SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- Doctors in Shanghai on Tuesday were considering surgery options for a 2-month-old boy born with an unusually well-formed third arm.
Neither of the boy's two left arms is fully functional and tests have so far been unable to determine which was more developed, said Dr. Chen Bochang, head of the orthopedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center.
"His case is quite peculiar. We have no record of any child with such a complete third arm," Chen said in a telephone interview. (Watch Jie-jie in his hospital cradle -- :47)
The boy, identified only as "Jie-jie," also was born with just one kidney and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine, local media reports said. Jie-jie cried when either of his left arms was touched, but smiled and responded normally to other stimuli, the reports said.
Chen said doctors hoped to work out a plan for surgery, but the boy's small size made it impossible to perform certain tests that would help them prepare.
Media reports said other children have been reported born with additional arms and legs, but in those cases it was clear what limb was more developed. Chen's hospital is one of China's most experienced in dealing with unusual birth defects, including separating conjoined twins.
Man, when is nature gonna figure out that these mutations only work if they are useful, instead of making three armed freaks make things with six total appendages (like Goro from MK). Or atleast give us a prehensile tail!
yeah, i never got that. if evolution made sure that all the good charicteristics were passed on, why dont we have tails? they would save lives, if we fell or somthing.
Boy, if god's the one asking these tough questions, we're all in trouble.
Tails probably weren't passed down because when the early apes started walking on the ground instead of swinging in the trees, the tails became a hindrance to balance. Those with shorter tails (and eventually, no tails at all) were likely better at escaping from prey because they could run faster, and thus passed down their traits. It's also possible that the tail-less look was more desirable by the opposite sex. Maybe our early ancestors were into that sort of thing.
Boy, if god's the one asking these tough questions, we're all in trouble.
Tails probably weren't passed down because when the early apes started walking on the ground instead of swinging in the trees, the tails became a hindrance to balance. Those with shorter tails (and eventually, no tails at all) were likely better at escaping from prey because they could run faster, and thus passed down their traits. It's also possible that the tail-less look was more desirable by the opposite sex. Maybe our early ancestors were into that sort of thing.
Surely having a tail is a slight problem to an upright walking species, but having a tail can be advantageous for runners, as long as they mantain a stooping posture(think about the turning ability of a raptor, as imagined in Jurassic Park). The extra weight balanced near the center makes for extremely tight turning ability and not as much loss of acceleration is the animal has to switch direction... but only if the animal is not in an upright position. Humans are upright animals, and walking or running upright would be a total pain in the ass if we had significant long tails. Evolutionarily speaking, however, we've already witnessed that the other apes have been losing their tails, or never developed long ones... but each species runs in a stooped position and climbs, two activities for which a long tail could be useful.
It was probably more like the apes that had shorter "inferior" tails were able to mate successfully and survive just as well as the ones with the longer tails, until it was not of neccessity to have a longer tail to be attractive... indeed, short-tailedness may have become some sexually desirable trait, explaining a direction of breeding that created shorter and shorter tails. But even having normal reproductive success despite not having "optimal" physical features can lead to that physical quality being diluted to the point of ommission, past simple vestigial characteristics.
I'm thinking our ancestors were just "into" short-tailed women. Naturally, I like to imagine that our ancestors had a patriarchal society, and that women were judged based off of pure phenotype than anything else, especially when our ancestors first started fighing for territory... territory maybe inhabitted by near species.
A Frankfort couple face murder charges for allegedly killing their infant daughter with second-hand crack cocaine smoke.
A Franklin County grand jury indictment accuses Jaime Jockers and Michael McIntyre of smoking crack in the presence of 5-month-old Brooklyn P. McIntyre, who died on March 3 in her apartment at the Stivers Apartments complex, 505 Owenton Avenue, in Frankfort.
Toxicology results from the Kentucky State Police crime laboratory revealed the baby girl died from acute cocaine intoxication, Commonwealth's Attorney Larry Cleveland said yesterday afternoon.
"There was a lot of crack cocaine smoked in that house," he said.
The drug also was sold in the residence, he said.
Jockers, 23, had two other children in the home by another father. Those children have been removed, Cleveland said. Both she and McIntyre, 21, face charges of murder and wanton endangerment, according to the indictment filed yesterday.
