Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Random stuff worth reading on the internet thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jeff Lebowski
    replied
    Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    The discovery of 16 million tons of mud containing rare earth elements (enough to last the world for several centuries, apparently) seems like a pretty big deal but hasn't been mentioned much in the news. China controls nearly all of the rare earth elements (used in a variety of high tech devices), so what might have been a potentially harmful monopoly against the U.S. is no more. I just want to celebrate (really, and no, I didn't post this for the sake of that last quip).
    Wow. That is very cool.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaloAltoCougar
    replied
    The discovery of 16 million tons of mud containing rare earth elements (enough to last the world for several centuries, apparently) seems like a pretty big deal but hasn't been mentioned much in the news. China controls nearly all of the rare earth elements (used in a variety of high tech devices), so what might have been a potentially harmful monopoly against the U.S. is no more. I just want to celebrate (really, and no, I didn't post this for the sake of that last quip).

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight Schr-ute
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    Don't mess with tea. The tannins will turn your stomach to leather. I learned from one of my mission companions that they found some bones of a british soldier in the Sahara Desert. There was this curious leather pouch that had also survived with the bones. When they took it back to England, it was identified as the soldier's stomach, WHICH HAD BEEN TURNED TO LEATHER BY THE TANNINS FOUND IN ENGLISH TEA!
    Oh man. That story about the British soldier never made it’s way to Southern California. I could have persuaded so many more people to live the Word of Wisdom.

    Although, after being convinced by a companion that the best way to neutralize and dispose of marijuana was to cook it on the stove in a pan with Bacardi, maybe any more successful 4th discussions would have just resulted in my incarceration.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Diddley
    replied
    Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    Amateur. 3-4 cups a day here.
    Don't mess with tea. The tannins will turn your stomach to leather. I learned from one of my mission companions that they found some bones of a british soldier in the Sahara Desert. There was this curious leather pouch that had also survived with the bones. When they took it back to England, it was identified as the soldier's stomach, WHICH HAD BEEN TURNED TO LEATHER BY THE TANNINS FOUND IN ENGLISH TEA!

    Leave a comment:


  • MartyFunkhouser
    replied
    Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I'm not well-versed in how low and in which types the cancer risk is in Utah. But since Utah most likely has a disproportionally lower cohort of heavy smokers and drinkers, you should clearly see decreased lung, bladder, liver, esophageal, and head and neck cancers. There's no shipbuilding yards in Utah that I know of, so you're likely missing out on some mesotheliomas...

    I've heard the link between decreased prostate cancer and coffee consumption, but I don't know how strong that is. The study that I saw found the association with 3 or more cups of coffee a day. I may be setting myself up for prostate cancer, as I only drink 2/day
    Amateur. 3-4 cups a day here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    What do you think causes the very low cancer rates in Utah? Other than smoking?

    Has the coffee = low prostate cancer thing been debunked?
    I'm not well-versed in how low and in which types the cancer risk is in Utah. But since Utah most likely has a disproportionally lower cohort of heavy smokers and drinkers, you should clearly see decreased lung, bladder, liver, esophageal, and head and neck cancers. There's no shipbuilding yards in Utah that I know of, so you're likely missing out on some mesotheliomas...

    I've heard the link between decreased prostate cancer and coffee consumption, but I don't know how strong that is. The study that I saw found the association with 3 or more cups of coffee a day. I may be setting myself up for prostate cancer, as I only drink 2/day

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Lebowski
    replied
    Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Yikes, that is long. I only skimmed it.

    So yes, there is consistent epidemiologic data linking increased drinking with breast cancer. But there is only a modest (1.5 X) risk in women who are heavy drinkers (~3 drinks/day). Common things being common (as breast cancer and drinking are), it is easy to power a study sufficiently to see an association. But even in well-controlled groups with a ton of data, epidemiologic studies should always be interpreted with caution. Just ask an internist who has tried to follow the recommendations of post-menopausal estrogen supplementation during the last 2 decades.

    It is interesting she quoted the breast cancer risk in Utah and linked it to alcohol consumption. Again, a large grain of salt is needed here. Anyone old enough to remember the fanfare following the study linking coffee consumption with pancreatic cancer in Mormon circles? It was quickly debunked.

    The author was young and got breast cancer. She didn't have any of the typical risk factors for early breast cancer, so she pinned the culprit on alcohol. I'm not saying that didn't cause her cancer, but for most non-inherited breast cancer patients, it's just bad luck.
    What do you think causes the very low cancer rates in Utah? Other than smoking?

    Has the coffee = low prostate cancer thing been debunked?

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Originally posted by Surfah View Post
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...breast-cancer/

    Read it before someone quotes it in church.
    Yikes, that is long. I only skimmed it.

    So yes, there is consistent epidemiologic data linking increased drinking with breast cancer. But there is only a modest (1.5 X) risk in women who are heavy drinkers (~3 drinks/day). Common things being common (as breast cancer and drinking are), it is easy to power a study sufficiently to see an association. But even in well-controlled groups with a ton of data, epidemiologic studies should always be interpreted with caution. Just ask an internist who has tried to follow the recommendations of post-menopausal estrogen supplementation during the last 2 decades.

    It is interesting she quoted the breast cancer risk in Utah and linked it to alcohol consumption. Again, a large grain of salt is needed here. Anyone old enough to remember the fanfare following the study linking coffee consumption with pancreatic cancer in Mormon circles? It was quickly debunked.

    The author was young and got breast cancer. She didn't have any of the typical risk factors for early breast cancer, so she pinned the culprit on alcohol. I'm not saying that didn't cause her cancer, but for most non-inherited breast cancer patients, it's just bad luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surfah
    replied
    Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
    That was interesting. Highlight for me is simply that science and politics are so intertwined in current day America that it is all suspect. Even being an expert in the field does not seem to be sufficient to inoculate against biased studies. It extrapolates easily to any hot topic, economic policy, climate, gun control, etc. Who do you trust if you aren't allowed a view into the motivations behind research?

    Right? I learned a lot from that article and came away with that same takeaway. Lobbyists run the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • swampfrog
    replied
    Originally posted by Surfah View Post
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...breast-cancer/

    Read it before someone quotes it in church.
    That was interesting. Highlight for me is simply that science and politics are so intertwined in current day America that it is all suspect. Even being an expert in the field does not seem to be sufficient to inoculate against biased studies. It extrapolates easily to any hot topic, economic policy, climate, gun control, etc. Who do you trust if you aren't allowed a view into the motivations behind research?

    Leave a comment:


  • Surfah
    replied
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...breast-cancer/

    Read it before someone quotes it in church.

    Leave a comment:


  • hostile
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian View Post
    And now the great ed hochuli is retiring from reffing.
    He had a great run. He will be sorely missed.
    But still accepting Christmas gifts...

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    And now the great ed hochuli is retiring from reffing.
    He had a great run. He will be sorely missed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surfah
    replied
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/0....html?referer=

    Devastating story about mental illness and homelessness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott R Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Pelado View Post
    The White Darkness

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...white-darkness


    Why do we need to know that this was... Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk ???
    Thanks for that link. One year ago today I was on a cruise ship that left Cape Horn in the morning and was headed for Antarctica for four days. We learned about Shackleton and many of the other early explorers as well as modern day scientists. Hiking 1000 miles across Antarctica is something very serious. I'm not too far into this article yet, but I intend to read the whole thing.

    Thanks for sharing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X