Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Because you are using such sites ;)

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/311113-workup#a0720

Because it is indeed not 100% for both (when you don't see it, it can still be there, but when you see the defect, it is there: sensitivity and specitivity, as said), I'll give you better examples:
anencephaly, achondroplasia, gastroschizis, duodenal atresia.

Even cleft palates can be seen with better equipment nowadays.

This seems more correct to me. Study is from 2002 still. When I have the time and the will, I'll search you a recent study with even lower percentage.


we use here data we have from uni-clinic in regensburg that i once wrote already here (mortality about 1,2%). for someone this number means "safe", but for me in no case. no fucking way that I would ever decide to do that.

---

If you have access to a medical library, what the hell are you doing with wikipedia? Pubmed is the place to be.

First McDonald's opened in Sarajevo:
Original
Google translated
(edited)

Soon fat children in Sarajevo too ... ;P

I practically live on (semi) fast food 9 months of a year and I hate that crap xD

I practically live on (semi) fast food 9 months of a year

I presume you don't have a really high life expectancy .. ? ;P

Around 107 years, is that high ? xD

Is that in dog years?

107 dog years = 441 human years xD

Err, no. :P One human year is several dog yours. You have to divide, not multiply. I think by 7.

XTRage is correct. If a dog is 100, he would be 700 when human.

:rolleyes:

No, if someone becomes 100 in dog years, that would mean 100/7 in human years. Or do you think you are rich when you got a million old fashioned Italian lira? Seriously.

So you think a dog can only become 2 human years?

As: He can become 15. 15/7=2,5.

Max.

Seriously. :rolleyes:

http://www.onlineconversion.com/dogyears.htm

Actually, XTRage even used this site :p