Archive for category Religion and other Woo

Microwaves Are Bad For You?

I was chatting with a person the other day about electric kettles. I said that I was tempted to get one, because of how fast they boiled water and how convenient they were, but I could never bring myself to justify the cost when I could get similar results just by popping a cup in the microwave. She started to tell me about how microwaves are bad for you.

I’ve heard the arguments about how microwaves destroy the nutrients in food, but this person’s argument was a new one on me. She said that if you microwave a cup of water and then shine a black light on it, it won’t glow any more, and “you’re eating that radiation.”

There’s a lot to pick apart in that statement. First, it’s not clear to me how a black light can be used as an indicator of the radiation-content of food, but that’s actually the least of my concerns. I happen to have a black light or three (good burner!). I have actually done a fair amount of research into which materials are and aren’t UV-reactive, in the interest of costuming and makeup, and near as I recall, water isn’t UV-reactive in the first place.

But I figured, why reject this person’s claim outright when testing it is such a simple experiment? Hell, I love science, right? So I took a black light and a pyrex measuring cup full of water. First, I shone the black light on the water, both from above and from the side. As expected, there was no particular response from the water. Then I microwaved the water for six minutes, to boiling, since that was the topic of our discussion. I then repeated the exposure to black light. No difference.

What gets me about this incident is not so much that the woman had an outlandish belief. I’ve got some outlandish beliefs myself! I don’t begrudge people outlandish beliefs. No, what gets me is that she’s going around telling people that microwaving causes water not to reflect UV light when it’s trivially simple to test that and see that it’s not true. It suggests a disappointingly low level of skepticism.

Share

1 Comment

Your Personal Momentum

Lately, I find myself looking at tractors, and thinking about all the cool things you can do with one. My property is way too small to justify the purchase of a full-size tractor, but there are even small, walk-behind tractors for people on my scale.

It’s fun to daydream about what I might do with such an implement, but it’s important to remember that today’s dreams shape tomorrow’s reality.

If I decide to buy a walk-behind tractor, I don’t become “myself, plus a tractor.” My decision changes the direction of my life. Once I’ve got a tractor, all problems are seen through the lens of a person-with-a-tractor. Solutions tend to involve the tractor whenever possible, and ownership of the tractor opens up entirely new sets of problems that need to be solved. Those problems may be more far-reaching than they seem at first. For example, not only do I have to maintain the tractor (obvious problem) but I eliminate the exercise and physical fitness from all the manual labor that I would do by hand if I didn’t have the tractor (less-obvious problem).

This weekend, I drove past a county tractor bushogging the side of the highway, and I said to myself, “Whenever I catch myself looking up, look down instead.” It’s easy to aspire to the big, powerful, beautiful tractor. That’s looking up. I’d rather aspire to the hoe, the mattock, and the spade: looking down.

Like the tractor, choosing simple, humble solutions has wide-reaching secondary effects. Did I “save the environment” when I chose not to use air conditioning this summer? Hell no. In nearly every way, my decision had no direct benefit (except to my bank account, that is). But my decision changed me from a person-who-needs-A/C to a person-who-can-live-without-it, and that opens up all kinds of possibilities for the future. Those possibilities are where the real wealth of a simple life seems to lie for me.

Share

No Comments

A Short Story About Life

It all starts with hydrogen, and some helium too, the lightest elements.

Squeeze some hydrogen and helium together hard enough in the heart of a star, and you get all the other elements. Okay, it’s more complicated than that, but this is a short story.

Some of those elements ended up on earth, including Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium.

Plants take up those elements, and others, and, via photosynthesis, use the sun’s energy to combine those elements to make chemicals. The sun’s energy is stored in the chemical bonds of those new chemicals. The plants also use the energy to grow, which is to say, make parts of themselves out of raw elements. That’s basically just storing sunlight and making chemicals too, but we don’t usually think of it that way.

Two of those new chemicals are glucose and sucrose. Yum! Sugar! Sugars have lots of chemical energy stored up in their delicious, delicious bonds.

Humans and other animals eat the plants and release the chemical energy stored in the sugar (and other chemicals) via the process of digestion. We use that energy to live and to grow, which is to say, make parts of ourselves out of raw elements.

Hey, have you ever noticed that plants breathe in CO2 and exhale O2, and animals breathe in O2 and exhale CO2? Isn’t that just the niftiest coincidence?

After a plant or animal is done living and growing, lots of other animals and bugs and microorganisms eat it, which is to say, they scavenge the elements that made up its body and use them to live and grow themselves. This is composting.

