Scientist Says Salt Won’t Give You a Heart Attack If You are Healthy — Cooking with Kathy Man


Dr. James Dinicolantono wrote . . . . . . . . . For more than 40 years, we’ve been told eating too much salt is killing us. Doctors say it’s as bad for our health as smoking or not exercising, and government guidelines limit us to just under a teaspoon a day. We’re told […]

via Scientist Says Salt Won’t Give You a Heart Attack If You are Healthy — Cooking with Kathy Man

Fat is not so bad, nor is alcohol

Fat is not so bad, nor is alcohol

The research, led by University of California neurologist Claudia Kawas, tracked 1,700 nonagenarians enrolled in the 90+ Study that began in 2003 to explore impacts of daily habits on longevity.

Researchers discovered that subjects who drank about two glasses of beer or wine a day were 18% less likely to experience a premature death, the Independent reports.

Meanwhile, participants who exercised 15 to 45 minutes a day, cut the same risk by 11%.

“I have no explanation for it, but I do firmly believe that modest drinking improves longevity,” Kawas stated over the weekend at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Austin, Texas.

Other factors were found to boost longevity, including weight. Participants who were slightly overweight — but not obese — cut their odds of an early death by 3%.

“It’s not bad to be skinny when you’re young but it’s very bad to be skinny when you’re old,” Kawas noted in her address.

Subjects who kept busy with a daily hobby two hours a day were 21% less likely to die early, while those who drank two cups of coffee a day cut that risk by 10%.

Further study is needed to determine how habits impact longevity beyond people’s genetic makeups.

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

pm2noeffect

Enstrom’s study: Fine Particulate Matter and Total Mortality

As with the fake science ‘supporting’ AGW this latest effort to scare people into paying exorbitant eco taxes for non existent problems begins to unravel fast.

It’s really amazing how time and again ecowarriors try to get away with baseless fake science in order to get their hand in your wallet. 

The tactic is always the same: propose a very scary problem, pump it up with hundreds of taxpayer/donation funded studies whose premise is: Here is the desired outcome now please write us a paper saying it is so.

As with the air quality standards. Air in the Western World became so clean over the last decades it’s having a measurable effect of the amount of sunlight actually striking the ground. Standards for what constitutes ‘clean air’ are now so strict that nature itself can’t adhere to it. Natural causes of air ‘pollution’ (hey we as a species managed to overcome much worse over the last million+ years and we prosper) are worldwide the main driver.

Just as with CO2 not being a pollutant but a highly necessary trace gas for vegetation so is PM2.5 a in greater part a natural phenomenon we live with since time memorial.

 

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

In this ‘study’ alcohol moodiness seems to ‘prove’ that the sort of alcohol ingested (liquor, wine, beer) influences the state of mind of the person.

quote:

” Main outcome measures Positive and negative emotions associated with consumption of different alcoholic beverages (energised, relaxed, sexy, confident, tired, aggressive, ill, restless and tearful) over the past 12 months in different settings.

Results Alcoholic beverages vary in the types of emotions individuals report they elicit, with spirits more frequently eliciting emotional changes of all types. Overall 29.8% of respondents reported feeling aggressive when drinking spirits, compared with only 7.1% when drinking red wine (p<0.001). Women more frequently reported feeling all emotions when drinking alcohol, apart from feelings of aggression. Respondents’ level of alcohol dependency was strongly associated with feeling all emotions, with the likelihood of aggression being significantly higher in possible dependent versus low risk drinkers (adjusted OR 6.4; 95% CI 5.79 to 7.09; p<0.001). The odds of feeling the majority of positive and negative emotions also remained highest among dependent drinkers irrespective of setting.”

 

Evidently the more one consumes in alcohol quantity, be it liquor/wine/beer/etc the influence will be more influential however to write and get accepted a paper stating that the sort of beverage influences the mood is beyond absurd.

