71–75 of 75 posts
That is why they call America the Land of Opportunity. If you work hard enough, you dreams will come true here.
Yeah but this girl got two lucky breaks , She found an old lady willing to give her 30,000 dollars to go to Harvard , and there she ended up meeting Linus Pauling .
A shiny example of a country filled with incompetent people, including the ones who frequent HN. How can a journalist be such a fool to publish something as ridiculous as this? A simple Google search can confirm that she is fake. With this article behind her back, don't be surprised if she ends up on a '50 under 50' list within a year.
Advertorial content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having your skin burned by sun rays (with a certain frequency) is worse than using sunscreen. And it is certainly not only 'mild cancer' Constantly damaging a tissue (mechanical, chemical, radioactive damage) is a trigger for cancer Not to mention the Ozone layer hole (in the southern hemisphere)
And yet, athletes who constantly subject their body to mechanical damage, have a much lower incidence of cancer than the general population. Yes, there are a lot of confounding factors and it is hard to tell what causes what. But there is also a lot of evidence for hormesis - the idea that small amounts of bad stuff is good for you; a small amounts of alcohol daily is better than no alcohol at all, and better than ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, athletes who constantly subject their body to mechanical damage, have a much lower incidence of cancer than the general population. Yes, there are a lot of confounding factors and it is hard to tell what causes what. But there is also a lot of evidence for hormesis - the idea that small amounts of bad stuff is good for you; a small amounts of alcohol daily is better than no alcohol at all, and better than ex…
Even in the same age range? I imagine most athletes are in ages 16-35, where getting cancer is pretty rare (save for some inherited ones) and should be equal for all occupations and lifestyles.
Statistics is confusing though.
It's possible that people who are less likely to get cancer (for whatever reason) are more likely to be better at sports, thus more likely to be pro athletes; and with the right base rates, it might mean that pro athletes are more likely to not get cancer BECAUSE people who are less likely to get cancer are often athletes. No study that I'm aware of ever tried that angle, and I'm not sure anyone ever collected the right data to try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between stopping progress forever and expecting companies to perform some kind of human safety tests before bringing products to market.
Do you have proof (or reasonable doubts) that the person described in an article doesn't?