Ideally, we would compare hunter-gatherer society to post-industrial society to see which one copes better with PTSD. When the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho fighters returned to their camps after annihilating Custer and his regiment at Little Bighorn, for example, were they traumatized and alienated by the experience—or did they fit right back into society? There is no way to know for sure, but less direct comparisons can still illuminate how cohesiveness affects trauma. In experiments with lab rats, for example, a subject that is traumatized—but not injured—after an attack by a larger rat usually recovers within 48 hours unless it is kept in isolation, according to data published in 2005 in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. The ones that are kept apart from other rats are the only ones that develop long-term traumatic symptoms. And a study of risk factors for PTSD in humans closely mirrored those results. In a 2000 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, “lack of social support” was found to be around two times more reliable at predicting who got PTSD and who didn’t than the severity of the trauma itself. You could be mildly traumatized, in other words—on a par with, say, an ordinary rear-base deployment to Afghanistan—and experience long-term PTSD simply because of a lack of social support back home.
I apologise if I caused any offense. It was not my intention. I like your work
I admit I used some harsh words. I do not want to start an argument.
There are still arguments about the chemical composition of Comets. There is not enough data
Comet ISON showed that it is composed of loose rock material.
The tests shown
which are not complete at all do not show the composition of the rocky materials but the chemicals that contribute to the observed ice spectrometry.
There was not much ice observed on ISON but after the impact and surprisingly explosion; analysis showed Methanol, Formaldehide, H-Cyanide, Acetyline etc. i.e. Organic materials that produce water (after the interaction with ionising Solar wind) that is observed in the tail of most comets not a trace of Platinum (joke). There is no analysis available for the rocky material
It is a conjecture that asteroids in Taurid shower are cometary fragments; they may or may not be
(such conclusions will be irresponsible and not scientific).
We do not really know the composition of the comets and any theories regarding them is mainly a cojecture.
If you look closely at the referred publication the detected Platinum is not conclusively
from a comet. It says “Cometary or meteoric influx” – Platinum points to a meteorite (not even an asteroid) but it “proves” (I must see all the data regarding Platinum) that a large extraterrestrial object hit the Earth at that time (younger Dryas) although the samples shown on the map are seem very few to be conclusive, that is if they refer to the same event.
By studying proxy materials on earth will not tell us anything about their origin since we do not know the composition of the comets
In the video / interview at 12:27 you mention of supposedly the original comet was a gigantic 200 km that broke up. That is pure conjecture by the scientists involved. They should be taken to task by an authorised astronomical committee. Publicising in journals is not good enough. Today’s peer review leaves a lot to be desired.
Science Fair Project Example Essay - 1356 Words
There are too many scientific disciplines that state that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Astronomy, genetics, linguistics, geology, plate tectonics, and archeology all say it is a lot older. The probable figure is about 4 billion years for planet Earth, and roughly 3 billion for life itself. We base our conclusions on appearances and scientific observations. The weight of evidence from all these disciplines is too much for me to dismiss. I do not find at all credible the assertions that the earth is only 10,000 years old and all the natural processes occurred within that time. (Bishop Ussher calculated 6,000 years old, and the Flood at 2348 BC.)