the new world record temp at KIFP (Bullhead City, AZ)? It was probably a heat burst but still, it is the first such measurement in the modern digital era!

https://www.wunderground.com/history/ai ... .wmo=99999

Temperature
Mean Temperature 114 °F -
Max Temperature 136 °F 106 °F 136 °F (2017)
Min Temperature 91 °F 85 °F 72 °F (1993)

https://www.wunderground.com/history/ai ... .wmo=99999

Temperature
Mean Temperature 112 °F -
Max Temperature 131 °F 106 °F 131 °F (2017)
Min Temperature 93 °F 85 °F 74 °F (1993)

the heat burst (125+ temps) lasted from 7:55 PM to 1:15 AM !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burst#Extreme_cases

Extreme cases[edit]
These are cases when temperatures over 56.7 °C or 134 °F (the highest officially confirmed in the world, in Death Valley, United States, 1913) were recorded during heat bursts.

Cherokee, Oklahoma, 11 July 1909: at 3:00 in the morning, a heat burst south of Cherokee, Oklahoma reportedly caused the temperature to rise briefly to 57.8 °C (136.0 °F), desiccating crops in the area.[48]
Kopperl, Texas, United States, 1960: A heat burst sent the air temperature to near 140 °F (60 °C), supposedly causing cotton crops to become desiccated and drying out vegetation.[49]
Lisbon, Portugal, 6 July 1949: A heat burst reportedly drove the air temperature from 38 to 70 °C (100.4 to 158.0 °F) within two minutes, in the region of Figueira da Foz and Coimbra, in central Portugal.[50][51]
Abadan, Iran, June 1967: An extreme temperature of 86.7 °C (188.1 °F) was recorded during a heat burst.[51]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee, ... ma#Climate

On 11 July 1909, at 3:00 in the morning, a heat burst south of Cherokee reportedly caused the temperature to rise briefly to 136 °F (57.8 °C), desiccating crops in the area.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopperl,_Texas#Climate

Shortly after midnight on June 15, 1960, a freak meteorological phenomenon struck the community when a dying thunderstorm collapsed over Kopperl. The storm had rained itself out, and with little to no precipitation to cool the resulting downdrafts, superheated air was expended upon the community in the form of extremely hot wind gusts of up to 75 MPH. The temperature increased rapidly, peaking near 140° Fahrenheit (60° Celsius); twenty degrees above the official all-time high for the state of Texas. The storm, known as "Satan's Storm" by locals, soon became part of local folklore.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan,_Iran#Climate

The world's highest unconfirmed temperature was a temperature flare up during a heat burst in June 1967, with a temperature of 87 °C (189 °F).[30] 

New breakthrough discovery—every quantum particle travels backwards

Ah, this is bad/sensationalist science reporting. [etc]

I look at it this way- causality is an emergent phenomenon that only applies at the macro level.  At the quantum level, there really isn't any such thing as "backwards" or "forwards."

Starlight Glimmer said: "20 planets? Wow."  
Meh, I wouldn't be surprised if there were 100.  There are probably far more planets in the galaxy than their are stars.

Spacer said: "remember it is never aliens!"
Because if it were aliens we'd have to invent new laws to deport them  ;)  It comes from the DT school of "science."  I already think that Tabby's Star might have some kind of artificial superstructure around it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-21/g ... ns/8731806

Great Filter theory could explain why we're yet to make alien contact

The World Today
By George Roberts
Updated yesterday at 11:37pm

Photo: Professor Ward says there are hundreds of billions of galaxies like ours, and therefore potentially planets that could sustain life. (ABC North Coast: Samantha Turnbull)
Related Story: Plan to launch rockets in NT being 'seriously' considered, Chief Minister says
Related Story: Australia could enter space race, with slice of $420 billion pie up for grabs
Map: Australia
As humans continue to search for life in space, some experts speculate the so-called Great Filter theory lies behind why nobody is responding to our call.

Why has there never been contact?

• Civilisations likely destroy themselves before mastering communication, travel
• Climate change, over-population may well be Great Filter for humans
• Distances communication must travel to connect with other lifeforms make it unlikely
Despite decades of scanning the skies, so far there has been total radio silence in the human effort to make contact with intelligent alien life forms.

But experts said in the end, humans would likely wipe themselves out before managing to make any contact.

