On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Tony B wrote:
Sorry, but this makes no sense as written. Don't we all have a 100%
chance of death? How can someone have a 101% chance of death? As
professional reporters are replaced with amateurs, I'm afraid we're
going to be seeing lots more of this type of nonsense
Maybe the wording wasn't tight enough for you, Tony. My chances of
death are 100% given enough time. However, I know I should not take
risks that are likely to hasten it. Reducing risks reduce the odds of
dying sooner. Is that clear enough?
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
S
Sorry, but this makes no sense as written. Don't we all have a 100%
chance of death? How can someone have a 101% chance of death? As
professional reporters are replaced with amateurs, I'm afraid we're
going to be seeing lots more of this type of nonsense in the years to
come.
> In a provocative lo
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ranbo wrote:
> H'.if there reason for the higher death rate is correct wouldn't
> this also apply to people who sit for prolonged periods in front of computer
> screens?
Sure, if those people did nothing to offset the deleterious effects
of prolonged p
H'.if there reason for the higher death rate is correct wouldn't
this also apply to people who sit for prolonged periods in front of computer
screens?
Randall
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:35 PM, betty wrote:
> As seen in Robert L. Park's "What's New" newsletter at UMd physics site,
> http:
I love the studies...'we fed rats a dosage of big macs and fries equal to a
human eating 54 pounds of the same food on a daily basis for 2 years and
found the rats to be quite unhealthy after the experiment. we are studying
the results to find out why.'
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM, phartz...@
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:39 PM, mike wrote:
> The best part of this study is that American dollars didn't go to this waste
> of time.
I am going to suppose that the results of that research are correct.
I've also gotta believe that folks who are waaayyy too sedentary are
likely to have short
The best part of this study is that American dollars didn't go to this waste
of time.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM, betty wrote:
> As seen in Robert L. Park's "What's New" newsletter at UMd physics site,
> http://www.bobpark.org/. He comments, "Of course, it may be the
> programming rather th
As seen in Robert L. Park's "What's New" newsletter at UMd physics site,
http://www.bobpark.org/. He comments, "Of course, it may be the programming rather than
being sedentary that's bad for you."
Watching TV Linked to Higher Risk of Death
By RON WINSLOW
If you're reading this sitting down,