CharonY

I disagree. While they cannot initiate laws, they can reject proposals. I.e. laws have to seek approvals from the parliament, which are directly elected officials and the European council, which are also (directly, or indirectly) elected by their respective countries. Moreover, it also has special legislative procedures in limited areas, in which Council or Parliament decide. And they also holds power over another important tool: the budgetary authority. Finally, they also influence the European commission as the Parliament has to approve each proposed member as well as the President. And it actually can dismiss the commission,- using a two-third majority. So it can actually do all those things, except initiate laws outside of the special legislative procedures (to my knowledge at least, correct me if I am wrong). To me at least, this is a far cry from "no powers". However, there is a disjoint in accountability if people decide not to be engaged in the composition and changes within the parliament. In fact, it seems that populists (including anti-EU ones) are strangely more able to galvanize their base than many mainstream parties. And also it appears to me that most EU citizens are simply unaware of their power and influence over the EU. I am not sure about current curricula, but I really wonder if the EU mechanisms are actually taught in school.

Darnit. See what you have done?

Or, it will boost right-populists throughout Europe, settling them deeper into mainstream and establishing stronger nationalist policies that will hurt Europe in the decades to come. Obviously, the blame would be squarely put on someone else as misdirection, resulting in further populist, but essential non-sensical regulations that drive Europe further apart. On top of it the big divide within countries will lead to vicious political infighting so that Europe eventually becomes a toxic subject. Not that I expect it to happen, but then I thought Brits were reasonable...

The thing is that many apparently do not understand the the EU and EU processes. For example, citizens have a direct influence on the European parliament. If people were concerned about having influence, they would be active in election. This is not what is happening.

Re: the age divide, unfortunately the turnout in areas with younger residents was lower. For this reason possibly education appears to be a stronger indicator (Guardian). On the other hand, I was saddened by the fact that some researchers that I know actually voted to leave. They were MDs so maybe their perspective is different, but still.

It is 2-year negotiation process iirc. Can't help but being massively disappointed.

It is a strongly divided referendum. Ignoring it would be very costly in terms of votes.

Well, votes are still being counted but too close to call. Currently leaving has a small increasing lead of ~400k votes. Fear seems to work fairly well. It seems that a Brexit has become the likelier outcome. What the heck, Brits? So the UK is out. *sigh*

Well, the language here is important. Does the question ask what most types of mutations are (i.e. in terms of frequency?). Now, based on that, what does a dominant or recessive mutation look like and how would that affect their frequency? Are they common? Another important bit is which organism you are talking about. I assume humans? How many genes do humans have, what is the average size of the genes and how large is the entire genome. Can you deduce what type of mutation would be most common?

Nope. That was the precise reason why I clicked on the thread. Then forgot about it. Then clicked on it again.

No worries, these things are somewhat byzantine and usually do not make intuitive sense. Maybe it helps if looking at things from the toxicological perspective. The standard practice was that for only for certain areas some level of toxicity information is required (e.g. food additives, pesticides, high production volume chemicals, and certain chemical groups known to be hazardous). The problem is that new varieties appear in a constant stream and most tox requirements are relatively loose and vague. What currently happens is often that only after cumulative evidence from a wide area of research, which are typically underfunded because they are seen as anti-industrial, find evidence that some substances may not be harmless after all. For example groups looking at wildlife may find accumulation of the substance in fish, indicating that it contaminates water sources. Other groups working on human health may find it accumulate in blood. Then, other groups may be interested in testing those effects and utilize a variety of tox screens and animal tests. Usually this is not an coordinated effort as different groups all over the world may approach the issue from various background interest (e.g. endocrinological or carcinogenic effects, different target organs, developmental issues etc.) and of course because they may compete with each other for funding. So usually over decades the weight of evidence goes toward harmful or not harmful. If the weight is toward the harmful side, policy makers may initiate additional studies or create some sort of limitations on their use (e.g. ban their use in food, for example). The problem is that with increasing development of new materials, this cycle is going to fall further and further behind. Also there is a significant public health risk and massive costs, monetary and societal, if things go wrong. One of the biggest examples are probably the lead poisoning epidemic (and looking at Flint and other US cities it may still continue although now at least we know it is bad). Interestingly, some (large) companies tried to get ahead of the curve in order to prevent consumer backlash in case they release something that turns out to be really bad in future. So they (instead of the government) started funding some academic work groups to look into effects of certain new materials in terms of toxicity, but also environmental dispersal and so on. The problem was that this approach is not only relatively costly, but it also meant that they had limited control over publication (most academic research agreements include the right to publish the data and at most the company can delay it for ~6 months on average). One of the models that emerged was REACH to get ahead of the curve. Here, all the date would be generated and published by the manufacturers (who could collaborate and e.g. all pay a private testing lab to run the required tests) whilst providing policy makers with at least some modicum of initial tox data in case the fecal matter hits the rotating blades. As a side note, wasn't borax only banned as food additive? I am pretty sure I saw it as cleaning powder in stores.

