I thought they used isotope analysis from nuclear testing fallout to prove that the neurons in the brain are between 15-20 years old on average? How do they reconcile this?
Interesting paper. Do you work in the area? I'm working on proving that memories are in fact stored in genetic material, as was believed back in the 60s.
Drop me an email (gauravvman at gmail) if you're interested in this kind of stuff! Would like to know how you came across this paper.
Afaik nature has good stuff, but it's not like a 'research journal' it's more popular stuff. A quote from the article: "There are only a handful of studies out there that have already attempted to look at this, and they came to wildly different conclusions." So, although I didn't look into this more deeply, it seems to me there is wide room to not take this popular article as 'full confirmation'.
Well I guess the 'afaik' in my answer was wrong in this case, it was based on recollection of the last time I held a nature in my hand, and a comparison with a sort of definition as listed here: https://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutorials/scholarly-vs-po....
Sorry to unjustly disparage nature, however, it does not discount the quote I lifted from the post, which is still a valid point.
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/nuclear-neurons...