Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
science	When I was in high school, some teachers also stressed no Wikipedia so we could learn the value of finding different sources and opinions. Her belief was that one conglomerate source from multiple sources tensed towards the same opinion and tone and without seeing different point of views, you don't get the full picture since it was primarily American written and run. Obviously not always the case, but she was really stressing their may be a time when wikipedia doesn't have enough information for you and you need to dig it up. Really help me in college since Wikipedia has very little information on advanced engineering and work flow modeling. And yes... I went to a library to get more information. I would say Wikipedia is amazing to start research on anything. But, to get to the finer details, that takes time. I've actually found using the internet time machine to be helpful to find old archived sites for information that have since been taken down.
science	Well in the beginning this was true. Back in the early 90s, top level domain names used to be reserved for specific uses. Com used to reserved for commercial ventures,. Org used to be open for non profits,. Net used to reserved for websites who acted as index of sorts and lastly. Edu is obviously limited to facilities of education. So essentially, specific domain names used to have specific purposes and based on who created the site it may or. May not be trustworthy. Obviously this has changed over the years where domain extensions have allowed almost anyone to use. Com, org, net, etc.
science	For me, it was bordom doing tech support, and something to put my eng/his degree toward. I supplied a lot of content in History (a lot of the Tudor Kings info and Roman Emporers past 7 years is mine, unless its been changed) before getitng into Sports, and then the deep bias/stupidity I had to fight. I also put in a lot of content into Fannation as well, until SI screwed that site over. So I created my own site, might as well do something with my time.
science	I’m a scientist. This is the equivalent of me giving you shit for not understanding the difference between CAM and C4 photosynthesis or something. Why would you study that if it’s not something you’re interested in? Knowing about a tiny obscure tribe is not general history of the world at all, and the vast majority of people do not research random tribes and histories of countries they aren’t from, that’s why there are professions called “historian” and “anthropologist”. There is an endless list of things you have no idea exist and many others do
science	Well I thank you for that. I've been having a blast building my own moss terrariums recently. I'll have to do some studying on categories of photosynthesis some time. My point all along was to do with how strange it feels to have somebody clearly outline the discovery of new knowledge to them, which has for oneself been common and relegated trivia for some time. My follow-up point to that in a later comment, was how it was a key element to my education, that I had teachers instill in me the importance in the accumulation of knowledge for it's own sake, and of subjects defined under the canopy of the humanities in particular as being valuable towards the achieving higher and higher degrees of conscientious citizenship. Fields of interest that branch off into more technical subjects are of course, where the true veil between trivial and esoteric begin. I don't speak on the matter of epistemology, philology, or maritime logistics, and expect that anyone has the faintest idea of what I'm discussing, but I have an expectation of myself - as I do for others - that individuals could or ought to be able to identify various nations, and have some rudimentary understanding of their recent history.
science	everyone can be racist im more concern with racism rooted in ideas of supremacy, eugenics, etc. than i am due to anger and resentment caused by historical injustices if a native american hates white people who are pro-colonialism and pro-Manifest Destiny (and these sorts of white people today are the kinds who accept NO form of protest from minorities, i.e. no kneeling during the national anthem), im less concerned if a jew hates nazi, im less concerned
science	I mean, given that white people continue to hold the vast majority of political and economic power (in the US), racism against white people is probably assumed to be less consequential than racism against minority groups. Many of the sociological problems faced by ethnic minorities is very much tied to racial bias against them, so it should be no surprise that more focus is given those forms of racism. Literally no one is saying minorities cannot be racist.
science	sounds like you're an all-lives-matter proponent the question is whether you are a racist diluting the issue of racism by removing historical context is exactly what racists do do you support the anthem protests? who did you vote for president? do you understand what BLM means? do you support it? etc. context always matters. racism isn't unique to white people. but i'm more concerned when its white ppl being racists versus aboriginals being racists i dont live under a power structure whose every strata is populated by aboriginals. it's mostly populated by white people hence, white racism > all other racism in America this is not difficult to understand unless you're a racist yourself you should read the article on 'white fragility' as well
science	> i dont live under a power structure whose every strata is populated by aboriginals. it's mostly populated by white people > hence, white racism > all other racism in America Rise up, you are strong and empowered show the white man on the battlefield, in the classroom and the boardroom how equal you are. Equality is an invention of man not nature, if your struggle is just and your hand diligent, victory is assured over the racist white power structures.
science	Again, I have not. Those are your assumptions as opposed to the meanings of the actual words I've used. Also, while I'm sure that last part sounded super smart and relevant in your mind, it's literally impossible to be a human and not 'deal in subjectivism'. Humans all have emotions. Emotions are subjective in nature. If you don't acknowledge and accept the part your emotions play in your opinions and overall worldview, you're even more likely to come to irrational/inaccurate opinions because you're not doing anything to address or compensate for your inherent biases.
science	These mice also live in these enclosures and they say that they are cleaned with “harsh detergent” which caused bpa to be released. Not saying we shouldn’t look into this but these mice have a significantly higher exposure than any humans. I’m also curious how they know it’s bpa or its replacement and not something else in the plastic, the detergents, food, etc. did they literally find bpa molecules interfering with sperm production? Also. > Other investigators in my facility don’t see it but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t impact their research.
science	Bias is a possible confounder on the results, and that should be objectively assessed in the discussion; but ultimately the motive of any research is a hypothesis (an “opinion” until proven), so to argue that results may be false due to someone having a hypothesis is to argue against the scientific method, which is a dangerous road to start going down, and demonstrably unreasonable. There’s a litany of research already that indicates these experiments are of sound conjecture, and not a logical leap in any sense.
science	To be fair, there are lots of problems with mouse housing that pop up that researchers don’t notice unless they’re studying something it directly interferes with. For example I worked on mouse stress behavior, so stuff like the room being too cold, the dark cycle being off a bit, loud noises, cage change day, etc would fuck up all my experiments. Stuff that someone working on, say, lipid cell metabolism probably wouldn’t notice.
