Yep, autism isn’t on the rise.

Yep, autism isn’t on the rise.

As always with sudden increases the method of measuring has changed

The number of U.S. school children placed in special education programs due to autism more than tripled from 2000 to 2010, to nearly 420,000. But a new study argues much of that increase likely came as educators swapped one diagnosis for another. The overall percentage of kids diagnosed with a collection of brain development problems that includes autism remained unchanged, suggesting that children who used to be labeled with conditions such as “intellectual disability” were in fact autistic.“If you asked me, ‘Is there a real increase in the prevalence of autism?’ maybe there is, but probably much lower than the reported magnitude,” says Santhosh Girirajan, a geneticist at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park.In the new study, Girirajan and colleagues combed through data collected in each state for approximately 6.2 million U.S. school children with disabilities who are enrolled in special education programs. The information is collected each year under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Based on his or her diagnosis, each child was assigned to one of 13 broader categories, ranging from autism to physical challenges such as blindness.Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children in the autism category more than tripled from 93,624 in 2000 to 419,647 a decade later. Yet nearly two-thirds of that increase was matched by a decline in the rate at which children were labeled as having an “intellectual disability.” The number of kids in that category fell from 637,270 to 457,478.The data indicate that the autism rise is partly the result of students being moved from one category to another, Girirajan says.

New Science magazine

Probability of Obese People Reaching ‘Normal’ Weight Less Than 1%

Probability of Obese People Reaching ‘Normal’ Weight Less Than 1%

hilarious… So what is ‘Normal’ ?? What is ‘Obese’ ??? It’s beyond incredible a newspaper could print such non scientific  nonsense. As has been shown time and again ‘normal’ people suffer more, more often and longer from disease. They risk to die more from surgical interventions and are less likely to survive  life threatening afflictions.

WASHINGTON — Despite the fact that the diet industry does several billion dollars worth of business in the U.S. alone each year, a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health suggests that most obese people will never achieve a “normal” weight.The Centers for Disease Control classify a BMI of between 25 and 29.9 as “overweight,” anything above that as obese.Nine years worth of data for 76,704 obese men and 99,791 obese women from the United Kingdom was analyzed by researchers from King’s College London, who found that the annual probability of reaching a normal weight was less than 1 percent for both groups — just 1 in 210 for obese men and 1 in 124 for obese women (obese = 30.0–34.9 BMI).For those with morbid obesity (BMI = 40.0–44.9), those odds decreased to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women.And, at least 50 percent of patients who managed to achieve a 5 percent weight loss were shown to have regained the weight within two years.Over the full course of the study, nine years, 1,283 men (about 1.67 percent) and 2,245 women (about 2.25 percent) managed to achieve a normal body weight.Participants who received bariatric surgery were excluded from the study.“Our findings indicate that current nonsurgical obesity treatment strategies are failing to achieve sustained weight loss for the majority of obese patients,” the study says.“…even when treatment is accessed, evidence suggests behavioral weight loss interventions focusing on caloric restriction and increased physical activity are unlikely to yield clinically significant reductions in body weight.”

Fear mongering article to promote ‘health’ industry

now for reality check:

 

Fat is not bad
Still not bad
Still not bad..
Still going …
And going…

London’s eco-buses running on diesel due to dud batteries


Petrossa:

how utterly predictable, luckily it’s only taxpayers money so nothing is lost.

Originally posted on Tallbloke's Talkshop:

Not in Service Not in Service
The so-called ‘Boris bus’ or London’s ‘new Routemaster’, hailed as a wonder of green technology, is turning out to be an embarrassment, reportsBBC News:

I’m told that at the back of a bus depot, there is a large pile of power batteries that no longer work.

All have been removed from the new bus for London and are a crucial part of the hybrid system.

Drivers say that many buses across London are operating without them in place.

View original 554 more words

Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production?

Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production?