After a while, not much recognizable of the dead plant or animal is left. At this point, composting is mostly finished, and animals don’t have much interest in what is left behind. We call the stuff that’s left behind dirt, or “soil” if you’re a gardener.

Conveniently, animals don’t have much use for nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium, which means they leave plenty of it behind for the plants, which grow in the soil.

So, one way to think about life is that it’s just a convenient way for Nitrogen, Potassium, Carbon, Phosphorus, and the other elements that are involved in organic chemistry, to tour the world.

Do your part! Make sure that after you die, you decompose! Gotta get those elements on to the next living thing that needs them!

Share

No Comments

The Ten Commandments

The ten commandments are commonly held up as evidence of christianity’s usefulness as a basis for moral decisions. It’s even been argued that the ten commandments are the basis of our laws (more on that specific claim here). Issa has pointed out to me that the people who make this claim are probably suffering from selective memory.

As an exercise, if you believe that the ten commandments are a good basis for morality, I invite you to list as many of them as you can, from memory, before clicking through. No cheating with Google!

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

No Comments

“Weight Change Can Impact Breast Cancer Risk”

A copy of an article with that title from Clinician Reviews, August 2006, was posted on the wall of Issa’s doctor’s office. The paper on which the article was based was published in JAMA, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Given the credentials of the people involved, you’d think they’d know that correlation does not imply causation.

Weight gain throughout adulthood appears to increase a woman’s risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. Women who gained at least 25 kg since age 18 were more likely than those who had maintained their weight to develop breast cancer. Weight loss since the age of 18 decreased breast cancer risk.

Weight gain of at least 10 kg since menopause was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. However, women who lost at least 10 kg after menopause reduced their risk of breast cancer.

First, notice that the weight gain is being portrayed as the cause of the increased cancer risk. Even though some sentences use the correct, “correlation” language (“weight gain … was associated with an increased risk”) there are more sentences that use “causation” language, such as, “weight gain … appears to increase a woman’s risk,” “weight loss … decreased breast cancer risk,” and, “women who lost … reduced their risk.” A scientist should know better. A person with a high-school education in the scientific method could point out the logical flaw here: what if there is a third, unidentified factor, that results in both weight gain and increased cancer risk? That the authors of the study appear to have overlooked this obvious avenue for exploration (or that they simply do not consider it worth pursuing) is an example of fat-bigotry. The idea that fatness is the cause of bad health is seen as tautological, and so scientific results that support that idea are seen as correct and final, and not worthy of further investigation.

The article concludes with this morsel:

“Women should be advised to avoid weight gain and counseled on the potential benefits of weight loss after menopause,” according to Eliassen and colleagues. Given the difficulty experienced by many persons trying to lose weight, the authors add, weight maintenance should also be emphasized.

Right. Because the reason people gain weight as they get older is that they’ve never been counseled to avoid weight gain. Is there, anywhere in America, a single person who has not received the message that getting fat as they get older is bad? Is lack of education really the problem? At least the authors acknowledge that many people have trouble losing weight, but what’s their answer? Exploring the reasons WHY many people have so much trouble losing weight? No. Just add weight maintenance to the list of things you’re going to counsel your patients on. So, now, in addition to saying, “You’re fat and you should lose weight or you’re going to die,” doctors can also say, “You’re not fat yet, but if you get fat, you’re going to die.” What. A. Fucking. Improvement.

If doctors “advising” people to lose weight made people lose weight, there wouldn’t be any fat people left. It seems like “scientists” would have considered this.

There is a more subtle form of fat-bigotry going on here that I’d also like to point out. What if the study had said, “women’s hair turning gray was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, therefore doctors should advise women not to let their hair turn gray as they age.” It’s understood that a person’s hair turning gray is not something a person can control, and so the suggestion would be correctly perceived as ridiculous, and we would wonder what world the authors were living in. Since it’s perceived that a person’s weight is largely within their control, the suggestion to mitigate breast cancer risk by managing weight is seen as reasonable, but in a world full of fat-hate, where 70% of people are still defined as medically overweight or obese, you’d think that evidence-based scientists would be more receptive to the idea that a person’s weight is not as “in their control” as, say, the length of their fingernails.

Which is not to say that the authors of this paper are bad scientists or bad people—they’re probably not. But, like all of us, they live in a culture that is full of fat-hate. One message that we can take from this is that if people who have devoted their careers to evidence-based conclusions can be swayed by the culture of fat-hate, what does it mean for the rest of us?

Share

, , ,

1 Comment