Professor Peter Ward, astrobiologist at the University of Washington, said there were hundreds of billions of galaxies like ours, and therefore potentially billions of planets like Earth, that could sustain life.

"I absolutely believe that in our galaxy alone there are certainly other civilisations," he said.

Interesting analysis and I also read elsewhere that the greatest and most effective way to curb climate change is to have less children- having one less child actually creates a negative carbon footprint!

A-L-E-X, I know we've talked about this before and I understand the forum gives you some difficulties with quoting people and whatnot, but this is seriously way too many posts to be making in a row.  Please figure out a way to condense it.

Added:  I've combined some of the quotes together as an example of how it can be done without using the forum quote tags.

A-L-E-X, I know we've talked about this before and I understand the forum gives you some difficulties with quoting people and whatnot, but this is seriously way too many posts to be making in a row.  Please figure out a way to condense it.

Added:  I've combined some of the quotes together as an example of how it can be done without using the forum quote tags.

Wat, what about when I add articles from science news- should I try to put them all in one post too or is it better to have separate posts for each one for improved readability?

I'd say to use your best judgement, but err towards trying to keep things condensed.

The rule of thumb is to try to avoid making multiple posts in a row, especially without allowing plenty of time for conversation to happen.  Discussion threads should not look like a monologue.   If you've just posted and want to add something, it's better to edit than to post again.  But if a lot of time has passed (e.g. several days) and you want to bring up something else, then it's okay to post again so that people see that it had recent activity.

I'd say to use your best judgement, but err towards trying to keep things condensed.

The rule of thumb is to try to avoid making multiple posts in a row, especially without allowing plenty of time for conversation to happen.  Discussion threads should not look like a monologue.   If you've just posted and want to add something, it's better to edit than to post again.  But if a lot of time has passed (e.g. several days) and you want to bring up something else, then it's okay to post again so that people see that it had recent activity.

That sounds like a good forum philosophy to follow.  I had been away from the forums for a bit so I guess I got into a posting (and reading) frenzy when I got back!  I actually went back and deleted some double posts- what happened was I was trying to edit previous posts to add new stuff and for some reason it thought I was trying to respond to my own posts

I am most excited right now about this new Gaia catalog I hadn't heard of before- we will get 3D positions on over a billion stars?!  Also will SE be able to (or can it already) calculate proper motions so we can see what the stars look(ed) like in 1 million AD (or BC)?

A thought provoking documentary I saw on PBS last week is also online. Raises concerning issues about sustainability and how conventional farming techniques are causing a food crisis here and around the world because of nutrient depletion and how organic soil retains nutrients far better.

http://www.symphonyofthesoil.com/

http://www.symphonyofthesoil.com/
They talk about how scientists are discovering that organic soil farming is far more sustainable than using chemicals. Because  conventional farming causes much higher nutrient runoff during rainfall (and prove it with experiments). The chemical fertilizer/pesticide use actually depletes soil. In Africa and India and other parts of the world, farmers are going back to a biological rather than chemical approach.   Because it's 125% more sustainable.  it's far better to mimic nature rather than fight it.

Antares

http://www.ecstadelic.net/ecstadelic/ho ... -explosion

(for Doc...... what do you think about "friendly" AI?

and some saddening and sobering news

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... estruction

Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé accused of complicity in illegal rainforest destruction
Palm oil plantations on illegally deforested land in Sumatra – home to elephants, orangutans and tigers – have allegedly been used to supply scores of household brands, says new report

http://newatlas.com/warming-acidic-ocea ... res/49083/



Study shows warming, acidifying oceans could dissolve sea creatures

Warming oceans might sound like a good thing for swimmers and surfers, but they're wreaking havoc on the plants and animals that call those waters home. Australia's Great Barrier Reef has undergone two consecutive years of severe coral bleaching, from which large swathes of it might not recover. Now, research out of the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) has found some more bad news. A combination of warming and acidifying waters can cause invertebrate organisms called bryozoa (or moss animals) to start dissolving – and other sea creatures could soon face a similar fate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... alifornia/

Popular Sport Fish May Be Headed for Broad Extinction in California

Forty-five percent of California's native salmon, steelhead and trout species face extinction within 50 years, and nearly three-quarters will be wiped out in a century without intervention, a study released yesterday said.

