Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

treliac

StevieJ wrote: »

What are mewbie and AD called these days?

Discretion is the better part of valour!

JonnyBravo

zagubov wrote: »

Sorry StevieJ, I didn't answer your question. I'm guessing it's the Wall Street Crash. damaging nutrition and food supplies to infants/pregnant women/young mothers.

Not really.
It's simply a statistical phenomenon.
Clearly as you get older you get more and more likely to die, but also as you get closer and closer to 100 the more likely it is you will make 100.
82-83 is simply the statistical nadir of being relatively old and therefore quite likely to die but also still quite a long way away from 100.
The likelihood of reaching 100 is a probability curve which currently decreases slowly to 82-83 and then rises fairly rapidly, to obviously peak at near 100% at 99.999 years old

StevieJ

Some videos of Jenson buzzing down Deansgate, M/cr in his Maclaren, one for Viva maybe?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1457250_video-jenson-button-does-105mph-on-deansgate-as-f1-drive-thrills-crowds-on-manchester-streets

treliac

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Not really.
The likelihood of reaching 100 is a probability curve which currently decreases slowly to 82-83 and then rises fairly rapidly, to obviously peak at near 100% at 99.999 years old

So, are you saying that if you make it to 83 there's a good chance of you making 100?

zagubov

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Not really.
It's simply a statistical phenomenon.
Clearly as you get older you get more and more likely to die, but also as you get closer and closer to 100 the more likely it is you will make 100.
82-83 is simply the statistical nadir of being relatively old and therefore quite likely to die but also still quite a long way away from 100.
The likelihood of reaching 100 is a probability curve which currently decreases slowly to 82-83 and then rises fairly rapidly, to obviously peak at near 100% at 99.999 years old

It could be statistical but there's growing evidence that your longevity is linked to your mothers nutrition and your own early nutrition

People born in the war during rationing are supposed (well, expected) to be long-lived nowadays as their diet was optimised by the Ministry of Food using linear programming (I remember my maths teacher claiming that won the war for us).

Later inventions like cars and fridges probably shortened lifespans by altering exercise levels. Kids growing up now are regarded as being more committed couch-potatoes with modest life expectancies, and many recent news article s have shared this worry.

I've heard your chances of surviving one more year don't fall below 50/50 until you're about 100. And that the day you're born is the day you're most likely to die.

treliac

zagubov wrote: »

It could be statistical but there's growing evidence that your longevity is linked to your mothers nutrition and your own early nutrition

That's leaving aside genetic influences.

vivatifosi

Evening all.

Good to see you back tre!

I came on to post that I won't be around for several weeks (except for an occasional lurk) as I've got a big contract to do and juggle and fit in hours that I don't work elsewhere. As I do still need to do things like sleep, eat, shower and maintain a relationship with my family, I'm afraid MSE will be on the back burner for a while. I hope to get back to my normal posting routine the end of Sept or early Oct.

Generali

PasturesNew wrote: »

As a single person, without debt, I don't see any Govt money being spent on me.... and that's why I've never been interested to vote for any of them.

Roads, street lighting, law 'n' order, legal system, regulation of banks, utilities, pharma etc, defense, public transport, provision and regulation of a monetary system.

I do agree that despite my list, low paid workers without kids get a very raw deal from the tax system. I think it's a disgrace that your taxes are used to pay for welfare for the middle classes. It brings us back to the argument about child benefit for 40% rate taxpayers. You, as a net taxpayer most likely, shouldn't be paying benefits to the top 5% of income earners!

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Evening all.

Good to see you back tre!

I came on to post that I won't be around for several weeks (except for an occasional lurk) as I've got a big contract to do and juggle and fit in hours that I don't work elsewhere. As I do still need to do things like sleep, eat, shower and maintain a relationship with my family, I'm afraid MSE will be on the back burner for a while. I hope to get back to my normal posting routine the end of Sept or early Oct.

Take care. we'll miss you.

zagubov

treliac wrote: »

That's leaving aside genetic influences.

Right enough. The world' oldest woman apparently never had a day's sickness in her life but drank, ate 1 kg of chocolate per week and smoked (but clearly had the genes to cope with it). I regret saying this because everybody claims to have a Uncle Bert who smoked 80 woodbine a day and live to 102, but people with genes for long life don't have any lessons to teach us or offer us much insight into good habits.

There are all sorts of funny links between genes and health. There's thought to be a link between earwax texture and risk of breast cancer for example.

I was also intrigued that people with certain diseases live longer than healthy people -Parkinson's for example.