The EPA just today announced plans to set actual enforceable limits for drinking water contamination by the two most common variants, hopefully well below the 70/1000000 unenforceable recomendation they previously issued, before the 2023 deadline, and to study the health effects of other variants and regulate them.
They also announced plans to force polluters to clean up the places where they dumped, which seems to be impossible considering the size and mobility of these molecules, and the fact that they've already migrated everywhere so can't possibly be fully removed.

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

Wow. Those are astonishingly good numbers and, considering what you eat, are conclusive enough that these foods can be eaten in a heart healthy diet with great results even without excessive exercise.

I'm curious what the numbers are in our Vegan friend's blood, I seriously doubt they would be better than yours.

It's not surprising, but is disappointing to me that he discounted your numbers as inconclusive and/or unique natural anomalies, since they don't support his 'animal products are deadly poison for all people' claims.

I would theorize that the stress caused by worrying incessantly over what you (and others) eat is far more dangerous than the health effects of all but the worst, most highly processed foods....maybe worse than any foods.

Edit: BTW, I'm 48...going on 13, and I had my blood tested last summer....I didn't memorize my numbers, but the doctor said they were all well within the safe/healthy range so I didn't feel a need to keep track. I don't eat eggs, but I make up for it with extra bacon and butter, and meat at nearly every meal (but I only eat one meal a day).

Comments show again what a totalitarian topic this is.
If you call this science, you can call scientists scientists who lobbied for tobacco firms, claiming it didnt cause detrimental health effects, claimed the leaded fuel issue wasnt linked to leaded fuel, eugenics proponents or people who used lobotomy and electro shock therapy.

Oh wait, they were.
Keep believing hypocrites. Humans and intelligent, if they cant even learn from history? Dont make me laugh.

Attack the imminent problems, like the hypocrisy in the conflicts in Syria or Libya. Then I am starting to take you seriously. But instead you whine about 0.1 C degrees and let millions of people die to people you elected and which will ultimately backlash to you too.
Just look at this fact: USA supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda through countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, while also fighting it.
Unbelievable...

And dont tell me me "its not their job". Its everyones job to stop something like that, just like you claim on climate change. Even more so actually!

I think I'll wait 20 years before eating food from these containers to see what the health effects are.

BPA turned out really well.........

I think it would be hard to find a control group of modern people who *don't* get the "proper daily amount" of most vitamins; or at least the "proper daily amount" times 7 each week. Ie., maybe there are people who live off of hot pockets and potato chips for a few days at a time, but eventually they are going to go out and eat something that coincidentally contains plenty of the vitamins to cover for the days that they were eating the modern equivalent of hardtack.

Not that it couldn't be done, and not that the results wouldn't be interesting -- maybe getting trace amounts of vitamins daily really would have better long-term health effects than getting larger amounts of vitamins every few days or once a week. But it would be *really* hard to accurately pare down a study to that single variable.

I used 23andMe for analysis of my saliva. The DNA is mine, what I choose to do with the information is my choice alone. Same as palm reading and seeing a psychic (if that's what you're into), or peeing into a cup - I can act on the information or not, my choice. If the FDA is so worried about and more importantly has time and money to spend engaging this company on the possible health effects of users who act on the information, I'd say their priorities are fucked up or at least their motivation is unclear.

Point of contrast - here's another product that can possibly cause harm, but were's the cease and desist for this one? I can go down to the corner store and buy a known to be addictive product, with labels that indicate "Smoking Kills", but the tobacco companies are still free to sell it and go about their business. The accuracy of the tests conducted on addiction, health effects etc. related to tobacco are still in debate. You know "We're still working on it". We choose whether we want to use this product, even though it doesn't only put the users life at risk (presumably) but also those around the user (presumably), same as we choose what do with 23andMe reports. However, I'd wager the known risks and costs associated with allowing tobacco use to continue is orders of magnitude higher than it ever will be for the 400,000 or so customers that have used 23andMe to sequence a portion of our genome. Why don't we work on the hard & obvious problem first?

Tempest in a tea cup.

ps. I wonder what the ulterior motive is? Perhaps the FDA is in cahoots with Monsanto in planning copyright on specific genetic sequences for humans, as they do now for crops. Hmmm... they could call it the Soylent Green experiment.

