Readit Newsyou better believe we have! It’s just rare (thank goodness).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfhemoglobinemia
> Sulfhemoglobinemia is a rare condition in which there is excess sulfhemoglobin (SulfHb) in the blood. The pigment is a greenish derivative of hemoglobin which cannot be converted back to normal, functional hemoglobin. It causes cyanosis even at low blood levels.
>It is a rare blood condition that occurs when a sulfur atom is incorporated into the hemoglobin molecule. When hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (or sulfide ions) and ferric ions combine in the blood, the blood is incapable of carrying oxygen.
How can one person manage to be so consistently incorrect?
Hint: he was Al Gore’s running mate a decade prior. And he was never a republican.
Though if you hit up January and look at SO4 emissions over the US and Europe, they're pretty terrifying as well.
Spotting wildfires by PM2.5 emissions is a part-time hobby, as is looking at MSLP and watching cyclonic storms developing. It looks as if the Atlantic hurricane season may start cooking off in the next week or so.
Not all channels have forecast values, but temps, winds, pressures, and precip do, so you can roll out a few days to see what the models are projecting. I've followed (and anticipated) most of the big storms over the past few years. Some false starts (a lot of swirls never really develop), but it was painfully obvious that Harvy and Florence were going to be massive storms.
In the Pacific, the unrelenting assaults on the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, and mainland China are impressive.
This is something of a problem when a country with as many people as China and an economy as growth-oriented as China's is, uh, firing on all cylinders.
Carl Bergstrom is a smart guy so I suppose the practical implementation of the above must have some wrinkles, but with enough brute force it seems tractable. What I despise more than anything is the gaming that takes place for “impact factor”.
I do OK by standard metrics but would very much like to know where I stand by less easily gamed metrics of influence.
I think they're clearly correct, and that even on HN, in a community that (roughly) prides itself on being scientifically literate, there are broad misunderstandings of what peer review means (during the bogus "Sokal Squared" hoax, for instance, many commenters implied that peer review prior to publication was meant to encompass replication). Also, while I'm not a "scientist", I've gotten to do some peer review work for ACM and Usenix, and even in the little bit of review I did, I seen some shit. There is much less formality and oversight to review than you might expect.
Better than nothing, but very far from ironclad. Only replication really verifies scientific findings. Everything else is just window dressing.
(I say this as a regular reviewer; for whatever reason, this particular week I’m reviewing for both Science and Nature.)
On the other hand, clonal transmission refers to the cancer cells themselves leaving sick individual A, entering healthy individual B, and continuing to reproduce there.
Direct unassisted clonal transmission in humans seems likely but, as you noted, it hasn’t been documented to the extent that Tasmanian Devil facial tumors have.
Warts are a corner case. I’m not sure whether it’s been determined if some hosts end up increasing the fitness of the shed cells. If so, that’s quickly heading towards a globally transmitted precursor lesion.