Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged study

Rss Feed Group items tagged

7More

Children Exposed to Nicotine in Utero Have Lower Reading Scores | SciTech Daily - 1 views

  •  
    Interesting that they assume nicotene does this. 20% lower scores is pretty concrete results though.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I would like to see this put to test in AL or Council Bluffs and see if it is still accurate.
  •  
    Interesting
  •  
    It was not as surprising to me that these tests have happened. To me being exposed to nicotine while they are still in the developing process is very harmful. I don't think mothers should ever expose babies to that, if they want them to have a brighter future.
  •  
    if they were exposed to marijuana the would have had better reading scores
  •  
    I don't find this surprising. Nicotine is a known mutagen, so I think it's actually foolish to assume that it won't affect fetuses which are exposed to it. It will be interesting to see if this study actually gets any media attention, though. Unfortunately, I doubt it will. People, especially Americans, are usually content to overlook any negative consequences to their actions.
  •  
    A quick google search for the effects of nicotine on fetuses came up with a number of medical journals on the subject. Research into this subject has been done at last as far back as 1996, and smoking cigarettes during pregnancy is documented to have a large number of possible adverse outcomes even worse than poor reading skills, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and sudden infant death syndrome. Here's a link to an article from the Oxford Journal on the subject. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/2/364.full
8More

Giffords, Kelly launch gun control initiative - 1 views

  •  
    I think it is good that Giffords is pushing for gun control because I believe that we need it.
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    ya its nice that she has taken such a tragic event and used it to try and prevent more shootings in the future
  •  
    Should we focus on gun control or preventing violence in general? This is a pretty interesting follow up: "US suffers far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation, says a new study" http://news.msn.com/us/more-violent-deaths-in-us-than-other-wealthy-nations-report-shows
  •  
    i am all for freedom but when it comes to gun control people in general should know that if their children or themselves know they have a mental health disorder that they shouldn't have guns in their house or in cases they have children with mental disorders keep them in a gun cabinet and hold on to the key
  •  
    Gun cabinets are just as easy for kids to break into even if the kids do not have the key. I don't think you should not include people with disabilities from being able to have firearms in their homes, it may not be the safest thing but it is still a right that they have. Most people who have firearms in their homes have them to protect themselves and their families, not to harm other people. I think we need stricter gun laws for everyone, not just certain people.
  •  
    I think that the government should force people to own a gun safe big enough for all of the guns they own. We can't just take away guns! One way or another people are going to go out of their way to kill people.
  •  
    I agree with you, Grayson. The government should make people own a gun safe to store all of their weapons. It is dangerous for guns to be located somewhere where anyone can get their hands on them. Despite that fact, the second amendment gives you the right to own weapons. Although there have been many gun crimes in the United States, lately, you cannot take away that right. Just because some people handle weapons irresponsibly, all people should not be punished for it.
  •  
    i do like my guns and i dont want the government telling me i cant have them. taking guns away wont stop murders it will just make them happen in a different way
15More

Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion - 9 views

  •  
    "Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion"
  • ...12 more comments...
  •  
    It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.
  •  
    I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.
  •  
    It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.
  •  
    I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.
  •  
    I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.
  •  
    I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.
  •  
    I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.
  •  
    I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.
  •  
    I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.
  •  
    Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.
  •  
    Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.
  •  
    I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.
  •  
    i think that a women should not be able to sue a doctor for her choice of having an abortion
  •  
    I agree with Sydney, Lauren, and Landon. You made the choice of getting the abortion, and the doctor just did what you wanted. YOU should have made sure that it was the choice you wanted.
2More

340,000 votes may have come from Facebook message - 0 views

  •  
    With nearly 1 billion users, Facebook has clearly become a feature of many people's lives worldwide. A new study suggests that the social network has the potential to get hundreds of thousands of people to engage in a single behavior - namely, voting.
  •  
    Super interesting article. I am curious if anyone will comment here about whether they think their decisions are influenced much by social media. This article has an equally provocative link on Obesity and STD's gained from social networks http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/tech.networks.connected/index.html
1More

What's at stake in power struggle over judges - 0 views

  •  
    Editor's note: Russell Wheeler is a visiting fellow in the Brookings Institution's Governance Studies Program and president of the Governance Institute. From 1991 until 2005 he was the deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, the federal courts' agency for education and research.
2More

Study: Largest ever asteroid impact found in Australia - CNN.com - 6 views

  •  
    The devastating event took place on our planet many millions of years ago, but researchers are only now beginning to discover what happened. In a remote part of Central Australia, the two pieces of asteroid left what geophysicists say is the largest impact zone ever found on Earth, spreading over an area 400 kilometers (250 miles) wide.
  •  
    Researchers are unable to find sediment layers in rocks that match debris from this time zone, which they were able to do for the asteroid that is theorized to wipe out the dinosaurs.
1More

