Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3380)	9/6/2001 2:46:42 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12231

Mq-- At about eight weeks old, tekbaby refused to continue sleeping on his back. We faced a choice between letting him wail continuously or violating the "back to sleep" rule that all new parents are now indoctrinated with. To allay the guilt we felt at choosing sleep over increased SIDS risk, I did some research into the phenomenon in order to figure out just what kind of danger we were talking about. (Given the lack of other risk factors, I estimated the odds as going from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 500, which we ultimately deemed permissible. In the end everything turned out fine.) Anyhow, your post about Sprott's theory on SIDS piqued my interest, because it was so different from the reigning scientific consensus on the subject. So I decided to do some digging, and here's what I found. 1. Sprott's work is touted largely by Sprott himself, along with a couple of acolytes and some lay people. In my experience, this is generally the sign of a kook rather than a serious scientist. 2. Believing that Sprott is correct means believing that the mainstream scientific establishment is ignoring or suppressing powerful evidence that huge benefits to humanity could be achieved easily and cheaply. In my experience, this is not generally how the world works (WCDMA to the contrary). 3. There does indeed turn out to be a reason for Sprott's fringe status: thorough study has disproved the central claims upon which his theories rest. For an official British government report on the matter, see: doh.gov.uk tekboy@that'sawrap.com PS your other point, about SIDS sometimes being used as a cover for infanticide, is undoubtedly true. When that is taken into account, however, the rates are lowered rather than eliminated--that is, there still remains a phenomenon called SIDS that we don't fully understand. The SIDS/infanticide issue is discussed briefly in Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's fascinating study of the evolutionary psychology of motherhood, Mother Nature: amazon.com