The analysis from California Trout (CalTrout) and University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences blamed climate change as a primary culprit, titling the report "State of the Salmonids II: Fish in Hot Water." It details the status of 32 types of salmon, steelhead and trout native to the Golden State.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/clim ... ecies.html

Era of ‘Biological Annihilation’ Is Underway, Scientists Warn

From the common barn swallow to the exotic giraffe, thousands of animal species are in precipitous decline, a sign that an irreversible era of mass extinction is underway, new research finds.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls the current decline in animal populations a “global epidemic” and part of the “ongoing sixth mass extinction” caused in large measure by human destruction of animal habitats. The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... estruction

Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé accused of complicity in illegal rainforest destruction

Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé have been accused of complicity in the destruction of Sumatra’s last tract of rainforest shared by elephants, orangutans, rhinos, and tigers together in one ecosystem.

Plantations built on deforested land have allegedly been used to supply palm oil to scores of household brands that also include McDonald’s, Mars, Kellogg’s and Procter & Gamble, according to a new report.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... study-says

Endangered whales won't reach half of pre-hunting numbers by 2100, study says

Populations of the endangered blue and fin whales, which were hunted nearly to extinction in the 20th century, will not have recovered to even half of their pre-whaling numbers by 2100, according to a new Australian study.

The research, published in the Fish and Fisheries journal next month, analysed 122 years of whaling data from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and current population survey data to project future population growth, based on predicted food availability in the southern oceans.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/anim ... st-9404607

http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-has-a- ... pervolcano

http://www.theenergycollective.com/jim- ... ate-remedy

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-hyperenta ... lobal.html

Hyperentanglement across roof tops paves the way toward a global quantum Internet

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientis ... ace-2017-8

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?post ... 1354834848

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?post ... 1354834886

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/health/li ... index.html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... st-cancer/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... st-cancer/

Boston, MA – Women who live in areas with higher levels of outdoor light at night may be at higher risk for breast cancer than those living in areas with lower levels, according to a large long-term study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The link was stronger among women who worked night shifts.

The study will be published online August 17, 2017 in Environmental Health Perspectives.

“In our modern industrialized society, artificial lighting is nearly ubiquitous. Our results suggest that this widespread exposure to outdoor lights during nighttime hours could represent a novel risk factor for breast cancer,” said lead author Peter James, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Population Medicine at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, who did the work while a research fellow in the Departments of Epidemiology and Environmental Health at Harvard Chan School.

Previous studies have suggested that exposure to light at night may lead to decreased levels of the hormone melatonin, which can disrupt circadian rhythms—our internal “clocks” that govern sleepiness and alertness—and, in turn, lead to increased breast cancer risk.

The new study, the most comprehensive to date to examine possible links between outdoor light at night and breast cancer, looked at data from nearly 110,000 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1989-2013. The researchers linked data from satellite images of Earth taken at nighttime to residential addresses for each study participant, and also considered the influence of night shift work. The study also factored in detailed information on a variety of health and socioeconomic factors among participants.

Women exposed to the highest levels of outdoor light at night—those in the top fifth—had an estimated 14% increased risk of breast cancer during the study period, as compared with women in the bottom fifth of exposure, the researchers found. As levels of outdoor light at night increased, so did breast cancer rates.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multi ... vironment/

The sources of pollution in these countries are varied—from coal-burning power plants to emissions from industrial agricultural—such as the fumes of livestock waste and nitrogen-rich fertilizers.

And we’re already starting to see some of the consequences of environmental degradation.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?post ... 1354835036
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?post ... 1354834975

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/topic ... al-health/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... chemicals/

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24758/appli ... -chemicals

A new report outlines a strategy to improve the ability of regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate whether certain chemicals might cause hormone-related health effects at low doses. The strategy is aimed at supplementing existing EPA toxicity testing, which the authors say can miss harms from exposure to endocrine active chemicals (EACs) in small concentrations.

The report, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Committee on Endocrine-Related Low-Dose Toxicity, was released on July 18, 2017. Russ Hauser, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is a member.

Exposure to EACs can have lasting and significant health effects, particularly during embryonic development. For this report, the committee reviewed data around two types of EACs: phthalates (found in a range of products including toys and cosmetics) and PBDEs (used as flame retardants). They found that exposure in utero to DEHP–a type of phthalate used as a plasticizer–was linked to declines in male reproductive hormones, and that exposure to PDBEs may affect intelligence.

