Blank Blood Sugar Chart Form: Fill & Download for Free

Why Climate Prediction is a Wicked Difficult ProblemShould we relocate populations in anticipation of imminent sea level rise?My opinion from 25 years of researching climate is: No.The current rate of sea level rise is low and is not increasing according to both NASA satellite measurements and historical tide gauge records.The probability of a catastrophic ice sheet collapse on land (the only event that would trigger sea level rise) is very low. Predictions of this are very uncertain and are not the basis for taking drastic action now. Even in the worst case, it would take many years for major sea level rise to occur.Other major climate events are far more likely. The top two would be a major volcanic eruption and/or a solar minimum. See belowWe need to dispassionately study the (very new and still evolving) science of climate without the biases of self serving media, political groups or conspiracy cults. How can a non-scientist trust science?My path from climate alarm to climate science realistIn 1988, Dr. James Hansen, the leading scientific authority on climate change working for the US government, testified before congress with dire warnings about “imminent” climate disaster.In the 90s, I met one of the main promoters of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Dr. Steven Schneider, at Stanford. I listened to his speeches and believing that he was a credible scientist, I became plenty scared myself. I gave a speech at my Rotary Club and told anyone who would listen about the urgent action we needed to take.One day a good friend and consummate scientist with unimpeachable ethics was hired by the Australian government to develop a comprehensive carbon cycle model for their prospective cap and trade program. We both celebrated his new role in preventing anthropogenic climate change.Some time later, he began sending emails talking about how the science behind the now-infamous “hockey stick” climate chart was fraudulent and how so-called scientists were using science to create fear and promote their political goals. This created a disturbing cognitive dissonance for me and my friend.I learned from the Climategate Emails (read them in the original, not articles about them) and other articles that they had written, that Dr. Schneider and others in that lot were unconcerned with science and driven by radical political ideology. I read with dismay an article of his from 1989 in Discover magazine:"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."I discovered that during the 70s, the very same scientists had been promoting global cooling and the coming ice age as an existential threat, requiring that we dump carbon on the ice caps to deliberately melt them.However, CO2, which involves the global energy supply, was a far bigger target which might be used to bring civilization to its knees.Learn and read beyond the scary headlinesI realized that the only way to truly understand and form intelligent opinions was to study the actual science. I began reading the actual scientific papers, not the press releases or clickbait headlines. I learned to identify and avoid biased zealot blog sites (observe the extended diatribe in the comments to this post). When I did this, my entire view of the subject changed.First, appeals to authority and claims of consensus are not valid bases for judging scientific facts or debating climate science. Ideas I had accepted as coming from an unquestioned authorities were validly challenged by other authorities. When I read the actual paper that initiated the “97% of scientists agree” meme, I was shocked to discover the methodology of the survey was an outright fraud. Google it and the critiques for yourself. (Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' ).Scientists are professional skeptics. “Prove it” is their mantra. No two scientists will agree the details of anything, much less 97%. Theories that can withstand criticism by the most knowledgable skeptics are what have brought us all of the scientific and technological advances of our modern age.Challenge every factI learned that before accepting anything as a fact, I needed to understand all the arguments both for and against it. I needed to know if the information was cherry picked, the start and end dates for a time series were jiggered, the scale was exaggerated, if significant contrary conditions were left out, how big the error window is and more. One quickly realizes how much uncertainty and room for interpretation there is in the entire scientific enterprise and how the devil is in the details.As Einstein is credited with saying, it doesn’t matter if a million scientists agree with your theory, if one can disprove it. Skepticism is the heart and soul of science.In addition, “belief,” is a philosophical/religious concept, which has no standing in scientific discussion. The scientific method was invented to eliminate just such “fallacies of discourse” as Plato discussed more than 2000 years ago.Climate science is very young. For example, our knowledge of the Arctic ice extent (and most everything else about climate) only goes back to the 1980s and the first sophisticated satellites. Science has no direct knowledge of the range of variation that the Arctic has experienced in the past. There are hundreds more examples of our incomplete knowledge of climate.What time is it?There is an old Chinese proverb - Man with one watch knows the time. Man with two, not sure.Ironically, the more research that is done, the less certain our knowledge becomes, as we learn about the vast subtlety and chaotic interaction of the climate mechanisms. We have discovered thousands of “watches” and none of them keeps the same time. Every question that is answered begets 10 new questions.Some studies show that Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice, others show that they are gaining. Which watch do you want to trust with the future of humanity?What time will it be in 2100?According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate is “…a coupled, non-linear chaotic system and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Meaning that small changes at the input make huge differences in outcomes.Kevin Trenberth, a leading climate modeler for the US and the UN IPCC, demonstrated that a one-one trillionth degree change in the input temperature to a climate model can completely change the results of the run. Of the thousands of variables that go into climate models, only a relatively few are based on actual observation. Many are “parameterized” based on best guesses. They are tweaked to provide more “realistic” output. Dozens of runs are averaged to create an approximate imitation of what the climate has done in the past. Since the real world (the input conditions) is changing constantly, are these models watches we can trust for accurate prediction? Is it going to rain next week? Um, not sure. How about in 2100?Mother Gaia is pulling very big leversSome levers are huge, like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the largest weather events on the