science	You seem confused about what science is and how it works. Hypotheses are not opinions nor the motive of research. They're statements that the researcher can empirically test, regardless of their personal opinion. The motive of a scientific experiment is to test a hypothesis, not to prove a hypothesis right or wrong. You actually do not even prove anything, you just collect and analyze evidence which may or may not support the hypothesis. Bias, on the other hand, may lead a researcher to make certain methodological design choices consistent with their prior beliefs or collect the data in a biased way. It may also cause them to reach conclusions during the discussion section that are not well substantiated by the evidence. For example, they may choose a strange hypothesis due to their personal bias, or they may inadvertently bias their data by smiling more at white participants during a survey, or they might overstate their findings in the final paragraph of the paper because they really want to rake in those citations.
science	You are missing the entire point of what I was conveying, and instead arguing an alternative (but related)point which I agree with and stated as such. I would suggest you re-read what I wrote with a little less confrontational perspective and a bit more of an open mind. Science is about transforming subjective assertions into objective conclusions that can be built upon. Because the original hypothesis comes from a human brain, it is by definition subject to some personal biases. That hypothesis is an extrapolation of currently available data. Any time you work on the frontier of emerging research, the entire purpose of the work is to define the new frontier in an objective way, but you have to use previous data and subjective critical thinking to try to ascertain where to shine the light next, then critically test your theory.
science	You have to look at it in terms of the food chain, not just the direct effect of human exposure. The environment is full of plastic waste, and those break down over time, releasing those chemicals into the environment. They bioaccumulate, and then you end up having massive problems with the food chain, particularly in animals with very short lifespan, and animals which are high on the food chain. It's not as much about the direct impact of you keeping your food in a ziplock bag, it's about where that ziplock bag, and the billions of others end up, and how they effect delicate ecosystems.
science	Fun fact about plastics: Prior to the 1960's, petroleum refineries were paying to dispose of the toxic byproducts that were made when extracting gasoline from crude oil. They were paying a lot of money to get rid of the stuff. Until one day, a wondrous person figured out they could shape the petrol-waste into a cup, and sell it to you to drink water out of. And that's the story of where plastic came from. It's literally industrial waste. Now BPA Free! Still industrial waste.
science	The 'research' had only really been popular among 'mothers groups' and the Internet, and has been a bit of an ongoing joke along those who actually understand it. The FDA's reply to "Is BPA safe?" was literally "Yes" until politicians that read this kind of garbage forces them to change it. At MDM East in I think it was 2013 we had the FDA and experts panel literally laughing about how overly complex it was being made when the only evidence of danger required directly injecting syringes into mice that we're the equivalent of several lifetimes worth of exposure multiple times a day. Like you said, this study from 20 years ago isn't even considered worth real discussion as their methodology is so bad they have no clue what they're actually evaluating. Edit: For perspective, we're talking literally lifetimes of crap being put in all at once. Do that with literally ANYTHING and you'll cause a lethal reaction. Most things the volume would be so high the subject wouldn't even be able to contain it.
science	I design scientific equipment for use with mice and material selection is a nightmare. Glass breaks, acrylic can’t be autoclaved, polysulfone is expensive as hell and can only be machined, polycarbonate is good but might have BPA issues. Stainless steel is fantastic but either restricts geometry (laser cut and folded) or is expensive as hell (machined). Some advances in 3D printing show a lot of promise because they are cost effective at our volumes but can really be customized to fit our geometry needs. In general, everyone in my field is with you in theory, but “just find a better material” is an ongoing battle.
science	Did you read the methods? For such a high profile study the number of mice was very low. They mention in the methods that they had difficulties with stability of the female mice before any treatment. You're discounting the possibility that cage positions, caretaker differences, and other technical differences, may be at play. It's plausible the original hypothesis is the truth, and some other studies support that notion, but it's not beyond concern. Others have found no effects from BPA, although negative data usually goes unreported. Don't discount the Delta bias in papers -- the fact that differences, and often those that stand out, are the data that make their way into press, while experiments that don't are learned from but retained internally as a lesson learned.
science	We were laughing at the fact people gave any credence to what some people are passing off as science. It's hilarious that anyone that calls themselves a 'researcher' or 'scientist' does this poor of work and has no shame putting it to the public. It's essentially the equivalent of watching slapstickor self-deprecating humor from a comedian. Turns out, humans work for the government too and they are capable of laughing at comedy as well. I'd like to know, who's boots am I licking exactly?
science	Thanks! Here’s more! Aluminum is good and lightweight but has corrosion issues. You can anodize it to protect it but a scratch to the anodized coating reintroduces the corrosion issues. This is why you shouldn’t use metal utensils with cheap aluminum cook wear like the Walmart $50 turkey fryer gas burner and 7 gallon pot set. Injection molding and metal stamping are useful manufacturing techniques with some massive limitations. The marginal (per unit) cost is amazing but the tooling (one time set up) is crazy. Like $0.80 marginal with a $100,000 tooling. So that only works if you have high enough volumes to amortize that tooling into the marginal and only add $1 or so. Or if you are so confident in your design that you expect it to be unchanged and market viable for decades. Otherwise you’re paying hundreds per part just on the product enclosure. Enclosures can be made with one way snap fittings to make production faster and lower the labor hours and product cost of goods sold (COGS) but this makes them impossible to reopen and so the product needs to be cheap enough to be willing to trash non conforming products rather than repair.
science	I am curious as to why you used "to be fair" in this context? Is it normal in your profession or in research in general to not be cognizant of mitigating factors? Is that somehow excusable? Laymen like me expect those in research, serious professional life altering research anyway, to consider and be aware of all factors. I don't really think that qualifies for standard assumptions, miscues or ignoring not immediately obvious (to a layman) mitigating circumstances.
science	But that wouldn't give the researcher the plastic-implicating result she was going for. So instead she has to inject several lifetimes' worth of plastic exposure into their brains multiple times per day. If she's so convinced that plastics are doing damage to mammal lifespans, she needs to investigate the mechanism by which it allegedly occurs. If it's actually happening, that shouldn't be too difficult. Mouse metabolism is pretty well understood. If she can isolate the biochemistry and show how plastic leaching causes the effects she claims it does, she'll get one or several high-impact publications out of it. She'll be set for life. There's literally no reason not to pursue the research unless you know ahead of time it won't pan out. For example, if you know the premise is baseless.
science	If that's so, then she has even less reason to avoid doing the further work necessary to show how bis-phenols affect reproductive biology. Surely if she's so well-known, established, and respected, it should be easy for her to get funding for such an important continuation to her seminal research (no pun intended). She's had 20 years to do something that shouldn't take more than a few at most. Why would she avoid it unless she already knew it would go nowhere?
