Various web links I found to be of interest recently:
Today's myth is that the flu vaccine is being pushed because of money--that the flu vaccine somehow fills the coffers of the pharmaceutical industry.
Researchers suggest that pro-oxidants may help to prevent metastasis of cancer.
While antioxidants may be good for healthy people, researchers found they promote cancer growth in a study with mice.
The study, researchers said, echoes some other study results showing cancer patients' tumors actually grew while being treated with antioxidants.
But scientists occasionally "go rogue," forsaking the scientific
method -- often for notoriety or economic gain -- to produce
propaganda and to sow fear in a public that lacks expertise but
is hungry for information. This abuse of scientific authority is
especially widespread in the "organic" and "natural" food
industries, which capitalize on people's fear of synthetic or
"unnatural" products.
...
But the problems with Ayyadurai's paper are legion. Its title
alone is enough to show that something is amiss. If you think that
GMOs might "accumulate formaldehyde" -- a chemical that is
probably carcinogenic at high levels but is present in most living
cells and found widely in our environment -- the obvious response
would be to measure its levels in the organisms. Ayyadurai, however,
chose to make guesses based on modeling via "systems biology."
Clinton's skill as a bureaucratic infighter makes her the right pick for an era of political gridlock. As president, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would have to use executive power, stacking the courts, empowering Cabinet officials, shaping regulatory boards.
That's not to say their rhetoric isn't important. That Sanders believes in a "political revolution" against money in politics tells you about his priorities as president. And Clinton's legislative incrementalism gives you a good signpost to how she'll work with Congress. But, the truth is that--in terms of writing new laws--both agendas are inert. They aren't passing Congress. Indeed, if Democrats hold the White House, they'll hold an inverse presidency of sorts. Like a second-term president, Clinton or Sanders will have to focus on executive power. To have legislative traction, she or he would have to wait for broader shifts to the electorate, as well as redistricting in 2020. It's only then that the big plans are plausible.
24 Sponsored Bills (Ranks 44 of 98) 0 Made Into Law (Ranks 21 of 98)
138 Co-Sponsored Bills (Ranks 54 of 100) 0 Made Into Law (Ranks 73 of 100)
The states that have the highest levels of inequality, or the fastest growth in equality, have also tended to see the most political polarization, the paper says.
As government agencies and tech companies develop more and more intrusive means of watching and influencing people, how can we live free lives?
From jeans to dating partners and TV subscriptions to schools, we think the more choices we have the better. But too many options create anxiety and leave us less satisfied. Could one answer lie in a return to the state monopolies of old?
Increased choice, then, can make us miserable because of regret,
self-blame and opportunity costs. Worse, increased choice has
created a new problem: the escalation in expectations.
...
Schwartz's suggestion is that, at a certain point, choice shifts
from having a positive relationship with happiness to an inverse one.
So, what's the answer? "The secret to happiness is low expectations,"
he says, sensibly.
Once you exclude paper products and metals, the total annual savings in the United States from recycling everything else in municipal trash -- plastics, glass, food, yard trimmings, textiles, rubber, leather -- is only two-tenths of 1 percent of America's carbon footprint.
As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining. That's why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable.
Can you get smarter by exercising -- or altering -- your brain?
In the end, you can't yet exceed your innate intelligence. But that seems less important than the fact that there is much that you can do to reach your cognitive potential and to keep it. Forget the smart drugs and supplements; put on your shorts and go exercise. If you're 60 and up, consider brain training. And do it all with your friends.
New research published Aug. 26 in the journal Neurology studied 239 people drawn from several other larger study populations and found that those with the onset of significant dementia, no matter what its cause, forget that they are forgetting things. They gradually drift into a state in which they are unaware of the problem.