Actually, what I meant is that because it is only on 2B it is unlikely that it is banned entirely. There could be a push to limit its use in food or personal care products. Either way, I have not heard anything official about any kind of ban. The problem is that without REACH there is little incentive to provide extensive toxicity information on the products, as, afaik, there is no mandate to conduct any actual toxicity tests outside of specific regulated uses. As such someone else (such as academia) would have first to find an issue and often only then it would be put on a list for testing (may vary between countries, though). The idea of REACH was to preempt issues by having at least some degree of information (which the the manufacturers actually have some control over). Considering it only applies to relatively high production volumes the fees do not seem exorbitant, to be honest.

Uhm, what does it have to do with the OP?

Funny bit about cropping, this is one of the few (or maybe only one) of the photos from Cartier-Bresson that got cropped before publishing. He was very peculiar about the composition of his images and workflow (including development) and hated it if editors altered the image in any way, as he felt that it would change the impact of the image. Focusing on the jumper only, for instance. But in this particular image he had to crop the left border as he took the image through a gap in a fence and his lens was too wide to fit through. So he had a black border from the fence on his image, which he cropped out. While we are at it, I think ultimately art tries to evoke some kind of reaction or emotion in the viewer. The appreciation can vary vastly based on the background of the viewer and while there is art that is so obvious and/or visceral that it is expected to work the same way for many people. More common are pieces like this: Here, we have the use of a lot empty space that is seemingly boring and has little to offer, but it results in the emphasis of the sign and the geometrically similar view of a private moment. Is it art only because the artists has consciously utilized and combined these elements? Would it still be if that was just a randomly well-framed snapshot? Often art has to be filled by the viewer and sometimes the artist guides them to it. Another example that heavily utilizes geometry: \ Here, one could casually interpret is a lady waiting for someone, although the framing is curious (and has a bit of an optical illusion quality to it). However, the artist (Fang Ho) named it "Approaching Shadow". With the information the geometry assumes a direction and, together with the pose it gets a potentially darker meaning. Does it change the impact on the viewer?

... the number of orgasms iNow consistently elicits.

But COSHH only covers workplace exposures i.e. applies to employers. Thus, they are site-specific. REACH otoh places the risk assessment of new compoounds into the hands of manufacturers and is purely substance (i.e. not process)-driven. It also includes elements of environmental and consumer protection. And even then you could easily argue that it is not sufficient from a public health/environmental perspective. Before that there was only a patchwork of regulations that often were implemented after issues arose. Also, the only ban TiO2 I know about is the use as an inhalable powder. However, so far it is only classified as a group 2B carcinogen. There have been more scrutiny on the nanomaterials ~2011 but I have not seen anything definitive about it (though I am a bit out of the loop by now). Edit: The reason why so few got registered is likely due to the staggered deadline, which called for registrations for substances produced in excess of 1000 tonnes/year by 2010, 100 tonnes/year by 2013 and 1 tonne/year by 2018. So, even in the last deadline, if you import less than a tonne/year for your purpose, you would also be fine. Also, if the manufacturer does not want to register, you can also do it yourself, and depending on size of the company and volume produced there are discounts. Also, it is possible to register substances collaboratively and share the cost between companies utilizing or producing the substance. Obviously, small companies are still hit hardest by the additional expenditure, though to be fair, I have not seen any better implementation yet. And again, from a public health perspective it is still not ideal, as e.g. the toxicity data would be entirely managed by the companies.