science	The post above seemed to be implying that other labs not being sensitive to the abnormalities was a sign that this study was flawed. I’m just saying that it’s not uncommon for researchers to not notice every single detail about their animals unless they’re specifically looking for them. I do believe that’s something mouse researchers need to be doing better at, but to be totally aware all the tine would be nearly impossible.
science	Can I ask what kind of corrosion you’re worried about with aluminum? Galvanic? Or is it chemical contact induced? I’m just curious, as I know other industries have played around with balancing alloying elements to reduce galvanic corrosion and to preserve the oxide layer. Alloys with super low magnesium content might be particularly promising for you, depending on the application. (I’m a materials engineer and I’ve done a bit of work with aluminum, facing similar problems. Unfortunately, I can’t talk much because of NDAs.)
science	I just did a Google search and came across a write up that had what seemed to be credible sources and pretty much said exactly this. The levels of BPA that we're typically exposed to is thousands of times less than the lowest equivalent amount in studies on animals that showed any health effects. Even microwaving food in a container that has BPA won't put you over the amount determined to be safe. I thought it was fact that BPA is dangerous and that's why you see "BPA free" labels but apparently they're just catering to the popular belief. Similar to how they label organic food. With that being said, I would still definitely avoid it if pregnant because I have no idea how much of a small amount of ingested BPA makes it into the fetus and what the effect would be.
science	Yep! The crazy part, is that we've replaced BPA containing plastics with copolyesters (Tritan/Trilliant being a large one. Same material made by Eastman, just a matter of Tritan is sold by Eastman and Trilliant is relabeled and sold by PolyOne) that we know much less about. Copolyesters and SAN (next most common alternative) do appear to be safe from the limited studies that have been done, but I'm less comfortable with it than PC due to the overwhelming amount of testing proving PC is safe. Also, yes. We switched our products to Trilliant HC only due to marketing. It increased our manufacturing costs and the cost of the product substantially. It's literally providing a lower quality product at higher costs, but that's what patients and doctors wanted.
science	Wait, what? You can have plastic vs not plastic cages at first and keep everything else the same. Additionally, a lot of things can have plastics introduced into them, like water bottles and food and bedding if we're doing no plastic cages at all. Injections don't have to be in the brain (why do they have to be in the brain?) and instead IV given that absorption goes through the blood and not the CSF. >If she can isolate the biochemistry and show how plastic leaching causes the effects she claims it does, she'll get one or several high-impact publications out of it. She'll be set for life. Sure, but only if she knows the molecular phenotype. Besides, is she the only one to have shown anything? Cause if other people replicated her results, her claims have backing. Furthermore, you have to show correlation and be sure of it before looking for the mechanism. >that shouldn't be too difficult Yeah, no. Even with how well we understand mouse metabolism, it's pretty difficult still to guess the mechanism of something with subtle effects. I don't know why you're so eager to question the integrity of the researcher. Did you find something like a conflict of interest anywhere?
science	>You can have plastic vs not plastic cages What I'm saying is she would have done plastic vs metal cages by now if her original research were legitimate. It's such an obvious confounding factor with such a simple way to get around it that any serious researcher would have immediately recognized it and taken the appropriate steps to get around it. She didn't. >Why do they have to be in the brain? Injections to the brain were how she delivered the bis-phenol A in her original research. >Is she the only one to have shown anything? She's inspired several methodological copycats, but if the methodology is flawed, then duplication means nothing. >It's pretty difficult still to guess the mechanism of something with subtle effects. She claims it causes specific, repeatable effects on mouse ova. That's not subtle, and it shouldn't be difficult for a specialist in reproductive biology to identify chemical mechanisms that cause specific, repeatable effects. >I don't know why you're so eager to question the integrity of the researcher Because her hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions have a particular theme. Her methodologies don't fit her hypotheses, and have glaring errors which are consistently pointed out by other scientists and ignored by her research group. Her conclusions are touted by biased anti-plastics advocates who don't look at the integrity of the research itself. I question her integrity because she doesn't seem to care about the scientific method, on which the rest of the scientific community relies.
science	Let me clarify. The steel is not the expensive part but machining it is. It’s not a process that scales well into high volume. So it’s not always a good idea. And in the adult world, we are actually “selling” our products to our customers with the goal of paying employee salaries. If we use a higher cost part, we have to charge more for it. And that’s just telling the customer that we are too lazy or incompetent to come up with a creative and cost effective solution to their problem that is within their budget. And we want our customers to get the most research done with their budgets and try to avoid unnecessary expenses that we have to pass on to them.
science	That's an utterly unhelpful post. I skimmed the paper, but it's not written to be readable by laymen. Potential conflating factors are always a risk in biology experiments like this though. And it's even more suspect when researcher is one that was studying BPA previously and says "Other investigators in my facility don’t see it". Again, controlling for stuff is hard. I'm not saying she definitely screwed up, just saying that it can't be ruled out that she missed controlling for something.
science	The plastic cages issue could be a factor and it could be nothing, mainly depending on how much of it leeches into the mouse when it's not in the food or the water (depending on what the water bottle is made of). Additionally, there are claims that plasticizers don't leech out in any significant quantities unless the plastics are messed with via heat cycles and/or mechanical abrasion. Mice in cages have no access to that with plastics holding water. As for the process they're claiming to be problematic here, it's crossover during meiosis, at least according to this article. This could be affected by any one of a whole host of things and have all sorts of effects. It's especially problematic if it has downstream effects on the development of the affected follicles because people know very little about the mechanisms that determine which follicle gets activated and which ones are allowed to develop vs the ones that go aetretic. In fact, them being able to show any defects specifically in corssover is already looking at the specific mechanism and investigating it. There also have been studies ex-vivo that shows BPS to cause disruption of estrogen signaling, which is a more targeted study that looks at something very specific instead of going around the same block with the in-vivo experiments again.
science	Even if it's just a one off, it's still interesting information for the medical community. That seems to work for her, but we don't know why. If we don't tell each other about the weird shit we see, we'll never learn. Also, it may not help everyone with depression, but there are some people who can teach recovery this way, which is great! It's no different than trying each and every drug in turn and far less expensive (unless you have to start replacing joints or something). It's more valuable than it seems, especially when we have such a dearth of information about our brains.
