Low levels of ionizing radiation seems to be actually beneficial to human health.
This is called radiation hormesis. And this theory started after they found that people who lived in such a distance from hiroshima and Nagasaki that they received low radiation doses. And, years later, this population, exposed to radiation, had much lower cancer rates than non-exposed similar populations.
OH, and by the way, the graph you think is a joke is actually quote similar to that one that can be found in NASA, wich, in my opinion, is not an obscure site.
True. And there are powerful lobbies that try to change the scientific reports.
For example, Dr Robert Watson was the previous chairman of the IPCC, and he was calling for urgent action [against greenhouse gases]. Exxon didn't like him, so it complained to the Whitehouse he was "too aggressive" on the issue.
The Bush administration then lobbied other countries in favor of Dr Pachauri, actual chairman of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri was more aligned to Exxon, and came to be the chairman due to them and the Whitehouse lobby. So he definitely wasn't an anti-global warming freak.
He reviewed all scientific data and now he says that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive".
He also told delegates: "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose."
I believe the impact of such treaty is minimal. But it will do have an impact. I never saw anyone saying this, but I strongly believe this treaty actually WORSEN the global warming effect in the first decades, due to the reduction of the global dimming effect. It's easy to expect this once you realize that, in the 3 days following sept.11th the temperature ranges spiked, and that was the most abrupt change of such measurement ever recorded.
BTW, it's interesting to note that global warming does not mean that all the globe will be warmer. Just the average world tempeature. Some regions will be much colder than they were before, due, for example, to a change/reduction on the gulf stream.
Actually in order for the HIV infect a cell, it must bind to some receptors present in the cell membrane.
Among those receptors are CD-4 and CCR-5.
You can read more about it here.
And if you thought only us computer geeks could speak unintelligible lingo, here is a proof you were wrong:
CD4 is a 55kd cell surface molecule found on a subset of T lymphocytes utilizing MHC class II antigens as a restriction element for antigen recognition.The mature CD4 protein consists of consists of a 372 amino acid extracellular segment composed of four tandem immunoglobulin-like VJ regions, a 23 amino acid transmembrane domain, and a 33 amino acid cytoplasmic segment. The cDNA sequence is composed 1742 base pairs and 450 amino acids are present in the mature protein. The CD4 locus maps to 12p12-pter and contains 10 exons. CD stands for "cluster of differentiation" and and CD4 is the official destination for the T cell antigen T4/leu3.
So you mean the person would sue himself ? Because if someone classified a record too high, this record would be... well, classified. And nobody else would know about it.
First of all you have to consider there are basically 2 kinds of corrective eye surgery:
LASIK - that opens a flap of your cornea, zaps the cornea with the laser, and puts the flap back. Vision comes back instantly.
PRK - no flap needed, thus avoiding all problems related to it. The epithelium is removed, the cornea zapped, and a special protective contact lense is used for a couple days till epitheliums grows back again. Vision will not be 100% for about 2-3 weeks so it's done one eye each time.
PRK was the surgery of choice, but people got too much haze after surgery, and nobody knew why. LASIK was invented, and became a marketing dream. Fast recovery, no pain. It altered the structure of the cornea and some people when blind, cut the cornea nerves, eyes got dry, but so what ? Eye surgeons could earn thousands in a cirurgy that takes less than a minute, and could market it as being as simple as a hair cut. Easy to sell. Profit outweighs the risks. Then recently they found out how to avoid haze in PRK (it seems that avoiding UV and taking vitamin C does the trick). So PRK is much safer than LASIK, but takes longer to recover.
Of course technology does import. I wouldn't take anything without wavefront with top-notch equipment. IANAD, but from what I saw the best equipments are the Visx S4 and the Ladarvision.
One reason I use the windows maximized is that I seldom have to manually take data from one window to another. Cut and paste solve it at most times.
In the rare occasions when I have to do it, I do use half size windows, and put them side-by-side, yes. But I think doing this as a common practice is just plain inneficient, as I'll be dedicating space on the screen on a program I cannot interact, as it isn't focused. But then again, this is my opinion. Each one has his own way of using the desktop.
At the very moment that I'm typing this I have 12 programs on my taskbar. (ssh, e-mail, Nero, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Low levels of ionizing radiation seems to be actually beneficial to human health.
= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1150419 7&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
4 00222.html
7 0-0C1C-1F41-B0B980A841890000&catID=4
. html
T heory-Toxins27feb04.htm
This is called radiation hormesis. And this theory started after they found that people who lived in such a distance from hiroshima and Nagasaki that they received low radiation doses. And, years later, this population, exposed to radiation, had much lower cancer rates than non-exposed similar populations.
You can check some references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n1s/full/7
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00019A
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2004/Hormesis-
Be careful, chief. Lets type in the cone of silence.
Sith happens.
OH, and by the way, the graph you think is a joke is actually quote similar to that one that can be found in NASA, wich, in my opinion, is not an obscure site.
e /
e /core2.gif
Here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/methan
Or, if you just want the graph:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/methan
Do you really think NASA's joking ?
Ok, so maybe you'll update from the site of the US Department of Energy, wich I don't think is a random and obscure site.
o n/Core%20R&D/nonco2.html
here: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/Carbon%20Sequestrati
I don't know if you read my other postings, but I hope you read this.
Would you mind putting correct data in your table ?
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/l8.html
and
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
How can you say that the man-made methane is 0.066% of the present methane concentration if it raised from 700 to 1730 ppt ?