earth. They potentially release massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere. The 1997–98 and 2016-17 super El Ninos raised global temperatures significantly. No scientist can predict El Ninos from year to year, much less decades in the future. As happened in 97/98, any one extraordinary event can send the global climate on a new course, never to return and impossible for models to predict in advance.As detailed below, there are both natural cycles and probabilistic events that could change the climate dramatically regardless of anything we try to do about it.No one has all the answersMany alarmists claim that anyone who dares question their perceived wisdom of our imminent demise are science deniers. I would propose that just the opposite is true. Those who base their opinions on headlines, beliefs, confirmation bias and zealot cult blogs are the real science deniers. I should know, I went through that period myself.The point of all this is that science is not about speculation and what MIGHT happen. To have informed opinions, you have to follow the money, read the real science with a skeptical eye and get beyond the political hype and clickbait headlines.I predict you will be better informed, less certain and better able to understand both the inherent stability and unpredictability of our wonderful planet’s climate system. Personally, I have found the study both fascinating and fulfilling with discovery of both the insane complexity and intricate beauty that is our natural world.I wrote a short piece addressing the question of how a non-scientist can trust science. The article discusses the scientific method and some fallacies in arguments about it.The earth’s climate is a combination of cyclical, probabilistic and evolutionary forces.Cycles (all those watches)Day and nightTidesSeasonsThe global water cycle (95% of all greenhouse gas - Some processes create positive feedback with increasing temperature, some negative feedback, especially from cloud formation, which is not accurately modeled in climate models. No one knows for sure, but my bet would be that water is the great climate stabilizer)The global CO2 cycle (thousands of sources and sinks, many natural sources greater than human-produced CO2)Orbital mechanics (Milankovitch cycles, proposed as the mechanism behind the regular 100,000 year glacial/warm cycles over the last 4 million years, but our knowledge is incomplete)Ocean temperature oscillations (Atlantic Decadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation - quasi-periodic)Ocean current oscillations (Souther Ocean current, thermohaline circulation)Solar cycles (11 years, correlations with climate but not proven causations)Unpredictable semi-periodic cycles like El Nino, La NinaMovement of the magnetic poles (recently the north magnetic pole began moving much faster than ever before. This affects the interaction of the atmosphere and the solar wind, which in turn affects the climate, future unknown)Thousands of geological, atmospheric and oceanic cycles that are only vaguely understoodMany of the earth’s cycles interact with each other and are changed by those interactions, making prediction technically impossible.Probabilistic eventsAsteroid strikesSolar flares (a large one like the Carrington Event of 1859 could wipe out electric grids and damage anything runs on electricity, including the satellites we all depend on. A similar flare just missed the earth in 2012)Volcanos (Tambora, 1815; Krakatau, 1885; it’s been awhile since we had a really big one. They seriously disrupt the climate for years)Solar minimum - Since the 1960s, sunspot activity has been diminishing rapidly with each (on average) 11 year cycle. The next cycle, which will probably peak around 2024, might hit close to zero. The last time this happened (the Maunder Minimum, 1650–1715), coincided with a “little ice age,” bringing famine, wars, with advancing glaciers burying towns and much suffering. The ice on the Thames River in London was so thick that entire neighborhoods of businesses sprang up on the ice. However, correlation is not causation. Scientists are divided about whether the cause was the solar minimum or increased volcanism, or whether they were all related. Although weaker, the later Dalton minimum coincided with cooling that dragged on until the 20th Century. Many climate scientists think that the current warming is just the recovery from the low temperatures previously. This is a long standing and complex argument in climate science.EvolutionThere is no such thing as a steady state or "ideal" climate. The climate evolves but never returns to any previous state. Trying to make it do so is as fruitless as trying to un-burn a fire, or un-mix your coffee and cream. Think of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans as giant swirling coffee cups, heated by the sun, with sugar and cream and millions of other ingredients constantly being mixed together.As the UN IPCC clearly stated: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”IPCC Assessment Report, 2001, Chapter 14, page 3Humans have survived and adapted through a long series of glacial cycles and warmings - Sea levels falling and then suddenly rising more than 400 feet. Glaciers a mile thick covering much of the northern continents. CO2 levels so low it was hard to grow plants for food.Whatever surprises the future climate holds for us, I predict that we will adapt to them as we always have.Elephants in the human living roomConsensus on global climate action is technically impossible30 years after his testimony before the US congress, Dr. Hansen says that the real hoax is governments pretending to do something about climate change, but not really. He also believes that nuclear energy is the ultimate answer and that renewables will never be a comprehensive solution.I propose that this universal failure to act (despite posturing) is not a matter of moral weakness or lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. Instead, it is a structural feature of all human societies - families, tribes, clans and governments exist to ensure the maximum access to energy for their members/citizens at the lowest cost in order that those citizens can grow, reproduce and evolve at the maximum rate and contribute to the success of the entity itself. Therefore, any nation state is only empowered to act for the clear benefit its own citizens.Treaties, alliances and agreements are negotiated with the purpose of benefiting the citizens of the party countries, not all countries. Inequality is a fundamental characteristic of not only all life forms, but the universe itself. Without it, the universe would be the gray undifferentiated soup predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. The more recent Constructal Law (1996, Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University www.contructal.org) shows why energetic flow systems evolve and why life forms function the way they do.For this reason, I am certain that there will never be any coordinated global climate action undertaken.My analysis is based on several factors:Game