LawfulBlade

Can you maybe add some of your own words to this? I'm not sure why you posted this quote, in all honesty. Neither mercury nor tetrodotoxin would be affected by cooking, freezing, or eating raw, nor can you develop immunity to them like the OP was asking about, and, as such, has no connection to the topic. In large part, the same can be said about the parasites, as it isn't parasitic infections that he's asking about, but bacterial food poisoning instead...and immunity to flukes is nearly impossible to develop. Are you in the EU? There's no prohibition about serving fresh, raw fish (never frozen) in the US; in fact, the very Wikipedia article you're quoting refutes two of your claims directly: it states outright that freezing won't kill all harmful microorganisms, and that the US doesn't require freezing of fish for sushi. Your link also contests your claim that wild is somehow safer to eat than farmed. You're correct, however, in that it does kill flukes. I was unaware of the effects of freezing on parasites. If you meant a different interpretation, I would be open to hearing it.

Several things, but I'm mostly reiterating what others have said: Just as the bacterial composition in our guts and on our skin is constantly changing, the bacteria in the bodies of farm animals are also changing. I could eat, say, a raw chicken today, and not get sick, but eat another one tomorrow and get food poisoning from it. The types of bacteria in meat aren't guaranteed to be pathogenic. But we know that some animals *can* harbor bacteria that's often pathogenic to us, like trichinosis can live in pigs and will likely make us sick if we eat it, so we always cook pork. In addition to this, bacteria that we are very accustomed to tolerating, like E. coli, for example, can develop a new serotype that's potentially lethal to us. Another thing is that development of antibodies doesn't prevent you from getting sick, it helps your body fight off the infection. But as someone pointed out, many bacteria will secrete toxins as they're growing that are extremely dangerous to us, even if the bacteria themselves aren't. Teeny amounts of C. botulinum's toxin is enough to kill us, often long before our body will have a chance to mount an adaptive response. People get sick not infrequently eating sushi, but keep eating it anyway because they love it. Unlike what Moon's saying, the fish is only sometimes frozen, and that's to keep it from decaying, not to kill bacteria (which it usually doesn't do completely, anyway). We live too far away from most of the sushi fishes' waters to get them fresh, but people that live close will eat them that way. Heat and the soaking of meat that you're referring to are done for the same purpose, to disinfect the meat. One "cooking" method simply uses chemicals instead. With a powerful enough substance to soak it in, I'll eat beef totally raw. Antibiotics are put as preventatives into chicken feed, but are often not used continuously in beef cattle. Most beef cattle will get an antibiotic injection prior to going to the slaughterhouse, however, as they're at high risk of getting a lethal infection there, and dying just before the money is recouped. In both cases, the antibiotics are administered to keep the animals healthy; it has nothing to do with making them safe for us. I'm not sure about the report you heard on tunas, but if you were attempting to prevent every possible infection, they'd need to be raised in a biobubble, which, while theoretically possible, the cost would be prohibitive. Perhaps being farm raised just kept them from getting the major thing they're able to pass to humans. In the case of seafood, there's an additional concern regarding red tide (and other toxic blooms), and it's downstream acquisition into our foods. As a final note, although this doesn't connect to anything other than my stream of consciousness, red tide is known to make seagulls go crazy and start attacking people, as they've eaten fish contaminated with the toxin. This is what the Hitchcock move "The Birds" was based on. Have a good night.

Are you currently in college? Most academic scientists *love* dedicated, long-term student volunteers, which would give you a great experience. Many will hire such an individual after graduation, as well. Whether you're in high school or college, though, there are summer sessions at the NIH that you could be referred to, and potentially get your foot in the door for a future research assistant position. http://www.jobs.nih.gov/vacancies/student/ This will give you the skinny on how to go about it. Good luck!

Hi. I think you're talking about a different scope than I've used, but I've directly used a Leica confocal for time-lapse imaging of cells in flux before. Our protocol involved keeping the cultures alive for months, so we'd only do 12 hour scans at a time, and give them a few days to recuperate in the standard incubator. The images it produced were spectacular, really top-notch stuff, however, we often had to have their technician in working on it, as we got a ton of software errors. Hope that helps. Let us know what you selected!

I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to in your reply, due to your lack of specificity. You copied my entire 1000 word response and are essentially saying "you're wrong", without referring me back to the portions you're having trouble with. You said I made a few conclusions...what conclusions are you talking about? I'm providing you with definitions that you seem to lack, which is neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument here? Your response is almost incoherent, and has absolutely nothing to do with what you first asked. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding, so I'm going to repeat myself: science isn't a set of data, it's a way to approach a question. Data that have accumulated using that methodology is referred to as being scientific. Part of the methodology is the act of replication, and it's reliant upon statistics. Please reread my response and tell me what you're not getting.

