The fact that this worked when most of our recycling is shipped to China is hilarious.

You can make predictions. Use existing laws and current rate of increase combined with trends of other issues changing across societies in the past. No it's not perfect, but it can give us a ballpark.

Clean coal is green energy - coal miners /users

It's not the press release, it's the almost universally bad science writing in journalism. How can it always be so fucked up??

Similar situation with sickle cell anaemia in Africa. One copy protects from Malaria.

It's nice to avoid making these fibers but shouldn't the wastewater plants be able to settle them out into the sludge? Though if the sludge is spread on fields so are the fibers.

Small solids are coagulated together with flocculants, no fine filtration is usually needed.

I thought that the numerator of I^2 was the variability between studies. So if it equals zero, that means the effect was perfectly consistent across studies...?

I don't think most people understand how much power coal produces and how long it would take us to catch up with "green energy." It would be literally impossible to produce an equivalent amount of energy with wind and solar in that time frame. We'd basically have to build one nuclear power plant a week for the next 25 years.

Yes. But the p-value was 0.008 for their nonlinear fit. The other two showed significance in the linear fit.

Not good, and yet not surprising at all.

Why is this user still allowed to post here???

Oh I totally missed it :p

As usual, important to point out this user u/meatrition posts nothing but fake/misleading studies funded by Big Meat to trick people.

I know. The part about lying was deliberately facetious. Unless you get the ethics committee really drunk before the meeting of course. The question in the comment was phrased such that I couldn't say if the author meant 3 different doses of placebo or if they had missed the part where all the doses were compared to placebo. So I covered both bases with a little sugar pill of humour.

Wait until you hear about pesticide rates.

Calling folks who see humans as dangerous invasive species names is not going to convince them that humans are great and we should totally have 6 kids each to prop up the economy...

Unless by pro human you are advocating for quality of life vs quantity.

You don't have to dose placebo. You tell the participants there are either two or four conditions in a case like this. Most likely you've reveal the full design, that they will either receive a placebo or one of three doses of the drug. After that the participant and the researchers are blind as to what condition each participant is in. Until after the analysis is done.

You are not ethically allowed to lie to people and tell them they will receive medication when they might receive a placebo. They have to be aware that the possibility of placebo is there.

As is almost always the case in scientific studies; it's not a flaw in the study. And this is an incredibly complex confluence of multiple high order systems--parenting, genetics, context, screen exposure to infants--you can't just do one good study/experiment. Too many variables would lead to useless data. Pick ONE and do that, which they did. It's limited info but at least we see correlation from this one (kinda big one).

Edit: and then you get the studies that people deride as useless because they just corroborate something seemingly obvious--ie "study shows parents with ADHD more likely to have children with ADHD." But you combine that with this, another study that says "parents with attention disorders more likely to have children who spend excessive amounts of time on screens" which would call into question whether the original study was merely correlation, or causation. Then have a follow-up study comparing, idk, infants with 2+ hrs of screen time and neurotypical parents to ADHD parents (which then runs the risk of unreliable self-reporting for the parents... and further questions about defining what qualifies as genetic predisposition towards ADHD, and what qualifies as ADHD etc). It gets complicated fast and there will rarely ever be a clear-cut answer, especially when it comes to anything to do with neurology, since we know so little about it currently. But hey that's why we have universities full of research scientists all around the world engaging in scientific dialog and peer review.

No policies will make that happen. Only new technology will, and even then, that tech would need to be available today.

[removed]

Taking Olive leaf extract and resveratrol would give similar benefits to the Mediterranean diet.

Our brains need carbs. If you're only looking at the heart, maybe carbs seem bad, but we consist of a whole body.

One thing strikes me. After the 50% price reduction in early 2022 the wholesale !! price of a one year 'maintenance dose' of Tilavonemab was $28,200. You can be sure that the company is still making money even after halving the price. As of April last year up to 1.5 million people had been treated with the drug. This is in the running for the most successful failure ever.

It doesn't help that the US is increasingly militaristic toward China, and has an agressive policy of preventing Chinese technological and economic advancement, particularly by denying them advanced microchips.

Rounded off.

A: 579/1000
B: 656/1000
p=0.0002

Like the other comment said, remember it's post hoc.