According to the researchers, more information is needed on the movement of chemicals within the body to better evaluate an EAC’s potential to cause health effects in humans at low doses.

Recommendations by Hauser and his co-authors include increased surveillance of a variety of data sources for signs that a chemical may be affecting health, systematic reviews of evidence around any such signal, and updating chemical assessments.

A new report outlines a strategy to improve the ability of regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate whether certain chemicals might cause hormone-related health effects at low doses. The strategy is aimed at supplementing existing EPA toxicity testing, which the authors say can miss harms from exposure to endocrine active chemicals (EACs) in small concentrations.

The report, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Committee on Endocrine-Related Low-Dose Toxicity, was released on July 18, 2017. Russ Hauser, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is a member.

Exposure to EACs can have lasting and significant health effects, particularly during embryonic development. For this report, the committee reviewed data around two types of EACs: phthalates (found in a range of products including toys and cosmetics) and PBDEs (used as flame retardants). They found that exposure in utero to DEHP–a type of phthalate used as a plasticizer–was linked to declines in male reproductive hormones, and that exposure to PDBEs may affect intelligence.

According to the researchers, more information is needed on the movement of chemicals within the body to better evaluate an EAC’s potential to cause health effects in humans at low doses.

Recommendations by Hauser and his co-authors include increased surveillance of a variety of data sources for signs that a chemical may be affecting health, systematic reviews of evidence around any such signal, and updating chemical assessments.

A new report outlines a strategy to improve the ability of regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate whether certain chemicals might cause hormone-related health effects at low doses. The strategy is aimed at supplementing existing EPA toxicity testing, which the authors say can miss harms from exposure to endocrine active chemicals (EACs) in small concentrations.

The report, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Committee on Endocrine-Related Low-Dose Toxicity, was released on July 18, 2017. Russ Hauser, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is a member.

Exposure to EACs can have lasting and significant health effects, particularly during embryonic development. For this report, the committee reviewed data around two types of EACs: phthalates (found in a range of products including toys and cosmetics) and PBDEs (used as flame retardants). They found that exposure in utero to DEHP–a type of phthalate used as a plasticizer–was linked to declines in male reproductive hormones, and that exposure to PDBEs may affect intelligence.

According to the researchers, more information is needed on the movement of chemicals within the body to better evaluate an EAC’s potential to cause health effects in humans at low doses.

Recommendations by Hauser and his co-authors include increased surveillance of a variety of data sources for signs that a chemical may be affecting health, systematic reviews of evidence around any such signal, and updating chemical assessments.

A new report outlines a strategy to improve the ability of regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate whether certain chemicals might cause hormone-related health effects at low doses. The strategy is aimed at supplementing existing EPA toxicity testing, which the authors say can miss harms from exposure to endocrine active chemicals (EACs) in small concentrations.

The report, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Committee on Endocrine-Related Low-Dose Toxicity, was released on July 18, 2017. Russ Hauser, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is a member.

Exposure to EACs can have lasting and significant health effects, particularly during embryonic development. For this report, the committee reviewed data around two types of EACs: phthalates (found in a range of products including toys and cosmetics) and PBDEs (used as flame retardants). They found that exposure in utero to DEHP–a type of phthalate used as a plasticizer–was linked to declines in male reproductive hormones, and that exposure to PDBEs may affect intelligence.

According to the researchers, more information is needed on the movement of chemicals within the body to better evaluate an EAC’s potential to cause health effects in humans at low doses.

