Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.
I thought it was common knowledge that you don't want your skin to come in contact with gasoline, and if it does to wash it off relatively quickly.
Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
181–190 of 329 posts
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#182The whole phenomenon of sugar and fructose being added to virtually everything is beyond comprehension. There are so many people, fat and slim, saying they don't want to be fat, yet eating foods with added sugar every day. Why not just replace all the added sugar with erythritol, for example? The whole situation with sugar reminds me of the situation with opium in early 19th century China
The reason is that in the 1970s and 80s people started freaking out about fat. Everyone from the FDA to USDA to family doctor was telling people fat was bad. So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and muffins. The latter probably h…
Of course they 'had some all along'. You can't make muffins without sugar. It's impossible.
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peanuts are candy. Just look at a snickers/payday/Mr. Goodbar or 50+ others that add peanuts with say caramel/chocolate/etc. They can be fine as part of a larger dish, but really don't make a heathy snack on their own.
I'm not sure why you brought chocolate and caramel into the picture, but I'm going to stick with my opinion that peanuts are not candy. I think you're attempting to redefine a word to fit your narrative, and I'm not having it.
Peanuts are frequently used as part of a wide range of sweets for texture. But, they are also sweet enough to not be out of place and in no way make them heathy by proxy. Similarly, eating a full serving of penuts regularly is generally a bad idea.
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#184Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own. Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose equivalent, rather than the same mass? Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but…
A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has twice the sugar content of an apple, without the beneficial fiber or vitamins. How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.
Does sugar cause cancer if you control for obesity?
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#185Makes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years from now.
I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.
Of course workers installing it must be careful, but it's claimed to be not harmful to people using the building, or to the environment (from run-off). Just don't lick it or let kids play with it.
On principle, I'd rather have flashing that's ok to lick, and safe for kids to play with and cats to sit on, but that's just not an option at this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_(weatherproofing)
Not only flashing, but entire roofs can be covered in lead sheeting! https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/381680137144209527/?lp=true
Lead Flashing: Is it Dangerous? http://bestqualityroofingandchimney.blogspot.nl/2015/01/lead...
Are lead roofing and flashings a problem? https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz22.htm
Lead roofing and flashings are much more likely to be a health hazard for people working with the materials than for people using the building.
Lead has been used for roofing for centuries and is one of the oldest flashing materials. It is durable and soft enough to be formed into complex shapes. Lead roofing and flashings can last over 200 years. Generally speaking, lead roofing or flashing that is in good shape may safely be left in place.
Lead can be used safely if worker exposure is monitored and lead is handled properly to avoid skin contact, ingestion, and exposure to lead dust and fumes.
Lead Sheet Goes Full Circle: https://elsia.org.uk/sustainability/other-research/
This document sets out to provide a scientifically sound appraisal of the use of lead sheet in construction applications.
Research findings in the document show that lead sheet poses no risk to the environment, even when water run-off is taken into account, and does not present any risk to human beings. Providing simple hygienic precautions are observed people who handle significant quantities of lead do not expose themselves to health risks.
Low environmental impact of lead sheet on buildings
A study conducted in 2005 looked at the environmental impact of lead sheet used in the building industry. With the following conclusions:
There is no risk related to emissions of lead sheet into the environment. These conclusions are still valid even if it is assumed that all building roofs are disconnected from the sewer system and that the runoff enters the environment directly.
Chemical hazards: Lead: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.ns...
Surveys of rainwater from domestic tanks have identified lead contamination as a potential problem. Results have been variable with exceedances of the ADWG health-related guideline value of 10 µg/L (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004) ranging from 0% to 15% of samples collected (SA Health unpublished results 1999-2009; Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006 and 2008; Morrow et al. 2007; Huston et al. 2009; Rodrigo et al. 2009). In addition to these results a survey in Melbourne recorded a particularly high exceedance frequency of 33% (Magyar 2008).
As discussed in other sections the reduction of lead concentrations in paint and the introduction of lead free petrol have decreased the risk from paint and general traffic emissions. However, roof materials and uncoated lead flashing in particular remain a potential source of contamination (Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006; Magyar et al. 2008; Huston et al. 2009), as rainwater tends to be acidic and may mobilise lead, and possibly other metals, into solution. The increasing availability of lead-free or coated lead flashing is expected to reduce future concentrations of lead in rainwater tanks.
Roof catchments used in the collection of rainwater for drinking should not include uncoated lead flashing. Alternative materials should be used in new roofs or when renovating or extending roofs. In existing roofs, painting of uncoated flashing will reduce the risk of contamination. Lead may also enter rainwater from lead washers for roofing screws. These can be replaced with plastic washers.
Leaching of lead into roof run-off may be more of a problem from poorly maintained roofs and gutters, where the process could be increased by the action of water made acidic with organic substances from materials such as leaf litter.
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a documentary on Netflix about this, I think it's called Sugar x Fat.
There's 2 good documentaries I remember about the subject (though there's likely many more): That Sugar Film [1] and Fed Up [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Sugar_Film [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fed_Up_(film)
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
The diesel fumes you get from walking along any road will probably be high on the list. One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners fo…
Funfact: The highest concentration of NO2 is not found around pedestrians but inside the cars. Most models don't have suitable filter in the standard issue outside of Europe and Japan (and there only the higher-class private ones).
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.
Nanoparticles. They irritate your lungs in ways that are very similar to asbestos irritation. And of course, it's your body's reaction to the irritation that kills you. Example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b01873
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shocking thing is if you completely drop sugar from your diet you still notice plenty of sweet things. The only changes is the threshold before you consider something sweet. IMO, we need to have a big fat "This is Candy!" label on anything that's got more than 1 gram of sugar/hfcs/whatever per serving. Yes, that includes Apple Juice and other 'hidden' sweeteners.
Even peanuts become candy under your definition.
Re: Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one or two things currently on/in our food.
Sunblock I bet. Rubbing that cream into your skin multiple times per day can't be good. In the hiking community, many hikers are moving to sun blocking clothing. There are even sun gloves now.