A Feast of Science: Intriguing Morsels from the Science of Everyday Life
240
A Feast of Science: Intriguing Morsels from the Science of Everyday Life
240Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Crave answers? Dr. Joe Schwarcz demystifies the chemistry of everyday life, serving up practical knowledge to both inform and entertain. Guaranteed to satiate your hunger for palatable and relevant scientific information, A Feast of Science explains that “chemical” is not synonymous with “toxic.” Are there fish genes in tomatoes? Can snail-slime cream and bone broth really make your wrinkles disappear? What’s the problem with sugar, resistant starch, hops in beer, microbeads, and “secret” cancer cures? Are “natural” products the key to good health? Dr. Joe answers these questions and more. Cutting through the fat of story, suggestion, and social-media speculation, A Feast of Science gets to the meat of the chemical reactions that make up our daily lives.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781770411920 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | ECW Press |
| Publication date: | 05/22/2018 |
| Pages: | 240 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.50(w) x 8.20(h) x 1.10(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
INFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION
The first time I had a chance to watch television was in 1956 after coming to Canada following the Hungarian Revolution. Back then there was only one channel, and it was on the air for only a few hours a day. The newscasts did provide a window to the world that I had not seen open before. Telephones were already well established, but a call to Europe had to be prearranged. For "breaking news," you depended on local radio stations where you could also tune in to a variety of talk shows. There was the popular Joe Pyne, who would invite you to gargle with razor blades if you disagreed with him, and my favorite, Pat Burns, who had an opinion on everything and was not averse to abusing his callers. Indeed, it was Burns who stimulated my interest in skepticism.
One of the regular callers on the Burns Hot Line was a lady who was convinced that space aliens walked among us, specifically, on Montreal's St. Catherine Street. She recognized them because of their distinctive eyes! Pat would humor her for comic relief and often goaded her into making outrageous comments. One day, however, he was stressed for time and told her that he couldn't let her go on about her "little green men." She didn't take this well and claimed that if Pat cut her off, the aliens would cut him off. "OK, tell me tomorrow why they didn't," he retorted, as he proceeded to cut her off. Then he went to the next call, but there wasn't one. The station went off the air and stayed off for six hours. There was no explanation.
The lady called back the next day to gloat, but Pat just said "coincidence Doll, coincidence." She stuck by her guns and maintained the aliens had swung into action. "So let's see them do it again," Burns fumed as he again cut her off. Well, you guessed it. The station went off the air again for half an hour! She called back the next day and this time Pat told her she could talk as much as she wanted, but she said there was no need because the aliens had made their point.
A remarkable coincidence? A publicity stunt? Someone actually hacking the transmitter? The public never heard a reasonable explanation as to what really happened. What I do know is that the bizarre affair triggered my interest in "aliens," and much to my surprise, I found that the local library had quite a collection of books on the subject. I read about the Roswell incident, and about all sorts of UFO sightings. By this time, I had developed an interest in science and found the "proof" for alien visits less than compelling. Many of the accounts were fanciful, and it seemed to me that the writers were sometimes driven more by commercial appeal than by evidence. This led me to look at all news reports, especially in the scientific realm, with a skeptical eye, and I took to evaluating them in terms of adhering to the tenets of responsible journalism.
These days, maintaining a skeptical eye has turned out to be quite a challenge with the tsunami of information and misinformation we face on a daily basis. We are no longer talking about one TV channel but hundreds, with satellite radio we can access to thousands of stations, and of course social media allows anyone to have a say on anything. As we witness on a regular basis, any twit can twitter. Then there is the Internet, featuring millions and millions of posts ranging from those featuring sound science to ones that host the inane blather of scientifically confused bloggers to whom responsible journalism is a foreign concept.
I have been trying to battle such misrepresentations of science for a long time. It seems like only yesterday, but some thirty-eight years have rocketed by since I faced my first question from a listener on CJAD radio in Montreal. I was excited to be given a chance to enlighten to the public about chemistry and figured I would be asked questions about how aspirin is produced, how baking soda works, how the birth control pill was developed, or the difference between natural and synthetic vitamin C. To me, this was chemistry. But the first question I had to deal with took a different tack.
"Is it safe to kiss your golf balls" was the confounding query. I didn't quite know what to make of this, but I soon learned that some golfers have the habit of giving their balls a friendly peck for good luck before whacking them. The caller's concern was that the balls might harbor some pesticide residue that could have an effect on his health. I offered the opinion that based on our knowledge of the toxicity of pesticides from animal studies, surveys of the health of golfers, determinations of the amount of pesticides that could be released from treated turf, and the brief exposure involved in romancing a golf ball, any significant effect was unlikely. Then I went on to qualify my remarks with the old adage that only death and taxes were certain.