Hi. Great question. As I haven't read every reply to this thread, my answer may be redundant. The short answer is: no one knows for sure. A slightly longer answer is that there are, in fact, additional known mechanisms in living things for converting light energy into a form that's usable to sustain life. Certain forms of archaea reflect the red portion of the spectrum, for example, and certain bacteria use blue and purple pigments instead. Also, although they're still using chloroplasts (the makers of chlorophyll), there are leafy plants that are not green. Additionally, there are a few plants that don't make chlorophyll, and these aren't green. There's a belief that the chloroplasts first entered the precursors to plant cells as an invading or accidentally acquired cyanobacteria that remained due to it being mutually beneficial (they're symbiotic). There's a similar hypothesis regarding the existence of mitochondria in animal cells. I've never heard one way or another whether the original cyanobacteria was supposed to be chlorophyll producing or not. Cyanobacteria themselves are blue, as the name implies, due to the pigment they use to gather light (rather than chlorophyll), so it must have evolved over time, if the original hypothesis of symbiosis is correct. None of which answers the question of "why not black"? At this time, it's merely speculative, and is unlikely to ever be known. But at least I could help with the rest of your question.

Hi. I'm changing your question to "What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?", as it makes more sense. So one of the key bad conceptualizations of science is that it's a body of data. It isn't. Science is actually a way of approaching a question using falsifiable ideas, a preponderance of data (replicated and confirmed independently), and recognition of the limits of current findings. It's systematic and rigorous, and frequently relies upon math/statistical analyses. One of the plot twists in how science proceeds comes in peer-reviewed articles. The ones best equipped to review your findings are actually your competitors...in other words, the ones least motivated to allow your findings to be published. Because your competitors are highly critical of your work, this acts as something of a balance-of-powers check that's in place, to prevent bad findings and sloppy work from getting known. The second inherent limit within science was already mentioned: it needs to be replicable. Given enough trials and that your protocol is followed exactly, anyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, political persuasion etc. should be able to replicate your findings. Should a discovery fail to be replicated, it's noted publicly. Findings are sometimes retracted. On the other hand, pseudoscience relies on emotional persuasion rather than facts to convey its ideas. Intuition and magic, rather than logic, often play a critical role in the "discoveries" of pseudoscience. The central beliefs are not often testable (falsifiable). Among those pseudosciences with testable beliefs, many will continue existing in spite of being shown to be false. In response to findings falsifying pseudoscience claims, practitioners will often argue to followers that grand conspiracies exist to destroy them, and that's the explanation for the findings. Cult mentalities are often established. Ironically, some of the claims within pseudoscience borrow vocabulary from and facets of scientific/medical data to gain credibility among their believers. With a set up like this, the area of pseudoscience is rife with scammers, although not all practitioners are attempting to scam at all. For example, many psychics genuinely believe in "their gift" of psychic powers. Many acupuncturists genuinely believe that chi explains people getting better after treatment. Of interesting side note, science can be (and has been) used to demonstrate efficacy of some practices considered to be pseudoscience, like acupuncture. Piercing the skin with needles, even in mice, releases endorphins, and helps to relieve pain, which in turn can reduce stress, speed wound healing, etc. What was falsified was that chi works as an explanation. If you're extremely interested, I'll be more than happy to pop in Pubmed articles to back anything I say, but if you don't have a strong science background, they'll probably both bore and overwhelm you. This has nothing to do with popularity (i.e., pseudoscientists are simply the uncool among the scientists), although, even within science, popularity of an idea will play a role in how quickly findings will be published. Aside from the show with Hawking being a pulpy t.v. episode, I've no idea why he would use the term "trust me". He certainly doesn't use that term in his publications.

Good luck, Jacobson! How tall will they ultimately allow you to become? Aren't there other concerns (vascular, muscular, skin, etc.)? PS, I don't think you're only 1.7 centimeters tall. But if it's meters, I'm confused about why you'd put yourself through this...5'7" isn't that short... Regardless, good luck!

