Fire retardant itself is much more harmful than heavy metals in this context.
It essentially causes neurodegenerative diseases, especially if you inhale it.
This applies to unintuitive routes of exposure, like taking a hot shower on an Air Force base that used flame retardant in fire drills decades prior and breathing in the water suspended in air.
I did this after breaking my ankle. I was carefully walking the next day, hiking within a week, and skateboarding within 2-3 weeks. Fully healed after a month or two. Everyone thought I was insane but I'm very glad I did it.
I thought, why should we try to intervene with millions of years of evolution? Inflammation has to be there for a reason. Nitpick that statement all you want but in this specific case I'm glad I didn't mitigate the inflammation.
I was unaware of the acronym HELM and told everyone I was doing the exact opposite of RICE on purpose.
The link between BMAA (from toxic algae blooms) and neurodegenerative diseases in predisposed people is basically causal and proven at this point, but it's allegedly suppressed by Big Fishing and Aquaculture.
You may be right. There are many other components contributing to the problem in Finland, too.
Yes, I apologize for being combative. I see your point now.
I think I'm also wrong.
I thought about my original response some more and this is a more coherent version of what I was trying to say:
A problem being in NP is sufficient but not necessary to reduce it to an NP-complete problem.
But that's wrong. It's both sufficient and necessary to be in NP. It intuitively feels like you're tacking on more than you need to by introducing the "necessary" constraint, but it makes sense.
I agree with you, I just think the condition "being in NP" is needlessly confusing. The whole point is that you can always find a reduction from easier problems to harder ones. It just so happens that NP encompasses all the problems easier than SAT.
The reason why your statement is confusing to me is that if you generalize it beyond NP, it breaks down; for an arbitrarily hard complexity class M and an arbitrary M-hard problem, you don't need to be in M to be able to find a reduction to the M-hard problem.
> While it is true that their presence in NP-Hard does not require their pressence in NP (and thus are not proved NP Complete)
You're confused here. The two conditions for a problem being NP-complete are (1) it being NP-hard and (2) it being in NP.
You suggest (2) is the issue, but usually it's harder to prove (1) rather than (2). In the context of factorization problems, the factors are simply the certificate that satisfy condition (2).
Your last statement is misleading. A problem being NP-complete isn't exactly the property that allows you to reduce any NP problem to it. Suppose there was a complexity class MP-hard that has no efficient reduction to an NP-complete problem. Then a problem being MP isn't what allows me to write a reduction to the MP-hard problem; I could just as easily write a reduction from a problem in P to the MP-hard problem. Your statement is misleading but incidentally correct because the true condition (NP-hard or easier) happens to be equivalent to your stated condition (NP) for this particular complexity class. It would be clearer to simply state that you can always reduce an easy problem to a harder one.
The link between BMAA and neurodegenerative diseases is well established. New Brunswick has huge BMAA problems. The fishing and aquaculture industry is alleged to suppress the BMAA theory, because less people would buy and eat New Brunswick lobster and fish.
It essentially causes neurodegenerative diseases, especially if you inhale it.
This applies to unintuitive routes of exposure, like taking a hot shower on an Air Force base that used flame retardant in fire drills decades prior and breathing in the water suspended in air.