No, quite the opposite actually 

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of ecologically sustainable products in consumer markets, such as organic produce, are generally assumed to curtail anthropogenic impacts on the environment. Here I intend to present an alternative perspective on sustainable production by interpreting the relationship between recent rises in organic agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production. I construct two time series fixed-effects panel regressions to estimate how increases in organic farmland impact greenhouse gas emissions derived from agricultural production. My analysis finds that the rise of certified organic production in the United States is not correlated with declines in greenhouse gas emissions derived specifically from agricultural production, and on the contrary is associated positively overall agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. To make sense of this finding, I embed my research within the conventionalization thesis. As a result I argue that the recent USDA certification of organic farming has generated a bifurcated organic market, where one form of organic farming works as a sustainable counterforce to conventional agriculture and the other works to increase the economic accessibility of organic farming through weakening practice standards most conducive to reducing agricultural greenhouse gas output. Additionally, I construct my own theoretical framework known as the displacement paradox to further interpret my findings

Source

Was Feminism Always Bad?

Was Feminism Always Bad?

Most fair-minded people deplore the excesses of modern feminism—its triviality, its mean-spiritedness, and its claiming of special privileges for women on the basis of their putative suffering under patriarchy.

What happened to “equal rights”?

What turned feminism into a shrill, rancorous movement that hounds men for a plethora of claimed sexual crimes, harps on female moral superiority, and seeks to rid the world of masculine energy, competitive drive, and frank humor?

Did rape crisis feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, who saw all sex as rape and presumed all men guilty, ruin what was otherwise a reasonable, egalitarian program for reform? Or was the strain of man-blaming always there?

In “The Plan to Take Back Feminism in 2015,” PJM’s Susan Goldberg suggests that the suffrage activists of the nineteenth century had it right: these were God-fearing women who loved men and wanted to take their fair share of the world’s work, ridding themselves of the privileges and liabilities of traditional femininity.

Goldberg writes compellingly of what happened to the feminist movement when it lost God and put Woman/the Goddess in God’s stead.

But it is worth noting that even amongst those good-hearted evangelical ladies who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, the promotion of temperance, and all-round godly living—many of whom would not have called themselves feminist—the seeds of the present movement’s ills were being sown.

For always in the heart of the women’s movement, as in all well-meaning movements for reform, was the poison of utopianism, the dream of social perfection and the concomitant hatred of what seems to stand in its way.

In declaring what women could offer the world, the suffragists inevitably flirted with the idea of female moral superiority, from which we can draw a straight line to the male-exterminationist fantasies of modern feminism.
Source

How to recognize snake oil hypes

How to recognize snake oil hypes

Easy. They claim to heal/cure/relief many totally different afflictions. Whilst cannabis sativa has many psychoactive components one wonders why evolution went so wrong as to not incorporate the synthesizing of those components in the body if they have such enormously positive influence on all ailments claimed to to have an influence on.

The latest out there claim for marijuana: Marijuana may help heal broken bones

At least the word ‘may’ is included which pretty much renders the whole story nothing but a nice ‘if only’ .

quote:

Medical cannabis also provides bone tissue with mineralization, so it protects bones from further injury, making them less fragile. “After being treated with CBD, the healed bone will be harder to break in the future,” Gabet explained.This is not the first study devoted to the health properties of marijuana. It has been linked to effective treatment of epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson ‘s diseases. It is also used to soften the negative effects of chemotherapy in cancer patients, treat chronic pain, and help people struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Yep. It’s a regular miracle cure for just about anything.

Are fuel cells environmentally friendly? Not always!

Are fuel cells environmentally friendly? Not always!

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Fuel crucial for life cycle assessment

From the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA)

fuel_cell_still[1] Image from fueleconomy.gov Fuel cells are regarded as the technology of the future for both cars and household heating systems. As a result, they have a key role to play in the switch to renewable energies. But are fuel cells always more environmentally friendly? An international team of scientists headed by Empa performed a series of calculations and reached a conclusion: it depends on the fuel.

In the future, we might be driving fuel-cell cars that burn solar-generated hydrogen. This would make the “zero emissions car” a reality. At the same time, small combined heat and power units – also based on fuel cell technology – could be placed in our cellars at home. They convert natural gas and biogas into electricity while generating heat as an added “bonus” to warm the building.

View original 747 more words