Since those beginnings in 1980, I estimate I have dealt with over 10,000 questions on the air, ranging from ways to remove toilet bowl rust stains (phosphoric acid) to why opening a can of coffee beans triggers the smell of cooked turkey (no idea). But the largest category of questions has mirrored the golf ball query, focusing on risk. Over the years, the list of concerns has expanded way beyond pesticide residues on golf courses to fluorinated compounds, nanoparticles, sodium lauryl sulfate, caramel, flame retardants, acrylamide, formaldehyde, dioxane, dioxin, diesel fumes, benzene, trihalomethanes, mercury, parabens, antimony, gluten, cell phones, phthalates, bisphenol A, oxybenzone, basa fish, GMOs, lead, driveway sealants, hand dryers, fabric softeners, processed vegetable oils, carrageenan, azodicarbonamide, BHT, polydimethylsiloxane, perchlorates, isoflavones, and countless others.
My answers to questions about these issues haven't changed a whole lot; I emphasize the difference between hazard and risk. Hazard is an innate property, the propensity of a substance to cause harm, while risk is a measure of the potential that the substance actually does cause harm after taking into account type and extent of exposure and factoring in personal liabilities such as age, gender, and medical history. With time, I have become more and more aware of the challenges of coming to a conclusion about risk and how it basically comes down to making educated guesses.
These days, I'm often asked whether I think the public was better informed about science now than back when I started. More informed perhaps, but not necessarily better informed. When I first dipped a toe into the turbulent waters of science communication, there were no smartphones, there was no Google, no email, no Food Network, no Discovery Channel. Now we have all these, plus Dr. Oz, Joe Mercola, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jenny McCarthy, and Suzanne Somers dispensing their version of scientific wisdom. Electronic newsletters spew out tantalizing and seductive headlines ad nauseam: "The Antioxidant That's 6000X More Powerful Than Vitamin C," "Increase Youth Hormones by 682% — Grow Younger in 120 Minutes," "Alzheimer's Vanished in Days after Ohio Woman Ate This" (of course it will cost money to find out what "this").
Pseudoexperts like Vani Hari, who has anointed herself with the moniker "The Food Babe," take to the web to offer categorical advice about what food additives, cosmetic ingredients, household chemicals, genetically modified organisms, or pesticides to avoid based on anecdote, emotion, and a selective view of the scientific literature. Of course, the Internet has a positive side as well. Proper scientific literature is just a few keystrokes away, and there are outstanding websites such as Science-Based Medicine, NHS Choices, Sense about Science, and Quackwatch. Unfortunately these are not as popular as the absurd websites such as NaturalNews that serve up an assortment of ludicrous conspiracy theories and offer simple solutions to complex problems. It seems our efforts to improve the public's understanding of science are being trumped by the flood of Internet pseudoscience.
I'm painfully made aware of this every morning when I sit down to check my email. It takes a few minutes to delete the offers to repay me royally for helping a stranded tourist who has been robbed in some foreign country and the solicitations for friendship with Russian women. Next, I usually glance through the various "alternative health" newsletters to which I subscribe to see what "jaw-dropping cures" have been found by "cutting edge doctors" who traipse around the world searching out natural treatments that "extremely wealthy and powerful people do not want revealed."
Today, addressed as "Dear Unsuspecting Friend," which of course immediately arouses suspicion, I was informed about the work of one "brilliant, world-renowned MD" who has "solved the lethal riddle of the cause of high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, problem blood sugar, bone loss and sexual dysfunction." (The alternative world, it seems, is filled with "world-renowned MDs," and "maverick physicians" who "don't buckle under attacks mounted by the slash, burn, and poison-driven establishment.")
Dr. Fred Pescatore has "single-handedly" discovered the secret cure, yes cure, that "Big Pharma is desperate to keep tightly under wraps." It is a "precise combination of grape skins, lemon peels, and pine trees," but if we want to find out more about it we have to purchase his modestly titled book, The Franklin Codex: A National Treasure Trove of Shockingly Simple Healing Miracles.
In the book, we will also learn how we can avail ourselves of a substance that makes twenty million cancer cells go "poof" in a mouse and "actually works better than pharmaceutical cancer drugs." The substance, Alpha-G, has no "energy-zapping or nauseating side effects" but to get the real deal you need a reputable source. Wonder what that may be?
Alpha-G is an extract of the shiitake mushroom, also available as "active hexose correlated compound (AHCC)" that is not approved as a drug, but can be sold as a dietary supplement. Some studies, all funded by the manufacturer, have shown activation of white blood cells that attack abnormal cells, but that is a long, long way from curing cancer.
As for diabetes, "you can forget about needles, sawdust, and grass clipping diets and potentially lethal blood sugar drugs." Dr. Fred's breakthrough allows you to eat "golden fried chicken and gooey chocolate brownies" because these can "actually help cleanse the body of diabetes." Of course that has to be in conjunction with his "Secret Super-Charger," which is a "delicious, natural, ultra-healthy plant extract with near magical health-promoting powers." After reading about how Dr. Fred's "simple, easy cures will free us from the drudgery of mainstream medicine," I thought it was time to move on from the drudgery of Dr. Fred.
