The importance of healthy lifestyles is repeatedly mentioned but there is
relatively little discussion of addressing the structural, political and commercial determinants of health that entrench an unhealthy food supply, inactivity - promoting environments and our bombardment by unhealthy marketing.
As far as I can tell there has been
relatively little discussion of the logic underlying the IPCC's detection and attribution.
There is so much emphasis on saving money and making money, but
relatively little discussion about the «why» of doing all this.
Despite the fact that Portfolio Management is now one of the most popular reforms and despite the enormity of the setback in New Orleans, there has been
relatively little discussion of this development in the blogosphere.
Not exact matches
Even here there is
relatively little explicit
discussion.
I have been at presentations and
discussions of UK attitudes to Europe where studies of UK public opinion seem to have found (perhaps counterintuitively) that there is
relatively little sense among the public of there being a pro-EU so anti-US (or pro-US so less pro-EU) constituency among the public, though both are fairly common positions among certain elite opinion former groups on left and right.
Indeed, they climbed with
relatively little conflict, albeit with constant, even excessive
discussion.
See the RealClimate
discussions of the
Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for explanations of why both the Viking colonization of Greenland and the freezing of the River Thames actually tells us relatively little about past climate c
Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for explanations of why both the Viking colonization of Greenland and the freezing of the River Thames actually tells us
relatively little about past climate c
little about past climate change.
Many people in online forums and
discussion boards claim that they have seen a noticeable increase in energy levels from taking Moringa, though I found
relatively little science to back this up and «energy levels» are one of the most difficult factors to measure objectively.
While they might be statistically significant, they might mean
relatively little in the grand scheme of things (i.e., in terms of practical significance; see also «The Difference Between» Significant» and «Not Significant» is not Itself Statistically Significant» or posts on Andrew Gelman's blog for more
discussion on these topics if interested).
In fact,
relatively little attention was paid to the risks — either to humans or wildlife — and
discussion of legitimate management options was avoided almost entirely.
Although geoengineering is a subject of lively debate among a
relatively small group of scientists, so far there has been
little public
discussion.
Parental mental illness
Relatively little has been written about the effect of serious and persistent parental mental illness on child abuse, although many studies show that substantial proportions of mentally ill mothers are living away from their children.14 Much of the
discussion about the effect of maternal mental illness on child abuse focuses on the poverty and homeless - ness of mothers who are mentally ill, as well as on the behavior problems of their children — all issues that are correlated with involvement with child welfare services.15 Jennifer Culhane and her colleagues followed a five - year birth cohort among women who had ever been homeless and found an elevated rate of involvement with child welfare services and a nearly seven - times - higher rate of having children placed into foster care.16 More direct evidence on the relationship between maternal mental illness and child abuse in the general population, however, is strikingly scarce, especially given the 23 percent rate of self - reported major depression in the previous twelve months among mothers involved with child welfare services, as shown in NSCAW.17