Or that man-made CO2 is 0.117%, when the CO2 concentration is presently 375 ppm against the 280 ppm that were in the pre-industrial times ?
Sorry, the data in your page is utterly wrong.
After reading that site, I have 3 serious questions. This is no joke, I just want to understand the way you think about science.
What shape do you believe Eart is ? Flat or round ?
Do you believe in Darwinism ?
Do you think the man has ever gone to the moon or was that a fake ?
Gee, what a terrible bad-science site.
How about this ?o nID=57&ItemID=7205
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti
True. And there are powerful lobbies that try to change the scientific reports.
For example, Dr Robert Watson was the previous chairman of the IPCC, and he was calling for urgent action [against greenhouse gases]. Exxon didn't like him, so it complained to the Whitehouse he was "too aggressive" on the issue.
The Bush administration then lobbied other countries in favor of Dr Pachauri, actual chairman of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri was more aligned to Exxon, and came to be the chairman due to them and the Whitehouse lobby. So he definitely wasn't an anti-global warming freak.
He reviewed all scientific data and now he says that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive".
He also told delegates: "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose."
You can check it here
Paticulate pollutants and nitrates responsible for global dimming are primarily produced by fossil fuel burning.
As a consequence of this treaty they'll damper CO2 emition. The way they'll do it is by reducing the burning of fossil fuel.
I believe the impact of such treaty is minimal. But it will do have an impact. I never saw anyone saying this, but I strongly believe this treaty actually WORSEN the global warming effect in the first decades, due to the reduction of the global dimming effect. It's easy to expect this once you realize that, in the 3 days following sept.11th the temperature ranges spiked, and that was the most abrupt change of such measurement ever recorded.
BTW, it's interesting to note that global warming does not mean that all the globe will be warmer. Just the average world tempeature. Some regions will be much colder than they were before, due, for example, to a change/reduction on the gulf stream.
So you'd better mod me up or else I'll take these evidences to the police.
Here you can find a nice and friendly video that fully explains these problems.
Sorry, link for parent post is here
Actually in order for the HIV infect a cell, it must bind to some receptors present in the cell membrane.
Among those receptors are CD-4 and CCR-5.
You can read more about it here.
And if you thought only us computer geeks could speak unintelligible lingo, here is a proof you were wrong:
CD4 is a 55kd cell surface molecule found on a subset of T lymphocytes utilizing MHC class II antigens as a restriction element for antigen recognition.The mature CD4 protein consists of consists of a 372 amino acid extracellular segment composed of four tandem immunoglobulin-like VJ regions, a 23 amino acid transmembrane domain, and a 33 amino acid cytoplasmic segment. The cDNA sequence is composed 1742 base pairs and 450 amino acids are present in the mature protein. The CD4 locus maps to 12p12-pter and contains 10 exons. CD stands for "cluster of differentiation" and and CD4 is the official destination for the T cell antigen T4/leu3.
So you mean the person would sue himself ? Because if someone classified a record too high, this record would be... well, classified. And nobody else would know about it.
It'll leave your backdoor wide open.
Think of the children !
They are trying to compensate this by releasing Long Horn.
First of all you have to consider there are basically 2 kinds of corrective eye surgery:
. cgi t m
LASIK - that opens a flap of your cornea, zaps the cornea with the laser, and puts the flap back. Vision comes back instantly.
PRK - no flap needed, thus avoiding all problems related to it. The epithelium is removed, the cornea zapped, and a special protective contact lense is used for a couple days till epitheliums grows back again. Vision will not be 100% for about 2-3 weeks so it's done one eye each time.
PRK was the surgery of choice, but people got too much haze after surgery, and nobody knew why. LASIK was invented, and became a marketing dream. Fast recovery, no pain. It altered the structure of the cornea and some people when blind, cut the cornea nerves, eyes got dry, but so what ? Eye surgeons could earn thousands in a cirurgy that takes less than a minute, and could market it as being as simple as a hair cut. Easy to sell. Profit outweighs the risks.
Then recently they found out how to avoid haze in PRK (it seems that avoiding UV and taking vitamin C does the trick). So PRK is much safer than LASIK, but takes longer to recover.
Of course technology does import. I wouldn't take anything without wavefront with top-notch equipment. IANAD, but from what I saw the best equipments are the Visx S4 and the Ladarvision.
I suggest you read
http://www.asklasikdocs.com/cgi-local/forum/board
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/prk.h
BTW, I am scheduled to have PRK in 2 weeks, in a Visx 4 + wavefront.
If they play Counter-strike it'll suck... ... because the only ones that will play it in a video-game camp are campers.
You mean you do use Photoshop not maximized ?
[jaws dropping]
One reason I use the windows maximized is that I seldom have to manually take data from one window to another. Cut and paste solve it at most times.
In the rare occasions when I have to do it, I do use half size windows, and put them side-by-side, yes. But I think doing this as a common practice is just plain inneficient, as I'll be dedicating space on the screen on a program I cannot interact, as it isn't focused. But then again, this is my opinion. Each one has his own way of using the desktop.
At the very moment that I'm typing this I have 12 programs on my taskbar. (ssh, e-mail, Nero, etc).
At home I have 1600x1200 and I almost always have my browser full screen. In almost all sites, this means more text available and less scrolling.
A little radiation is not really a hazard. In fact, some radiation is benefical. You may not be familiar with hormesis.
I suggest you read this:
this
and this
and this.