We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Tampilkan postingan dengan label Using. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Using. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 25 Oktober 2011

Using Beads to Get Pregnant — or Prevent It

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Women who want to get pregnant, as well as those who just as desperately desire the opposite outcome, care a lot about their fertility. But figuring out exactly when to have sex — or when to avoid it — can be tricky.

Using some form of birth control can do the trick, of course, but not all women choose to do so. In theory, natural family planning — knowing when you ovulate to figure out when to have sex — can be useful too. Yet it's undeniable that more than a few babies (two girls belonging to this author, in fact) have made their way into this world courtesy of mothers who flubbed that calculation.

Now a new study in the October issue of the Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care finds that a fertility-awareness-based method of family planning developed by researchers from the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) actually works so well for those women who have a pretty regular menstrual cycle that they continued to use it successfully for years.

MORE: Teen Sex Update: Fewer Teens Doing It, More Boys Using Condoms

The Standard Days Method (SDM) zeroes in on the 12-day "fertile window" of a woman's menstrual cycle. The window accounts for the life span of the woman's egg — about 24 hours after ovulation — and the five days that sperm remain viable after ejaculation, while allowing for variation between cycles. In the study, which followed 1,659 women who used the method, those who relied on it in the first year were likely to have continued success using it in years two and three.

In 2002, different research found that the SDM was more than 95% effective at avoiding pregnancy, a rate that trumps the effectiveness of other birth-control methods such as the diaphragm or condoms.

It's unclear what separates the SDM from the more commonly known rhythm method, and perhaps that confusion is part of the reason why natural family planning isn't more popular. "If you asked 20 people what the rhythm method is, you get 20 different answers," says Institute for Reproductive Health Director Victoria Jennings, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Georgetown. "No one I know actually used the rhythm method partly because it's never been well-tested for efficacy. People tend to not want to risk that."

Call it what you want, the concept underlying fertility-awareness birth-control methods is this: a woman ovulates near the middle of her cycle, so she is potentially fertile around that time for several days; adjust the timing of unprotected sex accordingly.

MORE: How the Pill Affects Sexual Satisfaction, Lasting Marriage

What might contribute to SDM's success is CycleBeads, a bunch of beads strung on a necklace. Developed at Georgetown, the necklace contains 32 color-coded beads with each bead representing a day of the menstrual cycle. A red bead indicates the first day of a woman's period; brown beads symbolize days when pregnancy is very unlikely, and glow-in-the dark white beads (beads 8 to 19) signal fertile days. Each day, a woman moves a black rubber ring ahead by one bead to indicate where she is in her cycle.

"It isn't like it's this totally radical new concept that no one has ever thought of before, but we have put it into a context that real people can actually use," says Jennings.

CycleBeads, which costs about $10, does the heavy lifting of figuring out when pregnancy is most likely to occur, says Jennings. "Women need to do math, calculating each cycle and coming up with the days in the current cycle in which she is likely to get pregnant," says Jennings. "In the Standard Days Method, the calculations have essentially been done for her."

Women with cycles lasting 26 to 32 days are considered fertile between days 8 and 19. "That gives her a bit of leeway to sometimes ovulate a bit later or a bit earlier and takes into account the life span of egg and sperm," says Jennings.

One fringe benefit of the beads is enhanced communication between romantic partners. Picture a woman using CycleBeads to demonstrate to her lover where she is in her cycle. "It's a good tool so they can decide together if they do want to get pregnant, these are the days. Or if they don't want to get pregnant, they can use the beads to decide when to use condoms."

CycleBeads are available online, at Whole Foods and in 40 different countries. Lest you bemoan the low-techness of the method, there's also an app available called "icyclebeads."

Bonnie Rochman is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @brochman. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.



News



Debt Financing

Senin, 24 Oktober 2011

Should Your 2-Year-Old Be Using an iPad?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

From "Baby Touch: Peekaboo" to "Moo, Baa, La La La!," iPad apps for babies are flooding the market. Developers say the apps are educational, and busy parents know that a digital babysitter can buy them a few minutes of valuable time. But is the iPad a healthy thing for young kids?