Man treated for Google Glass addiction - 0 views

shared by mya_doty on 15 Oct 14 - No Cached
  •  
    (CNN) -- A man who checked in to the Navy's Substance Abuse and Recovery Program for alcoholism is also being treated for a Google Glass addiction, according to a new study. San Diego doctors say the 31-year-old man "exhibited significant frustration and irritability related to not being able to use his Google Glass."
2More

Officials: U.S. wants to know how ISIS recruited 3 Denver teens - 3 views

  •  
    (CNN) -- U.S. law enforcement views the case of three teenage Colorado girls who wanted to join ISIS as a good opportunity to study how the militant group recruits young people in the West, U.S. law enforcement officials told CNN.
  •  
    Why would anybody betray their country and join ISIS?
1More

Obama's strategy suffers setback in Yemen - CNN.com - 0 views

shared by jborwick on 27 Mar 15 - No Cached
  •  
    But with Iranian-backed rebels now overrunning the U.S. ally tasked with beating back local al Qaeda affiliates, the nation at the tip of Arabian Peninsula makes a better case study in the approach's limitations. Yemen was the petri dish for Obama's concept of how to fight Islamic extremists with a hybrid warfare of U.S.
2More

World's richest 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017, Oxfam study finds - 1 views

  •  
    "Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work."
  •  
    It seems that CEOs and company owners are taking wealth for themselves, rather than investing it back into their businesses. I think that, if this trend continues, it could lead to devastating effects on the economy.
8More

Presidential debates and their effects: An updated research roundup - Journal... - 12 views

  •  
    "Presidential debates and their effects: An updated research roundup"
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    I can't help but say that the debates are where we see the best/worst in a candidate not when were watching the news or reading a paper.
  •  
    I think that in this case they are just like getting back at each other and being dramatic like that isn't what presidency is about at all, and if they are being childish now who knows what the future holds, nobody wants a childish president.
  •  
    The debates have effected very little votes this time around, not to mention, the candidates just bicker like nine year old kids. It's a waste of everyone's time, we don't learn any more about their ideas, we just hear them attack each other on how one deleted emails and how the other is sexist and wants to build a wall.
  •  
    In the debate they were trying to attack each other and their private stuff like the emails Clinton had deleted and Trump saying he hasn't paid taxes and they haven't said anything about their plans to "try" and make America great again.
  •  
    The debates - at least so far - have only helped Hillary's increase of voters. It appears that more and more people are figuring out that Donald Trump can be compared to that kid in elementary school who always has the same comback of "I know you are but what am I?". Personally, I don't like either of our candidates because I'm against some of both of their views, but I believe the debates are a waste of time. The largest reason people watch - in my opinion - is to see how many times Trump will interrupt Hillary, and how much they bicker.
  •  
    The 2 candidates in my opinion are very in maturate. Neither of them should be running for president. Also I think more people are starting to realize how bad Trump is for our country because Hillary's increase of voters.
  •  
    The debates have only proven that voters are now leaning more toward Hillary instead of Donald Trump because it brought up his past statements and views.
12More

Trump Signs Memo Implementing Ban On Transgender People Enlisting In The Military : The... - 9 views

