Four to six hours she sleeps 
ME-303 Advanced Playdo Manufacturing Processes
Today's word is a great arms-related word from waaaaaay back. We associate it with Greece, but it actually predates Greek use of the term. Only the Greeks could take a fairly straightforward concept like armed men in several rows of tightly bunched soldiers and work both a 'ph' and an 'x' into the word for it: phalanx. In the ancient days of combat, somebody recognized that an organized cluster of men providing mutually for the greater defense would work better than a melee of people trying to kill those from the other clan. The premise is that every man uses a large shield and locks it with his neighbors' shields, and then uses long spears to keep the enemy at bay until the bad guys were worn down to the point where a devastating charge could be mustered. Again, it wasn't the Greeks who originated the idea, but they are known for being the first to truly master it. And why not? Their hoplites were militiamen, free citizens, including philosophers, poets, and other non-military day-job types. I imagine that if ancient Greece had male figure skaters, they, too, would be hoplites. Faaaaab-uuuuu-lous hoplites, at that. Anyway, these were volunteers, not the driven subjects of some tyrant king. Recall also that the Greek culture brought us the philosophy of stoicism, which one has to buy into whole hog if you're going to rely on the man next to you to protect 1/2 of your body from the bad guys. Anyway, this organization of highly motivated individuals was earth shattering, or "paradigm shifting" as the corporate weenies would now say. Alas, while the phalanx was overwhelmingly powerful, it was inflexible, and its demise was best illustrated by defeats at the hands of equally motivated, but well trained Roman legions. Although, if all the real Greeks looked like King Leonidas from the movie '300', those Romans wouldn't have stood a chance. 
As I've said before, Americans don't come up with a lot of earth shattering ideas, but we are hard to beat at applying the ideas of others with ruthless efficiency. An impenetrable static shield to keep the enemy at bay? A word with both 'ph' and 'x'? How about a radar-directed gatling gun that we mount on ships to shoot down supersonic and/or sea-skimming missiles... that's named the Phalanx Close In Weapon System. While 3,000+ rounds per minute of 20mm fury is dorktastic, not many of our ships are forced to use this fine weapon. However, I found a video at this location of an adaptation of the Phalanx described at www.warisboring.com. The Phalanx system is being used right now to save the lives of U.S. and British soldiers as a land-based defense against mortar attacks in Iraq. The night footage of the testing at the video link above shows the serious rounds this thing can crank out. Saving lives of our troops is something to be glad for. 
Today's fantastic word is "pantheon", representing the gods of a people or a place to worship those gods. The above picture is from Sweetness's bedroom capturing what I refer to as The Pantheon, a.k.a. The Hall of The Lesser Gods. Puppy (white, at right), must be tucked into the blankets in precisely the proper position, pitch, yaw, and roll for napping and bed time to occur. At left one can see Triceratops (from the Yale Peabody Museum gift shop) and Reindeer. Triceratops sort of performs vital security functions, as far as I can tell, since he joins the family in plastic or imaginary form on most outings. Reindeer is mostly a lookout, I think. Rabbit (seated) is just a pretty face.
AVOID PITY: Don't be a fool, sucka'!
AVOID DEATH: Do not stand close to high windows in the presence of an outraged Protestant mob
AVOID DEATH: Clear muzzle of Sturmgeschutz and GAU-8 Avenger before loading
That's it. The Royal Navy proudly reported that the problem was all taken care of, which is nice. However, Captains of Royal Navy submarines carrying nuclear weapons do not require launch codes for their weapons! It's like they refuse to watch Dr. Strangelove across the Atlantic or something. Mind you, this is the same outfit that brought you the sinking of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales.
If somebody needs a reference, post a comment and I'll try to update the post next week with the info.
We were informed that the nuchal thickness was either 2.8 or 2.9 mm, depending on which side of the fuzzy gray pixelated line the tech chose for her measurement. The doctor was called in to review the measurements, and this questionable data was coupled with a quad screen to inform us that the pregnancy was "positive" for Down Syndrome. Some days you eat the bear, other days, the bear eats you.
