• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle
  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    28 days ago

    Dietary calcium is great for preventing stones, actually. Calcium is bound to a couple different things that cause stones, but the body actually makes those things specifically to bind with calcium. When it happens where it is supposed to, this is a good thing. If you are low on calcium, these things get flushed, and may get trapped in the kidney. Then any calcium that passes through may bind to it. Having higher calcium intake helps prevent them from building up in the kidneys to begin with. Though extremely high amounts of calcium from vitamin supplements etc can increase the risk of getting stones, but high calcium diet is one of the best defenses against them.


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    28 days ago

    It is actually not an excess of calcium that’s usually the problem, calcium deficiency is actually a greater risk for most. While yes, the most common types are both chemicals that are in part calcium, the body is meant to produce them, just in different parts of the body. Usually, a deficiency in calcium allows those other compounds that should be used up in other places to be flushed through the kidneys, possibly building up. Then incidental calcium that does move through the kidney binds to them there. Higher dietary calcium intake is associated with a sharp decline in stone risk, though extremely high intakes from vitamin supplements etc do increase risk. But in general, it is an excess of the things that bind to calcium that are the things to avoid, apparently almonds are pretty much the worse thing ever, with a fairly distant second being chocolate.





  • I never got that. Surely, it’s nearly as likely to divert an asteroid that would miss us to a course that would hit us as it is to do the opposite, right? The number that are actually trapped/impacted is a tiny percentage, and then the percentage of those that would have hit us must be a small percentage of that, is it really enough to be statistically significant?





  • I think so long as you maintain consciousness that issue is fairly null in this particular circumstance. There’s lots of tolerance for changes in thought while maintaining the same self, see many brain damage victims. So long as there is minimal change in personality, there are lots of other circumstances that have a stronger case for killing one person and having a new person replace them due to change of consciousness, imo, I don’t think most people would consider a brain damaged person killed and replaced by a new consciousness, or a drug addiction with radically altered brain chemistry, etc.