, it's in the acronym - DAILY Dose, presumably over an extended period of time. You wrote a paper, I wrote 2 paragraphs, one of which was about something completely different. You expect me to be entirely scientific accurate in a 2 sentence paragraph? I was rounding, not trying to hit every case, etc...
So, that is why your statement is very misleading. It may well scare some vitamin D deficient people away from supplementing at the appropriate levels.
Hey, I was recommending a sun-lamp for infants(assuming the caretakers aren't willing to expose them to actual sunlight); not an adult supplementation schedule. Even then you need to be careful to not exceed the 20 minute schedule for light skinned infants - don't want to burn them.
Reading your paper, I can't help but think that there is a difference between dietary D3 and D3 generated from solar exposure - you can OD from dietery(though in adults it takes massive amounts), but natural reactions prevent OD from the generation from solar exposure. It's also fat soluble; any negative effects of not enough can take quite a while to show up.
But when have you ever heard of a kid eating a container of vitamin D and having any problems?
The most common supplements out there are multivitamins, and Iron is the first thing in them that you'll OD on? You don't have incredible numbers of people out there with kids and VitD pills.
However, producing all your Vitamin D through the skin exposes your skin to the aging process of sunlight exposure, so it is problematical to get it all that
I've taken a flu shot once, I caught a mild flu. I can't say I experienced any clear benefit.
The way it's been described to me is that 'most people' can't tell the difference between the common cold and actually contracting 'the flu'. Basically, a 'mild flu' is a different virus and is actually a 'bad cold'. Besides, the flu vaccine isn't 100% - it's the most common multi-virus vaccination. In the USA(don't know about Brazil, your formulations might be different) it's a combination of the 3 'best guess' vaccines for the varieties they think are going to be big. If they guess H1N1, H3N4, and H5N2 but you're exposed to H2N3, well, you're not vaccinated against it. They'll also sometimes take that they stuck vaccine X into last year's shot, figure that protection still exists in most of the flu-shot getting population, and put candidate #4 in, because it's 'almost as probable' as #3 which was in last year's. Yes, statisticians, studies, and committees are involved.
While I wouldn't think I need a polio vaccine If I didn't have one, I admit I'd wish I'd taken one if I contracted the disease.
I think this is part of what fuels my firm belief in vaccination - All I have to do to see the effects of disease is look at my grandfather; he never fully regained the use of his legs after contracting polio as a child. He talked about how when he had it he ended up in the Shriner's hospital and he was so close to death that they did the final rites 3 times.
The issue is a doctor doesn't want to lose a weekend at the beach to accompany the labor period of a patient when he can do his job on a friday and have a weekend off. So it's common practice to schedule a caesarian with a mother explaining that her hips are too narrow or that the birth cord is wrapped around the infants neck... regardless of scientific studies or World Health Organization recomendations.
Umm... Wow. Here in the USA I think the C-Section rate is lower because, as you say, the risks are higher, and a doctor could very quickly find himself being sued, perhaps even part of a class action(profit motive gone). In Europe they'd get investigated for going with the ultimately more expensive option, and get told off. Plus, natural-birth movements in both.
It comes down to a doctor performing his job the way he studied and learned it and what is convenient for him, not necessarily because science has elaborated a method to be better.
Yeah, it's quite possible that they were trained that 80% of women need C-Sections, and it takes somebody with a certain 'spark' to sit up and realize 'wait a second...'
And it costs more yet to need to reverse a previous assumption to implant a practice that is more suitable. Do they really know what's going on or are they guessing, the fewer times they revise the protocol, the less such a question is asked. If something works why try to fix it? Also, I have no evidence that one area of medicine is inclined to be more devoted to their work than any other.
