Conclusion: We believe we have summarised the available evidence for the efficacious use of garlic as a protective measure against vampires and conclude that both the science and historical evidence support the use of garlic as a public health intervention.
And here I always thought they just didn't like bad breath. Wait a sec, didn't the sparkly ones like garlic? Had a daughter heavily into those for a while. She mentioned vampire that sparkle in daylight, and I tried to ignore that series.
I'm disappointed in the appeal to authority and ad hominem in situ of addressing the content. That speaks more to the zealous side of the scientific community than what it is supposed to be, which is self-critical. I agree the article itself is not proof of bad science. An article cannot be proof of anything but its own existence: content published. And it is absolutely something people need to individually investigate for themselves, scientifically minded or not. The randomized controlled studies at the time did NOT reinforce Keys' hypothesis (and today there are plenty of proper studies that refute it). In the heavyweight, the Seven Countries Study, Keys didn't even find a link between smoking or drinking and cardiovascular health—that's a glaring miss, and really speaks to how conflated the data was. Proper science is supported by peer-review. Proper science makes use of randomized controls. Epidemiological studies are fine, but the people publishing them need to take their acute flaws into account. Keys didn't: he had a bulls-eye on cholesterol and little else. I don't know how many times I have to say it, so I'll just keep saying with different words: any discipline is only as good as its actors and the oversight of its regulatory body(s). It's a human system, and all human systems are subject to human flaws. A religious view of a human system is not a good idea, in fact, it's a horrible idea. I'm not even aiming at conspiratorial claims such as bribery, or financially-driven bias—every kind of driven bias will occur, every kind of error and flaw will be present at one point or another, and your anecdotal experience with some scientists has little bearing on that. Integrity and competency is interpersonally maintained, it is dependent upon persons. Individuals. It's subject to zeitgeists, because people are subject to zeitgeists. I say this with a profound respect for the discipline. My respect for people, of course, depends on the person.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-s-mightiest-rocket-lifts-off-50-years-after-apollo/ar-AA14a7ki?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a89949013ef046459509499f89f4fec1 Well, looks like we're finally getting ready to return to the Moon again.
I'm disappointed in the appeal to authority and ad hominem in situ of addressing the content. Goodness, I did touch you off, didn't I? But look what a fancy sentence you got to write in response. Yes, I agree that integrity and competancy depend upon individuals, and that respect for people depends on the person. In my "annecdotal experience" working with hundreds of (not just some) scientists over fifty years, I've found more of those people to be concerned and ethical than not. That is a simple observation of people I've worked with and known, and wasn't meant to form any sort of scientific conclusion. I wasn't defending Keys, by the way, and I don't trust Tiecholz, either. The self-interests of each makes their contentions suspect.
NASA; a bottomless pit of tax money. 24 BILLION dollars, this year alone. If the government had spent the money that NASA has farted off since it's inception on the infrastructure of this country we might not be seeing the problems that now exist in mental health facilities, homelessness, veteran treatment, and a failing educational system. Sorry about the rant.
You don't like NASA, and think they are a waste of money, got it. Have you taken, even a moment to consider how much technology, they had to invent for the program? Or how much of it has made it's way to the public? Someting to consider. Rants aren't very welcome here. And i would suggest you try a reasoned argument, preferably with some type of data, to make your point and create a discussion that could spark an idea in someone, this is a writing board after all.
Mushroom skins could be the secret to recyclable electronics Plastic boards used in electronic devices and batteries are near-impossible to recycle, so researchers devised a sustainable alternative made from biodegradable mushroom skin. The world generates over 140,000 tons of electronic waste every single day. This waste is complex, made of many different materials, making it very hard to separate and recycle. Researchers have turned to the humble fungus for help. In a new Science Advances study, they show how processed mushroom skin could be a biodegradable substrate for computer chips, taking us one step closer to recyclable electronics.
Are we sure this wasn't grad students looking for an excuse to check the cow patties for the more recreational types of mushrooms?
Much cheaper than other biodegradable alternatives, like paper and silk. From the article: Mushrooms, meanwhile, cultivate easily on waste wood, and the skin grows naturally and does not need much processing, he adds. “Our fungus-based materials do have the potential to be scaled at low costs to the needs of the everyday electronics industry, while being less resource and energy intensive than other approaches.”
And like most other "green products" will likely be pushed to market before being economically viable. Like wind turbines, which wnid up with a negative ROI, after installation costs, transport costs, and working life. Not to mention the environmental impact on birds.
The public transportation system in the Netherlands runs entirely on wind power. Green energy is the future. Green energy for train, bus and station In 2017, our trains in the Netherlands became the first in the world to run for 100% on wind energy
And from a guy who purchases millions of dollars a food a year: you have to grow a lot of mushrooms to accumulate any sort of volume in mushroom product. And if you are only using the skins, you're probably only utilizing 5% or less of that total mass. So you will need a lot of land (which isn't free), a lot of people to cultivate and harvest the mushrooms (who don't work for free), and a lot of machinery to separate the skins from the body (which aren't free), a lot of energy to run the machines (not free), a place to store and maintain the machines (not free), a method to pack, store, and ship the skins before they degrade.... Whenever anyone says "potential," they're really saying they can't make it work without spending more money than the end result could justify. If only we could grow a million mushrooms without land, labor, machinery, energy, and infrastructure, we'd be all set!
Mushrooms are already being used to make sustainable leather and packaging materials. These are not the type of mushrooms we eat, but Ganoderma lucidium, which grows a compact protective skin around the wood shavings they grow on. Large sheets of this material, which resembles sheets of paper, can be peeled off and dried. From the article: Drying the sheets gave a strong, flexible and current- and heat-resistant material that was perfect for a circuit substrate. The material could be bent more than 2,000 times and folded over multiple times without losing its electrical resistance.
We already do. They are called government employees. Like mushrooms, they are fed a lot of sh$t and kept in the dark.
