About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html
From the evidence available, it can be concluded that fluoridation of public water supplies does prevent caries and is associated with fluorosis.
Personally speaking, I'd call 15-25% reductions "dramatic".
The whole report has a tone of being the best they could conclude with poor data which is stressed repeatedly. Those numbers put in context of the opinions of the source data makes them not so impressive.
Calcium Carbonate, Aqua/Water/Eau, Sorbitol, Glycerin, Hydrated Silica, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) leaf Oil, Menthol, Xylitol, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Extract, Xanthan Gum, Coco-Glucoside, Calcium Ascorbate, Melaleuca Alternifolia (Tea Tree) Leaf Oil.
The FDA had to remove the recommendation from daily hygiene guidelines, as law requires them to be backed by legit science.
That said, I still do it. Makes my mouth "feel" cleaner".
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...
The more you know??
Arsenic is an element. Elemental arsenic, as with elemental carbon, or hydrogen, or any other element, is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Its chemical properties are defined largely by its valence electrons, and atomic mass.
There is no more carbon in arsenic than there is sound in light. They are different things.
The advantage of his version (especially in spoken conversation) is that you can tell someone they are wrong, and typically if they have such a gross misunderstanding, it will go completely over their heads, and they won't realize that you are telling them they are wrong.
Yeah, I managed to miss that.
In all honesty, I was thinking that allwein's post was an example of "Not even wrong" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong )
Once I switched to that, I stopped getting so many canker sores almost immediately.
Pretrol engines produce less nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.
What i means was that the "promoted" part is soon to change, because of the greater understanding of the drastic public health consequences.
- bad posture at office jobs (probably mandated adjustable standing desks in the future)
- stress from a long, high-traffic commute
- insufficient sleep
- per the article, high-sugar foods. EDIT: technically, a high-sugar diet. Part of the problem is that no one unit of sugar by itself is the problem, so you can't point to any one food as the culprit.
Something like this http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/tiredness-and-fatigue/Pages/lack-...
There was also some news recently that working in a place that grinds coffee causes lung cancer http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/04/15/474325037/cof...
Probably if the sabre-toothed tiger gets you before the age of 35 you won't get cancer or heart disease. But if you live long enough and the cancer doesn't kill you the chemotherapy will.
I use organic/natural exclusively. Try to model my life closed to simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back. I also diversify things I consume. Someone once posted on HN: His grandpa told him everything is poison, so use everything in moderation. I really liked this recommendation.
However it is very difficult to prevent all the radio waves in today's world as much as you try. Maybe it's not harmful but we won't find out for decades.
You say you stick to organic/natural. Well, it's all "natural", even GMOs, if you're eating plant and animal products directly. (Eg: stay away from additives and highly processed foods.) "Organic" is a bit tougher; you want it to mean that the plants and animals were raised without getting stuffed with chemicals and antibiotics, but there's a lot of wiggle room there because 'food' is made up of chemicals, and many foods and chemicals have some antibiotic properties.
In the end, if you're not growing the plants and breeding the animals yourself you don't really know if the "organic" label on them means what you want it to mean. And except for heirloom varieties, (and maybe even those) the plants and animals you're raising are still the product of the past 100 years of breeding, which usually focused on attributes other than making them healthy to eat.
From what I've been told, there are definitely some things you can do that would increase sustainability that would cause you to lose your organic label. E.g. substituting a biodegradable material that doesn't list its ingredients could cause you to lose the label when using plastic wouldn't.
There are a lot of small time farmers there that still grow the same sheep/cows/animals their grandparents grew 100 years ago.
They grow the same veggies on the same rotated soil that was grown 100 years ago, the same way.
Sure it may be a niche but if I'm living around there and eating that food, I think it's pretty darn close to what our ancestors were eating a century ago.
However it's still probably better to eat organic than something which doesn't even pretend to be safe. It's all relative in the end.
I hope one day I can control the sources and attributes of all the food that I eat. However till then I will try to do my best with my available time and money.
Back when they used (natural) lead as a sweetener? :P
Seriously though, 100 years is probably not long enough ago if you're looking for "good" food. White bread was all the rage. Jello+, mayonnaise, and marshmallows were standard ingredients in "salads". Anything which actually looked like a natural food item was pretty much shunned, unless you were poor. The Edwardian focus on efficiency and cleanliness above flavor paved the way culturally for the industrial food of the 1950s.
+ They actually used sheets of gelatin to make their "Jello" as the powdered stuff hadn't been invented yet.