When it comes to disease prevention through vaccination, what generally happens is that they do all their studies and such before approving a vaccine for general use. This includes having a population vaccinated before everybody else, they're the ones they track to determine whether 1 shot is good, whether multiple are needed, the best times to give them, etc... After a point, it's more about optimization (is 7 or 8 years between vaccinations good?). How much does vaccinating the public cost, how much does the disease cost, how much disease cost(between death, medical care costs, lost work, etc...) is prevented, whether 'herd immunity' levels of immunity are reached, etc...
All this is boiled down to a set of pamphlets that are easy for doctors throughout the country to understand. Brazil likely has different diseases and vaccination concerns, but it shouldn't be that diff
Those are some interesting rates quoted...
I currently pay ~ $.21 per kwh, one of the highest rates in the nation. Back in the states $.12 is closer for residential customers, commercial and industrial users tend to be even lower. I figure that 'Sewage treatment plant' is probably pretty steady and counts as an industrial user; it might be paying closer to $.07 a kwh, they get some massive discounts.
So the first thing this system would do is reduce their bill - allowing them to draw less power. If it's efficient enough(and they don't otherwise waste any power), they MIGHT switch to feeding back, on average. In which case they'll probably only be paid wholesale - $.05 or less, though the deals can get complicated. If you have variable production and the proper monitoring equipment the power company will often pay more for the power during peak periods - sometimes like $.25; it depends. Aluminum smelters often take advantage of this with onsite power generation equipment - they'll stop producing metal and instead sell the power during the price peaks.
While I'm sure that flipping a current electrical drain(pumps, valves and such) into a electrical source will make waste treatment/disposal cheaper, I'm not sure it'd truly make it profitable.
Right now the cost sheet might be something like: Electricity $A, Manpower $B, Chemicals $C, Maintenance $D, etc... You might have a few positives - fertilizer products, chemical/mineral recovery, something, but it's insignificant.
If B+C+D is greater than our new -A, and it likely is, then waste disposal is still negative. However, in many areas sewer(waste water disposal) costs more than providing the fresh water to the home. This might reduce that cost a bit. Or they might put the extra money(after the system has recouped it's costs) into treating the water better. We're releasing a lot more hormones and drugs into the water today, for example, even after the sewage has been treated. This might save enough to keep expenses the same while cleaning the water up a touch more.
That being said, we only need a few industries that produce consumables like paint or whatnot, even though the quantity of mercury is very low, and cause exposure (in small quantities) and create a future problem. This example (paint used on toys) has recently been addressed in the US.
When it comes to biology, form matters. Mercury locked up in the organic compound Thimerosal is different than the elemental form, which is different than the methyl form. While I'm interested in science and biology, I make no bones that beyond that point it's too complicated for somebody without a large amount of specific training in the matter(IE a degree).
One modification to Drinkypoo's post - while there are still flu vaccines in the USA that contain Thimerosal, two of the major manufacturer's of the flu shot are making vaccines free of the material. Though current production is ~50% of what would be necessary to totally eliminate it for children if you followed the recommended schedule. Duplicating information - that would be ~18% of the shots recommended by the CDC might contain the mercury.
It seems that many of the routines and strategies are more related to their personal convenience, medical studies, risk mitigation, or economics before patient well-being. It's for that reason that I seek results from independent studies that support information they may provide me.
While doctors are supposed to treat the individual, I fail to see how NOT following medical studies, published risk mitigation, and economic recommendations is a bad thing. If they aren't spending the money to to serum studies* on everybody, following the published vaccination schedule is the 'best' way to ensure immunity in their patients. They're using medical studies on immunity from vaccination to follow a risk mitigation strategy that is geared to provide maximum risk mitigation at minimum economic cost. It's also a personal convenience to be able to follow a chart pasted to the wall, rather than need to interpret tests for other vaccinations.
On the Silver Nitrate eye drops - are you sure that it's main use is to prevent the irritation from gonorrhea, or is it possible that it's mainly to prevent a problem common in hospitals?
*It costs more to determine whether you're immune to a given disease than it does to simply hit you with a booster for it. Thus they really only do serum studies when doing research into the effectiveness of vaccines.