  •  
    "President Trump has signed a memo implementing his new policy on transgender people serving in the armed forces."
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    So what is the difference between a Transgender already serving and a Transgender trying to enlist to serve their country? They're still humans, and they still have the same rights as everyone else. "The only exception is for transgender service members already in treatment."
  •  
    @mason_mower Transgender individuals that are currently in the military can stay, but no money will be spent on any medical costs for them. I agree, anyone should be allowed to serve their country, considering they are mentally and physically capable, no matter their identity.
  •  
    I wish I could understand the logic coming from this. Discrimination is just wrong.
  •  
    It's interesting that while campaigning in 2016, Trump stated ""Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.", but now he has become a person that threatens their freedoms and beliefs. His main reason for banning transgender people is the cost of surgeries and other care. Saying that the military was being burden by "tremendous medical costs." However, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at of transgenders at 12,800 and the cost of care at $4.2 million to $5.6 million and concluding that "doctors agree that such care is medically necessary." And that the cost of care for transgender people is only a tenth of the cost of the annual $84 million dollars the military spends to treat erectile dysfunction.
  •  
    This is a big step backwards for the trangender community. makes me sad
  •  
    "The privacy of service members must not be infringed. This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected. Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed." One of the reasons I don't believe transgender should be allowed to serve in the Military.
  •  
    @stocktonthomsen Although I understand your concern Stockton, many transgender individuals are completely comfortable being housed in the sex specific facilities of the opposite sex. Considering some of them have stalls or something along those lines, the transgender individuals could change clothes and use the restroom/bathing facilities without exposing inappropriate parts. Also, considering the large military budget we have, we could afford either building separate barracks for the transgender individuals, or at least adding stalls to certain barracks so the individuals can wash up and use the restroom in peace.
  •  
    Also, why does the gender matter of the person fighting? As long as they are capable of fighting, it should not matter. They want to fight for their country, so let them. @stocktonthomsen
  •  
    "As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. You're still a human being, and you're a human being with an issue then I wish you Godspeed in dealing with it in any whatever way you see fit, but if you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." -Ben Shapiro Desiring to be trans is ridiculous
  •  
    @stocktonthomsen I do not trust your quote source, as he is not an expert in the field of biology/psychology. Fun fact: Brains have actually been scientifically proven to be genderless. If you want to bring up biology, I'd like you to know that it is possible to be a female bodied individual with three X chromosomes, a female bodied individual with one X chromosome, a male bodied individual with two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, a male bodied individual with one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes, etc. And what happens when a transgender individual actually has the bottom surgery? What then? Do you seriously want to say that they are still women (if they were born female) or that they are still men (if they were born male) even though they have the sex organs for the opposite sex? Would you still say they should be in the barracks of the sex they were born with? Would you still say that person should use the bathroom of the sex they were born as? If you really want to convince me that I should not serve in the military because of my gender identity, you need to bring in stronger arguments and better sources.
7More

A COVID-19 vaccine will still save lives even if it's not 100% effective, experts say |... - 10 views

  •  
    I appreciate that the scientist is trying desperately to get a new vac. but even if it's not 100% it really all depends. Some people might refuse to even get the vac. and those people might get contagious and spread it. And if the vac. isn't 100% effective then I won't even matter if you go it or not. In this pandemic everything has been flipped upside down, we all need 100% accuracy to get rid of this thing.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I feel like we should have human lab rats for this stuff. Like if there's a mandate for vaccines, we should see what the effects are on people before we give it to the whole population.
  •  
    I think there will be no easy way of getting rid of the virus because not everyone is going to trust the vaccine and not everyone is going to be on the same page. I can see this pandemic stretching far into next year which is so annoying and sad.
  •  
    If the vaccine isn't going to 100% protect you then why get it? It's starting to seem like the vaccine has the potential to cause more harm than good.
  •  
    I have to agree with Lennx partly, why take the vaccine when it is giving people more issues, even though not all vaccines are 100% sure to protect you I I think they should have worked and studied the vaccine longer to make sure it was safer than it is. Also, I don´t think it should be allowed to required medical workers to take the vaccine to keep their job because since people are getting sick from the vaccine more medical workers have to stay home from getting sick and if all medical workers have to take the vaccine and they get sick there is going to be a lot less doctors and nurses working.
  •  
    Good discussion so far! I will be getting the vaccine as soon as I can for 2 reasons. One is that compared to the usual 50% effectiveness rate of yearly flu vaccines, 95% effectiveness of preventing COVID is REALLY good. Secondly, in order to get back to "normal" our population needs to hit 75-80% of people taking it for the "herd immunity" to kick in. Although the development of the vaccines was faster than usual, our best experts are endorsing them.
  •  
    it's very great that we are coming out with a vaccine. I still don't believe that they were able to come out with this so quickly considering that they still haven't perfected the flu vaccine. not saying that it would be 100% perfect, but it's taken them 100's of years to do so

Bidens COVID Relief Plan Future Impact? - 4 views

started by ndvorak on 03 Feb 21 no follow-up yet
3More

Perspectives: Columbus Day 2020 | AllSides - 3 views

  •  
    As a person with a family of immigrants, I believe that seeing "Columbus Day" isn't correct and better off with calling it Indigenous peoples' day due to Native Americans already living throughout the entirety of the North American continent. I wanna know if other people see it as Columbus Day of Indigenous peoples day.
  •  
    I think we should start sharing who all these people part of American history really were because growing up, social studies class always made it seem like Columbus was a hero that discovered a continent and came and had a party with the native Americans where they ate turkey which is why we now have thanksgiving. I think we deserved to know the truth.
  •  
    The idea that we should continue to celebrate this racist colonizer as a hero is absurd. Instead honor Indigenous people and their culture. Altogether Columbus was a person who should not be memorialized and celebrated as his actions against Native Americans are simply atrocious
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 40
Showing 20 items per page