Did this guy not go to college? Why isn't he pursuing this professionally? I'd love to hear someone knowledgeable on the subject estimate what kind of health-effects this will have in the long-term.

Er, not really sure that you say that marijuana has "no serious health effects". Most people still smoke it, and that can cause some very serious problems.

Not saying that alcohol is any better, but there's no point be dishonest about it.

>> ^VoodooV:

It's less dirty coal, but it's still dirty, yet they get to call it CLEAN for some reason.
cold fusion, solar, hydrogen fuel cells or GTFO


Name 3 things that won't work in time for it to matter!

Go gen4 reactors, lots of them, and now! I recommend David MacKay's book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" as to why I believe this. Available for free at http://www.withouthotair.com/

Video reference here:

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


But ya, coal needs to go, but you have to remember, 2 billion people live in abject poverty. They try to bridge the gap using as cheap a source of energy they can...like coal. Until you make energy cheaper than coal, your never going to displace the use of dino fuels around the world. The physics on fusion, solar, and hydrogen can't answer that call for quite awhile (we have been trying to make fusion work for decades, same with solar, and fuel cells are just terrible right now and only work for transportation fuels not baseload power generation). I do think we can answer a large number of these problems with new generations of nuclear power, with passive safety and no emissions, gen4 reactors have a lot of great points if people give them a chance!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

In relation to the direct content of the video, your NEVER going to get China and India on board with giving up cheap energy...they are BOTH x3 the population of the US, they have to care about cheap energy WAAAAY more than us, for population and standard of living issues. The only way to win this isn't through regulation, it is through technological innovation...and China has been buying up our AP1000 Gen3 for all the reasons I just mentioned.

To say that dino fuels are "Destroying us" is a little bit of a misnomer, you don't get food without hydrocarbons, you don't have refrigeration without hydrocarbons, you don't get heating and cooling without hydrocarbons. Energy isn't the enemy, any attempts to price out energy will only hurt the most reliant on its low price...if you doubled the price of gas via taxation, you aren't helping the little man. Cheap energy prices, even if they are oil based, aren't the devil, any attempts to make them so is a misunderstanding of the energy crisis. More oil drilling isn't even going to lower costs, at best, it will keep them the same, but peak oil in the US has already come, more drilling in more exotic places is just going to tow the line...and it isn't even going to do that.

Talking about clean coal is just so "we" can talk about how much we need cheap energy without talking about the health effects. Coal does kill, without a doubt, but so does electricity so costly you can't afford heating or cooling. You can't call for an elimination of coal without talking about what is going to replace it, and at what cost. This is even MORE relevant with the recent spout of weather, imagine if that area was packed full of solar and wind...it most likely be completely destroyed, and those are already very cost heavy forms of energy.

Anyway, I will end the rant. I really recommend the book above if you wish to delve down the rabbit hole of energy solutions. It isn't as easy as you think, it is why we are still using dino fuels. Any path you choose is challenging, and VERY capital and R&D intensive. Were are talking multiple trillion dollars to role out replacements on a national scale. Now, oil does a trillion a year, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility, but it is going to take a technical answer to solve, not a political one.

My claim is that there is insufficient data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (within reason, say BMI < 40) and negative health consequences when controlling for other known detrimental behaviors and health risk factors. That said, there is certainly an interaction effect whereas a higher BMI can tend to exacerbate underlying health issues/comorbidities. That is, it is erroneous to look at a fat person and tell them that they are necessarily unhealthy without having a more nuanced understanding of their overall health, other risk factors and activity levels.

Further, I believe it is erroneous to claim that long term weight loss is an achievable goal in all individuals, and that instead encouragement should be directed towards improvement in the overall health of the individual rather than emphasizing the primary goal of weight loss. Even if it were clear beyond all doubt that obesity directly caused the negative health effects it is psychologically pragmatic to avoid conflating body-image issues and health concerns. Finally, from an etiquette standpoint, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to comment on the health consequences of the behavior of an individual unless you are employed by that individual as a health professional or are otherwise a close, concerned acquaintance of that individual.

In other words saying, "you fatties shouldn't be on TV, think of the children," isn't exactly productive nor appropriate.

Clear enough?

Cheers. At least you are attempting some objectivity.