Apple's iTunes now stocks more than 700 apps for children, including ones that promise to "develop hand-eye coordination and focusing skills in young babies" or teach "fine motor skills" to infants "from 0 to 2.5 years old."

As Healthland reported on Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has advised parents — again — to eliminate screen time for children under 2, citing concerns about language delays and disrupted sleep. The academy's new report drew on studies showing that TV, whether it's the parent or the child watching, interferes with "talk time" between parent and child, which is crucial to language development.

Does the TV effect apply to iPads too? That's not clear. "We just don't have the data yet," says Dr. Ari Brown, a pediatrician and member of the AAP.

Perhaps it depends on how you're using it. Tablets used like a TV should fall under the same guidelines, says Tanya Altmann, a Los Angeles-based pediatrician and author of the best-selling parenting book Mommy Calls. However, she doesn't rule out the possibility that interactive apps may have some value for toddlers. "In some ways, applications are just newer versions of the game that we used to play when we were kids — you tap the cow and it says 'moo,'" she says.

But even apps that simulate conventional toys don't teach children the crucial skills that come from physically engaging the world in three dimensions, says Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Hospital. He points to iPad apps that replicate building blocks and Legos. "Surely we would not want that to substitute for actually getting blocks and building something," he says. "This is not how the real world works, and babies do need to learn how the real world works."

So, the jury's still out on tablets for toddlers, but research suggests that educational apps may enhance the learning experience of slightly older children. A recent study funded by the Department of Education showed that the PBS Kids iPhone app "Martha Speaks" boosted 3-to-7-year-olds vocabularies by as much as 31% over the course of two weeks.

Rose Luckin, a professor of learner-centered design at the University of London, has found that tablet-type devices can actually spark the sort of social interaction central to the learning process. She found that 5- and 6-year-olds who recorded school activities on tablets and replayed them for their parents tended to learn better. "One of the key benefits of technologies such as the iPad is that they can become a focus for conversations between parents and children," she says. "If the device is right in the middle of the family, in the kitchen, in the lap, then as a parent, you're much more able to have those kinds of shared experiences."

In other words, tablets might not be all bad if they generate "talk time," rather than replace it. As with anything else, says Luckin, moderation and common sense are key. "If a child just sits all day playing on the iPad on her own, then I'm not sure she's getting the benefits," she says. "My argument about the value of these devices is that they can add to parental time, not take away from it."

When parents are busy, though, the best option may simply be to turn the gadgets off, rather than letting kids use them unattended, says Altmann. "We know parents can't be with their children 24/7," she says. "But don't forget that when we were kids, our moms would just give us toys to play with on the ground and say, 'Play.' Just give them some time to explore occasionally on their own. They don't have to have external stimulation every second of the day."



News



Debt Financing

Minggu, 23 Oktober 2011

Using one embryo in IVF doesn't cut birth rate

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK | Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:24pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study from an Iowa fertility center found that implanting women with one embryo during in vitro fertilization (IVF) didn't lower their chances of having a baby, but it did mean fewer women gave birth to twins.

IVF has traditionally involved implanting multiple embryos, which is known to increase by many times a woman's chances of having twins. Pregnancy with multiples raises certain risks to both moms and babies, including diabetes during pregnancy, premature birth and cerebral palsy.

Dr. Jessica Kresowik from the University of Iowa in Iowa City said she and her colleagues felt that twin rates at their clinic were too high -- so they began requiring that younger women with a good chance of getting pregnant only have one embryo implanted.

The goal was to "increase the outcome that we want, of one healthy baby at a time," she told Reuters Health.

Babies conceived through IVF account for just one percent of U.S. births each year, but IVF is responsible for 17 percent of twins, Kresowik and her colleagues write in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, no more than two embryos should be implanted in women under 35 -- and doctors should consider using just one.

