I had thought it was a comparison of NYC and Israeli Jews, but yes, i read exactly the same story.
The 2008 article if interested, @puzzlegal .
Not the just the Gulf Stream (although it is part of it) but the article is not too off the mark of the actual science:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is a major tipping element in the climate system and a future collapse would have severe impacts on the climate in the North Atlantic region …
The actual impacts would not be an Ice Age but would be potentially interacting with other climate change aspects with complicated impacts that would vary by location, summarized well in this CNN bit. AMOC being weaker specifically increases sea level rise on the United States East coast. Short version is it would be a very bad thing and not just simply going the other direction from warming impacts.
I don’t know if that’s the same study i saw results from, because that was before i started looking up the original studies. I just read about it in the newspapers. Probably, i remembered wrong. I did remember that an observation that Israelis are rarely allergic to peanuts and also that Israeli infants eat a peanut-based snack food were the impetus for the research, which matched two genetically similar Jewish populations. And then was followed up by a prospective study feeding peanuts to high-risk infants.
Yup. That UK study was the first bit. The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) trial was the second prospective part. And Bamba was da bomb.
FWIW many practicing pediatricians had long been skeptical of the avoidance until 15ish months bit, just based on the fact that food allergies, especially peanut allergy, had not only not decreased in the era of doing that but increased significantly. Did not prove that delayed introduction was the cause, could have been coincidence to some other factor, but enough to have many of us being a bit … really?
And, your local epidemiologist posts on the issue, barely touching the politics or the people, but with very solid reporting of underlying medical information.
Thanks. I came in to post that YLE link.
I think it came because Trump was forever and ever insisting they were “fake news” and “failing” as they were (something that, as I understand it, no other President outside of Nixon has ever done), and so the Times decided, if you can’t beat him, join him, and so that’s probably how they got how they are now.
Has this incident been brought up? I don’t think the Time’s science reporting has ever been, to coin a phrase, stellar.
I was not aware of that. That’s funny. And sad.
Today they had an article citing Kennedy on dairy fat. The rest of the article wasn’t crazy. But just the fact that they cited him felt off.
Mr. Gruntman seem to have been completely whooshed by the obvious self-deprecating sarcasm of the Times’ 1969 “correction.”
The Grey Lady has never been known for comedy either.
It was a pretty shitty apology.
Word. They still don’t have a comics page. Hell, when Charlie Brown made headlines by hitting a home run in 1993, their readers had to buy the Daily News to find out any context.
My main beef with the N.Y. Times’ science reporting is their continued use of the word “skeptic” to describe the likes of RFK Jr.
Neurologist Dr. Steven Novella has an accurate definition of “skeptic”. It is not a person who denies science based on fanciful beliefs and ideology. A skeptic is…