Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Can your pillow make you go blind?
That title is not a joke, although it's certainly anecdotal, not the result of any scientific study. Still, if you liked the story of the guy who decided to get infected by African hookworms to treat his asthma, you might like this medical oddity story as well.
"Neck Support" pillows didn't exist when I was young, and they may not be a good idea, entirely, or for everyone - they may affect your carotid arteries, perhaps enough to affect the blood supply to your brain! Yikes.
Other sites of note:
http://www.podzinger.com/
It gives as text those podcasts you don't want to listen to. Of course, if you're
in the dark a lot because photoperiodeffect.com has convinced you to try a more natural night, you'll probably want the audio.
Also http://www.worldcat.org/ which is in beta but allows you to search for book information through book catalogs around the world.
"Neck Support" pillows didn't exist when I was young, and they may not be a good idea, entirely, or for everyone - they may affect your carotid arteries, perhaps enough to affect the blood supply to your brain! Yikes.
Other sites of note:
http://www.podzinger.com/
It gives as text those podcasts you don't want to listen to. Of course, if you're
in the dark a lot because photoperiodeffect.com has convinced you to try a more natural night, you'll probably want the audio.
Also http://www.worldcat.org/ which is in beta but allows you to search for book information through book catalogs around the world.
Friday, August 25, 2006
The Photoperiod Effect - website
I've finally started to put up a health website that has been in the works for well more than a year: photoperiodeffect.com
It's a surprising thesis about what lies behind the modern epidemics of obesity, asthma, heart disease, diabetes and chronic illnesses affecting industrialized (and now industrializing) countries. Maybe the answer is nearly as simple as turning off the light switch. I didn't believe it possible, either, until I'd really dug into the evidence. This is no longer an answer we can dismiss. This understanding has made a real difference to my health over the last year and some.
The site is going to be crude and under construction for a while, i expect, but continually expanding: so please do bear with me - even so, I expect it will that there will be the equivalent of more than 60 (printed) pages up within a few weeks, as I edit and upload what I've already written. It will take longer to put in all the citations from notes on thousands of studies and address individual chronic illnesses such as hypertension or Alzheimer's, but that will happen.
It's a surprising thesis about what lies behind the modern epidemics of obesity, asthma, heart disease, diabetes and chronic illnesses affecting industrialized (and now industrializing) countries. Maybe the answer is nearly as simple as turning off the light switch. I didn't believe it possible, either, until I'd really dug into the evidence. This is no longer an answer we can dismiss. This understanding has made a real difference to my health over the last year and some.
The site is going to be crude and under construction for a while, i expect, but continually expanding: so please do bear with me - even so, I expect it will that there will be the equivalent of more than 60 (printed) pages up within a few weeks, as I edit and upload what I've already written. It will take longer to put in all the citations from notes on thousands of studies and address individual chronic illnesses such as hypertension or Alzheimer's, but that will happen.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Unimaginable idiocy about terrorism
"The plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale."
- Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson
Are we really as blinkered as this? The terrorists intended to bring down 9 - 12 airliners, up from 4 on 9/11. Is three times the scale of attack "unimaginable"? Actually, the 9/11 plot was originally intended to be that large but was scaled back.
More than a thousand airliners at once might be unimaginable... although I'm not at all certain that's impossible; it's very unlikely (because it's hard to keep a secret with over 1,000 operatives, but not impossible - it wouldn't be beyond Al Queda's spending limits, necessarily, and they certainly have had more than a thousand active members at a time.)
Not to mention nuclear weapons and dirty bombs, which are becoming easier and more economical to build all the time. Red mercury, and all that.
If our imagination is really this shabby, we are going to be attacked successfully as soon as the bad guys think up a slightly new trick. As the New York Times points out, this was a recycled twelve-year old plan that was well known to authorities. Hardly "unimaginable".
The fundamental finding of the 9/11 commission was that there was a failure of imagination. Admittedly, this may have been a far too casual comment by Mr. Stephenson, but it seems that our imaginations are still dangerously inactive.
- Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson
Are we really as blinkered as this? The terrorists intended to bring down 9 - 12 airliners, up from 4 on 9/11. Is three times the scale of attack "unimaginable"? Actually, the 9/11 plot was originally intended to be that large but was scaled back.
More than a thousand airliners at once might be unimaginable... although I'm not at all certain that's impossible; it's very unlikely (because it's hard to keep a secret with over 1,000 operatives, but not impossible - it wouldn't be beyond Al Queda's spending limits, necessarily, and they certainly have had more than a thousand active members at a time.)
Not to mention nuclear weapons and dirty bombs, which are becoming easier and more economical to build all the time. Red mercury, and all that.
If our imagination is really this shabby, we are going to be attacked successfully as soon as the bad guys think up a slightly new trick. As the New York Times points out, this was a recycled twelve-year old plan that was well known to authorities. Hardly "unimaginable".
The fundamental finding of the 9/11 commission was that there was a failure of imagination. Admittedly, this may have been a far too casual comment by Mr. Stephenson, but it seems that our imaginations are still dangerously inactive.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Organ Glut
My comment on a Freakonomics article, I'll start with a short quote summarizing the difficulty:
http://www.freakonomics.com/times070906.html
Freakonomics
Flesh Trade
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Published: July 9, 2006
Weighing the Repugnance Factor
In the space of just a few decades, transplant surgery has become safe and reliable (to say nothing of miraculous). But success breeds demand: as more patients get new organs, more patients want them. In 2005, more than 16,000 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S., an increase of 45 percent over 10 years. But during that time, the number of people on a kidney waiting list rose by 119 percent. More than 3,500 people now die each year waiting for a kidney transplant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09wwln_freak.html?ex=1154664000&en=1d4e5c14bdffcc6f&ei=5070
Surely, nothing could be more ironic than a relatively well-off American dying for lack of a kidney transplant. Nature, thanks to it’s love of redundancy, has created a kidney glut, not a shortage – there are nearly twice as many kidneys as anybody really needs.
I think the repugnance has been overstated, it’s more a product of fear. The largest benefit anyone could obtain from giving an organ (with or without payment) would be a general guarantee that any donor (paid or no) instantly takes precedence over anyone else for an organ if they need one later; plus an insurance policy that yields more than enough money to pay someone else for an organ later.
It’s habit more than real irrationality that keeps the kidney glut going, while patients die. Money overcomes irrationality quickly, and even habit – but not reasonable fears. So very strong legally binding insurance (not bland assurance) has to be given of the organ provider.
http://www.freakonomics.com/times070906.html
Freakonomics
Flesh Trade
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Published: July 9, 2006
Weighing the Repugnance Factor
In the space of just a few decades, transplant surgery has become safe and reliable (to say nothing of miraculous). But success breeds demand: as more patients get new organs, more patients want them. In 2005, more than 16,000 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S., an increase of 45 percent over 10 years. But during that time, the number of people on a kidney waiting list rose by 119 percent. More than 3,500 people now die each year waiting for a kidney transplant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09wwln_freak.html?ex=1154664000&en=1d4e5c14bdffcc6f&ei=5070
Surely, nothing could be more ironic than a relatively well-off American dying for lack of a kidney transplant. Nature, thanks to it’s love of redundancy, has created a kidney glut, not a shortage – there are nearly twice as many kidneys as anybody really needs.
I think the repugnance has been overstated, it’s more a product of fear. The largest benefit anyone could obtain from giving an organ (with or without payment) would be a general guarantee that any donor (paid or no) instantly takes precedence over anyone else for an organ if they need one later; plus an insurance policy that yields more than enough money to pay someone else for an organ later.
It’s habit more than real irrationality that keeps the kidney glut going, while patients die. Money overcomes irrationality quickly, and even habit – but not reasonable fears. So very strong legally binding insurance (not bland assurance) has to be given of the organ provider.