Enter Dr. Al Sears, "antiaging pioneer, who at least twice a year leaves his clinic to travel the world, looking for medicinal herbs and plants to help his patients." Apparently a recent trip took him to Jamaica, where he came across some native fishermen who crumbled dried leaves and bark into water and then harvested the fish that floated to the surface. Strange that this herbal expert who "blows away conventional medical wisdom" had not heard of plants like the Jamaican dogwood, which puts fish to sleep. In any case, he couldn't wait to tell his "research team" about his discovery and get Jamaican dogwood into the hands of his patients suffering from sleep problems.
But more careful research by his "team" should have revealed that Jamaican dogwood contains rotenone, a compound that not only stuns fish, but can kill them. Rotenone has also been used as an insecticide, but it is being phased out because of toxicity, particularly because of a possible link with Parkinson's disease. There's probably not enough rotenone in Dr. Sears's recommended "all natural Native Rest" to cause harm, but nobody really knows because the contents of such supplements are not regulated in the same way as drugs, even though they claim pharmaceutical effects.
Next, I opened a colorful newsletter that promised a oncein-a-lifetime chance to save me and my loved ones from diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, and more. Dr. Jonathan Wright, one of "the founding fathers of natural medicine, the 'top of the mountain' expert — the one all the others look up to and learn from" would reveal "forbidden information that has been suppressed for decades." Wright, we are told, has pored over stacks of hushed-up studies, hundreds of "underground" medical texts (voracious reader this man is), and has carefully distilled the cutting edge discoveries that can reverse disease in the "mother lode of healing secrets," his "Treasury of Natural Cures."
The newsletter does offer some clues to whet our appetite. The solution to arthritis is cetyl myristoleate, a substance isolated in 1964 from Swiss albino mice that escape arthritis. Since then, a number of clinical trials in humans have concluded that it is safe enough, and it may provide relief to some. In spite of vast literature on cetyl myristoleate, Dr. Wright claims that we've never heard about it "because when a natural substance works too well it goes on the 'blacklist' and the only way to learn about it is from someone with inside knowledge."
This "brilliant mind" has also discovered that "you could rub breast cancer out of your body" with iodine, that an extract of the Berberis aristata plant can "eliminate high blood sugar, slash bad cholesterol, and send triglycerides plummeting." Why have we never heard of it? Because "Big Pharma stands to lose about $70 billion a year if we find out." Actually, my files contain lots of studies about this plant, and aside from some intriguing research with animals, there is no indication that "this single natural extract could replace blood sugar and cholesterol-lowering drugs."
Before I could get on to the rest of my emails, the computer pinged with yet another newsletter, this one about how "the leader of natural medicine's new wave," and "one of the most sought-after Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine in the World" found a cancer cure that left "oncologists stunned." "Dear Friend," the newsletter began, "could the Holy Bible contain the secret to eliminating the worst disease of mankind?" According to Dr. Mark Stengler, the secret is to be found in Matthew 4, apparently something to do with "man shall not live by bread alone." Stengler's conclusion is that the answer to wiping out any cancer in a month is a low carbohydrate diet. Yeah.
Next on the email list was a report about Dr. Oz's show the previous day. By comparison, that promised to be rational. Not so. Oz's "Two Day Holiday Detox" included a way to flush "fat-promoting toxins" from the body with cabbage. Nonsense, it seems, doesn't take a holiday.
INFOMERCIALS PROVIDE SLANTED SCIENCE
Sometimes when I have a touch of insomnia, I'll turn on the TV. Cruising through the channels I came across Larry King, sporting his trademark suspenders, interviewing a guest on a program called Larry King Special Report. I knew Larry had left CNN and was hosting a couple of interview shows on the RT (Russia Today) and Hulu cable channels, but I don't get these, so what was I watching? It soon became apparent that this was not a legitimate interview show but rather an "infomercial." King was shilling for a dietary supplement, Omega XL, going on about how it provides miraculous joint pain relief. His "guest" was Dr. Sharon McQuillan, waxing poetic about how she recommends Omega XL to all her patients to "help protect their hearts, preserve their heart and vascular health." Larry, who has a history of heart disease, asked McQuillan how Omega XL can reduce the risk of heart attacks. She answered that "thirty years of studies have shown the benefits of omega-3s." That is true, but totally misleading since none of those studies used this product.
Some studies have indeed shown that eating foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids may lower the risk of death from heart attack. And trials with supplements containing DHA and EPA, the two major omega-3 fats found in fish, have suggested a benefit for people who have previously suffered a heart attack. For example, in a placebo-controlled trial, patients taking an omega-3 supplement were 6 percent less likely to suffer a decline in heart function as determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) than those taking a placebo. That's not a very big difference, and they were taking four grams a day! Omega XL contains 6.3 milligrams of EPA and 4.9 milligrams of DHA, roughly 1/400th the dose that showed a minor benefit in the study! In other words, there is no basis to suggest that the EPA and DHA in this supplement can help protect the heart.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "A Feast of Science"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Joe Schwarcz.
Excerpted by permission of ECW PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.