Simple hypothesis far more likely than god damned melanin (what idiot thought of that?)
That idiot is you, since that word exists neither in the study or summary.
Blue light causes you to get worse sleep. Plenty of studies on it, already confirmed. You get worse sleep, your body doesn't repair itself as well, including looking for errors during mitosis, your immune system doesn't hunt cancer as well, you're more likely to get cancer. Boom, easy.
While you're probably not wrong, that's not the critical path here.
Blue light inhibits melatonin, a very potent antioxidant.
But more importantly, the blue component in that white light will suppress your body's production of melatonin, an extremely potent anti-oxidant known to have a statistical effect on your chances of getting cancer over the course of your life.
But ya, I suppose we should throw that out the window and just try having a life.
It's not bullshit. This has long been suspected for a long time.
Melatonin is an active cancer fighter in your body.
Blue light completely eliminates the production of melatonin during the evening hours.
A lifetime of having deficient melatonin should cause higher incidence of cancer.
Staying away is likely linked due to the fact that, at least in this day and age, most people staying up late are exposing themselves to some kind of intense blue light.
Urg. No. No, no no.
Melatonin is a known highly effective anti-oxidant. It has long been supposed that melatonin deficiency was the cause for the link between poor sleep and cancer.
Melatonin is also known not to be produced when your eyes are exposed to blue light. Ergo, one may suppose that exposure to blue light in the evening when you may be sleeping can increase your chances of getting cancer over your lifetime. This study shows that the supposition is likely correct. This all makes sense, none of it is weird. The idea that smart phones or tablets have a contribution is not weird in the slightest, because the LED backlights in them have a very high color temperature, usually.
Left and right quotation marks? Christ.
Do you know why your keyboard doesn't have left and right quotation marks? Because it's a stupid fucking idea. God knows how many things they fuck up beyond simple rendering of the glyphs.
My boss often fucks up our billing software by using smart mac dashes, which are a slightly longer unicode dash. Messes up SQL procedures and reports all over the place. It's bad enough that I have daily jobs that go through the database and replace them with ASCII dashes.
Haven't had this problem. Not even anything close, and I am a very heavy use of both Prime free shipping (delivered to my local 7-11 Amazon Locker) and Prime Now. I'd say me or my girlfriend have a few things shipped per month (not including the recurring shipments, like filters), and Prime Now a couple times a week.
I'm in Seattle, so I don't know if that makes any difference. But the average time between me ordering something, and driving down the street to 7-11 to pick it up, is about 2 days.
When I read comments like this, I thank $DEITY that your generation isn't long for this world.
If you aren't an old fuck, then your parents damaged you beyond repair.
The question was not whether it can save terminal patients. I see you keep confusing this. Getting a better health != a cure for cancer. It just means that, compared to the similar control group of cancer patients, they have *better* health.
And the point was, you can't fucking hope to measure an improvement or health, or even see an improvement in health, regardless of the action of the drug, in a patient who's body is actively dying, without even considering the toxic chemicals being pumped into them in an attempt to stave off that end.
I get where your argument is coming from now... and it's even more stupid.
The premise was accurate as used. You're attempting to apply syntactic strictness that doesn't exist outside of your argument. Congratulations, or something.
conclude not 'everyone' gets a health benefit from it.
This is critical to your argument, and it belies just how little you actually understand about scientific studies. This fascinates me since you bet your entire argument on a presupposition of actual knowledge about that precise topic.
In drug studies, statistics are used. Nothing helps everyone.
When they say "people who take vitamin D suffer from less fractures", there is a population somewhere that will not demonstrate that, even remotely. Particularly, people with calcium metabolism problems.
You do not test just cancer patients against your "helps everyone" wonder drug, because terminal cancer patients may very well be too fucked up to show the benefits of the drug, and they can't be used to disprove its efficacy, only to prove that cancer patients are seriously fucked up.
Sure you can "prove" that it doesn't help "everyone," but that is an argument that nobody ever makes ever.
Eating healthy will improve your life span. This is true for everyone. Except of course people, who in the natural course of their lives suffer from other things that preclude that eventuality. To use a previous example, eating healthy doesn't do much for the life expectancy of people on a rocket ship headed for the sun. So you should probably not select just those rocket passengers to test whether healthy eating improves lifespan.
You chose a *representative* sample, otherwise your statistics don't say anything other than "eating healthy doesn't help people who were going to die young, already."
Just as our wonder drug cannot help people who's body is so systemically fucked up, that they can't be helped.
I'm not failing to understand how scientific studies work. You are.
I'm not changing anything, I'm giving you an example as to why "agent A tested on population X does not equate to testing of agent A against population X + Y"
The only assertion you can make from testing of wonder drug on terminal cancer patients from lack of improve is that wonder drug does not help terminal cancer patients (which shouldn't be a surprise, as it wasn't sold as a cure for cancer.)
You cannot infer that it does *not* improve general health from its failure to save terminal patients. You cannot. Any attempt at arguing otherwise is fucking ridiculous. My ad absurdum examples are valid examples as to why.
Again, no.