But in the U.S., those guidelines have been "slowly adopted," the researchers note, with many clinics still implanting multiple embryos in younger, healthy women.

"In the past, you did need to implant multiple embryos in order to maintain those pregnancy rates," Kresowik said, adding that before technology improved, doctors might use six embryos at once, hoping that one would result in a pregnancy.

Now, she said, more centers are offering single embryos as an option to patients.

Using a single embryo for all women under 38 who were getting their first round of IVF and had other signs predicting a good outcome became the policy at Kresowik's fertility clinic in 2004.

The researchers collected data on IVF outcomes from five years before and five years after that practice started. As it turned out, birth rates at the clinic didn't suffer because of the policy -- in fact, they improved over time.

Before the single-embryo policy, 51 percent of all women younger than 38 got pregnant and gave birth to a live baby, compared to 56 percent afterwards.

And the proportion of women with births of multiples dropped from 35 percent to less than 18 percent when the policy was in place.

Among 364 women who fit the criteria and had a single-embryo transfer from 2004 on, 65 percent gave birth to a live baby and just over three percent had twins or other multiples.

Kresowik said that the study can "serve as a model" to other fertility clinics that want to lower their twin rates.

"A policy like this is a great idea," said Judy Stern, a fertility specialist at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who wasn't involved in the new study.

The findings, she told Reuters Health, show that "it can work. You really can move toward single-embryo transfer and have it give you great success rates, and really low multiple rates."

Dr. Nicole Noyes, from the New York University Fertility Center, said that her team has also seen success using single-embryo transfer in ideal cases.

If doctors find good-quality embryos, she told Reuters Health, "and you have a good prognosis patient, putting a single embryo in does not lower pregnancy rates."

Another important finding, Kresowik said, was that the clinic didn't have any fewer women seeking treatment after the policy was implemented. Some women hope for twins during IVF, she said, seeing it as "an efficient way to reproduce" if they aren't fully aware of the risks involved -- but they didn't seem to flock away.

"If your practitioner's telling you, 'I think you should only have one embryo implanted,' that's a good thing," she concluded.

SOURCE: bit.ly/qjjdpu Fertility and Sterility, online September 29, 2011.



New Automobile



Health Management

Jumat, 21 Oktober 2011

Using one embryo in IVF doesn't cut birth rate

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK | Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:24pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study from an Iowa fertility center found that implanting women with one embryo during in vitro fertilization (IVF) didn't lower their chances of having a baby, but it did mean fewer women gave birth to twins.

IVF has traditionally involved implanting multiple embryos, which is known to increase by many times a woman's chances of having twins. Pregnancy with multiples raises certain risks to both moms and babies, including diabetes during pregnancy, premature birth and cerebral palsy.

Dr. Jessica Kresowik from the University of Iowa in Iowa City said she and her colleagues felt that twin rates at their clinic were too high -- so they began requiring that younger women with a good chance of getting pregnant only have one embryo implanted.

The goal was to "increase the outcome that we want, of one healthy baby at a time," she told Reuters Health.

Babies conceived through IVF account for just one percent of U.S. births each year, but IVF is responsible for 17 percent of twins, Kresowik and her colleagues write in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, no more than two embryos should be implanted in women under 35 -- and doctors should consider using just one.

But in the U.S., those guidelines have been "slowly adopted," the researchers note, with many clinics still implanting multiple embryos in younger, healthy women.

"In the past, you did need to implant multiple embryos in order to maintain those pregnancy rates," Kresowik said, adding that before technology improved, doctors might use six embryos at once, hoping that one would result in a pregnancy.

Now, she said, more centers are offering single embryos as an option to patients.

Using a single embryo for all women under 38 who were getting their first round of IVF and had other signs predicting a good outcome became the policy at Kresowik's fertility clinic in 2004.

The researchers collected data on IVF outcomes from five years before and five years after that practice started. As it turned out, birth rates at the clinic didn't suffer because of the policy -- in fact, they improved over time.