Hi Rayon, Keep in mind, the field used to be all male, so if graduating classes were equal (50/50 split in the incoming workforce), it would take a substantial amount of time for gender equalization out in the field to present. Currently, about 20% of graduates of engineering at the bachelor's level are female. When broken by discipline, there's a different story being told. Although exact percentages differ by school, about half of biomedical engineer grads are female, about 40% of chemical engineering grads are female, and 30-35% of electrical engineers are female. It decreases from there. Women who choose to become engineers appear to be targeting the most lucrative of the engineering disciplines, with interest in biomedical engineering often arising from exposure in other science classes. Concerning why it's only 20% in general, there's something to be said for ease-of-translocation data. That is to say, if you start college with a vague idea that you'd like to pursue science, you can direct your core coursework into any scientific discipline. And should you wish to switch departments in your 2nd or 3rd year, say from neuroscience into biochemistry, you don't need to redo any of the core classes, as there is overlap. This isn't the case with switching into engineering, however. If you started in any of the physical or biological sciences at most schools, and wished to switch into engineering, you'd have to redo physics, chemistry, and sometimes calculus. (Some colleges make all the BS students take the same core courses, but this is rare.) Statistically, about half of science graduates started in a different program; in contrast, 93% of engineering graduates started in engineering. If we want to change the gender proportions of graduates, we need to convince girls of engineering's appeal in high school. Conversely, it could become a standard approach that only one course sequence is offered for calculus, physics, and chemistry, to allow for ease of switching programs. This is a great question that's under debate. The British Cohort Study strongly argues for economic factors being the primary determinant. On a side note, I'm a little stunned at some of the answers in this thread. Being a teacher has no connection to being a parent; it doesn't prepare you at all for what you're going to encounter. You can't chalk it up to a SAHM thing, either, given that the vast majority of current families have both parents working. Concerning the evolutionary speculation, you realize that you're tacking a speculation onto a speculation there, don't you? Check to see whether your first belief is correct. I'll give you a preview of coming attractions: it isn't, at least in terms of what's being discussed here (aptitude and career selection). Most stunning of all were Jeff's comments. There aren't "countless data to show that in average men are more capable to do such job than women [sic]"...in fact, no data exist showing that men are more logical than women. At the average level of IQ needed to become an engineer, there's no difference in proportion of males and females having that IQ. In fact, graduates of math, sciences, and medicine all have higher average IQs than engineers, and they're all about half female. This sentence was particularly disturbing, as Jeff claims to have it backed by (countless) data. Jeff...in order for you to come to your conclusions, you had to ignore all available data, and manufacture your own. You're attempting to make a statement about the aptitude of women as it relates to their absence in a given profession...by looking at a totally unrelated proportion of female participants in a war game. Straw man, Jeff. Ridiculous. And totally irrational.

This is just my gross understanding, but it would be the lectin pathway. Realistically, as activation of the lectin pathway (as well as the classical pathway, for that matter) can, in turn, activate the alternative pathway, they'd eventually be going simultaneously against the same pathogen. With the alternative pathway, C3b/C3i has to be created before the pathway can be activated, either by spontaneous degradation of C3 by water, or by one of the other two complement pathways. So alternative would come after lectin, but, again, nothing prevents them from going at the same time.

Just to give you some fiscal correlates, I was part of a larger triad group of three scientists, each with their own group of affiliated assistants & post-docs, that came together from one institution to another. Each PI was granted $750,000/yr for three years from the department to set up their labs, with the possibility of extending that amount of money for two additional years, if grants had not been received by that time. Our group spent the first year's amount of money within the first day, with the purchase of a single microscope. Before the next ten months were over, an additional year's allocation was spent. In other words, $1.5 million USD went into: 1 microscope, 3 -80 freezers, 1 fridge, 1 thermalcycler, a standard fume hood and a bio-safety 3 hood, 1 analytical balance, 2 pH meters, 7 computers, surveillance software, an electrophys rig, and a microwave, salaries of all workers, all reagents and consumables, starter mice, a rack and upkeep in a barrier facility, surgical equipment, and warranties on all lab equipment over $5K. The warranties were 10% of purchase cost annually, so $75K/annually for the microscope alone. We shared some of the equipment between the three of us, so, even though the group I was in didn't buy a cryostat, one of the other groups in the triad did, so it worked out. Some reagents and consumables were also shared, in exchange for us letting them use our microscope. We also cross-trained one another on techniques. Our facility covered disposal costs of most chemicals and deceased animals. Additional charges were associated with disposal of homeland security controlled substances, and several other specific toxins. Following start-up costs, maintenance for the mice for our group alone ran us $1-2K/month, not including when we'd purchase a new knock-in or embryos.

Almost definitely not. Antibiotic resistance is often reported within a year of release of a new drug, and that spreads fairly rapidly. The best that could be accomplished is to determine probability of acquisition from a hospital environment, but you'd need information that isn't public to figure out the odds.

gib65, I learned about what you're talking about in neuroscience classes over ten years ago. At this point, however, it's now known to not be the case. A ton of data have accumulated against the idea you just stated, but I'm including a link to the most comprehensive review of all of these data. It's just around a year old: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025529/ You can access the full article, rather than just the abstract, which is really necessary, given the methods and logic in this particular article. It's not that the original studies have been invalidated: they were performed in rodents, and rodents still have these features. Primates, however, do not. Rapid, coarse processing through the cortex is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and is backed by all studies to date. The article I linked will, in addition, goes into tremendous detail on anatomical considerations, current EEG/MRI data, and studies performed with human ablation subjects (like from trauma, stroke, lupus, etc). It's a great read, and I hope you enjoy!

There's something of a war of words going on here. Technically speaking, the cell death is amount and duration dependent, and not due to the alcohol directly, in either case. As it's a CNS depressant, with enough of it during one night, assuming you don't die, you could easily be left with permanent brain damage (through cell death), due to loss of circulation/lack of breathing. With enough consumed over a long enough duration, brain cell death may also occur, via a number of paths (lack of thiamine, high concentrations of circulating ammonia, etc.). In both cases, it's due to things downstream of the alcohol consumption, rather than the alcohol directly, but you could make an argument either way as to whether alcohol "caused" the cell death or not.