Another Cup?

Well, it turns out that "researchers" (don't you just love that generalization?) are now finding that caffeinated coffee isn't all bad for you, but they can't tell you why.

The findings of this latest study by Janet Hildebrand and team show some sort of correlation between drinking 4 or more cups (that's 6oz) of caffeinated coffee per day and a decreased risk of throat cancer...though the claim being made is that there is causation effect from the coffee (in other words, drinking the coffee decreases your risk of throat cancer).

Now, as a scientist, I have lots of experience going to the library and reviewing other people's research.  In fact, as a scientist, you do that about 75% of your day (20% of your day is doing the actual lab science, and 5% of your day is sleeping).  So, as a scientist, I'm reviewing this work and asking myself these questions:

1. How common is throat cancer that you'd need to seek out a specific cure?
2. How likely is it that people who drink A LOT of coffee are doing other things to would really be the prevention of throat cancer?
3. Is the coffee nowadays the same coffee as what has been consume for the past 30 years?  You can't tell me that the actual processing or the growing is the same with all the pesticides and whatnot.

I mean, perhaps there's something to this, but perhaps, just MAYBE this is not a causation relationship at all.  Perhaps the lifestyles of people who drink 4+ cups of coffee per day are actually what prevent throat cancer.

What I guess pisses me off about these studies is that they only look at one little correlation and they miss the big picture.

For example, drinking 4+ cups of coffee per day may help lower your risk of getting throat cancer, but it significantly increases your hypertension- not the RISK of hypertension, it GIVES you hypertension (that's high blood pressure).  There's also a very strong causation relationship between drinking a lot of caffeine and having insomnia, lack of creativity, anger problems...

The list goes on and on.

So, I guess my point about this study is: who cares.  You shouldn't.

x...phobia

Well, I actually have good news for all of you!  I have a new, 100% telecommuting job.

Yup, I know, it's a beast I thought didn't exist in real life, but it turns out that there are a couple of dream jobs out there.  My Atychiphobia wouldn't let me settle for anything else (that would be the fear of failure).

What makes me so happy about the telecommuting job is mostly a pandering to several self-diagnosed conditions:

Mysophobia- yup, the fear of GERMS.  When working in an office, I found it difficult to touch even chairs in the conference rooms, much less handshakes and white board markers without running to the bathroom afterwards to wash my hands.  I could have taken stock in instant hand sanitizer.

Ochlophobia- the fear of crowds.  This is different from Agoraphobia, which is the fear of open plans (agora being plains and whatnot).  Agoraphobia is pretty much the opposite from Claustrophobia, if you want to think about it that way, while Ocholophobia is more of a different flavor of claustrophobia.  I don't like crowds.  Traffic makes me crazy.  These are symptoms of this condition.  I used to go into work at 4:30 in the morning just to avoid the traffic on the roads.  I'm serious about not wanting to be around crowds.  Part of it is the invasion of my space, but then when it comes to crowded places like the supermarket on a Saturday, I actually have a panic attack - so many people getting so close to me...their germs!


Yeah, ok, it might feed back to the mysophobia, but when you've been in hospitals as often as I have, you kind of look for reasons to AVOID getting sick.

I honestly had so much fun writing this because of this Phobia List that I found.  I doubt some of them are genuine, but then again, what else do psychiatrists do that conventions?

My favorites include:
Arachibutyrophobia- Fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth.
Omphalophobia- Fear of belly buttons.
Zemmiphobia- Fear of the great mole rat.

and
Onomatophobia- Fear of hearing a certain word or of names, which makes me think of Monty Python's Holy Grail and the Knights Who Say "Ni".

arGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Bbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

So, I haven't had a land line for almost 10 years now.  It was a scary change when I did it.  I moved over to Sprint, who had a paltry coverage area and I just relied on no one really needing to get a hold of me.

I remember how I used to dial a land line- you pick up the phone and there's a dial tone- bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.  Evidently, it's  "F" note (F above middle C). Anyway, once you got the dial tone, you'd dial the number.

But nowadays with all the pre-programmed numbers and change in dialing, you don't need to listen for the dial tone.  Often you go pick the number from your contact list and dial it.  Or you say "Call Mom" or you pick up your handset, enter the numbers, then click the "Dial" button.  You skip needing the dial tone at all.

Granted, there are lots of different types of dial tones:  the call waiting dial tone, the line-busy dial tone, the exchange transfer dial tone (well, that's more of a click, but you get the idea), the call-disconnected dial tone, etc.

In fact, the satellite phones (GSM) that are used in Europe don't even have a dial tone at all.

It's quite strange.

But it made me stop to think:  how much longer will we even have dial tones?  The original purpose was to give the caller the signal that the line was connected and a call could be made once they replaced operator-connected calls.  But is that needed now?

