1st August 2016, 8:02 PM
The obsession over gluten is silly. There really are people with a serious disorder that causes them to react horribly to gluten. I'm kinda shocked that this became a health issue though, because most people don't have this issue, and a person would know if they did because it means horrible intestinal distress. That said, for those with the disorder, it's got to be a paradise out there right now, and they're probably hoping people like me don't tip the boat because it's got to be great to have such a wide variety of things they can eat like they've never had before.
ABF, I don't think you have as much to fear about GMOs as you think. Now, Weltall brings up a valid concern. We've been genetically engineering our crops for ages (and our livestock for that matter), but there's one thing to keep in mind. One, those changes took place over a long enough time that problems could be found and, ahem, weeded out before they could hurt too many people. Secondly, that genetic engineering is powerful stuff, but genetic cross-transfer is another ball game. Bacteria and viruses have been splicing their own genes since life began, but bigger critters haven't had the luxury save for very rare historical incidents, like absorbing a bacteria as part of it's own system (like in our guts). It is possible that introducing genes from all manner of species could have dangerous side effects. What I'm saying is that the creation of GMOs need a good level of oversight, to make sure self-interested companies aren't doing something stupid just to turn a buck. That wouldn't need labeling though. That's just a do-nothing bit of FUD. Oh, and by the way, I'd say old fashioned breeding should probably have a bit of regulation too. We've got some rather sad breeds of dogs who's skulls are too small for their own brains, or who's noses are stubby to the point of being concave, causing severe breathing issues. That first one is especially nightmarish, with that particular breed of dog having migraine level headaches it's entire life. Some regulation that forces breeders to consider health above all cosmetic issues would help.
Microwaves, in high enough amounts, can cook your flesh. That's about as dangerous as it gets. If you get too close to a cell phone tower while it's on and stand in the wrong place, you're going to get some nasty burns pretty quick. However, it doesn't have the capacity to break apart the bonds of DNA (it is infrared, and only light radiation at the high violet to ultraviolet have the energy needed to break those bonds, hence why ultraviolet, x-ray, and especially gamma are so dangerous). Now, changing DNA isn't the ONLY way to cause cancer. It is now known that altering the chemistry of cells (which changes how those genes are expressed) can do it too. Heat is something that can accelerate the chemistry of cells, which could potentially have an effect. However, the heat causes by the cell phones you or me use, or is emitted by the average set of power lines, is far lower than the heat we expose ourselves to every day. Cooking food on a stove top will heat you far more than your cell phone. No one's fearing cancer by taking a hot bath, so it's unlikely this is a major concern. Further, just to be sure, the brain is about the most efficient temp regulator in the whole body. It takes away what minimal heat those microwaves might cause nearly instantly.
What I'm saying is, there's really no reason to fear cancer from microwave exposure, and at best you might get burned, but only near incredibly powerful sources like the giant cell phone towers I mentioned. Don't play near electrical equipment. I was taught that by a lightning bug.
As for vaccines, of all the things I've listed, there is NO reason to worry about vaccines at all, regardless of your opinion on the medical industry (and dog howdy is there a lot of issues to unpack there). The biggest fear that one discredited scientist's report had was over the solution the vaccine was in, and not only was the solution itself cleared of all charges, modern vaccines don't even use that solution any more, so it's a moot concern anyway. Vaccines themselves operate using our body's own systems, and shouldn't be confused for antibiotics, which use an external agent instead. Some have tried to salvage it by saying "well, the problem is getting so many so close together, it can overload a kid's system". Partially true, but not in the way they think. The solution itself can act as a drug for a few hours in high doses, so someone who demands the doctor inject every single vaccine at once will see their kid acting basically drunk. Further, some of the vaccines cause other responses besides antibodies (potentially, fever), so too much of that together could make for a nasty weekend, so that's a threat. However, the generally implied fear is that the body's immune system can't handle adding so many targets. Except, no, the body deals with thousands upon thousands of foreign agents every day without being overworked. The handful in vaccines aren't about to push that beyond it's breaking point.
The bigger issue to me is that Stein, even if she wasn't entirely anti-vaccine, shows clear signs of a general anti-science stance when it comes to anything resembling an authority. I often see this attitude from the left wing, and it's a weakness that needs to be addressed. To be fair, around where I live, there's also a lot of distrust of "big medicine". It seems the far right also have this distrust of scientific consensus. It probably crops up anywhere a general "question authority and the status quo" mindset takes root. I mean, that mindset is healthy, but it can be taken too far if you literally need to try everything yourself before you believe it, as many have.
