Saturday, April 23, 2005
Northern Women: Tough Enough
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=releases.2005/02/050201104313.htm
This article discusses a study that found that women living in "isolated Northern settings teach themselves - and each other - how to be hardy and resilient, as a way to safeguard their health." What is the operational definition of "hardy and resilient?" This would have been critical information for the author to include. Different people can have different definitions of these words. I did however like that the author included that the participants were 25 women of diverse ages and backgrounds living in northern British Columbia. However, I didn't like that the author didn't include what type of backgrounds. What was the age range? The beginning of the article stated that women living in "isolated Nothern Settings" teach themselves to be hardy and resilient. So could the author safely say that all the participants, regardless of backgrounds, lived in isolated settings? Had they always lived in these settings, or had some recently moved to these locations? The article futher states that "Developing resilience, which is central to Northern women's health, involves developing new strategies and enhancing existing ones that are both behavioral and psychological in nature." Well, what were the existing strategies and what are some examples of the new strategies? The article also reports that the nature of resilience and the degree to which Northern women develop it is influenced by factors. How much of an impact do these factors have on Northern women? According to the article, these women "teach themselves to be hardy and resilient." How exactly are they teaching themselves? How are they teaching each other? There are so many points unanswered and so many questions that this article leaves the reader with. Can the reader really assume that all women in the North can teach themselves to be hardy and resilient based on the little amount of information provided?
This article discusses a study that found that women living in "isolated Northern settings teach themselves - and each other - how to be hardy and resilient, as a way to safeguard their health." What is the operational definition of "hardy and resilient?" This would have been critical information for the author to include. Different people can have different definitions of these words. I did however like that the author included that the participants were 25 women of diverse ages and backgrounds living in northern British Columbia. However, I didn't like that the author didn't include what type of backgrounds. What was the age range? The beginning of the article stated that women living in "isolated Nothern Settings" teach themselves to be hardy and resilient. So could the author safely say that all the participants, regardless of backgrounds, lived in isolated settings? Had they always lived in these settings, or had some recently moved to these locations? The article futher states that "Developing resilience, which is central to Northern women's health, involves developing new strategies and enhancing existing ones that are both behavioral and psychological in nature." Well, what were the existing strategies and what are some examples of the new strategies? The article also reports that the nature of resilience and the degree to which Northern women develop it is influenced by factors. How much of an impact do these factors have on Northern women? According to the article, these women "teach themselves to be hardy and resilient." How exactly are they teaching themselves? How are they teaching each other? There are so many points unanswered and so many questions that this article leaves the reader with. Can the reader really assume that all women in the North can teach themselves to be hardy and resilient based on the little amount of information provided?
Expressing Anger May Protect Against Stroke and Heart Disease
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2003/02/030203071450.htm
This article reports that a new study suggests that occasionally expressing anger is associated with decreased risk of stroke and coronary heart disease. The article futher states that "men with moderate levels of anger expression had nearly half the risk of nonfatal heart attacks and a significant reduction in the risk of stroke compared with low levels of anger expression. What is a moderate level of anger expression? What exact percent is "nearly half?" What about high levels of anger expression? Do high levels mean that the risk increases or decreases for risk of stroke and heart disease? This article provides no concrete data. The article also states that "The 23, 522 study participants, men aged 50 to 85, completed surveys that asked them to rate how often they behaved in certain ways when they were angry..." Were all of the participants men aged 50 to 85? Were any women included in the survey? Another surprising point discussed in this article was that "among men who already had heart disease, however, an increased frequency of angr feelings was significantly associated with an increased risk of another bout of heart disease." According to the article, I thought that "occasional anger expression was associated with decreasing the risk of stroke and cornary heart disease. " So can men who have no heart problems be the only ones who can express anger? The article suggests that individuals with high socioeconomic status were more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and be in positions of power where they could express anger freely. However, where is the research to base this conclusion. Wouldn't people in power positions have more stress and responsibilities? Would increase stress play a role in an increased risk of stroke or heart disease? Overall, I feel as if this article provided a lot of statements with little if any data evidence to back them.