science	In psychology/social work/nursing/health, our publishing philosophy is that science should be open, shared, and accessible to everyone, and we should all work on building upon it together. Sort of like open-access software, we believe that you can learn more and build better theories by allowing everyone to contribute what they can to the project. I mean, we quietly curse people who publish our ideas before us because despite our open-source orientation, our entire academic and career structure is publication-driven, but philosophically, it's the former. Hahahah.
science	There's a difference between publishing in academic resources for other professionals and publishing a case study for laymen to gawk at. You and I and many others know that this case study has pretty much no significance for most people beyond anecdote. But a lot of people will look at a case study on the internet and think, "science said this, it's always true all the time!" And that makes for a lot of misinformation.
science	It's not perfect, because ultimately, people are self-serving and the system is built in a self-serving way, but we still strive for that openness as much as possible given the constraints of human ethics and the fact that, at the end of the day, we need to put food on our tables in a field that is overpopulated and highly competitive. One day I'd love to see the field trend back towards its philosophical roots, but it would require a systemic-overhaul of the way we publish articles and let scientists progress in their fields.
science	There's actually a lot of studies on cold water immersion for alleviation of depressive symptoms. And I disagree about restricting information to the public because they might misinterpret the results. People misinterpret all sorts of studies as well and we do not restrict access (except for financially). Members of the public after viewing this might go about researching it further and finding that cold water immersion might help alleviate their symptoms. They also might go into the ocean and drowned but providing the freedom of information to base choices on is important imo.
science	This is what they were saying with “quasicrystals” and x-Ray crystallography; an area of study I’m interested in if I can ever afford grad school. I have taken a couple classes about it at the undergraduate level though, so let’s see if I can help. Crystals are definitionally taught as being a periodic structure, but that’s not always what we mean when we call real-life shapes “crystals.” It is possible, under the right conditions, for crystals to form in very irregular ways in the real world. These irregular crystals are fundamentally how we’re able to determine 3D constructs of proteins as an example. Seriously go look at resources about X-ray crystallography. It’s AMAZING. My professor once told me it’s the perfect field for anyone interested in “a perfect three way split between biology, chemistry, and math.” It is possible to get non-periodic molecules into a crystalline structure, shine light through it, and look at the non-uniform distribution of light diffraction to back-calculate the original molecule’s 3D structure.
science	A crystal that doesn’t repeat its molecular structure... wouldn’t that just be a quasi-crystal then? I only have an undergrad in chemistry, so I’ve only dealt with crystals with a unit cell, whether it be face centered cubic... Uh, wow, I already forgot the rest of them. Anyways. Part of what gives a crystal its properties is the periodic cells that connect to each other and provide order over a large scale (relatively). There are many materials that don’t really show order on a small scale, like glass, but show similar properties on a large scale.
science	So, as I understand it, when you refer to a crystal it means it atleast has translational symmetry (apart from other symmetries like rotational symmetry). So if you take one unit cell of the crystal, it is possible to find a direction and move it (without rotating it) in that direction so that you can superimpose the unit cell on a neighbouring unit cell. But in quasicrystals, it is not possible to superimpose the unit cell by just moving it. You will need to rotate it as well. So, it has no translational symmetry but it does have rotational symmetry. Hence, it is crystal-like in that it has rotational symmetry but it is not quite a crystal because of absence of translational symmetry. [Penrose tilings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling) are a good example of such aperiodic patterns.
science	There are two types of Masters degrees. You can get a Masters by doing coursework, which is just two additional years of courses. You should definitely have to pay for that, because you are offering no additional value to a research group or the university. You can also get a Masters by writing a thesis after two years of research, on top of a smaller courseload. At most places, thesis Masters have programs that are identical to new PhD students, with the PhD's qualifying exam set just before a normal Masters student would graduate. This is so that if a PhD student fails the exam, they don't "lose" much time when they leave with a Master degree. My argument is that, if you are a thesis Masters student, you have the same responsibilities and workload as a PhD student. With no difference other than the fact that you plan to leave three years earlier, you should get equal pay for equal work.
science	More or less. It also depends greatly on the field of study and the school. Thesis master's students, in my experience, do not really have the same set of expectations from the faculty perspective. Junior and senior research faculty can pretty quickly discern and sort through grad students and determine who they want to work with. The "consolation Master's degree" in program's I am personally familiar with were weak students who taught a lot of labs and classes, but we're not invited to work on faculty research.
science	In the future maybe. hHw exactly is hard to say. A lot of encryption methods (mainly the [RSA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)) ) would implode. If, and it’s a huge if, it was possible to have an algorithm that told you in a reasonable amount of time and energy invested what the n-th prime number is, a lot bank accounts and transactions on the internet would be unsafe and thus temporarily inaccessible. However, each scientific discovery has ramifications that are hardly predictable, see Galileo and his impact on the church, or how Einstein’s work was necessary to build atomic bombs. To get to this point it’s still a long, long way. I doubt the impact of this paper would affect your life unless you’re a scientist or maybe closely related to one. But that’s just my opinion, I’d be happily corrected by an expert of the field.
science	It is pretty hard not to take them all the time. I limit myself to one a week at the most, and maybe one phenibut dose once per week (one works on GABAa, one on GABAb), and I avoid addiction or any long term issues, but there have been a lot of times where I stare at them for a couple minutes thinking...dam I wish I could just take one and sleep right now. Takes a shitload of willpower to use them without going over the edge, and all it takes is one bad week to start the downward spiral. Be careful everyone, shit is no joke!
science	I had seizures during benzo withdrawal. I know a few other former benzo users with similar experience. Most memorable seizures: 1 during sleep. I came to as my girlfriend is informing me i just had a seizure in my sleep. 2nd seizure a few days later while i was riding my bike. Started having trouble making my legs push the pedals then i got whats referred to as an 'aura' and stopped my bike. I layed it on the ground then went black. I came to with people standing all around me telling me an ambulance was on the way. Scary shit.