Recommendations by Hauser and his co-authors include increased surveillance of a variety of data sources for signs that a chemical may be affecting health, systematic reviews of evidence around any such signal, and updating chemical assessments.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ed-cities/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/topic ... al-health/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... eficiency/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multi ... vironment/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... chemicals/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002207/

Several studies over the last decade have suggested that the modern practice of keeping our bodies exposed to artificial light at night, or LAN, increases cancer risk, especially for cancers (such as breast and prostate cancers) that require hormones to grow. Women who work night shifts have shown higher rates of breast cancer,1 whereas blind women, who are not likely to be exposed to or perceive LAN, have shown decreased risks.2 In 2007, the International Agency for Cancer Research declared shiftwork a probable human carcinogen.3 Now a large study of 164 countries adds another piece of evidence, implicating overall light pollution.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637858

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17867390

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962033

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232528

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9628967

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558066/

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/light ... state.html

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/light ... inzanoMaps

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/light ... n_Spectrum

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-BrCa.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9628967

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232528

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20962033

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17867390

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637858

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558066/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 7/citedby/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entr ... dbfrom=pmc

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entr ... dbfrom=pmc


http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/light ... c_Patterns

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/light ... and_breast cancer

http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-BrCa.html

harvard study light pollution breast cancer

The science in a nutshell: Researchers are concerned that certain health problems can be caused by a long term decrease in the naturally and nightly occurring hormone melatonin, which is only secreted when it is dark and which regulates our sleep/wake cycles and other hormonal glands. While there are different factors that can prevent melatonin from being made by the pineal gland under our brains, such as its calcification due to old age, this web page has been following the particular factor of light pollution at night. Researchers are finding that exposure to bright nocturnal light decreases the human body's production of melatonin, A decrease in melatonin production has been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in women and higher rates of prostate cancer in men. A bit more details on these steps follows.

Light prevents the production of melatonin through primitive ganglion eye cells in our retinas, which we have recently learned are photosensitive. These photosensitive ganglion eye cells are active at or have a peak sensitivity to particular blue wavelengths which does not match the same peak sensitivities of the retinal rod or cone cells. Rod and cone cells are the same retinal cells which you may remember learning about in biology class. While certain cones and rods can see this same spectral region, they just don't react to it as strongly as the ganglion cells do. So blue light, just like blue daytime skies, triggers these ganglion cells, and that makes blue light is our zietgeber (time-giver). These cells send this information to our brain's suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN), which is a collection of brain cells that is the center of our biological clocks or our circadian system. The SCN turns off the pineal gland, a small endocrine organ that lies just under our brains. However, when it is dark, the ganglion cells do not detect blue light, so the SCN lets the pineal gland produce its hormone melatonin. This melatonin is the chemical message that is released to our body in the blood which causes/activates certain health inducing activities.

Once in the blood, melatonin can not only suppress cancer cell growth or even cause cancer cell death, it also reaches other hormone producing glands, such as the ovaries in women and the pituitary gland, and stops the production of their hormones. The hormones that come from these glands in women are estrogen, progesterone, follicle stimulating hormone (F.S.H.), and the luteinizing hormone (L.H.), can cause rapid breast tissue cell growth. It is the cellular growth and turnover can can allow errors to occur in their genetic coding, which can lead to cancer. Ever greater growth and turnover means more frequent chances for coding errors, and so, greater chances of cancer.

Also, melatonin has been found to absorb a free radicals, such as hydroxyl ( OH ) , ionized oxygen molecule ( O2- ), and nitric oxide ( NO ). Free radicals are generated by ionizing radiation and are is estimated to cause almost 70% of biological damage to DNA, proteins, and cellular membranes, the hydroxyl radical most especially. While there are antioxidants that can clean these oxidized radicals up, many of them do not do so permanently. They can release the radical and recapture it and release it and ... (called redox cycling) back into the body to cause damage again, for example vitamin C. However, melatonin, once oxidized by such a radical, terminally breaks apart, but does not release the radical. Its pieces apparently can also consume more free radical, in fact, a single melatonin molecule can consume up to ten free radical molecule species!

Background: So why be concerned with these cancers, especially breast cancer? Well, after skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer. Those issues are better covered in our Light Pollution and Breast Cancer pages. How it affects men and their prostates is still being worked out.

The problem is that even weak amounts of light impedes our pineal gland from creating the beneficial melatonin. Without melatonin, other glands produce hormones unchecked, which lead to greater cancer rates. In our industrialized societies, light pollution or light at nights becomes harder and harder to avoid, even if you knew to avoid it. Everyone's impression is that it is only light. And this apathetic acceptance may be a reason for the ever greater breast cancer rates in industrialized societies. Technology is only good when it is properly used. So while we may herald modern and super-lit technological society, when it threatens our health, it needs to be called into question, even if it is just light.

Summary: Does light pollution directly cause cancer? No. Unlike in astronomy, light itself is not the problem.

