Science Odds and Ends

11 May 2011 10:36 #201 by major bean
Replied by major bean on topic Science Odds and Ends

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."


This concluded from studies that show.

There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.


As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)

You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.

Regards,
Major Bean

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 12:24 #202 by ScienceChic
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Science Odds and Ends
http://blogs.nature.com/grrlscientist/2 ... id=FBK_NPG
It's not often that we get to see strange underwater creatures in action in their natural habitat. But thanks to the many advances in digital technology, we are given this rare look at a mysterious benthopelagic sea animal: Grimpoteuthis bathynectes, one in a group of 14 recognised species that are often referred to as "Dumbo octopus" because their fins resemble the large ears that the fictional character, Dumbo the elephant, used to fly. In this astonishing video, filmed 200 miles east of the coast of Oregon state, we can observe how this ghostly-white octopus moves through the inky-blackness of the deep sea:
File Attachment:




Yea - score another one for basic research!
http://topicfire.com/share/Biologists-d ... 11070.html
New type of insect repellant may be thousands of times stronger than DEET
May 9, 2011

Imagine an insect repellant that not only is thousands of times more effective than DEET – the active ingredient in most commercial mosquito repellants – but also works against all types of insects, including flies, moths and ants.

That possibility has been created by the discovery of a new class of insect repellant made in the laboratory of Vanderbilt Professor of Biological Sciences and Pharmacology Laurence Zwiebel and reported this week in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The discovery of this new class of repellant is based on insights that scientists have gained about the basic nature of the insect's sense of smell in the last few years.



Some of the descriptions listed of behaviors of liars is counter-intuitive to what I thought happened - interesting read!
http://topicfire.com/share/How-to-tell- ... 16306.html
How to tell when someone's lying
May 10, 2011

The ability to effectively detect deception is crucial to public safety, particularly in the wake of renewed threats against the U.S. following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

UCLA professor of psychology R. Edward Geiselman has been studying these questions for years and has taught investigative interviewing techniques to detectives and intelligence officers from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Marines, the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments, and numerous international agencies.

He and three former UCLA undergraduates — Sandra Elmgren, Chris Green and Ida Rystad —analyzed some 60 studies on detecting deception and have conducted original research on the subject. They present their findings and their guidance for how to conduct effective training programs for detecting deception in the current (April) issue of the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, which is published this week.

Geiselman and his colleagues have identified several indicators that a person is being deceptive. The more reliable red flags that indicate deceit, Geiselman said, include:

See article for list!

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 14:26 #203 by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
Rotating Sunspots Triggered Massive Solar Flare
The most powerful solar flare unleashed from the sun in nearly five years was triggered by interactions between dark regions on the solar surface that rotate and twist the sun's magnetic field, a new study shows.
In addition to the large X-class flare, the same region also released over 40 smaller flares during the five days studied.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110503/sc_space/rotatingsunspotstriggeredmassivesolarflare

These are just some of the 5+ mag. Earthquakes since the X-class hit us…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/
Update time = Wed May 11 20:00:05 UTC 2011

MAG UTC DATE-TIMEy/m/d h:m:s DEPTH km Region
5.5 2011/05/11 18:14:36 35.5 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.3 2011/05/11 16:47:26 1.0 SPAIN
5.0 2011/05/11 15:59:11 29.6 TONGA REGION
5.0 2011/05/11 15:21:26 47.7 EASTERN NEW GUINEA REG, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
5.0 2011/05/11 10:39:39 37.2 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 10:32:26 44.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 09:21:37 38.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/11 09:16:26 37.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.7 2011/05/11 08:19:39 45.6 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 07:54:31 99.2 HALMAHERA, INDONESIA
5.3 2011/05/11 06:11:28 42.6 EAST OF THE NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND
5.0 2011/05/11 01:28:08 104.8 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES
5.6 2011/05/11 01:20:08 25.1 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.2 2011/05/10 19:31:51 52.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 16:45:45 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.4 2011/05/10 15:26:05 544.3 JILIN-HEILONGJIANG BORDER REGION, CHINA
5.0 2011/05/10 15:10:03 35.0 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 15:05:22 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.1 2011/05/10 14:53:35 42.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/10 14:32:36 41.7 MOLUCCA SEA
5.3 2011/05/10 14:07:49 39.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 13:03:03 92.5 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
5.0 2011/05/10 12:07:37 20.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.3 2011/05/10 12:00:32 21.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 11:31:48 20.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.5 2011/05/10 10:44:12 35.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 10:14:42 24.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
6.8 2011/05/10 08:55:10 14.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
________________________________________

Connection? Maybe, why the fast melting of the snow, causing the floods down the Mississippi? Not man-made sorry.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 14:36 #204 by Rockdoc
Replied by Rockdoc on topic Science Odds and Ends

major bean wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."


This concluded from studies that show.

There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.


As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)

You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.


Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.

Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 14:41 #205 by Rockdoc
Replied by Rockdoc on topic Science Odds and Ends

TPP wrote: Rotating Sunspots Triggered Massive Solar Flare
The most powerful solar flare unleashed from the sun in nearly five years was triggered by interactions between dark regions on the solar surface that rotate and twist the sun's magnetic field, a new study shows.
In addition to the large X-class flare, the same region also released over 40 smaller flares during the five days studied.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110503/sc_space/rotatingsunspotstriggeredmassivesolarflare

These are just some of the 5+ mag. Earthquakes since the X-class hit us…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/
Update time = Wed May 11 20:00:05 UTC 2011

