Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Science

How Heroin Addicts Helped Scientists Link Pesticides and Parkinson's 109

Posted by Soulskill from the one-man's-rock-bottom-is-another-man's-eureka dept.
carmendrahl writes "Exposure to certain pesticides, including rotenone and paraquat, has been associated with a higher incidence of Parkinson's disease in population studies. But how did scientists come to think of a link between Parkinson's disease and pesticides in the first place? The answer involves the 1980s drug underworld, where criminals were synthesizing modified versions of illegal drugs such as heroin to stay one step ahead of the law. One molecule in some designer heroin cocktails, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), breaks down in the human body into 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP+), a nerve cell killer. Heroin addicts exposed to this molecule got Parkinson's-like symptoms. As for the connection to pesticides, MPP+ is a weed killer that was used in the 70s. It also closely resembles the structure of the pesticide paraquat. The saga, therefore, put scientists on high alert to the possibility that pesticides might play a role in developing Parkinson's."
Google

Google Seeks US Ban On iPhones, iPads, Macs 404

Posted by timothy from the ask-big-then-compromise dept.
theodp writes "Following up on an announcement that it would rid itself of 4,000 employees world-wide and renege on a deal with the State of Illinois, Google's Motorola Mobility unit said it has filed a new patent-infringement case against Apple, which seeks a ban on U.S. imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers. 'Apple's unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers' innovations,' Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement."

Comment Re:Disqualified bots/Alan Turing 100 competition (Score 2) 68

by dbjh (#40038265) Attached to: Inside the 2012 Loebner Prize
Did he provide that as *the* reason? I just tried your Ultra Hal because of what you wrote, but it failed rather spectacularly. The first two tries it failed in its first response. The third time I accepted some of the weirder responses, but Ultra Hal definitely cannot keep a conversation going (without clearly showing it is a chat bot). However, I was rather disappointed by the low quality of the contestants of the Loebner prize, so maybe it's just me.

Comment You are lying. (Score 1) 417

by dbjh (#30679036) Attached to: CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate
I don't think this is going anywhere. You are lying, because you *are* making claims. When I point out where you are wrong you just ignore it as if nothing happened. Instead you start attacking and insulting me personally. I think I should spell it out or else I fear you will twist my words. You were making this claim:

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming

I replied that consensus means very little in science. Even if it did mean something, there is no consensus. As proof for my statement I referred to a list in "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)". You can also find the list at http://www.petitionproject.org/. At that website they clarify what the purpose of that petition is. I'll quote:

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Furthermore:

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

You are clearly wrong in this case.
In your last reply you made the claim and I'll quote:

There are no '30,000 scientists' that dispute climate change. There are 30,000 names, people who signed up via web form, without any kind of verification of who they really are.

You are lying in the face of evidence and you don't even know what you are talking about. The petition cannot be signed through a web form. Read here how the petition is circulated: http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php. You are clearly wrong in this case too.
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite for politely asking why you made ad hominem attacks. I didn't "attack" you, I just informed you about what kind of impression you made. I left room for you to correct me. You were shouting in your very first reply in this thread. It didn't look like you were thinking clearly. And I wasn't referring to you calling me a fanatic without a valid reason. I was referring to you ignoring a solid report full of references to actual scientific research, just because one of the lead authors happens to have ties to big corporations. I don't have to prove the science is bad. I will just refer to scientific research that shows it for me. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and will accept that people can have different viewpoints based on the same facts.

Comment You come up with evidence please! (Score 1) 417

by dbjh (#30671428) Attached to: CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate
Why do you keep asking for people to prove a negative? You are making the claims, not me! You really cannot expect people to be convinced by your "arguments" if you continue being so, well, unreasonable.
And why the ad hominem attacks? Come up with facts, counter arguments, not with ideology. The NIPCC report is full with references to actual scientific research, executed by people who aren't dependent on echoing what the IPCC wants to hear. The fact that Singer is one of the lead authors doesn't affect the research one bit.
And what about the more than 30,000 scientists? Admit that your claim about there being consensus was just plain wrong.

