Hollenberg’s follow-up work, reported in the PNAS paper, confirms that the islanders also have far larger exposures to cocoa flavanols. Tests showed that flavanol-residue concentrations in urine were six times as high in the islanders as in the mainlanders.
At the Cocoa Symposium, Hollenberg reported that dramatic long-term benefits may be attributable to the islanders’ cocoa habit: Their death rate from heart disease is less than 8 percent of that in Kuna mainlanders, and cancer kills only 16 percent as many islanders. The two populations were matched for age, weight, and a number of other factors that might affect heart and cancer risks.
Hollenberg concludes that the Kuna epidemiological data, although preliminary, “indicate that a flavanol-rich diet may provide an extraordinary benefit in the reduction of the two deadliest diseases in today’s world.”
Pretty impressive. Unfortunately, it turns out that, while dark chocolate is in theory good for your heart and helps fight cancer, the manufacturing process tends to destroy the particular flavonoids that confer the benefits. Hopefully, now that they know this, Hersheys et al can figure out how to make a healthier chocolate that still tastes good.
OK, it looks like Thomas James was too hard on Dr. Hansen, because it does indeed look like the quotes were taken out of context, as several commenters pointed out. And as the latest escapades of Bruce Gagnon (as reported at Wired News) show, it’s truly unfair to lump the two together. When it comes to moonbattery, Bruce is simply in a class by himself, a virtual one-man belfry. But what’s really appalling about this article is the shoddy reporting. Jeff Foust shreds it. Clark Lindsay isn’t impressed, either.
Thomas James (who reads this stuff so you don’t have to, though it’s entertaining even if you do) has the latest roundup, including a certain NASA scientist who’s been in the news recently.
…don’t know when I’ll be back again, but my return reservation is for Friday night. I’m off to Califor Nye A early tomorrow morning, and may be too busy to blog, as there are a lot of deliverables due this week, on top of the CEV proposal work. But I’ll try to check in tomorrow.
…don’t know when I’ll be back again, but my return reservation is for Friday night. I’m off to Califor Nye A early tomorrow morning, and may be too busy to blog, as there are a lot of deliverables due this week, on top of the CEV proposal work. But I’ll try to check in tomorrow.
…don’t know when I’ll be back again, but my return reservation is for Friday night. I’m off to Califor Nye A early tomorrow morning, and may be too busy to blog, as there are a lot of deliverables due this week, on top of the CEV proposal work. But I’ll try to check in tomorrow.
It doesn’t sound like a smart design to me, though:
The first stage is configured as a winged body system, which will attain an altitude of around 100 km and deliver nearly half the orbital velocity. After burnout, the vehicle will re-enter the earth’s atmosphere and will be made to land horizontally on a runway, like an aircraft.
In the second stage, after delivering the payload, the vehicle will be made to re-enter the atmosphere and will be recovered using airbags either in sea or land.
No description of the first-stage propulsion, but if Clark Lindsay (from whom I got the link) is right, and it’s a scramjet, that’s a huge mistake. And an ocean recovery with airbags? Please.
Of course, what do you expect from a government? And at least they haven’t bought into the current nonsensical conventional wisdom that “Shuttle proved that reusable vehicles don’t work.”