MAG UTC DATE-TIMEy/m/d h:m:s DEPTH km Region
5.5 2011/05/11 18:14:36 35.5 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.3 2011/05/11 16:47:26 1.0 SPAIN
5.0 2011/05/11 15:59:11 29.6 TONGA REGION
5.0 2011/05/11 15:21:26 47.7 EASTERN NEW GUINEA REG, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
5.0 2011/05/11 10:39:39 37.2 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 10:32:26 44.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 09:21:37 38.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/11 09:16:26 37.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.7 2011/05/11 08:19:39 45.6 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 07:54:31 99.2 HALMAHERA, INDONESIA
5.3 2011/05/11 06:11:28 42.6 EAST OF THE NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND
5.0 2011/05/11 01:28:08 104.8 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES
5.6 2011/05/11 01:20:08 25.1 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.2 2011/05/10 19:31:51 52.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 16:45:45 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.4 2011/05/10 15:26:05 544.3 JILIN-HEILONGJIANG BORDER REGION, CHINA
5.0 2011/05/10 15:10:03 35.0 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 15:05:22 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.1 2011/05/10 14:53:35 42.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/10 14:32:36 41.7 MOLUCCA SEA
5.3 2011/05/10 14:07:49 39.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 13:03:03 92.5 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
5.0 2011/05/10 12:07:37 20.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.3 2011/05/10 12:00:32 21.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 11:31:48 20.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.5 2011/05/10 10:44:12 35.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 10:14:42 24.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
6.8 2011/05/10 08:55:10 14.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
________________________________________

Connection? Maybe, why the fast melting of the snow, causing the floods down the Mississippi? Not man-made sorry.


There is a lot of data you have thrown at us. The sunspot activity is rather interesting news. I was not quit aware of how these worked. Sunspot activity and temperature increases are well established relationships. Agreed, not man made. Now Earth's seismic activity still needs work. It would seem highly likely that astrophysical motions with their associated gravitational tides would influence earth quake activity. Changes in gravitational tides would have fundamental effects on tectonic plates that slide around on a conveyor belt of molten rock.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 15:20 #206 by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
Sorry wanted to add this:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/27856172/detail.html

Seven Dead After Earthquake Hits Spain
By the CNN Wire Staff

MADRID (CNN) - Seven people were killed Wednesday when an earthquake struck southeastern Spain, the central government's chief representative in the region told National Spanish Radio.
The 5.3-magnitude quake occurred at 4:47 p.m. (10:47 a.m. ET) and was centered about 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of Murcia, near the Mediterranean coast, the U.S. Geological Survey said. That is about 350 kilometers (218 miles) south-southeast of Madrid.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

11 May 2011 15:24 #207 by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
Point being that IMHO, the sun spots/flares effect the earth much more than we realize. The MASSIVE MAGNETIC fields sent out by sun flares, are messing with the tectonic plates, and our magnetic fields!

[EDITED: IMO, since, where dealing with 3 different studies, NO body is looking at the big picture.
Space science - Solar flares emitting magnetic fields,
Climate Science - what's causing all this quickly melting snows, causing floods,
Tectonic plate movement, Earth Science - What causing all the recent seismic activity,
as shown on map.

IMO, (and it has been proven in some cases), NOBODY is TALKING with each other. I Believe that all 3 events are one in the same starting with the Solar Flares, and going from there.

(All I wanted to show was the AMOUNT of quakes that are happening, and I cut the list way down from site)
If you’ve had time yet to visit the site, you’ll be surprised as to how many pages, of seismic events happened JUST YESTERDAY, Worldwide.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

12 May 2011 06:04 #208 by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
Just FUN!

Why odd alien planets travel in backward orbits
Scientists find they arise when a giant world farther away from parent star interferes




"Scientists have a new explanation for the mystery of why some alien planets the size of Jupiter or larger travel in the opposite direction of their parent star's spin.

Of the more than 500 alien planets that have so far been discovered, many have turned out to be oddballs. Scientists have found planets with extremely elongated or highly tilted orbits, or planets that follow paths that swing in very close to their parent stars.

The cream of the weird planet crop are so-called hot Jupiters— large gas giant planets that circle extremely close to their stars — that seem to orbit around their stars in the opposite direction of their parent star's spin. About a quarter of all hot Jupiter planets discovered by astronomers seem to be these strange backward-traveling worlds."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42993989/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

12 May 2011 10:12 #209 by major bean
Replied by major bean on topic Science Odds and Ends

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

major bean wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."


This concluded from studies that show.

There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.


As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)

You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.


Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.

Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.

Nice spin. But his research was not flawed. He had to resign because of the pressure from the scientific community who would not accept. They could not accept fact. They bend science to their point of view. Science is not fact, but consensus.

So, in light of this, can we accept science as the pure facts and uncorrupted? I think not.

Apparently, you have read into my post what you want it to say. Nice try.

Regards,
Major Bean

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

12 May 2011 10:25 #210 by Rockdoc
Replied by Rockdoc on topic Science Odds and Ends

major bean wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

major bean wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."


This concluded from studies that show.

There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.


As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)

You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.


Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.

Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.

Nice spin. But his research was not flawed. He had to resign because of the pressure from the scientific community who would not accept. They could not accept fact. They bend science to their point of view. Science is not fact, but consensus.

So, in light of this, can we accept science as the pure facts and uncorrupted? I think not.

Apparently, you have read into my post what you want it to say. Nice try.


Time to call BS. Being accurate in what you report is a matter of integrity and that is why we part company over the Dr. Greenfield issue. Your null hypothesis is wrong so your ability to draw valid conclusions regarding science from the Greenfield incident is wrong. What you choose to believe about science in general stands apart from the referenced article. Being a scientist and actively practicing the scientific method I have a different opinion on how I and other scientists work and it is not by consensus. If that were the case, we would all vote on a particular theory as opposed to arguing and looking for additional facts that either refute or support a working hypothesis. You are entitled to your erroneous beliefs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.333 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+