65-cubic-metres of sodium-hydroxide-solution.
65-cubic-metres isn't that much, to pour into an ocean, of some random stuff, but sodium-hydroxide??
that's corrosive-as-hell.
How could they deem that to be OK to the wildlife living in that water??
Fucking idiots: organisms can adapt to GRADUAL changes in their-envionmental-pH, NOT to sudden ones!
Bah.
_ /\ _
ya bring up an interesting point for sure
I'm not willing to buy A.I. research yet.
If scientists have to use a system like A.I. that we can't explain how it works then the scientific method is compromised by that, no ?
I want to see the natives’ news article as well from the other side.
What is interesting to consider, though, is that the correlation might be an unpleasant one we normally do not want to address.
This is happening in Japan where there is a National Health Insurance program in place. Obviously, there are people in the top percentages that are going to have even superior private insurance, but I imagine this is not so prominent if the system is similar to my own country where we even have wealthy politicians somewhat regularly get made fun of for using our NHI for their procedures.
Japan is also a famously functional society...
So you could conclude that everyone in this study has access to basically what amounts to equal healthcare, with the exceptions only being some elites you could count on one hand that might have vanity procedures available to them.
This becomes a measure of stuff like flossing, daily brushing, whehter one, two, or three times brushing a day, etc.
The correlation that might exist is that poorer people take worse care of their teeth, and as they are poorer, they also have worse diets, worse fitness, and a general ignorance of best practices, so they die earlier. Their poverty correlates with low intelligence, and low intelligence correlates with early death through a variety of choices they make.
This is "one glass of wine is good for you" study all over again.
Really good questions!
I hope they allowed for the idea that people who are more affluent have better dental hygiene. Cause / correlation sort of thing. Its a big study so probably yea.
If you knocked the teeth out of someone advantaged when they were 65 years old, would they live shorter because of it?
Or you found someone who was disadvantaged and gave them new teeth at 65 would they live longer.
"Thing that is the main cause for x is responsible for most of the problems caused by x" no shit Sherlock
The bumpy snailfish does look sexy, IMO, but it depends on where you stand with them big gals/guys.
Are any of them sexy?
I would emphasize, though, that the rate at which they were previously saying it was changing was alarmist and inaccurate.
Kind of like how they routinely would talk about islands going underwater. I remember in the mid 2000s believing that Maldives would likely go under water, something that the then leader of the country also believed... But it just has not happened, and a lot of the talk about the rate at which it is happening ends up encouraging extreme protest positions that do things which are not warranted, IMO.
Sure! It's really important to develop better models for projecting ocean level growth.
It does not, however, turn everything on its head , and it does not discount the premise the climate is changing.
The news article is politicized beyond what the science says.
... Isn't the rate at which it is rising quite a big deal, and exaggerating the rate of the rise is misleading?
2mm per year is huge right? That is massive ammount of water spread across the globe. We're fucked.
The article has no basis in reality. The paper itself indicates the sea level is still rising. The papers just about the rate of rise. Which if your geotechnical engineer designing coastal features, you should incorporate a more accurate projection of sea level rise.
This paper does nothing to disprove climate change at all, it doesn't even say that. This article is using this paper incorrectly to make assertions about things the paper didn't say - this is why using propaganda outlets for science news is a really bad idea.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13091641
Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.
Wow, people really don't care about the world. No wonder we are in such mess.
Anything about this from a source that isn't a fascist tabloid?
The salmons are junkies !!
Even the goddamn fish have arthritis.
You can’t draw any conclusions from someone who’s lost to follow-up. This article suggesting the people lost to follow-up have higher regret rates is almost as bad as the original paper assuming that those recruited for the regret study represented the full number of regretters.
Oestrogen can already fuck up cis women, why would it not fuck up trans? Hormonal contraception is fucking up my wife body already and it is fine but trans woman should not take hormone?
It kinda felt like reading that testosterone therapy will make trans men go bald : no shit!
Trans-identifying males on estrogen are significantly more likely to develop breast cancer than non-trans-identifying men. One cited analysis estimated the risk to be 22 to 40 times higher.
Taking wrong-sex hormones will fuck you up
Moreover, many of the studies included in the Bustos review suffered from extraordinarily high loss to follow-up—some exceeding 40 percent! This should be a glaring red flag, since it stands to reason that the very individuals most likely to regret their surgeries might be the ones least likely to return to the same medical providers who facilitated their transition. Many detransitioners report feeling harmed, betrayed, or even traumatized by the gender medicine industry, and therefore want nothing more to do with it. As a result, they vanish from the follow-up pool entirely. Their absence from post-operative data does not mean they are happy—it means they’re gone. If anything, high attrition should lead researchers to assume that regret is being undercounted, not that it is rare.
The science behind pushing gender woo is plain garbage. Sampling bias like that is Stats 101