Before the single-embryo policy, 51 percent of all women younger than 38 got pregnant and gave birth to a live baby, compared to 56 percent afterwards.

And the proportion of women with births of multiples dropped from 35 percent to less than 18 percent when the policy was in place.

Among 364 women who fit the criteria and had a single-embryo transfer from 2004 on, 65 percent gave birth to a live baby and just over three percent had twins or other multiples.

Kresowik said that the study can "serve as a model" to other fertility clinics that want to lower their twin rates.

"A policy like this is a great idea," said Judy Stern, a fertility specialist at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who wasn't involved in the new study.

The findings, she told Reuters Health, show that "it can work. You really can move toward single-embryo transfer and have it give you great success rates, and really low multiple rates."

Dr. Nicole Noyes, from the New York University Fertility Center, said that her team has also seen success using single-embryo transfer in ideal cases.

If doctors find good-quality embryos, she told Reuters Health, "and you have a good prognosis patient, putting a single embryo in does not lower pregnancy rates."

Another important finding, Kresowik said, was that the clinic didn't have any fewer women seeking treatment after the policy was implemented. Some women hope for twins during IVF, she said, seeing it as "an efficient way to reproduce" if they aren't fully aware of the risks involved -- but they didn't seem to flock away.

"If your practitioner's telling you, 'I think you should only have one embryo implanted,' that's a good thing," she concluded.

SOURCE: bit.ly/qjjdpu Fertility and Sterility, online September 29, 2011.



New Automobile



Health Management

Should Your 2-Year-Old Be Using an iPad?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

From "Baby Touch: Peekaboo" to "Moo, Baa, La La La!," iPad apps for babies are flooding the market. Developers say the apps are educational, and busy parents know that a digital babysitter can buy them a few minutes of valuable time. But is the iPad a healthy thing for young kids?

Apple's iTunes now stocks more than 700 apps for children, including ones that promise to "develop hand-eye coordination and focusing skills in young babies" or teach "fine motor skills" to infants "from 0 to 2.5 years old."

As Healthland reported on Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has advised parents — again — to eliminate screen time for children under 2, citing concerns about language delays and disrupted sleep. The academy's new report drew on studies showing that TV, whether it's the parent or the child watching, interferes with "talk time" between parent and child, which is crucial to language development.

Does the TV effect apply to iPads too? That's not clear. "We just don't have the data yet," says Dr. Ari Brown, a pediatrician and member of the AAP.

Perhaps it depends on how you're using it. Tablets used like a TV should fall under the same guidelines, says Tanya Altmann, a Los Angeles-based pediatrician and author of the best-selling parenting book Mommy Calls. However, she doesn't rule out the possibility that interactive apps may have some value for toddlers. "In some ways, applications are just newer versions of the game that we used to play when we were kids — you tap the cow and it says 'moo,'" she says.

But even apps that simulate conventional toys don't teach children the crucial skills that come from physically engaging the world in three dimensions, says Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Hospital. He points to iPad apps that replicate building blocks and Legos. "Surely we would not want that to substitute for actually getting blocks and building something," he says. "This is not how the real world works, and babies do need to learn how the real world works."

So, the jury's still out on tablets for toddlers, but research suggests that educational apps may enhance the learning experience of slightly older children. A recent study funded by the Department of Education showed that the PBS Kids iPhone app "Martha Speaks" boosted 3-to-7-year-olds vocabularies by as much as 31% over the course of two weeks.

Rose Luckin, a professor of learner-centered design at the University of London, has found that tablet-type devices can actually spark the sort of social interaction central to the learning process. She found that 5- and 6-year-olds who recorded school activities on tablets and replayed them for their parents tended to learn better. "One of the key benefits of technologies such as the iPad is that they can become a focus for conversations between parents and children," she says. "If the device is right in the middle of the family, in the kitchen, in the lap, then as a parent, you're much more able to have those kinds of shared experiences."