It is our biological reactions to the light that is the problem.
So, the next time that someone says to you but it's just light, tell them: no, light is our biological triggering input that suppresses a cascade of subtle, health improving functions that should naturally and nightly occur in our bodies. These functions include those that promote better sleep, fight depression, fight obesity, and consume free radicals which damage DNA and cells and negate some risk factors for certain cancers. It is NOT just light.

Because more of us are sleeping in overly lit nights, light pollution has been found to be a missing, aggravating factor that suppresses melatonin levels in humans at night. This change pulls out the stops to cancer cell growth. The hormone melatonin normally suppresses cancer cell growth and can even cause cancer cell death. In women, it does this by inhibiting the sex ovaries from growing too fast and from releasing hormones can cause breast tissue cells to multiply faster. This would increase the chance that they become cancerous. The papers mentioned below examine this effect in detail. Once you are done here, you may want to head over to our Prevent Light Pollution page to find steps you can take to end this problem to yourself and others.

The papers that have been reviewed are reorganized by subject and by date in this listing. I have commented on them in a chronological sequence below.

Lights at night, melatonin levels and prostate cancer in men:

Prospective Cohort Study of the Risk of Prostate Cancer among Rotating-Shift Workers: Findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study
Global Co-Distribution of Light at Night (LAN) and Cancers of Prostate, Colon, and Lung in Men.
Melatonin May Lower Prostate Cancer Risk
Back to Light Pollution vs. Human Health

How Society's Light Pollution affects Human Breast Cancer

Background: The pages on this website have been concerned with light pollution. So why be concerned with cancer, especially breast cancer? Well, after skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer. The following data came from the American Cancer Society's Breast Cancer Facts & Figures publications.

Year:    2005    2007 2    2009    2011    2013
New cases of invasive breast cancer    211,240    178,480    192,370    230,480    232,340
New cases of CIS 1    58,490    62,030    62,280    57,650    64,640
Deaths    40,410    40,460    40,170    39,520    39,620
1 CIS (carcinoma in situ) is non-invasive and is the earliest form of breast cancer.

2 The expected number of new breast cancers in 2007 was markedly lower than the estimate for 2005 in the previous Breast Cancer Facts & Figures report due to the use of a new, more accurate estimation method and a small decline in the breast cancer incidence rate.

American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2005-2006. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007-2008. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2009-2010. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2011-2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.

According to the ACS's Cancer Facts & Figures reports, the death rate of the breast cancer is going down. This is attributed to the continual messages about getting check out, finding the cancers earlier, and to better treatments.

However, it does not say that the numbers of new cases are going down.

Note that one technique to fighting cancer is to use hormone suppressant therapies. For some types of breast cancer, about two out of three cases are said to be hormone sensitive, for they are fueled by the hormones estrogen or progesterone. Biopsies can reveal whether a tumor has receptors for estrogen (ER-positive) and/or progesterone (PR-positive). And there are medications that keep the hormones from promoting further cancer growth. However, instead of society sitting around and wait for a pill to be one day invented that will cure breast cancer, it seems to me that we should take action to avoid causing it in the first place by making changes that allow our own natural suppressant abilities to work. Prevention that we can do is an intelligent first action to take before cancer occurs.

The problem is that even weak amounts of light can impede our pineal gland from creating the beneficial melatonin. Without melatonin, other glands produce their hormones unchecked, which lead to ever greater breast cancer rates. In our industrialized societies, light pollution or light at nights becomes harder and harder to avoid, even if you knew to avoid it. Everyone's impression is that it is only light. And this apathetic acceptance may be a reason for the ever greater breast cancer rates in industrialized societies. Technology is only good when it is properly used. So while we may herald a modern, glitzy, flashy and hyper-lit technological society, when it threatens our health, it needs to be called into question, even if it is just light.

The papers that have been reviewed are reorganized by subject and by date in this listing. I have commented on them in a chronological sequence below.