This article reports that a new study suggests that occasionally expressing anger is associated with decreased risk of stroke and coronary heart disease. The article futher states that "men with moderate levels of anger expression had nearly half the risk of nonfatal heart attacks and a significant reduction in the risk of stroke compared with low levels of anger expression. What is a moderate level of anger expression? What exact percent is "nearly half?" What about high levels of anger expression? Do high levels mean that the risk increases or decreases for risk of stroke and heart disease? This article provides no concrete data. The article also states that "The 23, 522 study participants, men aged 50 to 85, completed surveys that asked them to rate how often they behaved in certain ways when they were angry..." Were all of the participants men aged 50 to 85? Were any women included in the survey? Another surprising point discussed in this article was that "among men who already had heart disease, however, an increased frequency of angr feelings was significantly associated with an increased risk of another bout of heart disease." According to the article, I thought that "occasional anger expression was associated with decreasing the risk of stroke and cornary heart disease. " So can men who have no heart problems be the only ones who can express anger? The article suggests that individuals with high socioeconomic status were more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and be in positions of power where they could express anger freely. However, where is the research to base this conclusion. Wouldn't people in power positions have more stress and responsibilities? Would increase stress play a role in an increased risk of stroke or heart disease? Overall, I feel as if this article provided a lot of statements with little if any data evidence to back them.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Study Finds Highway Traffic Speed To Be An Illusion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=release/1999/08/990830184718.htm
This study was conducted by taking computer models of vehicles traveling on a congested roadway to develop test perceptions of highway traffic speed. In the model the next lane of traffic generally appeared to be moving faster even if both lanes were of average speed. The videotapes of actual traffic were shown to driving students. The article reports that the studies found that "people believed the next lane was going faster even if it was slower." Can the author really generalize these results to "people?" According to the information provided about the study, the participants were driving students. Would driving students not be as experienced as drivers who had been driving for many years. Would experienced drivers be better able to determine the speed of the driver in the next lane? The article also does not provide the ages of the participants or any information regarding vision. Did the participants all have 20/20 vision, or did some participants have problems with their vision? Was the vision of the participnats checked before the study? Perhaps a participant could be far or near-sighted and not be aware? The article provides no information regarding these issues. The author also suggests that "staying in your lane will get you to your destination safer and at about the same time as more aggressive driving." Where in the article does the researcher claim to study aggressive driving? According to the information provided, the researcher didn't study staying in one lane and the amount of time taken to arrive at your destination. How can the author come to the conclusion that staying in one lane will allow you to arrive at your destination around the same time as someone who changes lanes?
This study was conducted by taking computer models of vehicles traveling on a congested roadway to develop test perceptions of highway traffic speed. In the model the next lane of traffic generally appeared to be moving faster even if both lanes were of average speed. The videotapes of actual traffic were shown to driving students. The article reports that the studies found that "people believed the next lane was going faster even if it was slower." Can the author really generalize these results to "people?" According to the information provided about the study, the participants were driving students. Would driving students not be as experienced as drivers who had been driving for many years. Would experienced drivers be better able to determine the speed of the driver in the next lane? The article also does not provide the ages of the participants or any information regarding vision. Did the participants all have 20/20 vision, or did some participants have problems with their vision? Was the vision of the participnats checked before the study? Perhaps a participant could be far or near-sighted and not be aware? The article provides no information regarding these issues. The author also suggests that "staying in your lane will get you to your destination safer and at about the same time as more aggressive driving." Where in the article does the researcher claim to study aggressive driving? According to the information provided, the researcher didn't study staying in one lane and the amount of time taken to arrive at your destination. How can the author come to the conclusion that staying in one lane will allow you to arrive at your destination around the same time as someone who changes lanes?
Women's Expectation of Life Span Influences Their Babies' Gender
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/08/040815235355.htm
This article reports that a study conducted found that "British women who believed they had a longer time to live, were more likely to give birth to a son than woman who thought that they would die earlier." The article states that the findings were based on a survey that was given to women who had recently given birth. Was the survey only given to women who had already given birth or was it given to women in general? The article only claims that the findings were a result of women who had recently given birth. What age groups were these women? Wouldn't age be a huge factor in this study? Would younger women perceive themselves as living longer than older women? The author did not include the ages of the women who participated in the study. The article goes on to state that this finding may be because "it requires more effort to be pregnant with, give birth to, and raise a son to adulthood." Well, to begin with, where is the research to back this claim. Who did research to find that giving birth to and raising a son takes more effort. The author didn't include in the article why the researcher came to this conclusion. I wonder if the researcher really made this comment, or if the author is misrepresenting the researcher's actual statement. The article futher claims that earlier studies have found that poorly nourished mothers were more likely to give birth to girls. Again the author failed to provide any information on the earlier studies. How were they conducted? Who conducted them? Has any research been conducted to refute these findings? I don't know about the rest of you, but I always thought that the male decided the gender of the child. Perhaps this study should have been conducted on men!!