In other words, tablets might not be all bad if they generate "talk time," rather than replace it. As with anything else, says Luckin, moderation and common sense are key. "If a child just sits all day playing on the iPad on her own, then I'm not sure she's getting the benefits," she says. "My argument about the value of these devices is that they can add to parental time, not take away from it."

When parents are busy, though, the best option may simply be to turn the gadgets off, rather than letting kids use them unattended, says Altmann. "We know parents can't be with their children 24/7," she says. "But don't forget that when we were kids, our moms would just give us toys to play with on the ground and say, 'Play.' Just give them some time to explore occasionally on their own. They don't have to have external stimulation every second of the day."



News



Debt Financing

Jumat, 14 Oktober 2011

Using Magnets Aimed at the Brain to Influence Whether People Lie

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Zap one part of the brain with a magnetic pulse and people become more likely to lie. Stimulate the opposite side of the region and truth-telling increases, according to new research.

In the study, 16 participants were asked to view red or blue colored disks on a computer monitor and, at their own discretion, to sometimes lie about the color and identify red as blue, or vice versa.

While the volunteers made these choices, researchers applied repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to their brains. The small rTMS device uses magnets to generate weak electrical fields, and researchers place it near the head to administer the non-invasive pulses. This affects communication between brain cells in targeted regions.

Doctors use rTMS as a treatment for depression that fails to respond to drugs or therapy, and it is also being studied for other psychiatric and neurological disorders. Side effects can include some twitching, but the treatment is not generally reported to be painful.

In the new study, researchers administered rTMS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — a region involved in planning, memory and self-control — either in the right or left hemisphere of the brain. When rTMS was used on the right hemisphere, participants were more likely to tell the truth. When the stimulation was applied to the left side of that region, the probability of lying increased. Stimulation applied to other brain regions in the study's control participants had no effect on their honesty.

MORE: The Criminal Mind: How Drugs and Violence May Affect the Brain

Because the number of participants was so small, it's hard to draw firm conclusions from the research. Even if the study were replicated in a much larger group, however, it might not translate directly to the real world. Stimulation of the brain could have a different effect when the stakes of lying — say, to avoid being sent to prison — are higher than simply participating in an experiment. The brain's responses to experience are different depending on the person's emotional state.

Nonetheless, the potential ability to detect or even control people's deceitfulness would be of tremendous interest to those working in professions like law or national security—as well as having terrifying civil liberties implications. Study co-author Talis Bachmann of the University of Tartu in Estonia spoke with the U.K.'s Guardian about the potential legal repercussions of using rTMS to get people to tell the truth:

Provided that the method is validated and legal norms are established, it could perhaps be allowed and justified ... but this should not become a routinely used technique. Basic human rights include cognitive privacy and this would be a clear infringement. If a subject freely agrees, maybe it would make sense, but I foresee heated debates on whether 'knocking truth out of the fellow' can be legalized in principle.

Quite an understatement, I'd say! Let's hope the ethicists keep close tabs on this technology.

The study was published in Behavioral Brain Research.

[h/t: Mo Costandi of the Guardian's excellent Neurophilosophy blog]

MORE: Mind Reading: When You Go Hunting for Psychopaths, They Turn Up Everywhere

Maia Szalavitz is a health writer at TIME.com. Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland.



News



Debt Financing

Using DNA To Shape Nanostructures

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
October 14, 2011

Audio for this story from Talk of the Nation will be available at approx. 6:00 p.m. ET

Chemists and materials scientists are trying to learn to build ultra-small, precisely ordered structures for use in optics, electronics, and other applications. Writing in the journal Science, Chad Mirkin and colleagues describe a way to use snippets of DNA to tailor the shape and size of crystal structures, tweaking them to fit specific uses.



Health Management



Education Information

Sabtu, 01 Oktober 2011

Using Twitter To Tap Into The Mood Of The Planet

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Twitter home page

Right now, armies of marketers, pollsters and social scientists are trying to figure out what Americans are thinking about — issues like global warming or Lady Gaga's latest outfit. Surveys are only so good: It's hard to get a big enough sample to be sure of the results. That's particularly vexing for social scientists who want a high standard of accuracy.