You don't study if aspirin improves lifespan by measuring the life expectancy of 150 people on a rocket headed for the sun.
Sorry, you're an idiot.
Sorry, but you're wrong as all fuck.
They don't test if Japanese people live longer on average by measuring their terminal patients.
A drug that makes everyone healthier says nothing to a patient with a terminal disease.
So no, I LOL'd because the premise of his argument was fucking stupid.
I literally did that in the next line you responded to.
That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.
This entire ball of fuckery stems from a fight over chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide that has been show to not have *any* safe dose.
The EPA has been trying to get the *raw* (see: specifically- non-anonymized) data from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (the folks who ran the study largely responsible for the banning of chlorpyrifos from home use.
The CCCEH has refused, saying it would offer them anonymized data. This was unacceptable to the EPA. Finally, the EPA agreed to anonymized data.
The intent of this rule is to prevent annoyances like this in the future. To prevent bans of things like organophosphates and to smear the science linking them to bad outcomes. It isn't even clear that the wording of this proposal allows for anonymized data. Given the fact that the EPA would only accept non-anonymized data for half a decade, it's fair to assume anonymization of raw data sources isn't even acceptable after this rule.
That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.
Are you trying to argue that since meta-studies exist, studies with raw datasets that have PII in them do not? I'm beginning to think you're just a really dim-witted human. What's the point of providing examples when that logic is so glaringly bad?
I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.
No, that ad hominem wasn't to support my argument. I was just pointing out that you are a spin-doctor shithead. Feed your own fucking children organophosphates.
Why the hell are you gaslighting so hard?
There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"
Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential. It is not publicly available. It is available, though. You're implying that not-publicly-available means not-available. Like it's made up numbers. It isn't.
The fact that the public cannot verify the data doesn't mean the data is not peer reviewed (and reviewed by EPA scientists themselves)
You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration. Shame on you, shithead.
They're clearly still rubber stamping. The numbers should be put into perspective.
They denied 26 orders... out of 1600, as opposed to the previous years 9 out of 1700.
I don't think they're embarrassed in the slightest. There are many explanations for increase from.5% denial rate to 1.5% denial rate.... The one I like the most- it doesn't mean dick, period. Everyone's trying to put a political spin on a slightly bigger raindrop falling into Lake Michigan.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple hypothesis far more likely than god damned melanin (what idiot thought of that?)
That idiot is you, since that word exists neither in the study or summary.
Blue light causes you to get worse sleep. Plenty of studies on it, already confirmed. You get worse sleep, your body doesn't repair itself as well, including looking for errors during mitosis, your immune system doesn't hunt cancer as well, you're more likely to get cancer. Boom, easy.
While you're probably not wrong, that's not the critical path here.
Blue light inhibits melatonin, a very potent antioxidant.
No. They should just avoid looking at daylight at night.
Helps to RTFA.
But more importantly, the blue component in that white light will suppress your body's production of melatonin, an extremely potent anti-oxidant known to have a statistical effect on your chances of getting cancer over the course of your life.
But ya, I suppose we should throw that out the window and just try having a life.
And why our body makes one of the most potent ones we know of- melatonin.
Which unsurprisingly is the focus of this study, indirectly.
It's not bullshit. This has long been suspected for a long time.
Melatonin is an active cancer fighter in your body.
Blue light completely eliminates the production of melatonin during the evening hours.
A lifetime of having deficient melatonin should cause higher incidence of cancer.
Staying away is likely linked due to the fact that, at least in this day and age, most people staying up late are exposing themselves to some kind of intense blue light.
Whoops. And disregard mine :(
Urg. No. No, no no.
Melatonin is a known highly effective anti-oxidant. It has long been supposed that melatonin deficiency was the cause for the link between poor sleep and cancer.
Melatonin is also known not to be produced when your eyes are exposed to blue light. Ergo, one may suppose that exposure to blue light in the evening when you may be sleeping can increase your chances of getting cancer over your lifetime. This study shows that the supposition is likely correct. This all makes sense, none of it is weird. The idea that smart phones or tablets have a contribution is not weird in the slightest, because the LED backlights in them have a very high color temperature, usually.
Please explain to me why you are spreading falsehoods as an AC?
Same in Seattle.
I'm confused. Is the first quotation mark in "Bam" a starting quotation mark, or an ending quotation mark?
Left and right quotation marks? Christ.
Do you know why your keyboard doesn't have left and right quotation marks? Because it's a stupid fucking idea. God knows how many things they fuck up beyond simple rendering of the glyphs.
My boss often fucks up our billing software by using smart mac dashes, which are a slightly longer unicode dash. Messes up SQL procedures and reports all over the place. It's bad enough that I have daily jobs that go through the database and replace them with ASCII dashes.
Haven't had this problem. Not even anything close, and I am a very heavy use of both Prime free shipping (delivered to my local 7-11 Amazon Locker) and Prime Now. I'd say me or my girlfriend have a few things shipped per month (not including the recurring shipments, like filters), and Prime Now a couple times a week.