science	Yes it is excellent stuff. You have to be so very careful with it though...it is more recreational and therefore the abuse and addiction potential is through the roof. People that use it daily above 1g get themselves into serious trouble and hospitalization when they try and stop. I think it's the easiest to fall into trouble with out of all of them to be honest...1.5g's is such a nice feeling, but do that a few days in a row and uhohhhh watch out!!! The warning was more for everyone else, not you :D
science	I’ve been prescribed Ativan since I was 17. I’m 25 now. My doctor gives me max 15 pills at a time but they’ll last me for months. I’m a manic depressive so there are times where I get extreme anxiety, agitation, and insomnia or full blown mania. It’s good to have the benzo on hand in case things get to be too much but I am generally responsible with them and limit my use to when I really need it, not just feel like taking it. I have antipsychotics that are the first line of defense so the Ativan is like a last resort kind of thing.
science	She’s been my doctor since I was 14. We have a large degree of trust so she knows she can give me the Ativan and I won’t go off and get addicted. I’ve never run through a bottle quickly or sold it so I think I’ve proven that I’m not a liability with it. Most times I don’t even take the full pill, I’ll just half it and it usually does the job. Worst case I take the other half after I see how the first does he job. She’d rather me take an extra dose of the antipsychotic first if I’m having an issue though.
science	I agree, I think I'm likely managing to be pretty proactive with the harm reduction. That is a long time to be on them and at this point it would take months of suffering for him to even attempt to taper down low enough to get off them, if he even could cope at this point. There is so much behavioral therapy involved, changes to living and work environment required, and financial stability/low stress living, to even have a hope of succeeding after such a long term use. Never say never though!
science	On one hand, straight men prefer bisexual women. On the other hand, bisexual women are suffering a lot from being overly sexualised and treated like sex toys on legs by straight men (with the usual "you're bi so you must love threesomes !" that all bi people keep on hearing) and probably some lesbians too (but I've heard a lot of stories about bi woman treated by lesbians like they're traitors because they don't hate dicks to think that this would be as much of a problem than the straight men side). &#x200B; Maybe we should... I don't know... stop thinking with our dicks ?
science	I know that this happens and I don't want to minimize it or "not all men" you, because I bet it really sucks to have one's sexuality turned into a prop that way. That said, I'm a straight guy and a huge chunk of the women I've been head-over-heels for in my life have turned out to be bi- or lesbian, and I usually only find out after I crush. As nearly as I can guess, I just naturally confuse cues that a woman is into women for comforting signs that she and I have a lot in common. I guess in a way, we do. As for treating bi- women like sex toys, the idea of a threesome induces horrific anxiety in me. I sometimes work myself up in conversations with multiple people with fears that I'm not making sure everyone is having the best time possible, that I've personally failed if anyone comes out of it feeling bad for any reason, even if objectively speaking one person feels bad because of something another did. In my mind, threesome invitations belong in the same category as doing a pentathlon at the same time as doing calculus homework in my underwear.
science	Men are biologically driven to objectify women on their appearance and women are biologically adapted to this by painting their faces and fastidious personal grooming. It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a woman or for a man to prefer women who are attracted to women as well. Men are biologically driven to spread their seed wide and women are driven to nest. This is basic shit.
science	First of all, where are the studies proving that make-up is a biologically woman thing (may I remind you of the Middle Age's men make-up ?), second of all... "basic shit" ? If it was just "all men are uncontrollable monkeys that want to rape anything women-y that they see", it would be the norm in every human societies, it isn't the case. The way women were seen and treated changed with time (Emmanuel Todd's work on the subject is super interesting) and isn't even the same everywhere today. There is of course a drive towards reproduction, like there is for every animal, but history prove that this isn't the entire picture.
science	> Men are biologically driven to spread their seed wide Many men are gay, and have no such desires when it comes to women. Other men are bi, like myself, and are honestly quite flexible when it comes to where we "spread our seed". > It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a woman or for a man to prefer women who are attracted to women as well. That's where this gets complicated and murky. Why? Why would men prefer partners who are bi? Keep in mind that in the past there was a popular (and faulty) assumption that same-sex attraction was some kind of aberration rather than a fixture of our species, and we're still trying to figure out the role that it plays in social species like our own.
science	Aquafina is owned by PepsiCo. Edit: interesting note on the two; Pepsi let's their bottlers produce and bottle the water and charge them a licensing fee. It has a consistent taste because they all use the same filtered water that would otherwise become a soda. On the other hand, Coca-Cola sells their water to the bottlers. They "make" the water by putting trace amounts of minerals into it and then shipping it by trucks to the local bottling plants.
science	While you might be right, you might also be wrong. (EDIT: You were apparently talking about chemicals in plastic dust. To clarify, clearly dust is everywhere: organic, metal, plastic. I personally have likely sampled multiple types of dust just this morning. As for whether the chemicals in that dust might harm us...) I'm not going to live my entire life in constant fear that someone may have perhaps possibly have left a bottle of water sitting out in the sun for a couple of hours based off of a single study linked only to BPA and extrapolate that out to any other chemical in existence. Thats the same mentality that leads to antivaxxers. "Mercury is poison! Preservatives in vaccines use Mercury in their compounds! Vaccines are poison!" "Plastic contains BPA! BPA might be slightly poisonous! Plastic is poison! Okay, we changed to a different kind of plastic. But it's still plastic, so you're still a merchant of death!" Until you can actually point to a similar body of research in to PET supplemented with plant material, as well as all other plastic types, you can't just declare all plastic to be poison. The bigger concern is plastic garbage anyway.
science	For one, as mentioned, the BPS that replaced BPA was already suspected to be an estrogen mimic, so following through on findings like that in more rigorous animal studies would be a good place to start. Currently it seems that our "testing" consists of ignoring preliminary data and letting the public and environment be our big experiment. Edit: [The American Academy of Pediatrics cites regulation inadequacy as a major concern regarding the effect of food additives on children](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/2/e20181408)
science	No, I don't work for a plastic manufacturer. I date a PhD and have great respect for well done science, not fear mongering. Just because some plastics have bad chemicals does not mean all plastics necessarily have bad chemicals. [Here](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-103) is a later study showing several plastic types that don't contain EA. From the same researcher. But, again, the real issue is plastic garbage. Think about how often we throw away a plastic bag that could have been paper, or a straw, or a plastic lid. We're so concerned about a chemical that might be a problem we're not paying attention to the enormous pile of garbage. Microscopic fears magnified to mountains, while the actual mountains of garbage get ignored.