Discussion: This doctor (hereafter: Dr. Who) was in for a surprise, as most swamp Yankees or NYC socialites referred to him are not (A) educated in statistical sampling and test methods, or (B) of generally dour and dorky disposition. I proceeded to fire off questions about his criteria for test, for evaluation, and how they compared to other accredited institutions. It seems that:
Confused? Don't be. A sample spread (many are shifted, or flatter, or steeper, but this is a good example) of any population characteristic may be illustrated as below:
I do not recall how many standard deviations this doc pulled towards the mean, but the result is this: more "positive" results. I'm roughing the numbers, but if the normal incidence of DS for a lady in her 20's (best case scenario) is 1/1500 (0.06%), you're almost 5 standard deviations from the mean. Given a normal false positive rate of this sort of screening is 5% (see Table 1 here) combined with ratcheting the criteria to, say, 4 standard deviations, you increased the confidence interval by about 0.06%. This means that on top of the existing 5% false positive rate inherent to the testing methods, Dr. Who has DOUBLED the number of ultrasounds reporting "positive" for DS.
Normally, such a move is great for the patient. By invoking greater scrutiny on a borderline or within-sight-of-the-borderline patients, you are more likely to catch conditions and allow treatment to proceed.
Did I mention there is no cure for DS? It gets better.
We were sat down with a "genetic counselor" to discuss Dr. Who's flux capacitor results alongside a quad screen, which is a blood test of both parents. Let me interject that quad screens, per Wikipedia, have a 7.5% false positive rate. Anyway, Wifey & I Tell You What have pretty good health, and a reasonable genetic slate. No Olympians in our clan, but no complaints. Long story short, something like a 1 in 50 chance of our baby having DS. Our options were presented as follows:
I took option 1 off the table immediately, and amniocentesis, which is essentially sticking a needle in to draw off amniotic fluid for direct DNA testing, was never a realistic option for us since abortion was not in the cards. We informed her that we would wait for Round 2 of testing before deciding to keep our baby anyway. The lady was... lukewarm to my approach, but she had no authority to make any decisions. We put our faith in God to give us the strength to handle whatever happened. Now, through no credit of our own, we have our second beautiful, and quite healthy to this point, daughter from that pregnancy.
I Tell You What!: One critical statistic, where I can site the Washington Post, Wikipedia, or Time Magazine, is that over 90% of pregnancies with a DS diagnosis result in abortion. Why is this critical? For doctors to allow a high false positive rate is often benign, because early treatment is a desirable thing and more invasive subsequent testing can correct false positives. With DS, that is not the case. There is no treatment that can help the baby, other than to prepare the parents for the surely difficult task of raising a DS child. Additionally, if the mother is willing to consider abortion as a "cure", then what are the odds she's going to wait for further results, if that means staying pregnant for 2 more months (no cakewalk) or have a needle stuck in a very uncomfortable place? Judging by the 90%+ number, not very likely at all.
But why are false positives really allowed in the first place? Insurance companies (the guys writing the checks for all this testing) are mavens for cost efficiency. Some live, some die, keep cost down, because that's the way it was meant to be. BUT, extra false positives mean MORE testing, MORE doctor visits, MORE screenings. Insurance companies hate that sort of stuff. Unless... they are fully aware of the likelihood of a positive DS screening result. Based on my knowledge of miscarriages, a D&C is an outpatient procedure. It involves an OB, let's say it costs $1,000 to $1,500 (guessing, folks). It is also the coup de main of an abortion. Now, a full term pregnancy, following the decision point of this DS testing, will involve a handful of doctor's appointments, perhaps including a few extra ultrasounds because of the initial "positive" result. This is assuming no additional complications, mind you. Then there is the delivery, which may involve a few trips to the hospital triage room for monitoring before being sent home. When the baby is actually delivered, you're looking at 2 nights in the hospital, a battery of tests on the newborn and THEN 18 years of dependent care, largely covered by... the insurance companies. And I have to assume that if the child really does have DS those medical costs, especially the portions covered by insurance, skyrocket.
Folks, I haven't even touched on the wellspring of material provided by the argument that people with Down Syndrome are, well, people. I may have gotten kicked out of the living room by my mother when I was a kid for making fun of Corky Thatcher, but I never would have denied him his humanity.
Time to wrap this up, it's late. Special thanks for inspiration to Patricia E. Bauer of the Washington Post of Friday, November 16, 2007; Page A33. What have we learned?