theory - wealth inequality precludes global agreementsPhysics - all living organisms need a constantly increasingly supply of energy and will fight to get itHuman social dynamics - From the first two, no human group will give up its energy-wealth for the benefit of another group - wars are fought to gain benefits at the expense of another. And humans love their wars.I have posted a fuller discussion of this topic hereWe need a lot more food and energy in the futureThe greening of the planet thanks to extra warmth and CO2 is already evident and proven by NASA and many peer reviewed scientific studies.NASA Satellite earth monitoring - increased productivity between 1982 and 2015I have personally been to Morocco and seen millions of new trees and acres of new fields planted around the edge of the Sahara where they would not grow before. By what rationale would we deliberately shut down new food supplies? We are going to need a lot more productive agriculture in the coming decades.New agriculture in Morocco on the edge of the Sahara desert.As for acidification of the ocean killing off organisms with calcium shells, one study done on coral reefs that have natural CO2 seeps and much higher local carbonic acid levels showed that some species thrived more and some less, but the ecosystems were healthy and stable. Other studies are showing just the opposite of what the alarmists predicted:“Coccolithophores--tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web--have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period, report researchers.” [my bold].Some have argued that taking fossil plant carbon from the ground and burning it creates more trees, which can themselves be burned. Thus we are actually adding to the global sustainable energy supply by recycling ancient forests into new ones which can be harvested and recycled indefinitely.We need more energy to improve global standards of livingMost of the people on earth live in energy poverty. In every country, wealth (standard of living) is directly and provably related to per capita energy consumption. In order to bring the world population up to a reasonable standard of living, how much energy will be required? Fill in the blanks yourself, but I would estimate 3-5 times more than is currently produced, at least until India’s population peaks sometime before 2100.Improved standard of living limits population growthImproved standard of living is also the proven method of stopping population growth. Bringing as many people as possible up to a better standard of living as quickly as possible will pay big dividends in reducing the future population load and cumulative energy requirements.Figurative illustration of the population growth vs energy use curve. Adapted from the paper “The Physics of Blood and Money”, by Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University and Dr. Marcelo ErreraSo, bottom line, I would propose that rather than fiddling around the edges with costly and ineffective band aids, taxes and fantasies of global action, we need to be much more aggressive in coming up with real, practical and cheap new energy sources (much cheaper than fossil fuels) - that will work without the assumption of global cooperation, a global command economy, or massive population extermination.In the spirit of “peer review by Quora” I welcome thoughtful comments and criticism if it is related to points in the article. Please state the point you are responding to.Replies that have no relevance to the article or are just venom spewing incoherent ad hominem trolling from cult blogs will be deleted without comment.

I think that the main barriers to this will always be cost and accessibility. In the U.S, where the consumer is usually responsible for their own health costs (via health insurance) the cost would be massive, and those individuals who were unable to afford insurance would be further disadvantaged.In the U.K, the NHS would simply be unable to afford the cost of this innovation which was usually catering to the 'worried well'. The following article illustrates the cost of an MRI scanner but each health provider would need to have more than one to cater for all of their patients:-MRI equipment varies in cost, depending on the strength of the scanner. Scanners with more strength produce more detailed images; therefore, these scanners cost more. MRI machines can range in cost between $1 and $3 million. Construction of MRI suites can easily add another $500,000 to the total cost. An extremity MRI machine alone costs $300,000 or more, and can only be used to scan hands, feet and knees. Purchasing a used-extremity MRI scanner can cost as much as $150,000.ReimbursementWhile Medicare, most HMOs and private insurance companies, as well as Workers' Compensation carriers, will cover at least some of the cost for a patient to have an MRI exam, government-sponsored health plans are now reimbursing less for the equipment charge. When the cost of the procedure is not covered by a patient's health plan, or a patient is uninsured, the provider will usually advise a patient of the costs at the time an appointment is scheduled. An MRI examination can cost several thousands of dollars, as it includes a charge for using the MRI machine to perform the scan, in addition to a professional charge for a radiologist to view the images. The equipment charge alone can cost somewhere in the range of $3,500. Add another $350 fee to that for a radiologist to take a look at the images and interpret the data. Another factor to consider when it comes medical facilities being reimbursed for the study is that many insurance companies require pre-approval before covering the cost of an MRI exam.Prevention/SolutionWhile MRI imaging generates substantial revenue for health-care providers who receive reimbursement from medical insurance providers, escalating health-care costs has made it more important for providers to keep costs under control. Increasing costs to patients is not always the best solution either. If the cost of a medical service increases too much, there is always the risk that insurance companies may either reduce the amount of coverage for a service or drop coverage for the service altogether.DisadvantagesIf an MRI exam is not conducted properly, another MRI study may need to be ordered, costing someone money. Although MRI scans are increasingly being used by physicians for diagnostic purposes, the scans cost patients significantly more than traditional x-rays or ultrasounds. The procedure can be an expensive way to search for a disease that does not exist. Another disadvantage of this kind of imaging is that not everyone has access to such an expensive diagnostic study.ConsiderationsThe overall cost of Magnetic Resonance Imaging makes it a huge investment to health-care providers. Aside from the initial cost of purchasing the MRI equipment, there is the additional cost of $800,000 each year on average to operate the scanner, including the expensive process used to chill the magnetic coils in the machine. Add to that the cost of hiring employees with the technical skills to