[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Traitorfish]

Well, not here. Radical feminism has never got much traction in this country.

A few years back I read an article by an American woman living in the Czech Rep., who compared Czech and American approaches to emancipation. She said something like "while American women sipped coffee at home, waiting for their husbands to come back from work, they had plenty of time to chat with their friends and formulate the feminist programme. Czech women at the same time went to work in a factory and then had to care about three kids when they came home to their cramped little apartment; they had no time to worry about the feminist agenda." She thought that as a result, Czech women's feminism is more of the "practical equality" kind, rather than about the "100% equality in everything or the state is sexist" kind of ideological rambling.

Because all Americans are white, upper-middle class suburbanites, right?

 

[Cutlass]

http://www.businessweek.com/article...valuable-brands-in-america-2000-to-2013#r=rss

 

[Murky]

It's kind of sad in a way that a lot of our brightest minds are working on search engines and cell phones instead of ways to solve climate-change.

 

[madviking]

most of the damage with climate change has been already done. there isn't really a way to "solve" climate change.

 

[Hygro]

It's kind of sad in a way that a lot of our brightest minds are working on search engines and cell phones instead of ways to solve climate-change.

assuming the search engine technology isn't the only thing that will technologically advance ourselves fast enough to actually do some real harm reduction.

 

[Mise]

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Injury_Facts_43.pdf

 

[Lord Chambers]

This graph from the new report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the global temperature shift relative to the average from the 1960s through 1980s when assessed decade by decade.

Source: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-global-warming-report-clarifies-humanitys-choices/

 

[El_Machinae]

From a recent report by a Canadian bank.

 

[warpus]

The relative dangers of drugs, if you combine a whole bunch of the scientific research done about the most common ones

(Not) surprisingly enough, 2 in the top 10 are legal.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, married folk, it might be worth considering switching from booze to pot.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Or heroin.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm pretty sure that study wasn't done on a per-capita basis to compare the drugs. Alcohol is bad, but doesn't scratch the surface of say, LSD.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

And i'm curious what exactly does loss of tangibles mean. Tobacco has some of that it seems, but what does it cause ? I mean i sometimes lose my lighter, but that's about it.
And also what about Crime for tobacco ? I've never heard of nicotine high causing crime. Smoking in forbidden places ?

 

[Lord Chambers]

Found the source of that chart. Having it in the original post would have saved me ten minutes though.

Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis by David J Nutt, Leslie A King, Lawrence D Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs

 

[wolfigor]

Found the source of that chart. Having it in the original post would have saved me ten minutes though.

Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis by David J Nutt, Leslie A King, Lawrence D Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs

One problem I have with this classification is that all the "harms" are judged the same.
For example 1 point of environmental damage is equal to 1 point of crime that is equal to 1 point of risk to die.
For me not all the same "harms" have the same values.

Another issue I have with the research is that the risk of dying from heroin is order of magnitudes much higher than from tobacco by quantity/frequency of use.
However, according to the paper, to be able to compare risks they implemented a system of normalization which reduce this huge difference and make comparison possible.

I agree it makes comparison possible but it also "flattens" the results reducing the score impact on the most deadly drugs.


There are many questionable (and highly subjective) parameters in this research... I wouldn't use as a policy guideline

 

[Lord Chambers]

There are many questionable (and highly subjective) parameters in this research... I wouldn't use as a policy guideline

And I think that's fair. I haven't actually read the study I linked to, but in hunting it down I skimmed a few criticisms and response by the author(s) and I think they would agree with you. They are careful to point out that this is essentially an interview with a group of experts to just ballpark the threats. They wouldn't say this shows any meaningful measure of how much drugs are damaging society, but rather it shows that the status of legality is clearly based on something other than harm. And they ask what it might be based on. A really reasonable, albeit limited, point.

 

[GinandTonic]

This is the same report that led to the "horse riding is more damaging than ecstasy" comment that got him fired?

 

[Hygro]

I'm pretty sure that study wasn't done on a per-capita basis to compare the drugs. Alcohol is bad, but doesn't scratch the surface of say, LSD.

I have no idea why you picked LSD out of all the drugs.

Edit: and horse riding is a lot more dangerous than ecstasy.

 

[Lord Chambers]

I'm shocked by this. I wouldn't have thought air travel could hold a candle to anything on the ground. I might have to dive into this data, it flies in the face of what I know.

source: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/how-green-your-flight-new-york

 

[Cutlass]

I'm surprised the train does so poorly. Planes are fuel hogs, but carry a high density of passengers per flight. cars carry few passengers per trip. I wonder if there just are not many passengers on the trains?