Links 4/1/13

Links for you. Science:

The Nine Hottest Reasons Why It’s Not Hot to Make ‘Hot’ Lists
“How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died” (original paper here; while many of its conclusions are speculative, to be charitable, the data on diet and on the rapid decline in health are very interesting)
Do Invertebrates Really Make Up 80% of All Species on Earth?
The Ph.D. Bust – Fact or Fiction? A View from Anthropology
Point of view: The writing on the wall (don’t agree with everything, but a good read)

Other:

Subways Pay
Local Airport Closures Cause GOPers Sequestration Anxiety
What not to do when you get a parking ticket: Jackass edition
When Anthony Lewis Stood Up To The New York Times And The Clinton Crazies
Inside a Nondescript Chicago Warehouse Hides an Enormous Farm: The FarmedHere project has filled up 90,000 square feet of space with arugula, herbs, and tilapia, creating a closed system that will supply a million of pounds of greens a year
Airline ‘fat tax’: Should heavy passengers pay more?
Oldsters Is Old
2000, the Year Formerly Known as the Future
Barack Obama’s Economic Legacy: The Billionaire-Boosting Big Four on His Wish List
Washington’s Exploding Manholes Explained?
Lanny Breuer Cashes in After Not Prosecuting Wall Street Execs, Will Receive Approximate Salary of 4 Million Dollars
The Passion and Eloquence of Anthony Lewis

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Links 4/1/13

  1. kaleberg says:

    I looked at that article (the posting and the paper) for “How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died”. They seemed to have a very loose usage of the term life expectancy. After all, it wasn’t until after the Chartist movement and the 1850s that nutrition began to improve, and it wasn’t until the 1950s that the Queen started honoring centenarians, centenarians who had survived the rise of processed food, high alcohol booze and machine made cigarettes. Their argument that people were healthier and lived longer in the mid-19th century seems rather shaky. It isn’t clear what statistics they are using. If it is the modal date of death, or some related number, then that person was born and raised before the era of interest. If they are talking about life expectancies, then that person would live well past the end of the era of interest. It doesn’t make a lot of sense arguing about 70+ year life spans in terms of a 30 or 40 year “healthy eating” window without a much clearer definition of what is being measured.

    So I next I checked out http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mortality-ageing/mortality-in-england-and-wales/average-life-span/rpt-average-life-span.html#tab-Trends-in-Average-Life-Span . It has a good set of tables that covered much of the 19th century and showed modal age of death, median age of death and life expectancy at birth. Maybe, just maybe, you can see the drop and then rise in modal age of death starting around 1870, well before the cigarette machine, and ending after the turn of the century. Otherwise life expectancy was simply climbing, starting in the 1870s. (Was that the National Health Service coming into its own around 1970?)

    In other words, the site you referenced is interesting, but the paper is problematic. It also seems to have a micro-nutrient axe to grind and needs to address oxidation issues.

Comments are closed.