Lights at night and breast cancer risks in women

Geographic Patterns of Breast Cancer in the U.S.
Electric Power Use and Breast Cancer: A Hypothesis
Inverse association between breast cancer incidence and degree of visual impairment in Finland
Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer
Rotating Night Shifts and Risk of Breast Cancer in Women Participating in the Nurses' Health Study
Blocking Low-Wavelength Light Prevents Nocturnal Melatonin Suppression with No Adverse Effect on Performance during Simulated Shift Work
Melatonin-Depleted Blood from Premenopausal Women Exposed to Light at Night Stimulates Growth of Human Breast Cancer Xenografts in Nude Rats
Light at Night Co-distributes with Incident Breast but not Lung Cancer in the Female Population of Israel.
Light-at-night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence
Does the Modern Urbanized Sleeping Habitat Pose a Breast Cancer Risk?
Circadian and Melatonin Disruption by Exposure to Light at Night Drives Intrinsic Resistance to Tamoxifen Therapy in Breast Cancer

https://futurism.com/the-geometric-stru ... f-reality/

 
 

Hard Science
The Geometric Structure That Is Changing Notions of Reality

Pixabay
In Brief

Researchers have characterized a geometric structure, the amplituhedron, that might redefine the essence of space-time — and provide a quantum theory of gravity in the process.
Quantum Confusion

In the 1980s, the US was constructing the Texas Superconducting Super Collider. It was designed to collide protons together so that scientists could study how gluons, which hold the quarks in protons together, interact. But at the time, gluons and their interactions were so complex that understanding them seemed impossible — especially since calculating gluon interaction outcomes involved hundreds of Richard Feynman diagrams and pages of algebra.


In 1986, scientists used supercomputers and Feynman diagrams to calculate the likelihoods of various outcomes of six gluon interactions. They then made an educated guess and posited a one-line formula to replace the more than 200 Feynman diagrams and countless lines of algebra — and their single equation was correct. There was just one problem: they didn’t know why.

Finally, in 2005, a new research team derived the guesswork equation for that same six-gluon interaction, and this time they had a solid guess about what their method (the BCFW method, named after the researchers’ last names) could mean. The basic idea was that the central objects of the theory were rays of light, twistors, rather than particles, and the various terms of the method could be interpreted as volumes of tetrahedrons in twistor space.


Image Credit: Laurent Bechir/Flickr
The conclusion, then, is that adding those up gives you the volume of a mysterious polyhedron — albeit a mind-bogglingly difficult one from a computational standpoint. But now, a team from the Institute of Advanced Studies (IAS) in New Jersey has built on this work by characterizing a new mathematical object, a multi-dimensional, interconnected series of polyhedrons: the amplituhedron. The amplituhedron is not a physical object, but an abstraction that allows scientists to model how the details of particle interactions play out. There are as many amplituhedra as there are possible ways for particles to interact.

A New Reality

The comparison to the Feynman diagrams these abstract objects replace is noteworthy; calculating the volume of a single amplituhedron replaces thousands of diagrams and calculations by a supercomputer. The parameters of the problem change: it becomes a purely mathematical problem. This work may also push us closer to a unified theory of everything, because the amplituhedron sets up the calculation of something local and unitary that is related to its geometry, not something rooted in space-time. In other words, locality might be an emergent feature of space-time.

For quantum mechanics and gravity to coexist, locality has to go, and the amplituhedron suggests that this is possible. This means it clears the way for a quantum theory of gravity, opening up the possibilities of understanding the inner workings of black holes and perhaps even the big bang.


Click to View Full Infographic
The challenge now is to extend this geometric thought process and apply it to more realistic, less symmetrical models of particle interactions. Ultimately, researchers will need to eliminate locality in order to include gravity — no easy feat. Nima Arkani-Hamed, who leads the IAS team, told the audience at the String-Math 2016 conference in Paris, France that they are confident that space-time and quantum mechanics will ultimately emerge as one: “In this baby example that’s exactly what happens. There is no way in this geometry to decouple the piece which is space-time from the piece which is quantum mechanics. It’s all one and the same aspect of the underlying positive geometry.”

References: New Scientist, arXiv.org

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131241.htm

Major leap towards data storage at the molecular level -- ScienceDaily

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-theory-he ... black.html

New theory suggests heavy elements created when primordial black holes eat neutron stars from within

http://nypost.com/2016/02/21/astronauts ... -the-moon/

Astronauts heard ‘weird music’ on dark side of the moon | New York Post

A-L-E-X, omg, you texted all that? O_o

ADDED: I can see its copy and pasted now that I've clicked the first link xD my bad.