operate and repair these sensitive machines, and the price tag quickly goes up more. Another critical consideration is the life cycle of a new MRI machine, which is typically assessed at about seven years. However, because of the high cost, most facilities try to get more in the line of 12 to 14 years of use out of the equipment. Even if a machine lasts longer, as it gets older, a scanner is likely to require repairs more often. Fortunately, keeping the scanner functioning and in good repair can extend the lifetime. Consequently, when compared to the high cost of purchasing a new machine every few years, the cost of making repairs is still significantly less.Technologist SalariesThe average annual salary for an MRI technologist ranges between $50,000 to $55,000, but technologists who have advanced training or experience have the potential to earn considerably more. Salaries often increase depending on the geographic location of the medical facility. The technicians employed by many providers also have ample opportunities to work overtime. Again depending on location, technicians working overtime can earn as much as $100,000 a year. A growing demand for qualified MRI technologists is expected to make salaries even more competitive in the coming years. Some medical facilities already offer bonus incentives and other perks such as free housing and compensation for expenses.Service/RepairOperating MRI equipment can generate as much as $10,000 of income an hour. It's easy to understand how an MRI machine that is not functional can end up costing the health care provider a considerable amount of money. While some medical facilities have in-house service technicians, others contract with an outside company to perform service and maintenance. Because of the number of occupational hazards involved, service technicians often work under extreme stress, especially if a facility is pressuring to get the equipment back up and running again as soon as possible. Furthermore, service technicians are expensive to train; therefore, it isn't uncommon for qualified repair engineers to earn salaries in the six-figure range.(www.ehow.com/about)I'm no physicist but I doubt that the technology will change to such a degree to make the cost acceptable or affordable.Additionally, there is the issue of the efficacy of what, in effect, is a mass screening programme.The following gives an interesting overview, (TL:DR)Jerome Burne The Guardian, November 2003One of the rituals at boys' schools in the 1950s was the yearly medical inspection. We'd all line up in our underpants and, one by one, have our chests listened to, our throats looked at, and then came the bit that made the occasion so memorable - the doctor would cup our testicles in his hand and order us to cough. What he was testing for we were never told, and no one ever confessed to having some terrible disorder identified as a result, so we were left to indulge in lurid speculation.How primitive that all seems today. Hi-tech early diagnosis of disease is one of the fastest-growing areas of medicine - if you haven't already seen brilliantly sharp colour pictures of your heart and lungs or read a print-out of your DNA, with the variations linked with disease highlighted, you very likely soon will. In the US, four million newborn babies are screened annually for more than 30 different genetic disorders, most extremely rare (a decade ago, a mere two or three could be identified this way). In the UK, such tests on babies are so far carried out only in very particular circumstances, but as adults we can send off $200 (£120) and a swab from the inside of our cheek to a laboratory in the US and get back a list of the genes that may be "your ticking time bombs for illness".Within the past year, several private diagnostic centres have opened in London. One can show you images of your heart that would not disgrace the pages of a Dorling Kindersley home anatomy textbook and can spot problems long before other methods. Another combines conventional and complementary methods to test your immune system and the function of individual organs. Meanwhile, we are all urged to have regular screening for various cancers, notably prostate, cervical and breast. All of which makes sense, surely - after all, cars have a regular service to spot potential problems before they leave you stranded on the motorway, so shouldn't we check to see which of our bits are wearing out?Not necessarily. There is a growing lobby that says such screening is not nearly as good an idea as it sounds. So far, the technology is not sufficiently advanced to distinguish between cancers that require treatment and those that do not. But the impulse of most doctors, given any finding of cancer, is to take action - which at the least will involve the removal of tissue for further testing, and may also mean more drastic surgery, a course of drugs, radiation or chemotherapy. Nor is it clear that screening achieves its main purpose - saving lives - on the scale that might be expected.In April, for instance, a report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on the cervical screening programme in Bristol concluded that 1,000 women would have to be screened once every five years for 35 years to prevent just one death from cervical cancer (the least common of the three cancers widely screened for). This amount of testing involves an awful lot of women suffering anxiety from abnormal results and subsequent treatment. Similarly, the US baby-screening programme detects just one genetic abnormality in 7,800 scans and inevitably, since testing is imprecise, involves many false alarms. In July, another BMJ feature concluded that women must be told more plainly about the harm that can result from breast screening. In other forms of screening, the cost can be more than just anxiety or a biopsy. The latest figures, published in the Lancet, indicate that thousands of men who have invasive treatments for localised, symptomless prostate cancer will be left impotent and incontinent because of removal of a tumour that, if left alone, would have caused no harm.The father of mass screening was UK physician Horace Dobell who, in 1861, outlined the benefit of regular check-ups of "ostensibly healthy persons" for tuberculosis. Like today's supporters of scanning, Dobell assumed that "therapeutic efforts are more effective at earlier stages". The idea caught on, with encouragement from the health insurance industry. But by 1918 one of the biggest drawbacks, one that is still with us, had emerged: the boost it gave to unnecessary medical treatments.The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported on a study carried out among people considering life insurance, and concluded that almost everyone had some form of impairment and "more than 50% need medical or surgical attention". However, the popularity of screening continued unabated and by the 1950s no senior US executive felt he had arrived until he'd been sent for a three-day, multi-systemic diagnostic survey at the Greenbrier Clinic, West Virginia.The industry took something of a battering