science	Aka a 'precautionary approach' - i.e. we're not conclusively sure it's safe yet, so we'll regulate more strictly until we do. Something more prevalent in the EU. Traditionally, US policy follows the 'sound science' approach - i.e. conclusively prove it's bad, then we'll ban/regulate. This is generalized, of course, but it's the gist of it. Internationally these two 'rationalities' clash in various domains, cf. some of the cases before the WTO appelate body. I'm firmly in the precautionary camp, btw.
science	>Just because some plastics have bad chemicals does not mean all plastics necessarily have bad chemicals. No one's saying 'all', but if the ones we use to store liquids/foods do that's obviously an immediate concern. If they're leeching out chemicals that can do damage to us, then they're leeching it into the environment and affecting animals there as well, on top of being garbage. Two birds, one stone. You know we can address both harm reduction the the plastics we do use and reduce its use/increase recycling, it doesn't have to be a either/or scenario as you keep alluding to.
science	I used to be of the just drink tap water crowd. Flint happened, more than that, it came out that our water was testing poorly all over the country. Then we got an administration that has gutted environmental protections as well was utilities oversight. Pardon me if I have a healthy doubt of my tap water. And before you spout off about testing it, I already budgeted a nice extensive one for next month. Until then, no drinking tap water. I advise everyone in America to do the same. Don't trust those reports your utilities send you saying it's all ok. There maybe was a time we could trust those reports, but not anymore. Get it tested by a third party with no vested interest one way or another.
science	We know that plastics generally aren't great for our bodies. We know even more about the overall effects that vaccines have on the body and the general safety of their usage. I'm not one to exercise that level of caution either, but I don't think it's fair to compare taking caution to limit ingestion of plastics with fully denouncing the practice of vaccination. One is mostly based in reality and may actually do a little to minimize harm to the body. The other is an active denial of any and all scientific evidence that shows vaccines to be safe and effective in preventing disease and places people at risk of contracting and spreading preventable illness. It's "guilty until proven innocent" vs. "guilty despite any evidence to the contrary." I do agree that plastic garbage is a much more imminent threat to our species as a whole than occasionally consuming things contaminated with it though.
science	> No one's saying 'all', Uhm... looks at this Reddit post Are you sure? Likewise, I'm not putting this forward as an either/or, I'm saying that most people don't have their facts straight and are panicked about things that flat out aren't true in some cases, and haven't been proven in others, all while sucking down exhaust fumes on the highway and ignoring the mountains of garbage. There are degrees of concern, and a limited amount of energy to devote to problems. Instead of bitching about BPA-free bottles sitting out in the sun at a grocery store somehow magically generating BPA, maybe we need to worry more about the fact that someone is even purchasing single-user bottled water at all.
science	I used to drink a lot of single use water bottles but I more or less stopped completely after getting my metal canteen. It cost a decent amount so I don't really misplace it at home or at an event. But I'm curious how much of an impact switching to this canteen has made on my plastic consumption (in terms of water bottles). At what point could I lose this and have the net impact still be positive? I still use paper cups at work though. But I'm starting to eliminate that as well. The nice part is that this canteen has definitely has saved me money.
science	We just moved so just to be safe we ran a bunch of water quality tests, also out of curiosity since our water smells weird. It was cool to see the all the qualities of our water because we assumed it was safe anyway but to see how hard it soft it was. As it turns out ours is much higher quality than average tap water, ours is “filtered water quality” which is the same as bottled. Most tap water is lower quality than bottled but not in a harmful way.
science	Just because you don't perceive BPA as a risk doesn't mean other people shouldn't. Even if seems illogical to you, it may not to other people. Some take "you are what you eat" very seriously and the idea that chemicals like BPA are in their body can be a really creepy, uncomfortable thought. Personally, I don't have an opinion. But its important to understand that when people make moral or ethical decisions about their diets and what they put into their bodies, science isn't always applicable. As long as no one is hurt (like in the case of anti-vaxxers harming children and herd immunity at large) applying rationale to something moral is not equatable.
science	By the researcher who did a study on BPA that was later discredited, don't take it too seriously until we get a few more studies in. I'm not saying one side is correct or the other, just that we need more data. Link to largest and most recent study that was made. http://vdri-ev.de/download/abpkasao4qvi60m8gitcvm03ca4/18_04_12_Plastic_Europe_CLARITY_BPA_report_26_2_2018.pdf https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/rrprp/2018/april/rr09peerdraft.pdf I'm linking a report and the study because for some reason the pdf is slow to open
science	> Only study that showed estrogen mimicking was with levels that no ordinary person will be exposed to. Daily exposure to BPA in amounts that are FDA-approved to be “safe” may still be altering insulin release and be enough to have implications for the development of Type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases, finds the first study of its kind. I'm not hit in the head by a meteor every day, but I am exposed to BPA and other endocrine disruptors on a daily basis. I think it's worth considering what that might do to a person, much in the way that I might take pause at eating ice cream for every meal.
science	Klean Kanteen saw this as a problem about 13 years ago, and released the original 18-8 stainless bottle. Even new lids will fit on old bottles, the company is super cool in design - they will never make a product that becomes obsolete, because that adds to waste. Lids are polypropylene, gaskets FDA-approved food service silicone, even the coatings are tested to make sure there are no harmful chemicals anywhere in the process.
science	Not to disagree with your general point on fear mongering, but it is plastic. Not like omfg you will die if you ingest it however I can't imagine even some nontoxic/plant based plastic is good for the human body to process. That said it may only be as bad as alcohol or something in the end but not wanting anything to leach into your water is a fair worry. Some theorize part of Roman's fall was related to chemical leaching. And, in this case it is as simple as not keeping water you plan to drink at overly high temps or exposed to elemental extremes like full sun in mid summer or even completely freezing.
science	Working on it. There are half-gal for now, insulated and non. The big project for the last couple years was an assessment and sourcing a new GreenScreen developed and approved powder coat. Spring sees a classic coffee/soup Thermal Kanteen Pro. International meeting is in Oct, no word on new products, but they’ve had some concept in the works for a while on a lunchbox/bento box, and takeout container (insulated). They don’t make things which aren’t for a solution. Small company, family owned, and I appreciate they run smart - and are very serious about their ethics. Full disclosure; I’m an independent sales representative, Klean Kanteen is one of my vendors.
