Thread: Deathgod will love this study

Originally Posted by iLLusioN

I don't believe that mercury, platinum, or gold oxidize...or react at all to anything short of sulfuric, nitric or hydoclorich acids. I could be wrong...chemistry was a long time ago.

Thanks for pointing out platinum. It made me wonder how much of a ring is actually that metal for the price they charge. It was a brief but interesting read.

Originally Posted by Guyver

Game? You changed it....LOL. Seriously wow. We were talking about acid reflux ..and you alone mentioned water. No one else. I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit and let you act like I changed subjects. You did.

Name of metal?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

We didn't evolve to have stomach protection against acid. Damn near every lifeform on the planet has the same protection. If it didn't it would die. Its just a special layer of mucus. Besides i said it can. Also no actually the statistical likelihood of water doing that is 100%. Place metal in water and it will eventually be destroyed by that water. Its a longer process but it will happen. Its statistically more probable then getting throat cancer from acid reflux.

Hey guys, the statistical likelihood of water causing cancer is 100%. Since water corrodes metal you have a 100% chance of getting cancer, meaning water is more statistically likely to cause throat cancer than acid reflux.

For someone who claims statistics are bs and not important you sure like to make them up

Nobody challenged your metal comment, but since you won't allow the topic to go back to where it started I'll give you an answer.

Noble metals are extremely resistant to ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold. It may be possible for them to corrode eventually, but they have outstanding resistance to corrosion.

Additionally, aluminum is extremely resistant to corrosion by water/air due to the fact that it forms an aluminum oxide layer almost instantaneously, which is protective of further corrosion under most circumstances.

Now please tell me what the hell this has to do with the FACT that acid reflux increases your chance of esophageal cancer.

The role of chronic reflux as an independent risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma has not been well defined since more than 50 percent of cases of adenocarcinoma have no history of symptomatic reflux disease [110]. However, reflux symptoms were associated with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (odds ratio 7.7) and gastric cardia (odds ratio 2.0) in a large case control study from Sweden [122]. The risk was greatest among patients with long-standing (>20 years) and severe symptoms (odds ratio 43.5 and 4.4 for esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma, respectively). A meta-analysis concluded that at least weekly symptoms of GERD increased the odds of esophageal adenocarcinoma fivefold, whereas daily symptoms increased the odds sevenfold [123]. The increased risk of developing adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia persisted even after antireflux surgery [124,125].

[110] Bytzer P, Christensen PB, Damkier P, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and Barrett's esophagus: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:86.

[122] Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:825.

[123] Rubenstein JH, Taylor JB. Meta-analysis: the association of oesophageal adenocarcinoma with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32:1222.

[124] Ye W, Chow WH, Lagergren J, et al. Risk of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia in patients with gastroesophageal reflux diseases and after antireflux surgery. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:1286.

[125] Lagergren J, Ye W, Lagergren P, Lu Y. The risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma after antireflux surgery. Gastroenterology 2010; 138:1297.

Originally Posted by phidan

Hey guys, the statistical likelihood of water causing cancer is 100%. Since water corrodes metal you have a 100% chance of getting cancer, meaning water is more statistically likely to cause throat cancer than acid reflux.

For someone who claims statistics are bs and not important you sure like to make them up

if you read the thread then you wouldn't have made this comment.

Originally Posted by phidan

Nobody challenged your metal comment, but since you won't allow the topic to go back to where it started I'll give you an answer.

Noble metals are extremely resistant to ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold. It may be possible for them to corrode eventually, but they have outstanding resistance to corrosion.

Additionally, aluminum is extremely resistant to corrosion by water/air due to the fact that it forms an aluminum oxide layer almost instantaneously, which is protective of further corrosion under most circumstances.

Now please tell me what the hell this has to do with the FACT that acid reflux increases your chance of esophageal cancer.



[110] Bytzer P, Christensen PB, Damkier P, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and Barrett's esophagus: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:86.

[122] Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:825.

[123] Rubenstein JH, Taylor JB. Meta-analysis: the association of oesophageal adenocarcinoma with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32:1222.

[124] Ye W, Chow WH, Lagergren J, et al. Risk of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia in patients with gastroesophageal reflux diseases and after antireflux surgery. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:1286.

[125] Lagergren J, Ye W, Lagergren P, Lu Y. The risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma after antireflux surgery. Gastroenterology 2010; 138:1297.

I said eventually. I also said it can cause cancer. Not once did i said it couldn't but once again if you had read the thread you would have seen me say that about a half dozen times.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

As far as I gathered from the story, they didn't ask why. I'd be okay with looking into why, because it is a decent question, but it didn't seem to go farther then "they have less friends."


I should add if the why was "why are they less picky in friends?" I'd think that is kind of dumb as well.

While the actual article is not very novel, it does test models of social hierarchy and interpersonal relationships to see how they fit. It's one of his many studies in which he tries to understand adolescent social hierarchy by using network analysis of social media. YOU may think his research is worthless, but he is on 6 separate grants, meaning at least 6 different scientific committees have deemed his research worthwhile.

Additionally, the only money that was spent in doing research like this is a couple computers and paying the professor's and possibly a couple graduate students' salaries. This research likely doesn't cost 10% of what my lab spends yearly.

Which is 10% more then it should have received.