This article reports that a study conducted found that "British women who believed they had a longer time to live, were more likely to give birth to a son than woman who thought that they would die earlier." The article states that the findings were based on a survey that was given to women who had recently given birth. Was the survey only given to women who had already given birth or was it given to women in general? The article only claims that the findings were a result of women who had recently given birth. What age groups were these women? Wouldn't age be a huge factor in this study? Would younger women perceive themselves as living longer than older women? The author did not include the ages of the women who participated in the study. The article goes on to state that this finding may be because "it requires more effort to be pregnant with, give birth to, and raise a son to adulthood." Well, to begin with, where is the research to back this claim. Who did research to find that giving birth to and raising a son takes more effort. The author didn't include in the article why the researcher came to this conclusion. I wonder if the researcher really made this comment, or if the author is misrepresenting the researcher's actual statement. The article futher claims that earlier studies have found that poorly nourished mothers were more likely to give birth to girls. Again the author failed to provide any information on the earlier studies. How were they conducted? Who conducted them? Has any research been conducted to refute these findings? I don't know about the rest of you, but I always thought that the male decided the gender of the child. Perhaps this study should have been conducted on men!!
Sobriety Survey - fails to keep it methods "clean"
While doing some research on alcohol/drugs for a school project, I came across an article at http://soberforever.net/program_success1.cfm that was for Saint Jude Retreat House. What really caught my attention was that the opening page for this website was disclaiming many beliefs I had about alcohol/drug addiction and rehab. The bold sentences on this page stated that twelve step programs didn't work, alcoholism and drug addiction are not diseases, and that the "Jude Thaddeus Program Works!" The information under these headings were also suprising, for example: "only flawed studies show that the disease concepts of alcoholism and drug addiction are fact." Well, I was suprised with this remark and looked on the National Institute on Drug Abuse website. They provide information on this site http://www.nida.nih.gov/Drugpages/DSR.html that does provide evidence that alcoholism and drug addiciton DO fall under the International Classification of Diseases. The Jude Thaddeus Program also claimed that for the last 12 years their program has "been the most successful program in the country for helping people with drug and alcohol problems permanently recover." Well, again I wanted some research to back these claims. I found that Jude Thaddeus Program uses an annual survey that is taken every three to six months. This survey is a random sample of 200 program graduates from 1991 to the current date. All answers are self-reported and family members also report the "status" of the graduate to "insure accuracy." Status can be defined as: is the graduate sober (not used alcohol/drugs at all) or Using (has used some type of alcohol/drug) since leaving the program. Well, when I read this I couldn't believe that someone would actually do a study with so many problems. Much less report this study!! To begin with, the survey is taken every 3-6 months. Is that enough of time between surveys? The survey only includes program graduates. What about current people in the program? What about the people that didn't complete? How many people completed the program verses people that unsuccessfully completed the program? The survey is self-reported. Would people really be honest on the survey? If they had completed a program would they really want to admit that they went back to using. I thought it was funny that family members were used to insure accuracy. Who are the people that most users want to keep their use hidden from? Family!! Based on the way that this research is conducted, most findings are, of course, going to support the claims of the Jude Program. I can only hope that anyone who is interensted in being a patient of this Program will conduct a little research on their own.
Is Your Job Heartbreaking?
This article by ScienceDaily found at http://sciencedaily.healthology.com/printer_friendlyAR.asp?f=working_well&c=working_...
states that "occupational research shows that high-stress jobs of any kind can affect your heart health, specifically your blood pressure levels, your ability to quit smoking and your chances of having a heart attack or heart surgery. The first study discussed in the article was conducted by BELSTRESS, a large on-going study that looked at the association between health and perceived job stress in men and women. The article reported that the study consisted of 14, 337 men between the ages of 35 and 59 with no particular health history. So what about the women? The article reported a few lines before that the study was looking at the association of health and job stress in men and women. Then the article reports the findings of the men particpants only. The article makes the reader think that the "findings" are for both genders, when in fact the author is only using the findings of males. This author also includes two additional study's to help support the article's claims. However, little information is given about those study's. The author did provide that the study's did include both men and women, but it doesn't include the gender ratio, if the partcipants had previous heart problems or high blood pressure, the ages of the participants (for all the reader knows, the participants could have been all teens), or the type of jobs the participants had. The article initally claims that research shows that "high-stress jobs of any kind" can affect your health, but what is considered a high stress job? Can every job have some level of stress? The article also doesn't include how much of an association was found between the variables. Was there a small association or a large association? The article only reports that an association was found. So is your job heartbreaking? We may never know!!