science	I would hope that a PhD in a non-hard science would still respect science, reproducibility, testing methodology, etc, but I concede that may not be the case. Geology-related, if that helps. And I wasn't relying on her expertise in geology for my respect for science, I was explaining why I have a critical eye towards claims that aren't backed up by science. Because my girlfriend frequently asks me to back shit up with studies. It's rubbed off.
science	Your tap water quality can vary substantially from the reported quality from your water provider depending on the age, material of construction and condition of the plumbing from the last supply node to your tap. I lived in a small town north of Boston in ‘97 that was doing significant municipal plumbing upgrades because many of the old cast iron mains had disintegrated. Even though we were being supplied by lovely, soft water from Quabbin reservoir, what was coming from the tap was brown and dirty and smelly and gross (from being delivered effectively through dirt pipes).
science	I'm not a water filtration expert, and this comment will probably be deleted for being a personal anecdote, but a good quality (hint: not Brita) water filter on your tap and storage in glass are the route that I have taken. Unfortunately though, water filters are not regulated by the FDA so you really have to take their word for it that they're doing what they claim, or send them for testing by 3rd party labs, though even then who knows what the consistency is.
science	I think the major key is the idea of a diminishing return - 50 years ago, it was smoking, which literally kills half the people who don't die of something else before the cancer can get them. Before that we had coal factories and heat in the city, or straight up malnourishment, or workplace safety plans consisting of a door to hit you in the ass. BPA is almost certainly harmful. But people have been drinking from polycarbonate for 30 years, and studies seem to be showing a general maybe towards changing hormones to probably cause diabetes. We think. Try that with smokers of 30 years, or even people who are 50 lbs overweight for 30 years. We're getting to a point where we have to look a lot harder to find the effects of dangerous things.
science	I receive a commission from product sold to retailers within my region, within my market category. I’m an independent contractor, and get a little leeway in choosing who I can work with. It’s been about 10 years, and I finally have a mix of family-owned, ecologically and socially concerned, quality brands to offer my clients. My philosophy is this: If you are using a durable reusable bottle, cup - I don’t care what it is. The most important thing is done already - you’ve committed to eliminating your production of single use waste. It’s weird for a sales guy to wrap my head around: my job is literally to “sell more stuff”. But that philosophy above? That’s Klean’s, and it’s a good one that helps me sleep at night knowing that as a successful salesperson I’m both filling my role in the job, but also part of encouraging change, positively. Edit: Check out [B Corporations](https://bcorporation.net/about-b-lab)
science	That’s easy to say if you’re healthy. Also, this is about long term health issues more so than just dying. Try dealing with a hormonal issue or infertility or anything else that BPA might have caused. These things are major problems for some people that cause a lot of suffering. If I can spare myself and my kids decades of misery by avoid a particular type of plastic I will do so. It’s not like it majorly affects our lives to do that.
science	BPA does a specific thing in plastic. It’s not a huge leap to imagine that a BPA alternative that behaves in a similar way in terms of chemical properties in the plastic might well be just as bad in your body as BPA. BPA alternatives lack evidence of safety, vaccines do not. Where there is a lack of evidence for safety it’s pretty stupid not to at least pause for thought. Consider: Tobacco Sugar Thalidomide Fracking Pesticides Early IUDs
science	I used to work for a company that bottled water and you'd be surprised how many regulations there are with that business. The government didn't care about our flavored products but we had to file constant reports on bottled water. That always confused me as our soda surely caused more harm but I'm sure it was due to a law passed at some point. Watchdog groups are also constantly checking bottled water for purity. FWIW, the water's source wasn't exotic, it came from a local reservoir. It's then put through a series of chemical processes and a reverse osmosis unit which removes more impurities than you'd find in any other water source. Every run of bottled water is continually tested every few hundred bottles and sent to quality control to make sure it meets standards. We had to keep records that could be checked at any time going back years. No company that sells lots of bottled water is going to skimp on purity. It's relatively cheap to do and none of them want to risk a scandal as it would kill sales of an cheap yet ridiculously profitable business. There's more to worry about from brands of less known companies but I'd bet they're safe too. If you're worried get a known brand. Of course all of them have the issue with plastic bottles themselves like mentioned in the OP post. The key there is to look for a date of manufacture. The older it is the more that's released. If you buy it in a grocery store with lots of traffic it's likely to have been produced in the last month. Anything produced in plastic has issues with small microscopic plastic particles that break free when the cap is tightened during the manufacturing process.
science	You've misunderstood. My point was that the effect size is apparently \so\ small that the literature is still ambiguous. This study had 8 men in one arm, five men and three women in the other, among other deficiencies. Forgive me for not being blown away by the statistical robustness of this finding. The literature is not ambiguous about diet and exercise, which are \massively\ more influential and people actually have agency to control those things. But a doctor telling you to eat healthier and less doesn't fit the "silver bullet" narrative that most people intuitively have about advancements in health.
science	Eh, your use of the pharmaceutical industry isn't a good one for your argument. The thalidomide crisis ultimately lead to passing the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments Act, which requires that drugs are proven both safe and effective before being marketed. This process takes about 8-12 years on average, and there is a whole system for reporting new side effects. This kind of regulation isn't really applied to food storage plastics, and many other consumer products -- at least not here in the US.
science	The EPA and the FDA are different agencies. FDA regs are way more strict and cover bottled water. The EPA covers municipal clean water regs. This isn't always true, for what it's worth, it's simply true when it comes to water. As a farmer, the EPA is far more concerned with our chemical applications than the FDA, since our chemicals break down to safe levels before they are harvested(as long as they're applied by the label, which is the law, which we are inspected randomly to ensure), but the EPA is concerned that runoff, drift and overspray can have detrimental impacts on the environment in the intermediate timeframe before they break down.
science	>aluminum>plastic Well uh, actually... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium >aluminium in drinking water cause significant cognitive deficits.[132] Orally ingested aluminium salts can deposit in the brain. There is research on correlation between neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease,[f] and aluminium levels, but it has been inconclusive so far.[132] > >Aluminium increases estrogen-related gene expression in human breast cancer cells cultured in the laboratory.[139] In very high doses, aluminium is associated with altered function of the blood–brain barrier
science	There's more to be concerned about I think for dermal absorbtion through materials like thermal paper than for oral. My wife did a post grad paper on this. And while there is a ton of work on oral absorbtion which gets broken down in the gut, there's no study at all on dermal. Biggest issue here is for long term exposure by people who work in retail everyday handing over thermal paper receipts.
