3 ms·
The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can
by PakG1 13y ago
The underlying premise that there's something strange about the correlation between the rise of sugar and the rise of health issues is stark. Obviously, we can't say that correlation = causation. But such data points should be taken seriously for more investigation, much like for example, global warming (which is a debate that I still don't completely understand either).
This is the key quote for me:
Yudkin's detractors had one trump card: his evidence often relied on observations, rather than on explanations, of rising obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates. "He could tell you these things were happening but not why, or at least not in a scientifically acceptable way," says David Gillespie, author of the bestselling Sweet Poison. "Three or four of the hormones that would explain his theories had not been discovered."
Let's apply that towards global warming. This reminds me of Al Gore's little movie where he talks about his old prof gathering climate data. The temperature kept going up, and he could not figure out why. Lots of data, no explanation. What should have been the proper response? Dismissal because there's no explanation or further study?
I worry that there are other things where the timeline required to truly observe and understand things is not possible, and that risks are completely accepted because no current viable explanation can be made as to why the thing is actually dangerous. The biggest one for me is wireless communications. Can cell phones and other wireless devices cause cancer? Generally, we say no. But we don't have enough data to truly say no, and we probably won't have that data until kids born after 2000 become geriatrics, as they'll be the first generation to truly grow up from birth in an age with ubiquitous cell phones. And besides that, it's not like anyone's been able to provide any widely acceptable explanation on the matter anyway. So we'll just trundle along blindly because our current data says there's no risk. I'm mostly sad because what other choice do we really have? You can't turn back the clock on technological progress even if you wanted to.
- adwf 13y agoGonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant... And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal effects, it's orders of magnitude less than standing in direct sunlight. It's basic physics. (Well perhaps not the ionising radiation part, Einstein got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect...) This myth has been debunked as pure fear-mongering time and time again. The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect. [1] http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.abstract
- PakG1 13y agoI know about the studies, and the explanations are nice, I didn't have those before. I get that we have no current significant reason to fear anything, which is why I'm not exactly panicking and vowing to stop using cell phones. But this doesn't enable me to completely discard my fear either. You're only corroborating my point. The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect. I would call 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant because there are other cancers where even longer timelines are required for symptoms to show. For example, abestos and mesothelioma. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/asbestos http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/i... Mesothelioma Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often affects the thin membranes lining organs in the chest (pleura) and abdomen (peritoneum). Mesothelioma is closely linked with asbestos; most cases of mesothelioma result from direct exposure to asbestos at work. This cancer is also linked to all forms of asbestos, although amphibole asbestos appears to be more potent (causes cancer at lower levels of exposure) than chrysotile.. Studies have found an increased risk of mesothelioma among workers who are exposed to asbestos. There is also an increased risk of mesothelioma among family members of workers and people living in the neighborhoods surrounding asbestos factories and mines. Although the risk of developing mesothelioma increases with the amount of asbestos exposure, there is no clear safe level of asbestos exposure in terms of mesothelioma risk. Mesotheliomas typically take a long time to develop. The time between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is usually 30 years or more. Unfortunately, the risk of mesothelioma does not drop with time after exposure to asbestos. The risk appears to be lifelong. Unlike lung cancer, mesothelioma risk is not increased among smokers.