191–200 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
genetics doesn't have to observe anything for millions of years to observe to results of evolution.
You are downvoted, but I believe science is on your side. Just one recent article on the "Island rule": http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1857/2017...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudso...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like living in a Third World country.
It is. People who have to resort to drinking bottled water because the tap water is unsafe do live in a third world country. Draw whatever conclusion from that that you like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do to test and validate the quality of the delivered bottled water? My understanding – and it's a shallow understanding – was that bottled water was less regulated and monitored than tap water. Is there a source you can use to get the testing done on the bottled water you're having delivered?
The vendor I use is Zephyrhills. They have a report online. https://www.nestle-watersna.com/asset-library/Documents/ZH_B...
My belief is that the primary cause is environmental chemicals, specifically Phthalates and BPA (and related chemicals). The science on this is fairly conclusive. We can show that these chemicals bind to estrogen receptors, that they're present in everyone's body, and that if you're acutely exposed to a higher dose, your testosterone goes down. In my opinion, these chemicals are having social and cultural effects bey…
The linkage between consumption of these chemicals, and their exact nature of harm, is not well established- it's not "fairly conclusive" at all. What we have is a bunch of in vitro and in vivo studies, but not actual epidemiological evidence of the quality required to make rational policy decisions. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy to ready any high quality studies you can find. Pleaes don't just cherry pick a fe…
the history of flame retardants is instructive https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2013/11/21/its-official-toxic-f... if industry/government had been required to prove these things safe beforehand we would have never exposed the population them in the first place.
Are cell phones in our pockets to blame? The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601711 More info here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27076112 Also here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26949865 And here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26206279 Here too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24982785 More fuel for the fire: https:…
Given that this decline apparently started in 1973, I'd say they're probably not the deciding factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That link directly refutes your example... "Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (12–14). (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia an…
That is for cancer which is much less sensitive to EM field exposure. You said no effect. I picked the most well researched way to counter that. High field might be cancer risk (by the way comparing to general population could produce a wash if the background level increased), much less for sperm counts.
What's up next? Which "high field" shall it be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> North America has low population density relative to most of the world. Well the quotient N(north america) / A(north america) is low, but this value does not have to match the average or median population density in areas around samples. In other words, yes, America is a big country, but it's big cities are just as densely populated as big cities anywhere else.
Well the quotient N(north america) / A(north america) is low, It's infuriating that you choose to reply like this without accounting for both paragraphs of my comment. I mean, I'll just let it go, but c'mon. I would say that US cities tend to be less dense and that Americans don't tend to live in urban centers as much as people in other countries.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/World_po... (1994)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linkage between consumption of these chemicals, and their exact nature of harm, is not well established- it's not "fairly conclusive" at all. What we have is a bunch of in vitro and in vivo studies, but not actual epidemiological evidence of the quality required to make rational policy decisions. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy to ready any high quality studies you can find. Pleaes don't just cherry pick a fe…
The burden of proof should obviously be reversed! Complex, synthetic chemicals in our water, food, packaging, or furniture should be assumed harmful and disallowed until it there is sufficient evidence that they are safe. Escalating trials basically. This is what we do for pharmaceutical drugs that we ingest or contact, why don't take this approach with other man-made chemicals we are adding to our immediate ecosyste…