states that "occupational research shows that high-stress jobs of any kind can affect your heart health, specifically your blood pressure levels, your ability to quit smoking and your chances of having a heart attack or heart surgery. The first study discussed in the article was conducted by BELSTRESS, a large on-going study that looked at the association between health and perceived job stress in men and women. The article reported that the study consisted of 14, 337 men between the ages of 35 and 59 with no particular health history. So what about the women? The article reported a few lines before that the study was looking at the association of health and job stress in men and women. Then the article reports the findings of the men particpants only. The article makes the reader think that the "findings" are for both genders, when in fact the author is only using the findings of males. This author also includes two additional study's to help support the article's claims. However, little information is given about those study's. The author did provide that the study's did include both men and women, but it doesn't include the gender ratio, if the partcipants had previous heart problems or high blood pressure, the ages of the participants (for all the reader knows, the participants could have been all teens), or the type of jobs the participants had. The article initally claims that research shows that "high-stress jobs of any kind" can affect your health, but what is considered a high stress job? Can every job have some level of stress? The article also doesn't include how much of an association was found between the variables. Was there a small association or a large association? The article only reports that an association was found. So is your job heartbreaking? We may never know!!
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Puppy Love and "Happy hormones"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4625213/
Being a pet owner and having a soft spot for dogs, I had to say something about this article. Believe it or not, dogs can help their human companions ease feelings of loneliness, lower blood pressure, and even help reduce stress or cope with depression. Based on new research from the University of Missouri-Columbia, preliminary results show that a few minutes of stroking our pet dog triggers the release of a number of "feel good" hormones in humans, including serotonin, prolactin and oxytocin. The study in Missouri used 50 dog owners and 50 non-dog owners to see what physical and hormonal reaction people had to petting their own dog, an unknown dog, or a robotic dog (the robotic dog is being studied for possible use for elderly people who cannot care for a live animal).
Each session involved calm stroking or petting. Researchers checked blood samples of both the humans and dogs at the beginning of each session and monitored their blood pressure every five minutes. The dogs' blood pressure decreased as soon as they were petted, while the humans' blood pressure dropped by about 10 percent after 15 to 30 minutes from the time they began petting the animal, when blood was drawn again.
Johnson's study found that serotonin levels increased when interacting with the human's own dog, but not with the unfamiliar animal. Serotonin levels actually decreased when interacting with the robotic dog. These changes in serotonin show the "mechanism" of how pets influence our health. I agree with the findings and implications of the study, but then again, I am biased since I have a “child” (my dog).
Being a pet owner and having a soft spot for dogs, I had to say something about this article. Believe it or not, dogs can help their human companions ease feelings of loneliness, lower blood pressure, and even help reduce stress or cope with depression. Based on new research from the University of Missouri-Columbia, preliminary results show that a few minutes of stroking our pet dog triggers the release of a number of "feel good" hormones in humans, including serotonin, prolactin and oxytocin. The study in Missouri used 50 dog owners and 50 non-dog owners to see what physical and hormonal reaction people had to petting their own dog, an unknown dog, or a robotic dog (the robotic dog is being studied for possible use for elderly people who cannot care for a live animal).
Each session involved calm stroking or petting. Researchers checked blood samples of both the humans and dogs at the beginning of each session and monitored their blood pressure every five minutes. The dogs' blood pressure decreased as soon as they were petted, while the humans' blood pressure dropped by about 10 percent after 15 to 30 minutes from the time they began petting the animal, when blood was drawn again.
Johnson's study found that serotonin levels increased when interacting with the human's own dog, but not with the unfamiliar animal. Serotonin levels actually decreased when interacting with the robotic dog. These changes in serotonin show the "mechanism" of how pets influence our health. I agree with the findings and implications of the study, but then again, I am biased since I have a “child” (my dog).
Monday, April 18, 2005
Bad Sex Life? Stop Snoring
Bad Sex Life? Stop Snoring
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33061
The British Snoring and Sleep Apnea Association conducted a survey to launch National Stop Snoring Week and found that 81 percent of the partners of snorers said they do not sleep enough, with half of those saying they wake up feeling tired. Nearly 70 percent of snoring couples consequently end up sleeping in separate rooms. The survey revealed that people who snore have inferior sex lives to those who do not. A total of 537 men and 476 women were questioned for the survey. Of those questioned, 704 were snorers and 309 slept with snorers. Marianne Davey, co-founder of the association, said: "What people were saying was that their relationship would be better if snoring stopped and it really does affect their sexual relationship. "Snoring causes arguments which do not make for a happy relationship. The end result is that relationships break up."
