My god! Somebody conducted an epidemiological study in Russia and correlated the results with post-mortem testing. We all better throw a tantrum, because this might give the Russians better information as to how to they can focus government resources or how they can change government policy in order to reduce Russian mortality or reduce costs to the Russian government.
You know I google scholared trying to find the Russia vodka death study … this seems to be it.
What does it tell us? That Russian men who drink lots of vodka die earlier than those who don’t? Yes, and that heavier drinking is predictive of earlier death. It quantifies how much drinking correlated with what increased risk.
A BBC summary of the article and its context is here and actually it is quite interesting.
So the study is part of a body of work that helps inform an important debate about public policy regarding significant lack of of male longevity in Russia and the impact of consumption/availability as a cause of that lack of longevity with actual facts rather than what we think we all know. Not sure what the outcome of that debate will be or should be but having some real numbers to inform it is useful.
Honestly it does not sound like bullshit to me.
This post seems to imply that I need to invest in smaller wine glasses.
If only some average common-sense-talkin’ guy had pointed out to Galileo that obviously heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. He could have saved a lot of time.
We’re still struggling against the “common sense” of many people who think an uncreated someone magicking up everything makes more sense than evolution over billions of years.
In fact, the more I think about science now and in history, the more I think that the “science is the fight against common sense” quote is perfect. I can’t find that exact quotation or even anything particularly close to it using Google, so maybe it’s yours, Smeghead.
Common sense is for people unsuited to knowledge.
If I remember rightly, QI said that drinking a bottle of wine a day is about equivalent to being a teetotaller (presumably in terms of effect on life expectancy). I haven’t confirmed the accuracy of what Mr Fry said, or even my memory of what he said, but thought it might be worth mentioning.
I think the issue isn’t so much with the scientific studies being done (I’m pretty sure the people who write the cheques aren’t going to bankroll research into confirming the blatantly obvious without a very good reason), but more to do with the way they’re being reported - so a serious study which has a lot of useful information in it might get turned into an obvious-sounding headline and story which can’t get into the context because the writer has maybe 350 words to summarise a hundred-page study on a subject they probably know nothing and care even less about.
One thing I will note is that it’s astounding how often journalists are expected to just believe the university/PR company’s press release about some of the studies.
There’s been more than one occasion where I’ve asked for a copy of the study mentioned in a press release myself so I can read it (A, to make sure what I’m reporting is true and accurate and B, because it sounded interesting anyway) and been unable to get it.
Sometimes it’s because the study is in an academic journal which isn’t free to view, sometimes it’s because the person who can provide me with a copy is at a seminar somewhere and sometimes it’s because providing a copy is just in the Too Hard basket.
Either way, if I can’t read the study myself, I’m not writing about it.
Well, it’s obvious that if 1 glass is good for you, then 4 glasses is 4 times as good! No need for some “bullshit” scientific study.
Well, yeh, I mean, isn’t that how most people take their medicine, for example?
It sounded comical back in 1994, but the NFL has just now barely and grudgingly acknowledged the problem of sending players who’ve suffered head hits back onto the field to suffer more, the cost to the player often being brain damage and premature death. Because the NFL didn’t act on this information in 1994, how many additional players have suffered permanent brain damage and have or will have premature deaths?
And “Smoking is bad” might be a “duh” now, but back in the fifties and sixties…
Anyway, this comment is directed more to the OP than to you or the writers of SNL.
That’s my mom’s excuse: “Well, if we’d known it was bad for us, none of us would’ve started smoking…” (To which my wife sweetly said “So, you mentioned you were coughing a lot at first. That wasn’t a clue?”)
So, yeah, sometimes Science does agree with Common Sense, and has to hit us in the face with it til we think “Yeah, maybe I should stop smoking… and maybe wear a bike helmet…”
Well, I figure lots of people knew smoking was bad, but getting anyone to admit it…
Heck, when were those tobacco execs saying under oath that they believed smoking was not addictive? 1996?
I think you should apply for a grant to do a scientific study of this. You’ll need at least $200,000.
Great, now all I’m going to think about all day is a shrimp wearing a tiny party hat holding a martini glass while skipping along on a wee treadmill. Science!
Many times a study that seems to just be common sense only seems that way in hindsight. Take “No evidence of contagious yawning in the red-footed tortoise Geochelone carbonaria” which was published just in 2011. In 2014 you can ask anyone on the street and they’ll know this, but back in 2010 everybody knew red footed tortoise yawns were contagious. It’s amazing that we used to live in a world like that just a few years ago.
Oh, mostly everyone knew it was bad for you in a cuts your wind and causes a cough way, but few thought it was deadly. They also thought it “steadied your nerves”.:dubious:
Isn’t that how Heroin was originally marketed?
Nope. It was cough medicine.
Did studies show it to be effective?
Sure, but the side effects are a bitch.
Exactly zero percent of people who have just taken heroin complain about coughs.