in the 1960s when sceptics began asking whether this extensive testing was making any difference. Two large trials, one in south-east London, the other in the US, followed up a total of 17,000 people over a decade to see if there was any eventual difference between those who had been screened and those who had not. They found "no convincing evidence for the effectiveness of periodic health examinations in decreasing morbidity or overall mortality".But the findings did little to halt the screening juggernaut. "For the past 20 years, regular screening has been a medical article of faith," says Dr Angela Raffle, consultant in public health medicine in Bristol, consultant to the National Screening Programmes and author of the recent BMJ report on the outcomes of cervical screening. "Anyone who got up at a conference and asked for greater honesty about the harms as well as the benefits was shouted down as a heretic."The fundamental problem with cancer screening is what Raffle calls the dysplasia swamp, dysplasia being the medical term for abnormal cells. "If a pathologist looks at enough bits of you, he'll find precancerous tissue somewhere. It is so common that it must be part of the normal process of tissue damage and repair. What we don't know is which ones are going to spread and which can be safely left. That's why we have to over-treat in order to help the small number who'd otherwise end up with something serious."Raffle is also involved in Bristol's breast-screening programme which covers a million people. "Every year we detect 130 cases of breast cancer through screening," she says. "Most of these women are very grateful and feel they owe their lives to the programme. But, extrapolating from the recent Office for National Statistics figures, the annual number of deaths prevented in our screened population is six. So, even in most of the women whose cancer [we] detect, screening has made no difference. Either they have a type of tumour that would have been curable even if left until symptoms developed, or they have a progressive form of the disease that will kill them anyway, despite being picked up on screening. There is only a small window of opportunity when a cancer is at the stage where screening can make that all-important difference."This sort of analysis suggests that the decision to offer mass screening is as much social and political as scientific and medical. "The fervour with which it has been promoted," says Raffle, "means that in the past there was little proper scientific scrutiny of screening, but there is a serious discussion to be had. If you have £10m to spend, should you run a screening programme - or should you spend the money on other things, like better diagnosis and treatment, and on some of the things that the NHS doesn't do well, like home care or prevention or palliative care?"The debate over prostate screening is even more polarised. The public view is captured by doctor-cum-comic Phil Hammond, who has a line in one show that goes, "With a white coat on, I can stick my finger up your arse within a minute of meeting you and you'll be grateful." And it's true, men have long been told that the "digital rectal examination" for possible prostate cancer is in our best interests. The statistics are certainly alarming - prostate cancer affects one in 13 men in the UK and is set to overtake lung cancer as the leading cause of death from cancer in males by 2005. So shouldn't we be doing something about it?Once again, the problem centres on the dysplasia swamp. Many people with a positive PSA (prostate specific antigen) test will have a slow-growing form of cancer that will cause few problems if left alone. However, a few will have the fast-growing, dangerous sort. "The tragedy," says David Dearnaley, of the Institute of Cancer Research, "is that, at present, we have no way of telling which is which." As a result, far too many people are being unnecessarily treated. The review of prostate screening in the Lancet put it like this: if a million men are tested, 110,000 will have raised levels of PSA, 10,000 of whom will have surgery; and of those, only 16% with localised tumours will benefit, because the disease in the remaining 84% would not have developed to a stage where it actually affected them. What makes the situation worse than cervical screening is that the results of surgery for prostate cancer can be far more drastic - of the 10,000 operated on, 10 will die, 300 will lose control of their bladder and 4,000 will become impotent.So men diagnosed with prostate cancer have a stark choice (which may or may not be put to them): refuse surgery and have a 16% chance of the disease becoming acute and possibly fatal; or submit to surgery and face a 40% chance of being made impotent.The medical profession is deeply split on the issue. In the US, the American Urological Association says that all men over 50 should have a check, yet the US Preventive Services Task Force advises against it. And the Lancet review concludes, "There is no clear association between intensity of screening and reduced prostate cancer." Given this degree of doubt, you might think there would be some resistance to introducing a new form of even more detailed mass screening, especially one that involves a dose of radiation. Apparently not: one of the more fashionable gifts in the US, soon to arrive in the UK, is the whole-body CT (computerised tomography) scan, which searches for the minutest sign of cellular irregularity that might be cancer. This is rummaging in the dysplasia swamp with a vengeance.When Professor Stephen Swensen of the US National Institutes of Health ran whole-body CT scans on 1,570 patients last year, he found 700 indicators of disease, including breast, kidney and stomach cancers. Most turned out to be false-positives but they all had to be checked out, a process that was worrying, time-consuming and unpleasant. As Swensen puts it, "The investigations adversely affected the quality of life and resulted in unnecessary diagnostic and interventionist procedures." Not such a cool gift, then.So what is the prudent health consumer to do? Despite the worrying statistics, there is still something reassuring about having a scan that says you're OK. And then there is the lottery factor: you might be one of those who benefits from screening. What is needed is the habit of frank discussion with your GP. "The problem is that very little is known about the effects of sharing research-based information about healthcare effectiveness with patients and involving them in decisions about their care," says Joan Austoker, of the department of primary care at Oxford University. In other words, will it put people off doing it?To get mass-screening programmes under way, governments and the medical profession have invariably presented them as effective, simple and cheap. "They are often none of these things," says Austoker, "but no one knows whether it would stop people from attending if they knew the odds." The only way forward is to move from a paternalistic to a more democratic approach. "Above all, we need to respect