But now they have a new window on the world: Twitter. Normally, if social scientists wanted to design an experiment on how peoples' moods change during the course of a day, for example, they'd recruit some of their students. But statistically, what 50 college kids do doesn't really reflect the American public.

Scientists need lots of people to make solid conclusions about human behavior. That's why Scott Golder went to Twitter, where millions and millions of people express themselves daily.

"This is the stuff of daily life," Golder says. "Whether you're doing that with diaries from a few hundred years ago or you're doing it with the tweets of today, you're still looking into the personal lives of regular people, and that is very revealing."

This is the stuff of daily life. Whether you're doing that with diaries from a few hundred years ago or you're doing it with the tweets of today, you're still looking into the personal lives of regular people, and that is very revealing.

- Scott Golder, graduate student, Cornell University

What Golder and his colleagues at Cornell University wanted revealed is: How do peoples' moods go up and down — positive or negative — through the day? That might then reveal how much and when your biorhythms or your environment control the way you feel.

The researchers used a common computer program that scans text for key words in tweets that reflect the writer's mood, or, as psychologists call it, affect. These are words like aching, afraid, cynical, fear, mad and fury, Golder says. These words fall into the "negative" category.

On the positive side, Golder looked for words including agree, definitely, fine, outgoing, paradise and pleasing. And, of course, this being the Twitter generation: "Awesome. Awesome is an awesome word."

Golder, who's a graduate student in social and computer science, spent months with a team of researchers scanning tweets by more than 2 million people in 84 countries — more than a half-billion tweets.

"We found there are two peaks in positive affect during the day. One occurs first thing in the morning and one occurs late at night," he says.

Of course, you say, the dip in the middle is when you go to work. But Golder says no. "The shape of the rhythm — when it peaks and valleys — is the same on the weekend as during the week."

Golder doesn't know why mornings and evenings tend to be brighter than the rest of the day. A night's sleep could explain the morning bump-up. Biochemicals associated with a person's circadian rhythm could also be at work, and certainly what happens to you during a day would have an effect.

A New Dimension In Research

While the results might not be terribly surprising, they point to a new "social media" wave in academic research.

When it comes to research, "we've really been in flat Earth over all these years, and suddenly we've discovered there's a third dimension," says David Lazer, a practitioner of both political and computer science at Northeastern University.

We've really been in flat earth over all these years, and suddenly we've discovered there's a third dimension.

- David Lazer, associate professor of computer science, Northeastern University

Though tweets are public, Lazer says, academic institutions should be writing up ethics standards for the use of data from social media. He emphasizes that scientists should be careful about what they conclude from the data.

"I mean, these are not scientifically designed instruments to collect under pristine circumstances; it's often difficult to tell what's causing what," he says.

But Twitter certainly can reveal peoples' views. Kent Cavender-Bares is an environmental scientist at the University of Minnesota.

"I see it as a great way to get a pulse of what's going on in the country," he says. Cavender-Bares plans to monitor tweets about climate and then produce educational material to answer the most common questions.

He says you still need people to double-check computerized language scanners — after all, computers don't recognize sarcasm or some words with more than one meaning, like "blizzards."

"Real quickly you find out that people are tweeting about Dairy Queen Blizzards — an ice cream, rather than a snowstorm," he says.

The Cornell research appears in the journal Science.

Research News

Subscribe to Research News podcast via:

iTunesZune

Or use this URL:

This podcast

close

All Things Considered– Analyzing the tweets of millions of users revealed Earth-wide trends in peoples' moods.

Analyzing the tweets of millions of users revealed Earth-wide trends in peoples' moods.

Researchers analyzed accounts from survivors to pinpoint where two ships sank to the seafloor.

Researchers analyzed accounts from survivors to pinpoint where two ships sank to the seafloor.

A new study confirms what many patients already know: Different drugs work for different people.

A new study confirms what many patients already know: Different drugs work for different people.



View the original article here



Peliculas Online