Recent comments in /f/science

JMYDoc t1_jdnw5wn wrote

It doesnt cause breast cancer. If a cancer is present when the patient is pregnant, it can make it grow or become clinically evident faster due to the elevated estrogen and progesterone during pregnancy.

15

Troutkid OP t1_jdnv5rv wrote

It's becoming obvious that you (1) Have not read or do not understand the methods and results in this paper, (2) you refuse to cite specific sections of the article with which you disagree and (3) are not willing to bring any evidence beyond a long string of "nuh uh" responses.

I can't believe I've entertained explaining what controlling for a variable means, which is concerning. If you want to bring up specific quotes/sections or bring in counter facts, then by all means, I'll address them. I am a global health statistician, so I'm happy to help clear up some questions. I invite you to bring something substantive to the table.

If you still have a meaningful problem with the methodology of this article that was published in The Lancet, then I look forward to your publication that overturns the results./s All the data is available online.

5

Carbon140 t1_jdnr4hf wrote

4

ImproperUsername t1_jdnqcya wrote

I’m one of the people who lived next to one of these roads. While there’s no doubt that motorcycles and muffler-less vehicles contribute, what wears you down is the absolute constant noise of all traffic, you cannot escape it. Forget being worried about waking up from random loud motorcycles or jake braking, you couldn’t get to sleep from the sounds of car tires coming and going (Doppler effect). Just when you think there’s a lull and some relief, the roaring is back. It’s torture and unbearably depressing.

I also studied noise pollution in depth for my degree, so I’m really not in denial about anything. I actually know way more about this topic than most people.

2

Wagamaga OP t1_jdnnp4v wrote

After six years spent tracking health outcomes among nearly 925,000 Danish seniors, investigators determined that when a man between the ages of 65 and 69 loses his wife he is 70% more likely to die in the year that follows, when compared with his non-widowed peers.

Among surviving wives, however, that rise in risk was just 27%.

Why the difference? Study author Alexandros Katsiferis said he could only offer a few theories.

"We do not have the data to accurately answer that question, so we cannot be very confident on the reasons why this phenomenon tends to happen," noted Katsiferis, a doctoral fellow with the section for epidemiology in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen.

But he pointed out that elderly widows may be better than widowers at "absorbing the shock, [including] the hurdles of taking care of a sick husband, along with all the needs and quirks" leading up to the husband's passing.

By contrast, it could be that the "physical and emotional health [of men] relies on the willingness of their spouse to take care of them," he added. "So, when their wife is out of their life, you get this collapse."

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-03-spouse-lethal-men.html

167

AutoModerator t1_jdnnjmw wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

flaminate_strutching t1_jdnkz2a wrote

Pregnancy and breastfeeding both reduce breast cancer risks.

(and because I know this will be misinterpreted, I’m just stating fact. Idgaf if you ever have kids, I’d rather most people didn’t, and I agree that abortion should be legal)

38

DrillaComeThrough t1_jdnkfdg wrote

Ehhh, the point the commenter is making is that there are tons of other impossible-to-entangle factors that may make up the lion's share of the effect.

Like if someone is worth $20M, I can imagine they'd have a better feeling towards growing old -- and in fact would try harder to stay alive longer than someone who knows they're going to be working minimum wage jobs into their 80s.

8

dumptrump3 t1_jdnjhhm wrote

16

AimlessZealot t1_jdnj41u wrote

I don't spend a lot of time on genetics but as I remember it:

Compartment A weakening- Active chromosomes being weakened.

A/B mixing - Inactive and active chromosomes coming in contact and potentially affecting each other when they are supposed to be kept in separate compartments to avoid that.

Intra-TAD contact - Genes that exist to help enhance, promote or silence specific other genes can affect genes they were not intended to, thanks to the isolating boundaries being broken.

Decreased H3K27ac modification - (This one I kinda remember) This reduces the likelihood of DNA correctly copying sections when signalled (enhanced) and causes some genes to not be enhanced. This is a problem because sections like our opposable thumbs and brain development have been linked to enhancer genes doing their thing, of which many depend on H3K27AC modification to help.

Hope that helps.

1