They are on camera quite a bit, and the camera can render an unpainted face poorly, so they wear the product to appear how they think they should. It is also possible that the paint and spackle is either a self-esteem booster or sort of like a mask to hide behind. Or maybe warpaint.
At one place we frequent, our waitress had a smooth, even foundation layer on her face. I thought it actually detracted from a very pretty face – yet, it could be that she had some sort of skin condition that needed covering, or it could be that she had developed a strong make-up habit and felt wrong to go out without it. We feel inclined to mock these people for their face habits, but it is what it is. There is so much else to deprecate them for, leave their appearances be.
Kristi Noem appears to have some acne scars on her face; I would not be surprised if that’s part of the reason for the heavy makeup in her case.
Those women’s faces would look right at home on the Real Housewives franchise, including all the fake niceness that erupts into ugly slanging matches followed by fake tears, rinse and repeat. Not that every RH face is like that, only about 80%. Disclaimer: I’ve never seen more than 5 minutes of any one RH show, but all instances have been remarkably similar.
And in that case, it’s understandable. I was surprised to find out she was born in 1971; I figured 1981 or thereabouts.
(When they do the public memorial for Trump, will they shoot off fireworks when Melania walks out onto the dais/altar/podium?)
Before or after she stops laughing?
During, perhaps?
I actually think both of them are on the extremes.
I question if every single x-ray (CT or otherwise) is actually cumulative over a lifetime.
I question the confident assertion that 103,000 cases of cancer will be “caused by CT scans” where there are so damn many risk factors for cancer. Are people who get CT scans more prone to cancer as a result of those scans, or do people with cancer get more CT scans, skewing the statistics?
The truth is that no one has done a comprehensive study on this. The number is an extrapolation based on assumptions about radiation exposure, including the assumption that there is no safe lower limit and your body can’t repair radiation damage. Despite evidence to the contrary that living creatures can repair low levels of damage. If that weren’t possible no sunburn would ever heal.
It’s rather like I have the personal opinion the American Heart Association recommendation to limit sodium intake to 1.5 grams per day for everyone to be unreasonable. Outside of folks with high blood pressure or certain other medical issues the average human being can tolerate a somewhat higher level with no problem, and with much more likelihood of adhering to a less stringent recommendation. That doesn’t mean you should eat handfuls of it a day, either.
Hormesis and radiation has been discussed since the early 20th Century, it’s not a new concept.
And while Mr. Hill has, indeed, worked for Nerdist he’s not just some random dude. He has also worked for a lot of other organizations. He has a bachelor’s in civil and environmental engineering and a master’s in science communication which doesn’t make him an Einstein but makes him at least somewhat educated, as compared to a lot of talking heads on the internet.
This made me think of the scene at the Hostess arty in Goodfellas
“That had Bad Skin and wore too much makeup. They didn’t look good.” at 1:20 in:
I agree with the concept, but i think i would liken sunburn to cancer, and say that as a fair skinned person who dislikes sunburn, and also dislikes sunscreen, i know that my skin tolerates a lot more sun over the course of a day if it’s split up with periods of shade in between. So if standing in the sun for an hour can give me a mild burn, walking on the shady side (when possible) of sunny streets is something i can do all day, even though i have a lot of 5-minutes here and 15-minutes there in the sun. My skin obviously heals in between enough that i don’t get a noticable burn at all.
I am certain my skin heals all day long from sun exposure.
Also, we know some of the methods through which our bodies heal from radiation exposure. Both programmed cell death and our immune system remove damaged cells from our bodies. Typically, in order to get cancer, one cell needs to have mutated in a couple of ways before it’s killed for being “wrong”. That’s obviously more likely with a lot of radiation at once than with a little here and a little there.
I didn’t think it was controversial that radiation risk isn’t simply cumulative.
That being said, at least some of the underlying studies that NIH article relies on are actual epidemiological studies of people exposed to radiation from typical medical procedures, like CT scans, so they take into account the actual risks. It’s unclear to me (having spent too much time following the links and reading studies) to what extent that summary study relies on less relevant data like the Japanese nuclear bomb survivor data, and to what extent it is informed by studies of CT scan data.
But even if it’s fully based on real CT data, the risk it found per CT for an 80 year old man is negligible. The results suggest we should be really cautious of subjecting kids, and especially infants, to CT scans. But the risk to the elderly is small enough that it’s comparable to the risk of many recreational activities (like eating potato chips) and frankly, many doctors are going to okay a CT scan in an old man in response to “i want to know”, without any compelling clinical indications. Especially if the man is wealthy and powerful and can select doctors likely to sign off on what he wants.