Comment 30,000 scientists don't agree with you. (Score 1) 417

by dbjh (#30667022) Attached to: CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate
30,000 QUALIFIED people (scientists) don't agree with you. See http://www.petitionproject.org/. Read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) for all the arguments and references to scientific publications.

Comment There is no threat. (Score 1) 417

by dbjh (#30666956) Attached to: CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate
The peer review process in climate science is heavily corrupted. If everyone peer reviews like minded colleagues peer review loses its meaning. Have you ever read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) or do you too only read what confirms what you already believe to be true?

Comment Consensus means NOTHING (Score 1) 417

by dbjh (#30666836) Attached to: CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate
You sound like an activist -- too passionate and not thinking clearly anymore. You should be a bit more precise in your wording. Read his post again. He wasn't saying there's no link between CO2 and global warming. He wrote and I'll quote "there is no really good scientific evidence of a threat from CO2". Which is true.
You may come up with forecasts published by the IPCC (a political, not a scientific organisation) based on computer models which are so crude even the sign of the projected temperature change is unreliable.
In science consensus means *nothing*. If you cannot show the evidence you have no case. And a computer model is no evidence. You are the one who claims something, so *you* are the one who needs to come up with proof.
However, the funny part is that there is no consensus about the link between _anthropogenic_ CO2 and climate change at all. You may want to read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" to get an idea what independent scientists think about the matter. It contains a petition which is pretty strongly worded, signed by more than 30,000 scientists. You can download the full report from http://www.nipccreport.com/.

Comment Re:TPM Is ***NOT*** the answer. (Score 1) 192

by dbjh (#28915921) Attached to: Bootkit Bypasses TrueCrypt Encryption
Except that
- copied games cannot be played
- PS3s with such an old firmware version are difficult to get by (if at all)
- the PS3 won't let you get online unless your firmware is recent enough
- some games require a firmware that is newer than a certain revision

So, what the GP wrote is true: the PS3 remains unhacked.

Comment Seen the link, but haven't read the paper?! (Score 1) 821

by dbjh (#27896121) Attached to: Windows 7 "Not Much Faster" Than Vista
Please refrain from commenting if you haven't read his paper. You can scream that it's bullshit, but you better explain why. You're being silly -- not even DRM proponents deny that there's content protection technology in Vista. Read Gutmann's paper if you want to have at least some pointers to articles that give you all the examples you need (examples of people who could not do something they wanted to do, because of Vista's DRM).

Comment If you accuse others of lying, don't lie yourself (Score 1) 821

by dbjh (#27896051) Attached to: Windows 7 "Not Much Faster" Than Vista
You either haven't read Gutmann's paper nor seen his slides or are deliberately spreading FUD yourself. Gutmann's paper goes much deeper than just spreading fear. Just by saying that others have "debunked" his paper doesn't make it so. I haven't read all the articles that supposedly debunk his claims, but what I did read and the links you gave all ignore his central point. The only thing they do is employing diversion tactics by focussing on less important details, some of which he later corrected and what you apparently blame him for (?!). Here's what he wrote in his response to George Ou and Ed Bott, the authors of the articles you provided links to:

In all this mass of trivia there's one major thing missing that would justify the title that he's chosen to use: Any attempt at all to address the central thesis of the content protection analysis, that trying to seal shut (portions of) the historically open PC architecture in the name of DRM is technically a really bad idea, and one that's bound to fail. As Bruce Schneier put it, "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet". So the DRM will fail, and all that'll be left is the collateral damage. I'm not sure if this is merely an accident or deliberate, but in his entire multi-page writeup Ed has completely, utterly failed to address the central issue of content protection/DRM. That's quite a major target to miss, completely.

Slashdot Top Deals

Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

Close