I think that the only time I ever check to make sure there's a dial tone, is when I move into a new house or a new office and I want to make sure that the phone works- the first time.

But since the lines are more digital than analog now, why send the tone?  Why not just have a "Ping" button on your phone if you're curious if there's a connection- just like you'd ping the server on your computer?

It just makes you wonder.

"Fruit" at The Bottom

So, Greek yogurt was on sale at the grocery store last week and I needed to round out my purchases to get the extra $5 off, so I decided why not try that yogurt again?

As a kid, I remember when Yoplait was introduced and how the funny shaped container and expensive price seemed to make all the difference in flavor.  I only got it a handful of special times and it was always the blueberry flavored one.

I honestly don't know if there was any real difference in the flavor at all.  Perhaps it was thicker than the store brand.  It seemed like it was.

That's because it has corn starch in it.

Yeah.

That'll thicken up yogurt.  Yup.  Not doing so much for the healthy quality or the flavor, though, but it sure makes it stick to your spoon in a larger clump, thereby making you eat it faster...there by making you wish you had another (?)

hmm

A conspiracy.

Why am I not surprised.

Nor was I surprised when I looked at the yogurts that I purchased from the store this week.  Each claimed to be Greek yogurt.  Two were Yoplait- one was Chobani.

Now, I don't each yogurt on a regular basis.  I find it has a very strange, disturbing, gurgling affect on my intestines and generally makes everything else taste bad for the rest of the day.  But since my pregnancy, I've noticed a growing desire for more bitter fare, so I thought I'd try this Greek stuff again.

Turns out that one of the Yoplait was the "100 Calorie" Yoplait.  I thought that meant that it was portioned to only be 100 Calories.

No, I was wrong.  It has this disgusting Sucralose in it- artificial sweetener.  It was absolutely disgusting. My husband restrained his laughter as I sucked it down as if it were canned spinach.

So, don't buy that one is my advice.

The other Yoplait was a fruit-at-the-bottom blueberry.  While I was stirring it, I was very disappointed to note that the "fruit" was more like "fruit preserves"- there's more sugary filler than actual blueberries.

How is that healthier than the fruit stirred in versions?

There's also other "fillers".

There's also no goat or sheep milk in it.  This was supposed to be GREEK yogurt- sheep or goat milk yogurt strained to a thin cheese.  Greek yogurt is supposed to be closer to Paneer than yogurt.  I was frankly quite shocked that the labeling didn't say "Greek style yogurt" since it clearly was NOT Greek yogurt.  It's just cow yogurt with lemon juice in it to make it a little more tart.  Check the package yourself.

Perhaps there just aren't enough Greeks in the FDA to require the correct labeling of their own ethnic products.  I don't know.  I do know that when I buy feta, it's not cow cheese with feta flavoring, it's goat's milk cheese.

I guess after watching all the TED talks on food I shouldn't be surprised that the American public just doesn't care what kinds of crap are in the food that we eat.  Or that what they think they're eating, they're not.

moooo

MacNoise

In the Twin Cities area, there is an organization- well, it's a .com, so I don't think it's a real organization- that collects noise complaints about the air traffic in the area.  It's called MacNoise.

What I find sad about this is that there's a need for this service at all.  If the FAA would mandate that airplanes fly at an altitude that would keep the planes away from the houses, then it the houses would rattle and shake when the airplanes fly over head (except for those morons that purchased houses right next to the airport).

Well, this is a truly stupid service.  I've made numerous complaints about air traffic since the FAA lowered the flight ceiling (meaning that airplanes can fly at a lower altitude, which means we get to listen to them deafeningly buzz our house now).  The online forms asks for this type of information:

1.  Your address
2.  The date and type of the incident
3.  Select the checkboxes next to the noise complaint
4.  Select the airport for which the complaint is about
5.  Select which runway for which the complaint is about
6.  Select whether or not the airplane you heard is arriving or departing.

Now, the first three- yeah, I get it.  All necessary to triage the problem.

The last three- what!?

How am I supposed to know which airport the plane is connected to as part of the noise problem!?

How am I supposed to know which runway!?  I mean, airports are pretty tightly controlled for that kind of thing, especially since 9/11.

How am I supposed to know if the flight is arrive or departing, or frankly, just in a holding pattern!?

I'm only HEARING the airplane!

Now, since I have skylights, I do see some of the smaller planes when they decide to buzz the house at a frighteningly height that I can almost see the hair color of the pilot from my living room.  But otherwise, I don't know anything about this airplane other than the pilot is an asshole who is buzzing my house!

But it turns out that it doesn't really matter.

The service doesn't do anything but send a letter asking the pilots not to do that.

How nice of them.

I hope karma gets them on this one.

