Recent comments in /f/science

eldenrim t1_j6fcy06 wrote

Just in case you didn't know, sleep disordered breathing can cause insomnia and depression, and unless you've had a test for both sleep apnea and UARS, you can't rule it out.

Me and my partner both have UARS. We pass sleep apnea tests. I oversleep and my partner has incredibly bad insomnia.

Worth looking into!

3

Coquenico t1_j6f4w9z wrote

there's nothing I can do for you here. You need to read through a basic statistics book. Seems like you have some training in physics so hopefully the mathematical aspects won't be a problem for you

And stop believing people more competent than you on a subject are out to get you. I'm trying to explain in a few lines things you need several years of formal learning to fully understand, of course there are going to be many caveats. That doesn't mean I'm not doing my best to portray things honestly. Now if you don't want to trust me, well, as I said, learn statistics yourself

2

AutoModerator t1_j6f3shc wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

denada24 t1_j6eyuyp wrote

Not necessarily. Permanent solution/perms are the same chemicals as relaxers, dye, bleach, glue for extensions, tracks, weaves, hairspray, shampoo, heat protectors etc. There are different products for every type of these, but it’s two wings on the same duck.

−2

RickySlayer9 t1_j6eqyf7 wrote

−2

okletmethink420 t1_j6eqaxg wrote

It’s almost getting to depressing levels of sadness how many toxins are just surrounding us, everywhere. And no one bats an eye at it most of the time. All the things we use, daily, sometimes multiple times daily.

3

lightning_palm t1_j6eovib wrote

> A family saying they have to scale back on sodas due to cost may have different effect on boys and girls in each family.

This assumption stands in contrast to the following research:


Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Redden, J. P., & Edward White, A. (2015). Spending on daughters versus sons in economic recessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 435-457, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/42/3/435/1819102

> Abstract > > Although parents often try not to favor one child, we examine whether specific environmental factors might bias parents to favor children of one sex over the other. This research draws on theory in evolutionary biology suggesting that investment in female versus male offspring depends on resource availability. Applying this to consumers, a series of experiments show that poor economic conditions favor resource allocations to daughters over sons. For example, poor conditions led people to bequeath more assets to girls in their will, and to choose girls to receive a US Treasury bond and a beneficial extracurricular activity. It is proposed that this happens because spending on children represents a reproductive investment, and that boys’ and girls’ relative reproductive value varies with economic conditions. Supporting this account, perceptions of which child will have more children statistically mediates the effect of economic conditions on preferences for girls. Consequently, the effect is strengthened as a child approaches reproductive age, and it is moderated by individual differences (risk aversion and monogamy) directly related to our theoretical model. This research contributes to the consumer behavior literature by revealing how, why, and when environmental factors influence spending on girls versus boys.


Thurstans, S., Opondo, C., Seal, A., Wells, J., Khara, T., Dolan, C., ... & Kerac, M. (2020). Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition. BMJ global health, 5(12), https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e004030

> Abstract > > Background Excess male morbidity and mortality is well recognised in neonatal medicine and infant health. In contrast, within global nutrition, it is commonly assumed that girls are more at risk of experiencing undernutrition. We aimed to explore evidence for any male/female differences in child undernutrition using anthropometric case definitions and the reasons for differences observed. > > Methods We searched: Medline, Embase, Global health, Popline and Cochrane databases with no time limits applied. Eligible studies focused on children aged 0–59 months affected by undernutrition where sex was reported. In the meta-analysis, undernutrition-specific estimates were examined separately for wasting, stunting and underweight using a random-effects model. > > Results 74 studies were identified: 44/74 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 20 which examined wasting, boys had higher odds of being wasted than girls (pooled OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.40). 38 examined stunting: boys had higher odds of stunting than girls (pooled OR 1.29 95% CI 1.22 to 1.37). 23 explored underweight: boys had higher odds of being underweight than girls (pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26). There was some limited evidence that the female advantage, indicated by a lower risk of stunting and underweight, was weaker in South Asia than other parts of the world. 43/74 (58%) studies discussed possible reasons for boy/girl differences; 10/74 (14%) cited studies with similar findings with no further discussion; 21/74 (28%) had no sex difference discussion. 6/43 studies (14%) postulated biological causes, 21/43 (49%) social causes and 16/43 (37%) to a combination. > > Conclusion Our review indicates that undernutrition in children under 5 is more likely to affect boys than girls, though the magnitude of these differences varies and is more pronounced in some contexts than others. Future research should further explore reasons for these differences and implications for nutrition policy and practice.

4

Ignorant_Ismail t1_j6ed12k wrote

They got a big group of people who were 60 years old or older and asked them questions about how they live their life. They asked about things like what they eat, if they exercise, if they talk to friends and family, if they play games to keep their brain active, if they smoke or drink alcohol. They also looked at something called APOE genotyping, which is like a special test to see if someone has a certain gene.

They then followed these people for a long time, like 10 years, to see how their memory changed. They found that the people who did a lot of things to stay healthy, like eating well and exercising, had slower memory decline than the people who didn't do as many of these things. And even if someone had a certain gene that can make memory decline happen faster, if they still did all these healthy things, their memory decline was slower.

So, the study tells us that if you want to keep your memory good as you grow older, it's important to eat well, exercise, socialize, keep your brain active, don't smoke or drink alcohol and maintain a healthy lifestyle.

52

PsychologicalLuck343 t1_j6eb86e wrote

I'd just like to point out to American voters is this situation is exactly what is meant by the phrase, "smaller government." That's the white-washed phrase that can also be called reduced protections and oversight for consumers and workers.

0

-Ch4s3- t1_j6e3tkj wrote

I believe I’ve been saying it should be buried. Moreover SE Asian countries aren’t really buying US and European plastic recycling materials anymore so a lot of it is actually getting landfilled again. Insofar as it all goes in a big hole in the ground it hardly matters.

Making sure it doesn’t end up in waterways seems like the correct focus to me. I don’t really have a lot interest in trying to police people’s preferences. Just handle the waste stream correctly and clamp down on littering.

2

mynextthroway t1_j6e2q0p wrote

Properly disposed is the key, but recycling is not the amazing solution plastic/oil companies made it out to be. Do you want to see a waste of plastic? Look at dollar stores, the seasonal section of Target, Wal-mart, etc. Nearly all of it is useless or unneeded. Single use plastic going to countries that can't/wont handle the waste properly is a problem for oceanic plastic.

1