patients' autonomy, and that includes their right to decide not to undergo a screening intervention."What makes the scanning debate so tricky is that the criticism is counter-intuitive. It seems so obvious that catching a disease early is a good thing that it can be hard to appreciate why that isn't necessarily true. To make matters worse, much of the debate turns on statistics - a topic that induces blank incomprehension in most people. Saying that scanning reduces the number of cancers by 50% makes it sound very worthwhile, but it's not so impressive if that reduction is from two in 1,000 to one in 1,000. The first is called relative risk and the second absolute risk.Presenting the information visually can make the risks and benefits much clearer. A chart recently published by Dr Tom Marshall of the department of public health and epidemiology at the University of Birmingham shows at a glance what would happen to women aged 50 who were regularly screened for breast cancer, compared with women of the same age who weren't. This reflects, in simplified form, his contention that, in a non-screened group of 1,000, 762 would reach the age of 75, while in a screened group 768 would live that long. In other words, six women in the screened group will benefit, 218 will be referred for further tests and 68 will have a breast biopsy. "There's a lack of clear and accurate information available to women," he says. "We go out of our way to persuade women to have breast screening - the least we can do is to give them the facts."Of course, one way to improve the rather lousy odds of mass screening is to choose your patient base rather more carefully. If you test people who are already known to be at high risk, this greatly increases the chance that the signs of disorder you do pick up are going to be significant. The odds improve still further if your marker is a definitive indication that you have the disease.It is this combination that is on offer at the European Scanning Clinic, which opened recently in Harley Street, London. Expensive stems of tropical flowers stand in tall vases; friendly assistants are on hand to help. This is private medicine at £500 a scan.The clinic's main advantage is an EBT (electron beam tomography) scanner that is much faster and delivers far less radiation than regular CT scans. On computer monitors, you can see the bone of the ribcage as hard-edged white with a lacy decoration of brilliant red blood vessels. The purpose of such textbook detail is to calculate your calcium count. Although countless healthy heart campaigns have firmly implanted the notion that a build-up of fatty plaque is what causes heart attacks, the danger sign is when the plaque gets turned into calcium. This machine can spot even microscopic specks of calcium in the arteries around the heart. "What's nice about EBT is that it is absolute," says the clinic's publicity manager, Barry Burles. "Rather than just indicating that there may be a problem, it is definite. If you have calcium, you have heart disease." At the moment, the only people referred to the clinic are those who have a number of the familiar risk factors for heart disease - overweight, smoking, family history, etc - but who want to be certain.With the EBT (unlike the standard angiogram, a test to detect blockages of the arteries which involves inserting a catheter into an artery in your groin and threading it up to your heart), you can see the heart at work and blockages show up clearly. "It does give the impetus to change lifestyle," says the chief radiographer, Tony McArthur. "Everyone, especially men, think they are 10ft tall and bulletproof. Actually seeing what's wrong can be a wake-up call."Once heart disease has been confirmed, then you are referred back to your GP for treatment, which at the moment means statins - cholesterol-lowering drugs. "If there were no statins, there would not be much point in EBT," says Burles. A trial is currently under way to see how much difference statins treatment makes to the calcium score year on year.All of which raises yet another of the controversial issues surrounding mass screening: is it largely a device to increase sales of a particular drug? While it is obviously pointless to scan or test for conditions that have no treatment, if a positive finding does not lead to surgery, it usually means years of taking some drug or other to reduce your risks.The big hope of those involved in promoting large-scale screening is that rapid advances in genetics and a new form of molecular analysis known as metabolomics will come to their rescue. These will allow doctors to detect people who are at higher risk of disorders, either by spotting damaging mutations in their DNA or by identifying dangerous combinations of molecules in their blood.Metabolomics isn't being offered to the public yet, because it requires very expensive scanning equipment, but it can already pick up early signs of a range of disorders by detecting their "metabolic signature" in blood or urine. While most conventional tests look for change in just a single molecule, metabolomics uses a sophisticated computer programme, originally developed to spot signs of credit card fraud among billions of transactions, to detect changes in their combinations.This approach may soon lead to a huge improvement in the accuracy of prostate screening. Researchers at the University of Minnesota have reported on a way to distinguish the slow type of prostate cancer from aggressive ones. One common feature of these hi-tech screening techniques is that they are impersonal. But Kim Jobst at the newly opened Diagnostic Clinic in New Cavendish Street, London, looks into your eyes. "You can learn a lot from the eyes," he says. "They tell you about cholesterol and your blood-sugar level, and if you've got any inflammatory processes at work." He also relies on reports from a Chinese medical practitioner who examines your tongue. This reflects the clinic's aim, to straddle the divide between the complementary world of "low energy in the gall bladder" and the conventional world of electrocardiograms."We'll give you the same sort of standard physical check-up that you'll get from a Bupa testing centre," says Jobst, who is a regular doctor and a practising homeopath, "but we also take a more complementary and systemic approach. We believe that what's going on in your guts may well be having an effect on how you are fighting off cancer, or that correcting vitamin and mineral deficiencies can lower high blood pressure and your risk of heart attacks."The place is a hypochondriac's heaven. After a package of conventional tests (ECG for heart rhythm, PSA, triglycerides, cholesterol), I went through a combination of complementary ones (blood and hair analysis for mineral and vitamin levels). Then I was hooked up via electrodes to a couple of machines in turn: one does a "bioresonance analysis" and is said to be especially useful for spotting food sensitivities, lurking bacteria, viruses and parasites; the other is an AMI machine, which provides information about spinal alignment and internal organs using