Recent comments in /f/science

SisterYahtzee t1_j7drg93 wrote

Reply to Vitamin D supplements linked to reduced risk of suicide, study of veterans finds by thebelsnickle1991

I'm on citalopram. I've had duloxatine added to boost it.

However, I am very pale, have a family history of melanoma, and live in Portland, Oregon, where it is cloudy for like 6 months of the year. I'm not supposed to go on the sun, and even if I was supposed to. It wouldn't be there. Doc added 1,000iu of vitamin D daily and it did help. It really helped even out those nasty depressive episodes.

1

MaserGT t1_j7dr17b wrote

Reply to comment by Snoo-11861 in Vitamin D supplements linked to reduced risk of suicide, study of veterans finds by thebelsnickle1991

There is no scientifically determined connection between proximity to the equator and suicide. Geographic variation in suicide rates is most likely the complex interaction of differences in social organisation, cultural traditions, and biological/genetic factors. The only established link with geographic location is that living at high altitudes increases risk of suicide.

−1

crimeo t1_j7df71o wrote

Reply to comment by marketrent in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

If you think reddit is not an appropriate forum, why did you, the OP, post this thread to reddit...?

38

marketrent OP t1_j7dejjq wrote

Reply to comment by crimeo in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

>crimeo

>It's a reddit thread, it is a forum for quick discussion about what's presented already, not weeks long correspondence that nobody will ever see the results of since the thread will be gone for weeks by then itself.

For veracity, you may wish to send a facsimile of your comments to the authors, as “quick discussion” by subreddit users other than authors could invite inaccuracies.

−26

Nyrin t1_j7dbuv8 wrote

Reply to comment by scrapper in An anti-aging gene discovered in a population of centenarians less prone to cardiovascular complications, has been shown to rewind the heart's biological age by 10 year by giuliomagnifico

Sometimes. "Aging" is a remarkably complex set of processes and still in its very early stages of being properly understood. Some causes of aging, when treated and addressed, really do "reverse" apparent age — in reality, this is addressing flaws in replication process and moving that function back towards normal, but from the outside it does appear that the new tissue is functionally "younger" than the old.

One special case (telomerase deficiency) induced and exercised in mice: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/aspects-aging-might-be-reversed

Everything in your body (almost) is continuously replacing itself at various speeds. If there's a problem that's causing replicated cells to behave as if they're more degraded ("older") than they otherwise would be, then treating that and having the next replacement round be more functional than its precessor is effectively "reducing age" as an apparent and functional measure.

If the source cells have accumulated replication errors or otherwise been intrinsically "damaged," however, you need much more intensive and hitherto "exotic" treatments to make all the trillions of pieces of "future human" to look and act younger than "current human," and "slowing aging" is a lot more readily attainable in those circumstances.

57

crimeo t1_j7daorz wrote

Reply to comment by marketrent in New review finds that rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated — Global annual launches grew from 90 to 190 in the past 5 years, and an upsurge in rocket launches may potentially undo decades of work to save the ozone layer by marketrent

> Findings in title are quoted from the linked summary

Yes I know the actual (journal) article was linked, as in the doi.org one by the royal society of new zealand. I looked over that and was already referring to the actual article. But what data did it add to the story? My summary of what I read is roughly:

  • We counted that there's more launches than before.

  • Launches in general have these handful of chemicals. The relative proportions of which are unspecified, either in whole OR by launch type.

  • How many of each launch type there were before or among the newly added launches is also... unspecified.

  • How badly each chemical affects the ozone layer is unspecified. We gave a reaction written out of what could happen with regard to ozone, but not how much this actually happens in practice (e.g. after accounting for other side reactions using up that chemical for other products first, before it gets to ozone).

  • But it could be really bad! Maybe. If all those unspecified numbers turned out to be bad.

In summary: An unspecified mixture of types of new launches adds unspecified amounts of chemicals per type, and unspecified amounts overall, with an unspecified effect of each on the ozone layer... did I get that right?

> Perhaps correspondence with the authors — environmental physicist Laura Revell, planetary scientist Michele Bannister, and first author Tyler Brown — may be productive.

It's a reddit thread, it is a forum for quick discussion about what's presented already, not weeks long correspondence that nobody will ever see the results of since the thread will be gone for weeks by then itself.

37