I'm in Seattle, so I don't know if that makes any difference. But the average time between me ordering something, and driving down the street to 7-11 to pick it up, is about 2 days.
When I read comments like this, I thank $DEITY that your generation isn't long for this world.
If you aren't an old fuck, then your parents damaged you beyond repair.
The question was not whether it can save terminal patients. I see you keep confusing this. Getting a better health != a cure for cancer. It just means that, compared to the similar control group of cancer patients, they have *better* health.
And the point was, you can't fucking hope to measure an improvement or health, or even see an improvement in health, regardless of the action of the drug, in a patient who's body is actively dying, without even considering the toxic chemicals being pumped into them in an attempt to stave off that end.
I get where your argument is coming from now... and it's even more stupid.
The premise was accurate as used. You're attempting to apply syntactic strictness that doesn't exist outside of your argument. Congratulations, or something.
conclude not 'everyone' gets a health benefit from it.
This is critical to your argument, and it belies just how little you actually understand about scientific studies. This fascinates me since you bet your entire argument on a presupposition of actual knowledge about that precise topic.
In drug studies, statistics are used. Nothing helps everyone.
When they say "people who take vitamin D suffer from less fractures", there is a population somewhere that will not demonstrate that, even remotely. Particularly, people with calcium metabolism problems.
You do not test just cancer patients against your "helps everyone" wonder drug, because terminal cancer patients may very well be too fucked up to show the benefits of the drug, and they can't be used to disprove its efficacy, only to prove that cancer patients are seriously fucked up.
Sure you can "prove" that it doesn't help "everyone," but that is an argument that nobody ever makes ever.
Eating healthy will improve your life span. This is true for everyone. Except of course people, who in the natural course of their lives suffer from other things that preclude that eventuality. To use a previous example, eating healthy doesn't do much for the life expectancy of people on a rocket ship headed for the sun. So you should probably not select just those rocket passengers to test whether healthy eating improves lifespan.
You chose a *representative* sample, otherwise your statistics don't say anything other than "eating healthy doesn't help people who were going to die young, already."
Just as our wonder drug cannot help people who's body is so systemically fucked up, that they can't be helped.
I'm not failing to understand how scientific studies work. You are.
I'm not changing anything, I'm giving you an example as to why "agent A tested on population X does not equate to testing of agent A against population X + Y"
The only assertion you can make from testing of wonder drug on terminal cancer patients from lack of improve is that wonder drug does not help terminal cancer patients (which shouldn't be a surprise, as it wasn't sold as a cure for cancer.)
You cannot infer that it does *not* improve general health from its failure to save terminal patients. You cannot. Any attempt at arguing otherwise is fucking ridiculous. My ad absurdum examples are valid examples as to why.
I was being 100% facetious... forgot sarcasm tag
Because you're holding it wrong
Again, no.
You don't study if aspirin improves lifespan by measuring the life expectancy of 150 people on a rocket headed for the sun.
Sorry, you're an idiot.
Sorry, but you're wrong as all fuck.
They don't test if Japanese people live longer on average by measuring their terminal patients.
A drug that makes everyone healthier says nothing to a patient with a terminal disease.
So no, I LOL'd because the premise of his argument was fucking stupid.
I hope you can provide an example.
I literally did that in the next line you responded to.
That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of ... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.
This entire ball of fuckery stems from a fight over chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide that has been show to not have *any* safe dose.
The EPA has been trying to get the *raw* (see: specifically- non-anonymized) data from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (the folks who ran the study largely responsible for the banning of chlorpyrifos from home use.
The CCCEH has refused, saying it would offer them anonymized data. This was unacceptable to the EPA. Finally, the EPA agreed to anonymized data.
The intent of this rule is to prevent annoyances like this in the future. To prevent bans of things like organophosphates and to smear the science linking them to bad outcomes. It isn't even clear that the wording of this proposal allows for anonymized data. Given the fact that the EPA would only accept non-anonymized data for half a decade, it's fair to assume anonymization of raw data sources isn't even acceptable after this rule.
That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.
Are you trying to argue that since meta-studies exist, studies with raw datasets that have PII in them do not? I'm beginning to think you're just a really dim-witted human. What's the point of providing examples when that logic is so glaringly bad?
I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.
No, that ad hominem wasn't to support my argument. I was just pointing out that you are a spin-doctor shithead. Feed your own fucking children organophosphates.
Why the hell are you gaslighting so hard?
There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"
Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential. It is not publicly available. It is available, though. You're implying that not-publicly-available means not-available. Like it's made up numbers. It isn't.
The fact that the public cannot verify the data doesn't mean the data is not peer reviewed (and reviewed by EPA scientists themselves)
You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration. Shame on you, shithead.
They're clearly still rubber stamping. The numbers should be put into perspective. .5% denial rate to 1.5% denial rate.... The one I like the most- it doesn't mean dick, period. Everyone's trying to put a political spin on a slightly bigger raindrop falling into Lake Michigan.
They denied 26 orders... out of 1600, as opposed to the previous years 9 out of 1700.
I don't think they're embarrassed in the slightest. There are many explanations for increase from