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

treliac

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.

Lovely to see you viva.

I've done a bit of lurking too and feeling very guilty not to be 'meeting up proper' with old friends. The mind's constantly working, though, with too many demands on it. C'est la vie.

You take good care of yourself and good luck with your contract.

Generali

All the best with the contract.

treliac

zagubov wrote: »

Right enough. The world' oldest women 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.

Some fascinating theories here zagubov.

I guess that the lucky few

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.

can't teach us anything as they don't know why they are in so fortunate a position themselves.

lostinrates

zagubov wrote: »

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.

Mine was a will not a bert. He dnced with me when he was 105, outlived ---hmm, I think 5 out f seven children. I also had a gret grandmother of 104. 100 is cnsidered worthy of respect, but still able to o there own washing up on that side of my family.

They ate like horses, but worked like them too. They were well off, but worked hard and played hard and lived as part of society....thnking of neighbours well being.


Night all.

zagubov

treliac wrote: »

Some fascinating theories here zagubov.

I guess that the lucky few can't teach us anything as they don't know why they are in so fortunate a position themselves.

In these examples scientists seem to know what the link is. The earwax breast cancer link is due to a gene for glands in the skin making sweat wax or milk.

The Parkinson's longevity is only observed in those taking drug treatment for the condition.

I did read somewhere that after Hiroshima there was an increase in cancers among the survivors some year later but this was followed by a persistent drop in cases to below normal rates.

Those with good genes are indeed fortunate but many of them may live long despite their habits rather than because of them.

I wish I had those genes!

michaels

Good to see you T.

treliac wrote: »

Discretion is the better part of valour!

Thanks for this JB, thought I was going to have to try and explain this and I am not nearly so clear and concise.

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

Don't suppose we will see CarolT back with you making comments like that

Generali wrote: »

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!

Viva you will be missed, remember all work and no play makes viva a dull girl.

treliac

zagubov wrote: »

I wish I had those genes!

But we don't know until the day of reckoning.

I think we can help things along a bit by learning about the depletion of life enhancing nutrients in our bodies as we age and supplementing appropriately.

Although considerably older than 30, I recently had a bone scan and learned that my bones are the equivalent strength of the top 4% of average 30 year olds. I supplement seriously and I exercise (though not madly).... so hope this strategy is paying off. I was concerned as my mother had osteoporosis.

treliac

michaels wrote: »

Viva you will be missed, remember all work and no play makes viva a dull girl.

Ahh, our viva could never be dull.

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

My engagement ring had claws to hold the stone in place, I had the stone reset with a "rubbed over" setting. I'm so superstitious that I insisted the ring be kept the same. The jeweller said it would have been far easier to start again just retaining the stone.

The claws used to catch on everything, the new setting is much easier to keep clean.

Claws always catch on everything. I had claws on my engagement ring and they were rather a nuisance. I've still got it, although obviously I don't wear it any more. If I ever get engaged again, I'll be getting a smooth ring, with manufactured rather than mined stones.

misskool wrote: »

thanks everyone. they were in the bin. must have chucked them away by accident while tidying.

now to dig up the potatoes while wearing them. and buying a bowl tomorrow. OH trying not to laugh.

Big relief. So glad you found them.

I hope the chain idea works out. I remember once I was in the middle of teaching a lesson when I tried to fiddle with my rings and realised they weren't there. I had left them on the teacher's bench at the front of the lab in which I had taught my previous lesson. I shot out of the room with the very briefest of explanations to my class, dashed downstairs, burst into somebody else's lesson in the other lab, grabbed my rings (mercifully still where I'd left them) and charged back up the stairs again, leaving two classes wondering what on earth was going on.

(I'd taken them off to do a laser demonstration. It's good practice not to have anything shiny on your hands when using a higher powered laser, although really quite unnecessary with the class 2 lasers used in schools.)

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

That doesn't seem quite right to me. I agree with your description of the general shape of the curve, but one side of the trade off you describe seems to have a flaw.

It's true that as you age, you are more likely to die this year but your own personal probability of dying before you reach 100 is decreasing gradually all the time as you survive the various things that might have killed you. However, the life expectancy of the population is generally improving with better health care etc - so a baby born now is a lot more likely to reach 100 than a baby born in 1911. The trade off is therefore between "close enough to 100 that you're nearly there" and "born late enough to have had the benefit of advances in medicine etc".

But as zagubov points out, there are all sorts of wiggles to the curve. There's really strong evidence that maternal heath & nutrition during pregnancy (and especially the beginning of it) is hugely influential on the baby's health and even IQ for the whole of its life.

In muslim populations, for example, there's a statistically observable dip in health, IQ and other measures of wellbeing in every year group of people, corresponding to the babies who were in their first month or two of gestation when their mothers were fasting for Ramadan. Something as disruptive to nutrition as the 1930s depression would be expected to make a corresponding dent on average American life expectancies, although once you get beyond the statistics to individuals, there would be a much bigger than average effect on those whose mothers were actually malnourished at the time, and little if any effect on those whose mothers were sufficiently well off to continue to eat well.

zagubov

LydiaJ wrote: »

That doesn't seem quite right to me. I agree with your description of the general shape of the curve, but one side of the trade off you describe seems to have a flaw.

It's true that as you age, you are more likely to die this year but your own personal probability of dying before you reach 100 is decreasing gradually all the time as you survive the various things that might have killed you. However, the life expectancy of the population is generally improving with better health care etc - so a baby born now is a lot more likely to reach 100 than a baby born in 1911. The trade off is therefore between "close enough to 100 that you're nearly there" and "born late enough to have had the benefit of advances in medicine etc".

But as zagubov points out, there are all sorts of wiggles to the curve. There's really strong evidence that maternal heath & nutrition during pregnancy (and especially the beginning of it) is hugely influential on the baby's health and even IQ for the whole of its life.

I don't know why but this reminds me of the old argument about it not being worth buying a lottery ticket until one hour before the draw (if you're female) or half an hour before (if you're a man) as you've more chance of dying than winning the lottery. The trick was to own the lottery ticket so late you didn't have time to die!