Much had to do with a lack of awareness of germ theory, with waste disposal -- both human and trash -- with pollution of water supplies, and with poor or limited public health measures against community-propogating infectious disease.
The highest mortality rates were among infants and children, which did a great deal to reduce total life expectency at birth, but had compartively far less an effect on adolescent and adult life expectency.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
At birth, in 1850, white male life expectency was 38.3 (additional years of life), but 48.0 at age 10, and 40.1 at age 20.
In 2011, the comparable values are 76.3, 66.9, and 57.2.
The increase was initially rapid -- by 1929-31, rates had reached 59.12, 54.96, and 46.02, respectively.
While there's been some improvement in later years of life, it's been far less. If you survived to age 50 in 1850, you had a life expectency less than 10 years shorter than in 2011.
Neither of us have addressed the underlying question of whether or not present cultivars and crops are themselves intrinsically healthier or less healthy than older ones. There are some theoretical bases for beliving either way. The arguments against many specifically processed foods are rather stronger.
It always made me nervous when the class goofballs turned the horns on other people so you could feel the microwaves.
Goofball 1: 'accidentally' radiates goofball 2 Goofball 2: What? What are you doing? Oh, I'll show you - just watch me increase the power on this baby...
It turns out your testicles and eyes are a bad place to receive microwaves.
I submit to anyone thinking of attempting this: you are probably going to get the power calculations wrong and cooking human cells is not fun at all.
However, this stuff is very likely to be safe at cellphone usage levels.
Your confidence and shortsightedness are astounding.
Do you not see that ~40 years ago scientists were saying exactly the same thing, with exactly the same conviction about Asbestos, Lead, DDT, etc.
We don't know what we don't know, but at least we should admit it.
I have friends who would chide me for that. And now FDA bans sale of many anti-bacterial soaps: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-m...
I just went to gym and someone who used the treadmill just before me doused the treadmill with 10-12 pieces of anti-bacterial wipes. The treadmill was wet when I started and was giving out fumes for almost 10 minutes while I was running. I am wondering what is worse for me: potentially germs from a reasonably healthy and hygienic person vs vast array of chemicals from this cheap anti-bacterial wipe.
It's not being correct if you act suspicious about everything, then something has a negative effect you weren't aware of.
I was reading sometime back that our gut has good bacteria and initially when people didn't understand them there was a phase when some people were using antibiotics to kill their gut bacteria. Today, Most people agree on the benefits of good bacteria in our gut. Around 2010 I was reading an article about other good bacteria which also resides on our skin and then I decided to stop using anti-bacterial. I make sure that I was my hands thoroughly with water and use soap if required.
If I followed that logic, I would have to wipe literally every object that my fingers touched in the gym. It would be akin to touching a door knob to the bathroom, and then wiping the entire door.
Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 those don't eliminate the also very real and verifiable scientific knowledge.
I'm not saying we are inaccurate. But look at the history of physics, there will always come a time when a new theory trumps the old.
I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.
So is it a wave, or a particle?
I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga...
Also re toothpaste additive: Colgate Total still uses triclosan, which has been removed from pretty much every other product already and declared harmful by the FDA.
"For some consumer products, there is evidence that triclosan provides a benefit. In 1997, FDA reviewed extensive effectiveness data on triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste. The evidence showed that triclosan in that product was effective in preventing gingivitis."
"At each stage of the proposed and tentative rulemaking process, the FDA has acknowledged that based on available scientific evidence, triclosan and triclocarban are not safe and effective, or there are insufficient data to evaluate safety and effectiveness."[2] (There are a number of studies you may find that show triclosan causing harm)
not (safe and effective) || insufficient data
Note: I ask as I use Colgate Total myself and if harm >> benefits at the concentration levels found in toothpaste, then I have a vested interest in discontinuing its use. A doctor might advise a patient who has a genetic risk of heart disease to take small quantities of aspirin, just as a dentist might advise someone with a gingivitis risk to use triclosan-containing toothpaste -- in both cases, a determination of benefit:harm must be evaluated.
“The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens,” said Korach. “This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors.”
The referenced study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa064725
Abstract:
"Most cases of male prepubertal gynecomastia are classified as idiopathic. We investigated possible causes of gynecomastia in three prepubertal boys who were otherwise healthy and had normal serum concentrations of endogenous steroids. In all three boys, gynecomastia coincided with the topical application of products that contained lavender and tea tree oils. Gynecomastia resolved in each patient shortly after the use of products containing these oils was discontinued. Furthermore, studies in human cell lines indicated that the two oils had estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities. We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender and tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys."
That's just off the top of my head.
Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.