ABF, I don't think you have as much to fear about GMOs as you think. Now, Weltall brings up a valid concern. We've been genetically engineering our crops for ages (and our livestock for that matter), but there's one thing to keep in mind. One, those changes took place over a long enough time that problems could be found and, ahem, weeded out before they could hurt too many people. Secondly, that genetic engineering is powerful stuff, but genetic cross-transfer is another ball game. Bacteria and viruses have been splicing their own genes since life began, but bigger critters haven't had the luxury save for very rare historical incidents, like absorbing a bacteria as part of it's own system (like in our guts). It is possible that introducing genes from all manner of species could have dangerous side effects. What I'm saying is that the creation of GMOs need a good level of oversight, to make sure self-interested companies aren't doing something stupid just to turn a buck. That wouldn't need labeling though. That's just a do-nothing bit of FUD. Oh, and by the way, I'd say old fashioned breeding should probably have a bit of regulation too. We've got some rather sad breeds of dogs who's skulls are too small for their own brains, or who's noses are stubby to the point of being concave, causing severe breathing issues. That first one is especially nightmarish, with that particular breed of dog having migraine level headaches it's entire life. Some regulation that forces breeders to consider health above all cosmetic issues would help.
Microwaves, in high enough amounts, can cook your flesh. That's about as dangerous as it gets. If you get too close to a cell phone tower while it's on and stand in the wrong place, you're going to get some nasty burns pretty quick. However, it doesn't have the capacity to break apart the bonds of DNA (it is infrared, and only light radiation at the high violet to ultraviolet have the energy needed to break those bonds, hence why ultraviolet, x-ray, and especially gamma are so dangerous). Now, changing DNA isn't the ONLY way to cause cancer. It is now known that altering the chemistry of cells (which changes how those genes are expressed) can do it too. Heat is something that can accelerate the chemistry of cells, which could potentially have an effect. However, the heat causes by the cell phones you or me use, or is emitted by the average set of power lines, is far lower than the heat we expose ourselves to every day. Cooking food on a stove top will heat you far more than your cell phone. No one's fearing cancer by taking a hot bath, so it's unlikely this is a major concern. Further, just to be sure, the brain is about the most efficient temp regulator in the whole body. It takes away what minimal heat those microwaves might cause nearly instantly.
What I'm saying is, there's really no reason to fear cancer from microwave exposure, and at best you might get burned, but only near incredibly powerful sources like the giant cell phone towers I mentioned. Don't play near electrical equipment. I was taught that by a lightning bug.
As for vaccines, of all the things I've listed, there is NO reason to worry about vaccines at all, regardless of your opinion on the medical industry (and dog howdy is there a lot of issues to unpack there). The biggest fear that one discredited scientist's report had was over the solution the vaccine was in, and not only was the solution itself cleared of all charges, modern vaccines don't even use that solution any more, so it's a moot concern anyway. Vaccines themselves operate using our body's own systems, and shouldn't be confused for antibiotics, which use an external agent instead. Some have tried to salvage it by saying "well, the problem is getting so many so close together, it can overload a kid's system". Partially true, but not in the way they think. The solution itself can act as a drug for a few hours in high doses, so someone who demands the doctor inject every single vaccine at once will see their kid acting basically drunk. Further, some of the vaccines cause other responses besides antibodies (potentially, fever), so too much of that together could make for a nasty weekend, so that's a threat. However, the generally implied fear is that the body's immune system can't handle adding so many targets. Except, no, the body deals with thousands upon thousands of foreign agents every day without being overworked. The handful in vaccines aren't about to push that beyond it's breaking point.
The bigger issue to me is that Stein, even if she wasn't entirely anti-vaccine, shows clear signs of a general anti-science stance when it comes to anything resembling an authority. I often see this attitude from the left wing, and it's a weakness that needs to be addressed. To be fair, around where I live, there's also a lot of distrust of "big medicine". It seems the far right also have this distrust of scientific consensus. It probably crops up anywhere a general "question authority and the status quo" mindset takes root. I mean, that mindset is healthy, but it can be taken too far if you literally need to try everything yourself before you believe it, as many have.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)