I don't see the relationship between snoring and one's sex life. Snoring occurs when one is asleep and unless one is falling asleep during the act, I don't see the correlation. Also, if an argument over snoring results in the relationship breaking up, then obviously there are deeper issues here causing problems and those issues could be the cause of inferior sex lives. I would like to know the type of questions asked on the survey to better understand their claims.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33061
The British Snoring and Sleep Apnea Association conducted a survey to launch National Stop Snoring Week and found that 81 percent of the partners of snorers said they do not sleep enough, with half of those saying they wake up feeling tired. Nearly 70 percent of snoring couples consequently end up sleeping in separate rooms. The survey revealed that people who snore have inferior sex lives to those who do not. A total of 537 men and 476 women were questioned for the survey. Of those questioned, 704 were snorers and 309 slept with snorers. Marianne Davey, co-founder of the association, said: "What people were saying was that their relationship would be better if snoring stopped and it really does affect their sexual relationship. "Snoring causes arguments which do not make for a happy relationship. The end result is that relationships break up."
I don't see the relationship between snoring and one's sex life. Snoring occurs when one is asleep and unless one is falling asleep during the act, I don't see the correlation. Also, if an argument over snoring results in the relationship breaking up, then obviously there are deeper issues here causing problems and those issues could be the cause of inferior sex lives. I would like to know the type of questions asked on the survey to better understand their claims.
3-a-day
http://www.3aday.org/
The American Dairy Association has a very popular advertising campaign now, called 3-a-day. The purpose of the campaign is to show that adding 3 servings of dairy to your weight-loss regimen will help you lose more weight, especially around the middle. Studies have found that the nutrients in dairy (especially calcium) help the body break down and burn fat. On the official website for 3-a-day, there are links to websites for the corporate sponsors, a section entitled Real Moms who share their results with weight loss – these women are making dairy a part of, not the emphasis of, a complete lifestyle change that also includes exercise and a more healthy diet. This amused me a bit because I figure that exercise and a more healthy diet would lead to weight loss anyway, with or without dairy. So to find out how dairy is linked to weight management or loss, I clicked on the link to the 50 studies that supposedly proved this. http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/nationaldairycouncil/healthyweight/science
From the results listed on this page, I found that although several studies showed a dairy to link to weight loss, more studies showed a link to weight regulation and management than weight loss. I looked up the most interesting studies that showed the correlation between dairy and weight loss and came away with the following questions: Did the diets of the subjects differ in any other way except for the addition of dairy? Since the most important part of losing weight is burning more calories than you take in, did the exercise regimens of the subjects differ? Until, a study that controls for these differences is conducted, even though the bulk of the studies have proven more of a link to dairy and weight management than weight loss, I think I'll stick to a combination of cutting calories, healthy diet, and exercise which have all been proven to have a link to both weight management and weight loss.
The American Dairy Association has a very popular advertising campaign now, called 3-a-day. The purpose of the campaign is to show that adding 3 servings of dairy to your weight-loss regimen will help you lose more weight, especially around the middle. Studies have found that the nutrients in dairy (especially calcium) help the body break down and burn fat. On the official website for 3-a-day, there are links to websites for the corporate sponsors, a section entitled Real Moms who share their results with weight loss – these women are making dairy a part of, not the emphasis of, a complete lifestyle change that also includes exercise and a more healthy diet. This amused me a bit because I figure that exercise and a more healthy diet would lead to weight loss anyway, with or without dairy. So to find out how dairy is linked to weight management or loss, I clicked on the link to the 50 studies that supposedly proved this. http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/nationaldairycouncil/healthyweight/science
From the results listed on this page, I found that although several studies showed a dairy to link to weight loss, more studies showed a link to weight regulation and management than weight loss. I looked up the most interesting studies that showed the correlation between dairy and weight loss and came away with the following questions: Did the diets of the subjects differ in any other way except for the addition of dairy? Since the most important part of losing weight is burning more calories than you take in, did the exercise regimens of the subjects differ? Until, a study that controls for these differences is conducted, even though the bulk of the studies have proven more of a link to dairy and weight management than weight loss, I think I'll stick to a combination of cutting calories, healthy diet, and exercise which have all been proven to have a link to both weight management and weight loss.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Do negative people have an increased risk for dementia?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7514222/
A recent study of 3.500 people showed that those who scored high for pessimism on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory had a 30 percent increased chance for developing dementia 30 to 40 years later. Subjects who scored high on pessimism and anxiety scales had a 4o percent higher risk of developing dementia. This was a post hoc test, as researchers looked at medical records of 3,500 men and women who lived near the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and had taken the test. Researchers did say they did not want people to believe that because they were pessimistic, they would definitely suffer from dementia later in life. I believe these researchers need to look at more factors such as diet and exercise before they go jumping go conclusions!
