Read the original article. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you just look at the top of the graph for any given year, that's the grand total of all overdose deaths for that year. The intersection with the x-axis is 0, it's just hidden by the graph. So in 2009 there were 25 deaths per 100,000 people total. The thickness of each bar is how many can be attributed to that…

Look at the original article this cited. This sort of graph (an area graph) is extremely common for representing cumulative data. The lines go up to 25, because if you add every source of overdose together, that's how many you get. Everything you need to read the graph is there.

Because cocaine and heroin have large enough bars that they are visible, and significant, on there own. All the other drugs added together aren't even visible without a magnifying glass.

No, you just don't understand how to read the chart. The bars are sitting on top of each other, not behind one another. A thicker bar means more deaths, height on the chart doesn't matter. So pharmaceuticals are by far the largest (i.e. thickest) bar, while cannabis etc... are invisibly slim.

Notice how the "other" line is so thin as to be essentially invisible.

A short note on the placenta: while there is technically tissue called the maternal placenta, most of what we think of as the placenta is actually produced by the embryo, not the mother. Given a sufficiently developed endometrial surface, that part should take care of itself (more or less).

“The gene sequences also indicate that these viruses may be better adapted than other avian influenza viruses to infecting mammals.”

Central and Eastern Asia in the native home to most of the wild flu viruses. That, combined with very dense living conditions and close contact between humans and animals of many different types, especially birds, makes for a roiling melting pot of contacts. Flu in particular is capable of easily trading major chunks…

Another day, another Giz writer who clearly doesn't understand the difference between power, energy, and work. You're claiming fluorescent bulbs consume 200 terrawatts every year. First, let's ignore that fact that TW/yr is a nonsense term. In 2008, the entire world produced a little over 2 TW of electrical power. And…

I'm just grateful a Giz writer managed to correctly use a power/energy/work term in a sentence, even if it was awkwardly constructed. Baby steps!

Given that the original schedule was for VG flights to start some time in 2007, I think, I wouldn't plan on holding Branson to any sort of fixed schedule.

If you want to do the same thing today, just go find some Auyervedic medicine. It falls under "naturopathic" laws (i.e. none, thanks to the supplement industry) and frequently contains lead, mercury, arsenic, etc... as well.

Not even close. Asteroids have to be much larger (like, hundreds to millions of times), and travelling much faster than this one will be, to pose any real threat to people on the ground.

You're off by a factor of a couple million there. The asteroid/comet that wiped out the dinosaurs was at least 10km across, and would have weighed 50-100 billion tons. This rock will be maybe 7 meters across, and weigh only 500-1000 tons. Rocks that size hit the Earth all the time, and almost universally burn up in…

No groan-inducing puns either! Poor form, NPR.

The really interesting part looks to be the two separate technologies of EEG detection and FUS. Linking the two together is no more interesting than flipping a light switch, if there's no one-to-one correlation between the type of intention and the type of reaction. Sounds much more like someone wanted an…

You're adorable.

And the GOP, in its unceasing efforts to gut the EPA, will claim that this simply gives opportunities to "Job Creators" in the fields of indoor air purifiers, gas masks, asthma drug manufacturers, and the like.

"To put that in some context: we only need 1.8 kg to reach deep space." C'mon man. You just wrote an article explaining why the P-238 used to power deep-space probes is totally different than the P-239 used in nuclear weapons. Completely different set of processes. That's a worthless analogy, and you really should…