acupuncture meridians.The end result for me was a report that ran to 50 or so pages. I'd passed the conventional tests with flying colours, but the complementary scan revealed a more complex picture, involving stress, a deficiency in the immune system and low levels of zinc, sodium and potassium. Bioresonance and AMI both pointed to some inflammation in my guts and AMI picked up on an old schoolboy lung infection, as well as a long-standing problem with my lower back.Now, all of this would undoubtedly fall foul of Angela Raffle's passion for evidence. Do we know that people who showed up with signs of gut problems on the bioresonance machine actually went on to develop problems? Have there been any controlled trials run over 10 or more years to see if those tested and treated did any better than those left alone?The answer to these questions is no. Was there any evidence that, if I took the suggested supplements religiously, I would actually be, as Jobst put it, "a patient at 85 who'd drop in occasionally"? Again, the answer has to be no. There were also similarities with the vogue for whole body scanning - test for enough biomarkers and you are bound to come up with signs of abnormality. The Diagnostic Clinic offers more than 150 tests.And yet, and yet ... The decision to fund mass-screening programmes is a complex one in which are intertwined science, economics and the desire by both the government and the medical profession to be seen to be caring. The factors affecting a personal decision to have a screen are equally complex. You will not merely be reassured or warned - usually, the type of scan you have implies certain forms of treatment if something is spotted.So, despite the lack of hard evidence, I feel personally drawn to Jobst's approach. His account of how low levels of certain minerals and vitamins, plus poor functioning of your gut, can combine to create illness makes sense. Correcting such deficiencies seems a sensible first step in dealing with warning signs such as raised blood pressure or high cholesterol. If that doesn't work, drugs are always a second option. And whatever the benefits may be of my supplement shopping list, taking them seems very unlikely to cause unpleasant or damaging side-effects.Mass screening can undoubtedly save lives, but people are not being clearly informed of the pros and cons. Most people wildly overestimate both their risk of getting cancer and the protection that screening offers them. We are all health consumers now, and we should be given a much clearer statement of what is involved. What's more, as the number of private hi-tech and genetic scans proliferates, it is worth arming yourself with the same sorts of hard questions that researchers have been asking about the public programmes. It was all so much simpler when all you had to do was cough.

Designer's block huh?!Remedy is same as for writers. Loosen up!!This worked like a charm for me!!There is this blog post where i found what i needed.I can give you the link to the blog and leave, but then i wont be happy. So here i go:1. Get “loose.”In my experience, there is a danger in sitting down and trying to get right into a design (or drawing.) If the very first time your pencil hits paper you need to be drawing exactly what you’re intending to be your final piece of art – you’ll have a tendency to “tighten up.” You can literally feel your muscles tighten as you start to put down a hard crisp pencil line. As a designer if you don’t start out by getting loose, your brain tightens up on exactly what you think the final design should look like.But drawing and designing is not executed in a perfectly straight line. It’s not a math equation. It’s a process. And the first part of the process needs to be getting loose; opening your mind to the possibilities or loosening up the muscles in your drawing arm. If it’s drawing that I’m about to do I like to start with some very loose sketching. It doesn’t have to be a sketch of anything in particular. I’ll just draw big circles, cylinders, goofy faces, body parts, random patterns, whatever. The important thing is that you do it fast and loose. The goal is just to relax. Pretend you’re a kid picking up a crayon for the very first time.As for loosening up before a design project, I like to surf the web. There is nothing like the inspiration that seeing other artist’s work has for broadening my mental picture. If I already have a solid idea of how the design is going to be, I will force myself to think of another one. Pretend for a moment that you’ve done the design exactly how you envision it and the client completely rejected it. What’s next? How else can it be designed? Once again – we’re talking about getting loose, being fluid, opening up your brain to more possibilities.2. Find inspiration.Inspiration is important. Having excitement for the work you’re about to do is critical. Personally I do three things to get inspired. First, I surf the net and look at other designers/illustrators work. When I see a cool drawing I feel a rush of energy. I’m jealous of what they’ve done and I want to try and make something just as cool. Second, I put on some good tunes. Music is great for me. Finally, I make up a story about my drawing or design in my brain. It’s good to have an internal dialog that goes beyond “I need to design a chart for a grocery store.” How about: “I’m designing a chart that’s going to be used in the new Tron movie.” In truth my design is just for a local grocery store – but in my mind I’m pretending it’s for a movie. I can hear the theme music as the lead character of the movie steps up to a translucent floating display. It’s a tense moment as he uses a touch-screen interface to figure out which pizza has the most calories. In Tron 2 calories equals energy, which is GOOD in the digital world. He’s going to need his energy to battle it out in a game of Deadly Disk. Ok, this is a ridiculous story, but you get my point. Find a way to get excited, get jacked!3. Get your head out of the “game.”Ever notice that you’re sometimes able to do amazing design work when you’re under a crushing deadline? You sit down and start cranking through a design. You’re working super fast. You’re not thinking. You’re just doing. You slap it together – if it doesn’t look good, you just move it around rapidly until it does. I call this speed designing. You’re not giving yourself ANY time to prejudge your ideas. You’re just executing them, evaluating them in a split-second and then making changes.What you’ve done in this scenario is taken your brain out of the equation. You don’t give yourself enough time to second guess anything.They say the fastest path to success is through failure. So, if you fail fast, you’ll succeed fast. If I catch myself over thinking a project I can play this little game with myself: “I only have 30 minutes to complete this entire design… ready, set, GO!”4. Give yourself time.Sometimes our clients do not give us much time to complete a design. It is particularly hard to design something when you feel like there isn’t enough time. It’s like pressure is mounting on you. Somewhere