Well, there are many textbooks out there but I am not versed enough in the field to give any recommendations. But emotions are not as obscure as one may believe and are only a rather tiny area of this field. And conversely other areas of psychology deal extensively with quantifying emotional responses in a number of contexts. Of course, every measurement methods has limits of sorts, and obviously it there is no probe that specifically measures happiness, for example. Instead, experimental setups are used that are used to elicit certain emotional responses are combined with measurement of certain physiological states that are associated with the emotion. This may include rather obvious measures such as common physiological responses (e.g. heart rate, sweating) self-evaluation (very common and usually quite elaborate) to more elaborate techniques, such as measuring hormone levels various brain imaging techniques, and so on.

Maybe cumulatively over a time span of, say, one marriage?

I am sure you are aware of it, but while Cartier-Bresson popularized the decisive moment as an important element of photography, it was always always understood in the context of a carefully framed environment. For example, in the posted picture ("Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare") the eye is almost immediately drawn to the motion of the jumper, reinforced by motion blur. But if one starts exploring the image one notices the juxtaposition of the jumping silhouette with that of the acrobat on the poster in the background. Then the element of doubling (two posters, one broken and the reflection of the jumper, with the background homogeneity to match the composition of the poster). There are more elements to it, and it is easy to over interpret an image (such as the potential "Railowsky" pun), but then he has shown a consistent eye for incorporating even subtle elements in his pictures. Overall, it is capturing the decisive moment happening in a carefully laid out frame that elevates his pictures above a nicely timed snapshot, for example. In this case I think the opposite of the following quote is true. An analysis of the image enhances it as it only after a careful look it becomes clear why the timing had to be as it was. For example, you could have caught the moment precisely when he landed one foot in the puddle. It could have been striking, even forceful. But then the floating effect and the mimicking of the background image would have been lost. One may have intuitively caught the elements and find it pleasing as a whole, but I would argue that identifying elements contributing to the composition do not diminish it at all. I would also argue that a decent analysis does not look at at elements in isolation, which usually makes little sense, but always in the context of the whole work, or at least the part in which is embedded in.

did you specify a time frame? edit: why me no spelling few words sentence even are when.

In short, no. Although common usage is sometimes a bit imprecise. A cyst per se is not necessarily inflamed but can be classified by based on from what tissue they are formed. Epidermoid cysts are therefore also termed follicular infundibular cysts as most commonly the lesions resulting in these types of cysts result from follicular infundibulum. Histologically they are lined with a flattened epithelial layer with keratin inclusions. There cysts that originate from different tissue are named differently. The important bit, however is that cysts are not necessarily inflamed, whereas pimples and boils refer to infected tissue. Boils refers to deep follicular infections and is usually caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Boils are a form of folliculitis, but there are other microorganisms that can be responsible to various forms of folliculitis (yeasts are not uncommon, for example). Pimples, on the other hand are more superficial and caused by blocked pores in which bacteria accumulate. Typically, you'll find Propionibacteria here

Which strand is being transcribed is determined during the initiation step where RNA-promoter binding happens. In other words the the initiation is sequence-specific, which is also a prerequisite as if transcription started somewhere randomly, you would not get a functional mRNA, either. Essentially the polymerase, together with transcription factor identify the cognate promoter. In bacteria it is fairly straightforward (look up the -10 and -35 consesus region). In eukaryotes it is slightly more complex insofar that transcription factors are now mandatory and often involve the TATA box (which is somewhat similar to bacterial -10).

Just the usual things for protein work, i.e. work quick, precise and, if needed, cold to avoid degradation and contamination. However, collagen is usually fairly stable. I would therefore keep sampling at the steps where loss may occur to see at which point you lose the protein. Assuming that the sample lane was actual clear and not, e.g. a smear.

With the tea party still around, I have my doubts.

Consensus is that you should really check out the material of the glassware and ensure that it is sufficient for your needs. The brand name pyrex itself could be slightly misleading, as it is used for both, lab- and houseware but in the US actually consists of different materials. Not that I assume that someone would use a household pyrex vessel for experiments, but one never knows...