There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.
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.