>> ^scannex:

Direct question then.
Is it your stance that claiming there are negative health consequences from being obese is erroneous?
Is it your stance that there is insufficent data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (obese) and health problems?
>> ^bmacs27:
@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

This website is open to the public, is it not? If so, then in what sense am I uninvited?

My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing..

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

What the scripture says is that God is love. Not that He is loving, but that He is love itself. Yes, it is true that God took the lives of thousands of people in the Old Testament because of disobedience. That is indisputable. What you're claiming is that this was "mass murder". The fundamental question being posed here is, does God have the right to take a life? If He does, then there is nothing unjust about what He did, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His love.

Now, God is the author and sustainer of life. Meaning, that life is a gift and a privilege for human beings. There is no fundamental right to be alive. Neither is there anything we can do to continue our life a second longer than God ordains. When we are born and when we die is entirely in His hands. He is the one who is causing our lungs to receive breathe, who is maintaining the coherence in our atomic structure. So what life we do have is a tender mercy from God, especially considering the fact that all of us abuse His creation and spit in His face on a constant basis.

Further, God has ordained that the punishment for sin is death. The people you speak of in scripture were all sinners, and most of them grievous sinners at that. Why is God unjust for enforcing His law? What is wrong with God enforcing His law at His prerogative?

Considering that we live because of God, and that it is a gift which can be revoked at any time because of sin, why is it unjust for God to do so? If you're going to say I am being intellectually dishonest, then prove it and explain why. Where is the flaw in my reasoning here?

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

Some Christians may feel that way, but only because they don't understand scripture:

Luke 4:12

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Lord doesn't perform on camera for skeptics because He isn't a guinea pig subject to our experiments. Those who test the Lord will not get any results.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>> ^messenger

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

If you disagree that you're being intellectually dishonest, find a definition of the term that you agree with, and I'll show you what I mean.>> ^shinyblurry:

You have said to me that you attempt to give me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, however most of those here tell me I am wrong, so is that somehow less arrogant in your eyes? In any case, it is both falsifiable and provable. You could find Jesus' grave for instance. It is also provable in that God does reveal Himself, as billions of people today, and billions more throughout history have found out. Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. The point is, if you demand evidence, tell me how we should find it. How would you test for God? If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. How would you tell if you were in a Universe created by God or one created by random chance?>> ^messenger:
"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think it you miss the point though.
Tobacco used to be just a plant. You smoked the plant. What could be more natural?
The Big Tobacco companies took over. Now it's no longer tobacco plant you are smoking with cigarettes.
Only 50% of what is in a cigarette is tobacco and even that is treated with sugars and chemicals to make it easier for the body to absorb. The rest is chemicals, reclaim and recon which are all there to addict you while it's killing you at the same time.
With marijuana, in most cases it's still just plant, in the same form as it was when it was picked from the plant.
I don't smoke either of them but if I had to choose, I'd pick the one without the additives and addictants. I doubt there is anything "Natural" about smoking any form of grass. It's all a form of carbon monoxide (in my opinion), the grass itself is more natural and I think that counts for something.
One of the horrifying concepts in legalizing marijuana, is that Big Tobacco companies will take over the manufacturing process and will bastardize the product like it has with cigarettes and the health effects will be disastrous.
>> ^Ghostly:
>> ^Sagemind:
I think this is relevant here.
What's inside a US blended cigarette?
http://videosift.com/video/What-s-inside-a-US-blended-cigarette

I suspect if you you compared smoking natural weed to smoking natural dried tobacco the negative effects health effects would be similar. Likewise, if joints were prepared in the same way as commercial cigarettes they'd be just as bad as one another.
I won't presume to know the health effects of the natural products, but I'm all for people being allowed to use them as they see fit. So long as I'm not forced to breath second hand smoke in public places because even if they're not bad for you, personally, I don't care for either.


Nah, I got all that but perhaps failed to express my point clearly. I was trying to point out that it's silly to argue (not saying you were but others do) that pot is "healthier" than tobacco since it is not being compared like to like i.e. either both natural or both with added shit. Either way my personal opinion (admittedly with out anything solid backing it up) is that any type of smoke is going to be worse for your health than clean air. Despite that I'm all for people being free to choose regardless of how good or bad it is, natural or with added shit, so long as I'm not forced to inhale it, I don't care if others want to poison themselves.