I talked with my doctor about the the HPV vaccine this year. I’m too old for it to be approved, but it’s legal for him to give it to me off-label. He told me that even if i contract one of the strains of HPV that causes cancer, they develop slowly, and I’ll probably die of something else first. And then he gave me the first shot of the series, mostly, i think, as a placebo for “I’m really worried that my husband was just diagnosed with cancer”. It’s likely that the risks of that vaccine were greater than the medical benefit. But they were really low, too. There’s a huge gray area in medicine. Trump could absolutely have gotten a full body scan just because he wanted one, or just because he has the kind of doctor who likes to look at everything.
(And we are talking about the risks of a CT scan. The risks for an MRI are much lower, as there’s no ionizing radiation.)
Completely irrelevant. People who are knowledgeable in certain areas are often ignorant when it comes to pontificating outside their areas. Education =/= expertise.
Years ago when I was active in the Libertarian party a friend ran for California Secretary of State. A local TV station was going to have a candidates’ event so invited everyone to submit a U-matic with a five-minute statement on it. She found a studio in San Francisco that would record her speech and put it on moth a U-matic cart for the station, but also a couple VHSs for her.
She normally didn’t wear any makeup but had a friend who was skilled in theatrical makeup. I had volunteered to drive her up to the city so she could settle her mind on the speech picked her up at the friend’s place and drove up the Penninsula. In the car she looked positively garish but it turned out just right for the video camera.
The studio was in the Tenderloin and we had to block a couple blocks away. As we walked along I had a sudden thought the blurted out, “I’ve just had an idea on how you can raise money for your campaign!”
“Shaddup! I’m feeling conspicuous enough as it is.”
Your talking about the weirdo Ben Carson. Education also =/= knowledge. I bet he could not cook a grilled cheese.
In fact, the result of a proper education should be/include a full comprehension of how much one does not know.
Well said
This is an interesting subject for me. I’m a bit of a jack of all trades, and master of none. There are things that I’m curious about, and I just have to say, no. I have too much on my plate as it is, there are many other things I want to learn. Music comes to mind.
I just started a thread about a similar kind of thing a few days ago!
Mr. Hill has also been studying radiation for a number of years now and has a whole series on the topic. So it’s not like that video was a one-off.
I believe Kyle Hill is conflating two different syndromes, both related to radiation exposure. One is radiation sickness (AKA radiation poisoning, or acute radiation poisoning), in which someone who is exposed to a high dose ionizing radiation for a short period of time becomes seriously ill, and may die not long after exposure. The other is the risk of illness such as cancer from long-term exposure to ionizing radiation, even at doses low enough that natural cell repair mechanisms prevent radiation sickness.
UV light is one form of ionizing radiation. The risk of skin cancer increases with exposure to UV, even in people who never experience sunburn. That is, there’s no threshold effect.
It’s true that spacing out procedures like X-rays and CT scans will prevent acute radiation sickness, because it gives the cellular repair mechanism a chance to work. But that doesn’t mean it prevents the long-term risk of cancer, which often shows up years after the initial exposure, even when the body has had a chance to repair damaged cells.
The body repairs or kills cells with damaged DNA, but the mechanisms by which this happens are not 100% reliable. Every so often, a cell with damaged DNA will go undetected. The more damaged cells there are, the more likely one will survive and become cancerous. Because of this, there is no threshold effect or other non-linearity with cancer risk.
BTW, there’s a big difference in exposure between conventional X-rays and CT scans. A single CT scan exposes the patient to 100 to 800 times the radiation they would get from a conventional X-ray.
I’ve seen images of Vance hugging Erika Kirk and descriptions of how long the hug went on. You could be correct. Of course the ‘writing Usha off the show’ part contains a multitude of possible horrors…
But there’s little doubt that Vance is missing the support he might get from those white supremacists who don’t care for his marriage. An alliance with Kirk could certainly fix that little problem.
You’re talking like this is a Jane Austen novel.
Here’s (some of) what I was taught about radiation when I was a Navy nuke. When a cell is hit by ionizing radiation, one of three things will happen: (a) the cell will recover and reproduce as normal; (b) the cell will be so badly damaged that it can’t divide/reproduce and so effectively dies; or (c) the cell will be damaged enough to be permanently mutated, but not so badly damaged that it cannot divide/reproduce into similarly damaged cells. It is this latter category, (c), that may result in cancer.
As far as exposure to ionizing radiation, the goal is ALARA: as low as reasonably achievable. Because cancer, like cell damage, is probabilistic, and any amount of exposure can increase the risk. There is also a recognition that, yes, exposure late in life is of less concern than early in life, because there’s simply less time remaining for cancer to develop from a given exposure.