Hallucinations or Ghosts

I'm continuing with my TED Talks on Netflix.  The batch of talks I'm watching now is on psychology.  Specifically, I watched the talk given by Dr. Oliver Sacks about Charles Bonnet Syndrome.

This is a syndrome where people who are losing their sight or hearing start "hallucinating" sights or sounds- whichever sense they're losing.

While I have a lot of scientific background and I completely believe all of the functional MRI studies that show that different parts of the brain are firing during these "hallucinations", I think that science might be drawing an incorrect conclusion about what is going on.

Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps these are not hallucinations, but that people are really seeing these things?

Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps there's more to be seen that what can be seen in the visual spectrum or heard through the common decibel range with the ears and that just MAYBE the aging changes in these organs allows other sensations to come through to the brain THAT ARE COMPLETELY REAL?

Perhaps there are "ghosts" or at least different entities around us that we can't see with "normal functioning" eyes, but that we can see when they lose their ability to function "normally".

I think it's pretty short-sighted (ha ha) of these doctors and scientists to that that the items aren't there.  With all of the discovers in dark matter and subatomic particles and non-Newtonian physics, why would you EVER assume that we know everything there is to know about sight?  or about the world that we can "see"?

There's so much that we CAN'T see, that perhaps we ought to pay these people more heed about what they do see- perhaps they're seeing what's in spaces we can't.

Eating Local

I've been watching the TED Talks about Food and Eating lately- well, the ones that are available streaming through Netflix, anyway.  It's generally a bunch of chefs standing up and talking about food and how obese America is and how we ought to eat local and how we need to eat more whole grains...and that everything needs to be sustainable.

I have mixed feelings about these talks because the people standing up there are not environmentalists, but chefs, and while they can have a strong (perhaps even educated) opinion of the environmental impacts of our current global food strategy, they are not environmentalists.  That's not what they spent their life doing.  They don't study the varying levels of gases over biomes and the affects of using a particular fertilizer.  They just read about it.

And this means they it's all hearsay.

Sorry, but true.

They haven't studied it.

Even the scientists that do study Ecology have dramatically differing opinions of the impact of various modern forces on the environment and how changing any one of them might lead to positive (or negative) changes.  So, hearing someone's colored opinion of the current state of environment and how to make changes- well, that's just propaganda.

This is the same force that got Germans in trouble in the 1930s and 40s.

This is the same force that got slavery going in the US.

If you don't get the information yourself, you're just repeating what you've heard.

If you don't get both sides of the story, what you're hearing is propaganda.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm a tree-hugger.  I'm very much into "Do no harm to the world" and "Live in Harmony with the Natural World".

But I'm also a realist.

Nothing I am doing is going to affect the world as  whole.  It might make changes locally.  It will definitely make changes for my family.  But it won't make any difference to the destruction of the Amazon.  It won't make any difference to the Argentinian beef market.  Those decisions rest in the laps of a few rich and powerful that are completely removed from public opinion.  They want money and until the time comes where their current process doesn't make them money anymore, they won't change it.

That's a social implementation of Newton's Third Law:  A body in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.

So, things aren't going to change until there's no other option.  The world is too far down the rabbit hole to start learning to fly.  It's going to have to hit rock bottom before it learns that there is no return. A great example of this is the hypocrisy of the chefs standing up at the TED Talks mandating a change to eat locally and decrease the carbon footprint.

Yet, they will drive all over the country to spread this news.

How does that help the carbon footprint?

Do they give discounts to those walking or biking in to their restaurants?  Do they charge a luxury tax for those arriving in Hummers and Limos?

I've also noticed that every chef that is advocating for eating locally is below a certain latitude line in the world.  Of course it makes sense to eat locally when you're in the middle of the food belt!  It's easy to go to the farmer's market and get anything you want, any day of the week in California.  That's where all the vegetables come from!  But living in Minnesota, it's completely illogical to eat locally unless you want some mercury-laden pond fish or dried feed corn...oooh, or lutefisk (that's fish that is "cured" in lye by burying it in the snow.  It's Norwegian).

And there aren't any farms around most of the world's major cities.  Eating locally is a joke.

Do you know how much energy and fertilizer would be required to grow orange trees in Minnesota?  or Sweden?  How's that better than getting them shipped in from Florida or California?


Oh, wait, you could  can or dry some things for use during the winter months, but that puts a ton of sugar and salt into your food, not to mention that boiling leeching out all the nutrients.

How is that healthier that buying that fresh tomato from Chile during the winter?

Oh, and let's not forget the number one fresh fruit sold and readily eaten by youths and adults:  the banana.  How many banana trees do you see in Kansas?  They don't even grow well in most of California because it's too cold- not enough sun- not wet enough.

So, listening to these short-sighted, propaganda-laden "solutions" just makes me sick.