Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#51

Post by epalmer »

wil421 wrote: post #47
epalmer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't worry too much. Just try to pay attention to what researchers are saying and controlling what I can with my lifestyle. I work still and will continue to work till at least 67. I'm a developer and development manager so I get to challenge my brain routinely at work. I consume nuts, lots of and a variety of tea, a little chocolate and some red wine to help with polyphenols [1]. Oh and Omega 3 fatty acid sources…

As a 30 year old I think of the same. I'm trying to not spend the next 30 years being sedentary in a office. I'm trying to pick of all kinds of outdoor hobbies I can do year around.

I've been sedentary most of my life. That has turned out to be not so good for my health. I do go workout now about 5 times a week. Been doing that for 3+ years.

I think your strategy of finding outside hobbies can be a real benefit.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#52

Post by Retric »

lostlogin wrote: post #49
Retric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end there are huge range of causes that all impact these statistics. For example, the rise of video games which may be a stronger explanation. One way to test this is if their are dips in violence around the release of GTA or other ultra popular games. With the method of action simply being fewer human interactions. That said, the indirect evidence is even low levels of environmental lead contamination are sig…

The correlation matches the phasing out dates in various places. The dates lead were discontinued weren't the same everywhere. Edit: how would games explain the geographic distribution? Areas with heavy lead contamination seem to have more of the effects, although no mention is made of game console/computer prevalence in any of the lead articles.

ED: This is in terms of the New York City drop in violence around 1993.

The data is just not as clear as your suggesting. After controlling for various things there is a percentage of the variation that links back to lead levels, but that does not mean it's the only or even the strongest impact in the raw data. Further, lead usage is linked to other things and as such is not completely independent.

PS: Remember, people move so lifetime exposure get's really hard to track accurately without regular blood tests.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#53

Post by godDLL »

philfrasty wrote: post #25

I was wondering lately why noise-cancelling technology is not used inside residential-buildings? Is there such a big difference between making this technology work inside my Bose-headphones vs an apartment? Street-noise seems pretty predictable and steady from afar. edit: bad bad grammar

You build the wall, you put in insulation, sand, water, glue and stick ceramic tiles on it. That could be a sound-insulating step two, but, you know. Has to be built that way.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#54

Post by lostlogin »

Retric wrote: post #52
lostlogin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlation matches the phasing out dates in various places. The dates lead were discontinued weren't the same everywhere. Edit: how would games explain the geographic distribution? Areas with heavy lead contamination seem to have more of the effects, although no mention is made of game console/computer prevalence in any of the lead articles.

ED: This is in terms of the New York City drop in violence around 1993. The data is just not as clear as your suggesting. After controlling for various things there is a percentage of the variation that links back to lead levels, but that does not mean it's the only or even the strongest impact in the raw data. Further, lead usage is linked to other things and as such is not completely independent. PS: Remember, peop…

I'm struggling to find the other article that covers a broader geographic area, it was posted here last year. This one is a ok http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#55

Post by pasbesoin »

Reason077 wrote: post #36
amai wrote: post #27

It is not pollution, it is the noise and the low quality of sleep that causes dementia. Good sleep quality is important so the glymphatic system that cleans the brain of garbage while sleeping can work well. See this recent article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nedergaard-how-th...

It is not pollution PM2.5 particles from vehicle emissions are small enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and have been shown to end up in brain tissue. Even if it isn't a direct cause of dementia, air pollution contributes to cardiovascular diseases which are themselves risk factors for dementia.

I'll add my speculative observation to the mix: Pollution aggravates my allergies, and when I'm having an allergic reaction, I have poorer sleep.

I suspect this result may be reflective of multiple factors that remain to be associated, qualified, and quantified with respect to this overall correlation.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#56

Post by reddytowns »

dpark wrote: post #44
reddytowns wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what proof is there that their adjustments covered every possible cause? I would suggest this is by definition impossible, since if we knew every possible cause for dementia, we would not need to do the study.

They obviously didn't cover every possible cause nor should they be expected to. With that logic no one could ever do an empirical study.

True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions.

Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#57

Post by dpark »

reddytowns wrote: post #56
dpark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously didn't cover every possible cause nor should they be expected to. With that logic no one could ever do an empirical study.

True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions. Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.

Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status and because they answered that you now call it a random cofactor. Come on. You're not giving meaningful criticism. You're just being negative.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#58

Post by tunap »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #33
tunap wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My initial thought follows this line. Even if a subject doesn't experience actual sleep deprivation, the constant external stimuli are still omni-present, regardless of how well the conscious mind tunes them out. Perhaps sub+consciously parts of the brain never get any rest, even while sleeping? I know I feel less refreshed if I fall asleep and media or traffic outside is constant. A hotel room facing a freeway often…

Yeah, it can disturb your all-important REM sleep without causing you to fully awaken, so you're not aware that your sleep has been disturbed. You're just not as refreshed by morning. Interesting about the fan blower. My wife started using that to prevent our young kids from being awakened by normal household noise. It reminded me of something I'd read years ago about people who worked in server rooms losing hearing…

Get them a little fish tank! The humming pumps and trickling water for most of my adolescence didn't make me too demented. Probably.

Re: Dementia rates 'higher near busy roads'

#59

Post by reddytowns »

dpark wrote: post #57
reddytowns wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions. Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.

Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status and because they answered that you now call it a random cofactor. Come on. You're not giving meaningful criticism. You're just being negative.

> Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status

I never said that. Maybe you are attributing the original poster's statements to me?

Quite the contrary, my concern is the knee jerk conclusions people draw from these studies, and the perceived value of these studies by society.

How many of studies like these actually end up advancing science in a meaningful way? If down the road, this study led to the understanding of some mechanism that causes dementia, that could then be used to develop a treatment, I'd be all for it.

But mostly, crap like this seems to be just crap. I'm not saying it's not valuable at all, but the importance is vastly overstated. Rather than working on hard problems, researchers do this because it's easy and it gets them publicity.

The public then just eats it up, including on HN, without critical thinking. It just is so masturbatory and delusional for us as a society to waste time with this shit.

Post reply on HN