-
The researchers say that individually many of the genetic variations they have identified play only a tiny role in raising the risk of passing schizophrenia down the generations.
However, Dr Shaun Purcell, from Harvard University, who co-led one of the three teams, said: "Cumulatively, they play a major role, accounting for at least one-third - and probably much more - of disease risk."
-
By installing massive numbers of cameras and microphones and observing everything a family does around their child.
-
I am amazed this isn't a hoax.
-
Oh dear lord, the awfulness. And that's just the graphics on an Atari 2600!
-
As seen on mythbusters. Very cool - if only I had a massive place to store it!
-
A kinda-transcript of a discussion between the three of them.
-
Wow. That's just. Wow.
-
7/7 for me! Had to guess two of them though.
-
Previous research has suggested people who sleep less than five hours a night have an increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared to those who get the full eight hours.
The latest study found levels of a molecule called interleukin-6 (IL-6), which is known to trigger inflammation, were much lower in women who reported sleeping eight hours, compared to those who slept for seven hours.
Levels of another molecule, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) - which is linked to heart problems - were significantly higher in women who reported sleeping for five hours or less.
-
The. Mind. Boggles.
-
Must show this to a few people.
-
Anyone care to point him at some real stats?
-
Client sized image resizing. Very swish. Only works in Firefox 3.5 or Chrome.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 12:51 pm (UTC)And yeah, the ability of local councils to change film classifications and similar is one I support (IIRC, one council reduced the certificate on Spiderman, a move I think was cool). But it does lead to anomalous positions--I had to travel to Plymouth to watch Pulp Fiction as Torbay banned it, and Aberystwith famously elected Judith as mayor then found out she couldn't show her own film...
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 12:57 pm (UTC)I'm generally against councils banning things, and I think the power is more likely to be used by people making statements about the awfulness of movies than it is by enlightened people allowing extra access to Spiderman.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:05 pm (UTC)And if your councillor favours that sort of thing, then you know what to do (I figure amongst other things that if a film gets banned, those opposed will be more inclined to organise locally, which is medium term good for democracy).
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:11 pm (UTC)Hmmmmm... I think a lot of the culture of local Government in Scottish councils will have to change in line with the change in electoral systems. Councils are still fairly fractious beasts infighting across party lines is still not entirely uncommon. I'd argue you'd need a similar nationwide voting system for local councils to be truly reponsive and still not have the spectre of party politics hanging over them.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:23 pm (UTC)But yeah, it'll take awhile to bed in, and there'll always be fractious people, but STV overall encourages positive issues based campaigning--it just takes awhile for parties to get used to this.
@ Andrew: the BBFC is merely an advisory board, it's recommendations are generally accepted but they needn't be. As it is, someone nationally declared you were allowed to watch it. What about all those films they decide you're not allowed to watch uncut? Your council could choose to override those decisions as well if it wanted.
At some point you might get people actually campaigning on that sort of thing for local elections as well--more likely in Scottish cities than anywhere else though, until we get STV down here.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:26 pm (UTC)You've forgotten how to use a proper comments system have you?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 05:11 pm (UTC)Film societies and clubs are exempt from the certification requirement to an extent, as are film festivals, but - for example - the EIFF last week only showed Lars Von Trier's Antichrist after it had been granted a certificate by the BBFC. They could have taken the chance had it not, with any negative fallout then impacting upon them and the local council, but I think in the vast majority of cases the BBFC's decision is the one that really matters.
Apart from anything else the BBFC were originally established by the film industry as a means of trying to centralise rather than decentraise censorship / classification.
It would be interesting, in these terms, to see a council which completed rejected BBFC rulings and said that any material not directly illegal was perfectly fine to be shown. Could they in fact do it, apart from the political suicide aspect when busybody types got involved.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 09:50 pm (UTC)