The use of ‘report/reported’ in this paper should have been more than enough to have it refused for publication, how inebriated where the participants?

Unfortunately it’s not only with alcohol where self reporting has been used as a valid measurement.

I invite anyone to do a word search ‘report’ in the fields such as psychology, sociologically, psychiatry, air pollution or whichever field which can’t be empirically proven

Going by my personal experience self reporting in those fields is overwhelming

 

 

So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people?

So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people?

Or really anyone at all? A new study just published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacologydrives a stake through the heart of EPA’s claims.

The study compared daily PM2.5 levels in California with daily death counts during the 13 years between 2000 to 2012. Over those 4,745 days, no association could be found between PM2.5 levels and the over two million deaths included in the analysis. EPA claims that elderly people are most vulnerable to the allegedly lethal effect of PM2.5. But the California study specifically examined this issue and found no association between PM2.5 and deaths among the elderly.

Without a doubt this is the largest and best-conducted epidemiologic study ever on PM2.5. Virtually every death in California was considered and the state is meticulous about its air-quality data. California has the ultimate range in air quality, from the best to the worst in the U.S. In comparison, previous EPA-funded studies have focused only on limited (read “cherry-picked”) urban areas, rely on guesstimated or assumed PM2.5 levels and often include deaths from accidents, homicides and other causes that can’t possibly be related to PM2.5.

Full Article

Common sense enters salt intake debate

Common sense enters salt intake debate

“We saw no evidence that a diet lower in sodium had any long-term beneficial effects on blood pressure,” said Moore. “Our findings add to growing evidence that current recommendations for sodium intake may be misguided.”

The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting sodium intake to 2,300 grams a day for healthy people. For the study, the researchers followed 2,632 men and women ages 30 to 64 years old who were part of the Framingham Offspring Study. The participants had normal blood pressure at the study’s start. However, over the next 16 years, the researchers found that the study participants who consumed less than 2500 milligrams of sodium a day had higher blood pressure than participants who consumed higher amounts of sodium.

Other large studies published in the past few years have found what researchers call a J-shaped relationship between sodium and cardiovascular risk–that means people with low-sodium diets (as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans) and people with a very high sodium intake (above the usual intake of the average American) had higher risks of heart disease. Those with the lowest risk had sodium intakes in the middle, which is the range consumed by most Americans.

“Our new results support these other studies that have questioned the wisdom of low dietary sodium intakes in the general population,” said Moore.

The researchers also found that people in the study who had higher intakes of potassium, calcium and magnesium exhibited lower blood pressure over the long term. In Framingham, people with higher combined intakes of sodium (3717 milligrams per day on average) and potassium (3211 milligrams per day on average on average) had the lowest blood pressure.

Full Article

Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

Conclusion

I am simply searching through PubMed to find reviews of the safety of glyphosate, and this is what I find. You can do the same, it’s a user-friendly searchable database. There is a remarkable consistency to the reviews – they all agree that the evidence does not support an association between glyphosate exposure and any adverse health outcome. The IARC are the only outliers, and yet their flawed and quirky conclusion is the one that garnered the most attention.

There is also a theme in the reviews that we could use more and better quality studies. To put that into context, however, that is almost always the conclusion of such reviews. It is difficult to prove a negative – a lack of a correlation. Such a negative conclusion is only as good as the data supporting it, and therefore the more and more rigorous the data the better the conclusion.

We can always use more and better data when it comes to safety, but the existing data is robust, consistent, and independently replicated, and includes both glyphosate and formulations with glyphosate.

Glyphosate, in fact, is one of the safer pesticides in use (including many organic pesticides). It has replaced far more toxic herbicides. Opposing glyphosate because of unwarranted fears of toxicity is likely to cause harm due to whatever replaces it. Tilling is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and we cannot feed the world through hand weeding. Herbicides have to be part of the equation, and glyphosate is one of the safest out there.

via Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer? — NeuroLogica Blog