McIntyre faces additional charges of being a persistent felony offender. Jockers has previously been charged with drug trafficking, Cleveland said.
Although it might sound absurd, death by secondhand crack smoke is possible, said Holly Hopper, coordinator for Drug Endangered Child Training Network at the University of Kentucky.
Babies can inhale fumes from people smoking crack or methamphetamine, or the drugs can be absorbed through their skin, Hopper said.
"It really takes a small amount," she said. "Crack cocaine is not something you want to play with."
In 2003, a mother and grandmother were sentenced to prison for smoking crack in front of a newborn, who died in 2001 from exposure to crack smoke and dehydration, according to The Arizona Republic newspaper.
Symptoms of a drug-exposed baby include respiratory problems, unexplained seizures and increased blood pressure, Hopper said.
In substantiated cases of child abuse involving children under the age of 4, 88 percent have parents using drugs, Hopper said.
Although methamphetamine use has exploded in Western Kentucky, cocaine continues to be the number one drug in Central Kentucky related to child abuse, she said.
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- Six sex offenders sued the city Wednesday to block a new ordinance that bars them from venturing within 1,000 feet of parks, pools and playgrounds when children are present.
The plaintiffs went to federal court to argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on roads that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites.
The ordinance was approved May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500.
The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.
The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
Tenley Drescher, an attorney for the city, said officials planned to defend the ordinance. "The important part is protecting kids," she said.
The second one: They don't deserve to be allowed within 10,000 feet of schools or parks, lest they abuse the poor kiddies again. 1000 feet is being lenient. I don't get why they think they should be allowed.
And the first one: This is what happens when social services doesn't do its job to protect the kiddies from their druggie parents.
Comments
I'm 1.82m tall! Its currently 5 degrees Celsius outside! Absolute Zero is -273.15 degrees Celsius! My can of fanta can hold 330ml of liquid!
Now go, or I shall taunt ye a second time with my metric-ism.
"You're 700 degrees of awesome there dude!"
They should cut off both arms and trade them for a kidney.
If I got a mutation, I'd like retractable wings. I'd fly around and fight crime.
For I will be: Orangebelt man! The forums official super-hero!
Though I'd definently settle for a tail.
I mean, we probably would be better off if we had the highly developed brain AND the tail and the bitchin climbing abilities
Tails probably weren't passed down because when the early apes started walking on the ground instead of swinging in the trees, the tails became a hindrance to balance. Those with shorter tails (and eventually, no tails at all) were likely better at escaping from prey because they could run faster, and thus passed down their traits. It's also possible that the tail-less look was more desirable by the opposite sex. Maybe our early ancestors were into that sort of thing.
Y-ya get where I'm goin' with that?
Surely having a tail is a slight problem to an upright walking species, but having a tail can be advantageous for runners, as long as they mantain a stooping posture(think about the turning ability of a raptor, as imagined in Jurassic Park). The extra weight balanced near the center makes for extremely tight turning ability and not as much loss of acceleration is the animal has to switch direction... but only if the animal is not in an upright position. Humans are upright animals, and walking or running upright would be a total pain in the ass if we had significant long tails. Evolutionarily speaking, however, we've already witnessed that the other apes have been losing their tails, or never developed long ones... but each species runs in a stooped position and climbs, two activities for which a long tail could be useful.
It was probably more like the apes that had shorter "inferior" tails were able to mate successfully and survive just as well as the ones with the longer tails, until it was not of neccessity to have a longer tail to be attractive... indeed, short-tailedness may have become some sexually desirable trait, explaining a direction of breeding that created shorter and shorter tails. But even having normal reproductive success despite not having "optimal" physical features can lead to that physical quality being diluted to the point of ommission, past simple vestigial characteristics.
I'm thinking our ancestors were just "into" short-tailed women. Naturally, I like to imagine that our ancestors had a patriarchal society, and that women were judged based off of pure phenotype than anything else, especially when our ancestors first started fighing for territory... territory maybe inhabitted by near species.
Sex offenders sue over playground buffer zone
And the first one: This is what happens when social services doesn't do its job to protect the kiddies from their druggie parents.