Links for you. Science:
Massive undersea crab swarm caught on video for the first time
Cownose Rays Aquitted: Not Guilty of Decimating Chesapeake Oysters
Science fairs are as flawed as my solar-powered hot dog cooker (yes, they are)
Octopus slips out of aquarium tank, crawls across floor, escapes down pipe to ocean
This study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published.
Other:
HRC’s Final Paid Speech – $260K from the ACA?
Poverty Revisited
Now they’re coming after the librarians
Insults and rape threats. Writers shouldn’t have to deal with this
How Bernie Sanders got his foreign policy groove back
Fight on until the very last vote is counted, Bernie Sanders
“Liberal” Economists Cheered the New Democrats’ Deregulation of Finance (ouch)
I am on the Kill List. This is what it feels like to be hunted by drones
Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders
How a Wharton professor grossly inflates Social Security’s deficit to argue for a ‘fix’
Metro’s Historian Says It Can Be Made Great Again, We Just Have to Accept Paying for It
A Contested Democratic Convention Is Now a Near Statistical Certainty
Saving the planet is a good idea, say preservation board members, but don’t do it here (that block is already ass-ugly)
The Myth of the Progressive Capitalist: The same companies that oppose North Carolina’s bathroom bill bankroll the politicians who passed it. (because they like one part of the bill)
Bernie Sanders Endorses Three Women House Candidates
Teacher Tenure Is Challenged Again in a Minnesota Lawsuit
America’s pathetic inability to punish the powerful
mikethemadbiologist
Re: American diet
Having just read Nina Teicholz’s book “The Big Fat Surprise” I have the impression most or all nutritional research, especially the US research, should be regarded as invalid or mislead.
She catalogues a litany of errors, omissions and just plan invalid reporting of ‘scientific’ results that is staggering. The Minnesota study is only one of many.
I was definitely impressed with the Lipid Research Council Coronary Primary Prevention Trial where she reports that the researchers, upon failing to find the significant result they wanted with a two-tailed test, simply amended the protocol, post-study to a one-tailed test which surprisingly! gave them the results they wanted (and of course knew were true).
The interesting fact, if I am reading Teicholz correctly is that there was never any suggestion of actual corruption, à la Big Tobacco or climate change research that Oreskes and Conway discuss in “Merchants of Doubt” but a tangled mix of zealotry in the belief of the effectiveness of a low-fat diet, industry funding, naivety, poor research design and wildly improper research reporting.