A recent study of 3.500 people showed that those who scored high for pessimism on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory had a 30 percent increased chance for developing dementia 30 to 40 years later. Subjects who scored high on pessimism and anxiety scales had a 4o percent higher risk of developing dementia. This was a post hoc test, as researchers looked at medical records of 3,500 men and women who lived near the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and had taken the test. Researchers did say they did not want people to believe that because they were pessimistic, they would definitely suffer from dementia later in life. I believe these researchers need to look at more factors such as diet and exercise before they go jumping go conclusions!
Friday, April 15, 2005
Silicone implant politics
Silicone implant politics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/15/EDGM7C7UJB1.DTL
An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle describes how an FDA panel rejected a bid by Inamed Corp. to be allowed to sell its silicone-breast implants, but how panelists recommended that Mentor Corp. be allowed to sell theirs when Mentor provided one year's less data than Inamed. Mentor's study provided only 3 of the expected 10 years of data. Because only 6 out of 420 patients had experienced implant ruptures so far, the company argued that it must be safe. How can you argue for implants using that kind of data? What kind of researchers are these people? They performed 3 years of data when it was supposed to be 10 years and since only 6 out of 420 people showed problems they say it must be safe? Well, I'm not buying those implants (not that I would anyway)! The health of those women over the next seven years is obviously not as important as Mentor's profit I suppose.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/15/EDGM7C7UJB1.DTL
An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle describes how an FDA panel rejected a bid by Inamed Corp. to be allowed to sell its silicone-breast implants, but how panelists recommended that Mentor Corp. be allowed to sell theirs when Mentor provided one year's less data than Inamed. Mentor's study provided only 3 of the expected 10 years of data. Because only 6 out of 420 patients had experienced implant ruptures so far, the company argued that it must be safe. How can you argue for implants using that kind of data? What kind of researchers are these people? They performed 3 years of data when it was supposed to be 10 years and since only 6 out of 420 people showed problems they say it must be safe? Well, I'm not buying those implants (not that I would anyway)! The health of those women over the next seven years is obviously not as important as Mentor's profit I suppose.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
What did he say?
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i31/31a01001.htm
This article, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, discusses the issue of language barriers in college classrooms when the instructor is of foreign descent and their English is (perceived to be) not easily understood. The survey by Rubin showed that students made 20% more errors when filling in missing words from a speech when they thought the speaker was an Asian rather than a White male. There were several variables that could have possibly affected the results of this study. Racial discrimination may have been a factor. Pre-conceived notions about those of foreign descent and an expectation not to understand English spoken by them was also shown to be a factor. I would like to know what the results would have been if he had added a third group of students who heard the audio but did not have the visual. Rubin conducted this study at the University of Georgia. I wonder if the results would have been different had he conducted this study in a large metropolitan area (like New York City) with greater cultural diversity. I agree with the writer of the article and several of the experts quoted that the problem may be more with students not listening carefully or being unwilling to embrace English spoken by a foreign person rather than with the instructors' grasp of the English language.
This article, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, discusses the issue of language barriers in college classrooms when the instructor is of foreign descent and their English is (perceived to be) not easily understood. The survey by Rubin showed that students made 20% more errors when filling in missing words from a speech when they thought the speaker was an Asian rather than a White male. There were several variables that could have possibly affected the results of this study. Racial discrimination may have been a factor. Pre-conceived notions about those of foreign descent and an expectation not to understand English spoken by them was also shown to be a factor. I would like to know what the results would have been if he had added a third group of students who heard the audio but did not have the visual. Rubin conducted this study at the University of Georgia. I wonder if the results would have been different had he conducted this study in a large metropolitan area (like New York City) with greater cultural diversity. I agree with the writer of the article and several of the experts quoted that the problem may be more with students not listening carefully or being unwilling to embrace English spoken by a foreign person rather than with the instructors' grasp of the English language.
