The average human brain is about 10% smaller than it was 20,000 years ago.
447
In the next 50 million years, one of Mars's two small moons, Phobos, is predicted to either break up or crash into the surface of Mars. This may result in Mars acquiring a planetary ring.
448
Istanbul is further north than New York City.
449
Half of the calories in Heinz ketchup come from added sugars.
450
It is unknown whether screening for prostate cancer actually lowers the risk of dying from prostate cancer. But we do know that getting screened often leads to expensive medical procedures, which can cause impotence or even death. Please do your research (and get a second opinion!) before consenting to a prostate screening.
Large yellow arrows made from concrete are scattered across America going from coast to coast. They were destroyed during WWII in fear of the Japanese using them to navigate across the US
Yes. It is most likely that it was an etrog or a citron. Apples originated in Kazakhstan, and were most likely not found in the Arabian Desert at the time.
I believe that the 'Fruit' suggested was not an actual fruit hanging on a tree but a 'metaphorical fruit' as in 'the fruit of one's loins' etc. and I think 'Human Nature' is the original sin that one might metaphorically say 'Parts humans from the Angels'
Is interesting fact #450 referring to just PSA blood tests or both PSA blood tests and Digital rectal examinations(DRE). Because if it is just referring to PSA blood tests maybe that should be made a little more clear.
What about this one, Chuck Yeager is still alive! (Although I would understand if you do not want to do the, these people are still alive, kind of facts, because they would have to be updated pretty regularly)
There is an unremovable ladder in Israel after a mason left it there by accident. To move it, you need the approval and agreement of 6 Christian communities
Regarding #450 - had a prostate screening not discovered an anomaly, someone I know would never have gone on to a more in depth screening which happened to discover a bladder tumor. Left untreated it could have spread and killed him. A second opinion confirmed his prostate cancer is at the "watch it" stage and not considered serious at this point but the screening still probably saved his life or at least saved him much more extensive and expensive medical procedures later.
#450 feels weird - was this one written from personal opinion? It doesn't feel very trivia to me, more like dangerous science denialism. I can't find any research that suggests that impotence, let alone death, can result from a simple screening. Please, link me to the research this is based on if you have it. The "leads to other medical procedures" part doesn't really have anything to do with the screening itself - maybe you're looking to encourage people to medically self-advocate while a doctor is suggesting treatments for whatever diagnosis came from the screening rather than trying to discourage people from getting screenings in the first place? Either way, #450 should be drastically reworded or just scrapped entirely.
If you read what is written, you will see that it is not the screening itself that causes impotence, but the procedures that follow the screening. Am I saying don't get screened? Not necessarily. But people should weight the risks and benefits (or lack thereof). Personally, I won't be getting screened.
"It is uncertain whether the benefits associated with PSA testing for prostate cancer screening are worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment."
Wouldn't the issue be the subsequent unnecessary treatment, then? This is pretty clearly based on one American study and doesn't seem like trivia at all. The Wikipedia article you're citing specifically says that the American studies were found to have a "high bias", and a European study suggested that blood testing for prostate cancer did statistically reduce mortality. So... it's a bit odd to only include the quote from that American study.
"Wouldn't the issue be the subsequent unnecessary treatment, then?"
What's the point of getting screened if you choose not to get treated if the screen comes back positive?
Can you post the link to the European study?
Finally, even if there is a small increase in lifespan, how many years of extra life would you need in order to compensate you for the chance of having to wear diapers or losing the ability to have sex? Not to mention the pain, expense, and wasted time of having to undergo medical procedures.
Hopper had no legs and Jack was a Baboon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer_screening
"It is uncertain whether the benefits associated with PSA testing for prostate cancer screening are worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment."
What's the point of getting screened if you choose not to get treated if the screen comes back positive?
Can you post the link to the European study?
Finally, even if there is a small increase in lifespan, how many years of extra life would you need in order to compensate you for the chance of having to wear diapers or losing the ability to have sex? Not to mention the pain, expense, and wasted time of having to undergo medical procedures.