inside you know that you better get it right the first time or else you’ll miss your timetable. This causes you to tighten up.To fight this feeling of time pressure I have several options. I can talk to the customer about his timetable/budget. If I can convince him/her to give me more time/money – that’s the best solution. I can also allow myself to go over budget and “eat” the time I’m over. I can also try to think of some design shortcuts to save me some time. Whatever I decide to do, I need to get the time pressure off my mind.At Go Media we have a “Portfolio Project Policy” which basically says: “If you think your design is going to be portfolio worthy, you can go over budget on your time.” It’s important that we give ourselves the time to do good work – even if the financial bottom line takes a hit. After all, we got into this business for the art, not the money. If we were just after money we would be crab fishermen in the Bering Sea.5. Have fun with a new technique or toy.If I’m not feeling in a very designy mood, not inspired and generally not creative, I’ve found that a new toy can help to lift my spirits. By new “toy” what I mean is some design tool. Maybe I buy a new piece of software, or a Wacom tablet or maybe a new brush. Or maybe a new “toy” is just a piece of knowledge. Maybe I’ll search the web for a new drawing tutorial. If I can learn a new technique, I’m immediately inspired to try it out.6. Lower your expectations.As designers and illustrators we need to remind ourselves that we’re not going to paint the Mona Lisa each time we touch paint to canvas, or pencil to paper, or pixel to computer. We’re going to fail – a LOT. I like to think of a professional baseball player’s batting average and my ability to make a good design as analogous. A very good baseball player only gets a hit 30% of the time he steps up to the plate. I think this is a good average for a designer too. If I sit down to draw 10 times and 3 come out good – then I’m doing a good job. If you put too much pressure on yourself to hit a home run each time you draw/design it will make it even harder. So, relax, expect to fail. It’s ok. I still love you.7. Be aware of your difficulty level.Not all design projects are the same. Are you designing something that is in your comfort zone? Or are you being asked to design something you’ve never done before? This is all part of managing your expectations. If you have a good perspective on your ability as it relates to the project at hand, you’ll keep a positive attitude about your results. And a positive attitude means better design.8. Eat a proper diet.Huh? Diet? Why the heck would what I eat affect my ability to design? Well – food affects your mood and energy level. And your mood certainly affects your design. I’ve noticed that when I’m in a bad mood I design poorly. Or more to the point is that when I’m in a bad mood I don’t even design. I just sit there staring at the blank screen doing nothing. As each design idea pops into my brain a little negative voice in my head says: “No. That’s a crappy idea. That won’t work. Think of something else you loser.” And so I sit. Idea after idea is gunned down in my brain because I’m in a bad mood.“So, where is the connection between food and mood?” you ask. It’s simple – food signals your brain to release insulin. Insulin is a drug that makes you feel full – and happy. Also, food gives you energy. It makes you feel awake and alert. Furthermore, having an appropriate blood-sugar level makes you feel calm.Now, let’s go back to that scenario where I’m sitting at my desk designing. Except now I’m happy and calm and full of energy. And what happens now when that design idea floats through my brain? Do I gun it down before I even try it out? No. This time a little voice in my brain says: “Sure! That could work. Let’s give it a try!” And if it fails does that voice rip me to shreds and tell me I suck? No, this is the happy, calm, energetic voice. It says: “No problem Bill! Let’s try something else. Even though this design didn’t work – there is one small part of this design that DOES look good! Let’s use that part and explore how we can expand on it!”Ok, food effects mood, got it, so, what do I eat? Well, this is not rocket science. You’ve heard it a million times: balanced diet with fruits, veggies, protein and complex carbohydrates. In my experience there is one area to really focus on to help your mood: eating more protein and avoiding sugars (simple carbs.) When you eat sugars like candy, pop, white bread and white noodles – you’ll get a huge insulin spike. You’ll feel full of energy and really full for a short burst. Then you have the insulin drop. Suddenly you’ll feel very tired, sad and you’ll have the munchies. Proteins on the other hand burn slower in your body. It spreads out your energy over a longer period of time. Your mood is stabilized. There is no sudden spike and no sudden drop. At the very least – mix in some protein along with your carbs. This will help soften the drop off of energy.Which brings me to caffeine. I certainly love my cup of coffee in the morning. The energy spike is AWESOME – and I feel GREAT. But I’ve also learned that it’s not exactly ideal for drawing. I have TOO MUCH energy. I can’t sit still. I’m washing my walls and sweeping my floors. Or, I write long blogs about designer’s block.There is not one rule for everyone. Some people may design better on a huge dose of caffeine and a plate of pasta. I don’t know your personal brain and body chemistry. My point is that food affects your mood. And your mood affects your thought process. And your thought process affects how you design. And HOW you design affects your ABILITY to design. So just be aware. Take a moment to think about what you’re eating and what mood you’re in. Then figure out what your optimal designer diet is.9. Get your sleep.Sleep is somewhat related to mood and energy just like your diet. I can’t go into a long discussion about the effects of proper sleep because, well, I don’t actually know anything about it. But I do know that we need our sleep. And I know that I become a slug when I haven’t had enough sleep. Suffice to say that it’s something to be aware of. What is your ideal sleep pattern? How much sleep do you need to be at your best?10. Take a walk.More physiology coming at you; did you know that exercise releases endorphins? Endorphins are natural drugs in your brain that make you happy and relaxed. Also, a little time walking will allow your subconscious to work through the design project that is festering in your brain. We have a ping-pong table here at Go Media. A game or two of ping-pong has the same effect. It breaks up your brain waves and gives it some time. Innovation is just around the corner!In conclusion – you’re going to get designer’s block. It’s inevitable. Don’t get frustrated and upset. Just accept it as part of your job. Now, eat some beef jerky as you go for a walk around the block to check out the local graffiti wall. I promise by the time you get back you’ll feel right as rain.And the Link 10 Tips to avoid designer’s block.