science	yes, the metal lids have BPA (they are lined with a coating). Most canned goods have BPA coating in the cans. I don't know much of anything about PUR. Water filters aren't regulated by the FDA, so you can only really take their word for it that they do what they claim to do, or find 3rd party testing for them. I have a countertop Aquasana filter which from what I have read is much more effective at filtering more things than some of the other filters out there, but I haven't done a lot of reading on it since it was gifted to me a couple years ago.
science	Yes, I am aware of how drugs are developed and tested (Ph.D biochemist who works in industry). Drug development takes \~10 years from basic science observation to use in the clinic for many reasons. Clinical testing for safety and efficacy is a huge component of that, which takes a few years to perform, but my point was that they do not do \long-term\ safety testing; subjects aren't followed for 30 years after administration, their children aren't studied, etc. because it would make an extremely expensive process \much\ more expensive and infeasible -- companies can't wait a generation to recoup their costs, which would be significantly higher if many decades of follow-up were performed, and bring a drug to market. So it not only isn't \long-term\ safety testing \not\ applied to drugs, it isn't applied to anything. We don't test anything that thoroughly. Which was my point.
science	Eh, thats not a big deal. I cant think of any rn because I just got up but we use other “waste products” all the time. Its like when people complain about Vitamin C being “lab made and fake”. Whether you get ascorbic acid from a tomato or you make it in a lab using a variety of reactions, at the end up the day its the bloody same barring stereochemistry/enantiomers.
science	>wouldn't it be just as cheap... No. Not even close. It's heavier, so it costs more to ship and releases more CO2. It breaks way more, so it's more expensive and again, releases more CO2. Sand of the appropriate quality to make glass is also becoming harder to source. Plastic is way, way cheaper to everyone involved. It's also not significantly more dangerous, despite what these articles would have you believe.
science	We use the lowest effort sand. Look around you at all the sand on the ground and actually say "we are running out of sand" and try to keep a straight face. Also a major factor is that sand is hard to move, so you use local sand. Which means the densest cities that use the most sand use up their local sand the fastest. This all the " running out of sand" problems.
science	It all comes down to how much unforeseen risk you're willing to take on. Like, we know that cooking food produces toxins which accumulate in our bodies over time, but most people continue to cook food at least some of the time. That said, it's probably not a bad idea in this case to examine how much plastic you use in your day-to-day life and see if you can use less.
science	You're not wrong, but the word does have a scientific meaning. A [toxin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin) is a substance which is known to be poisonous to the individual/individuals/species to whom one is referring. "Detox" is just a fancy way of saying you're actively trying to avoid/help your body be rid of even the minor toxins. Mind you, most people who use that term don't realize that drinking cayenne-spiked lemon water for a week isn't going to hasten their livers' abilities to process those toxins. Don't confuse the "new age" pseudoscience with actual science. Cooking food produces a variety of compounds, [including toxins](http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/hidden-toxins-cooked-foods). BPA is [known to leach pseudo-hormones](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914000313). Everything we do as individuals is a calculated risk, and it's largely up to us as individuals to decide how much risk we're willing to take on.
science	Plastic leaches more when it is old, damaged, heated, or exposed to UV. You are exposed to more plastic when you eat from it (vs touch it). Certain types of plastic leach more & leach more nasty things. Polypropelyne (PP) and LDPE/HDPE seem to be the best choices. &#x200B; So we avoid eating or drinking from plastic, and when we do, we use PP/LDPE/HDPE, protect the plastic from heat & abuse, and recycle it after a few years. &#x200B; It's still possible no level of exposure is really safe- but you can do a lot to minimize your exposure. &#x200B; Oh, and avoid vinyl & PVC entirely, as best you can. Especially when it comes to children.
science	I'm just interested in the specific toxins mentioned, and find it curious that the studies showing the decreased all-cause mortality and lower cancer incidence among vegetarians and vegans mention essentially none of them, including things like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines. It kind of suggests to me that the increased nutrient/antioxidant intake (like fiber and vitamin C) and the decreased caloric density (leading to lower BMI/less obesity) are the driving forces, not things like heat generated compounds/maillard products.
science	Maybe not one of the very worst, but one of the things to avoid. If the microwave heated things gently & evenly it might not matter, but due to the tendency to form hotspots, microwaving your food in plastic will tend to expose the plastic to high temperatures Note, I'm not talking about microwaves-are-scary-magic-voodoo, this is just about uneven heating & plastics. We use pyrex & friends; they wash clean easier anyway.
science	“Our evidence suggests that makeup is perceived to signal sociosexuality but does not actually signal sociosexuality” Both men and women perceive it this way. They put the makeup on, knowing that’s the perception and choose to foster it. So you are saying women want to be perceived as ready for casual sex, for themselves? You mean they want attention of a sort without any follow through? How is that not sexualizing themselves?
science	The study wasn’t on pretty- it was on perceived casual sex by makeup use. Where men and women both agreed on the perception. So if you think being pretty and being perceived for casual sex are the same, then ok? Id have to read again, but I don’t think it says any makeup. Meaning a woman wearing some makeup isn’t the same. Unless you are saying pretty when you mean hot?
science	Did you not read what I said? I didn’t say a woman is more sexually inclined from makeup. I said the opposite, as the article stated, and drew an interesting conclusion from it. Yes, the perception of you is specific to one you want- working out. The perception with the makeup is that you would be more sexually inclined - women and men both agree on that- perception wise. So if women agree with that, and they wear makeup, how is it any different than just saying some woman wear makeup a certain way for attention? I’m not saying that makes them bad. It’s FASCINATING, because women proceed to do something which contradicts their own intention, even though they perceive it sexually the way a man would.
science	> But if women also believe this about makeup, and they put it on, doesn’t that mean that’s how they want to be perceived? This would be a good conclusion if social science would follow mathematical logic. But as it is, "illogical" behaviour is pretty common in social science. People can and often do judge people more "unethical" for the same action. > Maybe the title should be, women who wear a lot of makeup want attention by sexualizing themselves- but don’t want casual sex? Whats up with /r/science's early-in comments often being so hellbent on saying something sexist and getting away with it as "being scientific"?

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.