Hydration and Littering

 “The federal government announced Wednesday it will eliminate a policy that allowed national parks like the Grand Canyon to ban the sale of bottled water in an effort to curb litter.”  Fox News explains that the rules were set up in 2011 because empty bottles scattered throughout some of the parks had become a major problem.  One problem was the emphasis on bottled water.  They did not ban the sale of other beverages, such as sugary soft drinks that are typically made of sturdier plastic.  The policy was obviously not completely thought through in the first place, setting them up as an easy target for objections.

Those objections did come and the National Park Service officials changed their minds.  But instead of just admitting they were wrong or banning the rest of the soft drinks, they said they wanted to "expand hydration options for recreationalists, hikers, and other visitors to national parks."  Falling back on the idea of hydration they tried to make it sound like a health-related decision.  There are a couple of questionable aspects to this.

Later in the article is one sentence that probably gets more toward the truth:  “ The bottled water and beverage industry have previously lobbied aggressively to keep bottled water at U.S. national parks.”  As in most cases, follow the money.

But what is all this about hydration?  This is one of those urban myths that people just won’t drop.  I even heard someone talking about pre-hydration the other day, comparing drinking lots of water (or sports drink) to applying sunscreen before you go out.

More and more experts are coming forward with contrary, more balanced advice.  Here is an example.  “Drink when you're thirsty. Stop drinking when your thirst is quenched. Obey that one rule and there is no risk of dehydration,” says Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a University of Pennsylvania kidney specialist.

Later on in that hydration article is a statement that shouldn’t surprise anyone: “Much research on human hydration [is] funded in part by bottled water industry.”

  

Another study found “no connection between hydration and the performance of athletes.”  It reiterates the sound, moderate advice to drink when thirsty.  There is no need to go overboard or walk through life tethered to a water bottle.

The final point is about bottled water itself.  I have elaborated on this subject in the past.  With a few rare exceptions or in emergency situations, bottled water is typically no purer than tap water and sells at a hundred times the price.  From time to time the bottled water companies are taken to task by some government agency for questionable practices or claims.  Some merely use tap water from another location.  Most recently a lawsuit cites Poland Spring Water for deceiving customers by “bottling common groundwater that doesn’t meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's definition of spring water.” 

Lately I’ve noticed in some airports an absence of the usual drinking fountains outside restrooms.  The only option is to buy the bottles from the vendors.  Again, follow the money.

Yes, it is important to have water with you when hiking in a national park (or anywhere).  It is smart (critical thinking) to buy a water bottle or canteen for the occasion and fill it at the tap or refill it at a drinking fountain.  It is responsible not to throw bottles or any kind of litter around the trails or campgrounds.  It shows perspective to understand that it’s unnecessary to pre-hydrate or take other extraordinary actions.  Drink when you are thirsty; it’s as simple as that.  So many of these problems can be easily solved by right behavior rather than by government regulations.

The Marketing Pitch

Generally speaking, marketing is the art of getting us to buy stuff.  In doing so they have been accused of using all kinds of psychological tricks to convince us to spend our money.  Consumer protection groups argue that we are helpless against these sophisticated tricks.  But some of these so-called tricks are so obvious that everyone should be able to see through them easily.

The first example came through the mail, a little postcard asking questions about my utility bill.  “Did you enjoy paying your bill this month?  Did you know you may be paying too much?”  Finally, the company will let us in on “what the utility companies may not want you to know.”  All I have to do to save big money is attend a free steak dinner and seminar to learn about amazing technology developed by NASA, now available to the general public.

Well, I don’t know about all utility companies, but the ones I have experience with urge me to use less and are willing to help me learn how I can do that.  Many years ago when I lived in Wisconsin, the electric utility had a program offering reduced price CFL bulbs to replace the less efficient incandescent bulbs.  My current electric utility gives away the even more efficient LED bulbs free to their customers at various events and sends e-mail reminders about their free energy inspection programs.  There is nothing to indicate that the electric or gas companies are keeping secrets from me.  Rather they are more than willing to help me conserve.

Further suspicion arises when I read that spouses must attend.  Doesn’t that just make it more difficult to say “No, thank you” and walk away?  And where is the money for two steak dinners coming from?  Clearly the people who become customers have the cost of their dinners, plus the cost of the dinners of those who do not participate, baked into the price of that amazing new technology.

These are not difficult deductions to make by reading the postcard.  Are that many people unaware or not thinking?  Apparently so, or they wouldn’t continue this marketing approach!

I get the same feeling about the seminar leaders who want to tell us the secrets Wall Street doesn’t want us to know.  In that case, why do they use their time running seminars instead of using it to employ those very secrets to get richer?

The second example came one morning as I was glancing up at a series of ads running on TV.  The TV was muted, but I saw actors dancing around with purplish sparkles flying through the air.  Wait a minute!  These people were selling caffeine!  But it wasn’t just the white tablet I remember from the 1970s; it was special caffeine – with purplish sparkles – and it came from green tea.

Is caffeine from green tea different from caffeine in ordinary tea or coffee or cola or any other source?  Wikipedia enlightens:  “Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant of the methylxanthine class. It is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug.”  It doesn’t sound like there are varieties of caffeine, some better than others. 

At a time when many people are so concerned about putting “chemicals” into their bodies or even using chemicals to fertilize their vegetables, is it conceivable that they would be buying chemical pills?  Maybe caffeine is in a different category?

But caffeine is a chemical and a drug with possible side effects that include:  “irregular heartbeat, chest pain, flushing, palpitations, rapid heartbeat, agitation, dizziness, hallucinations, headache, insomnia, irritability, psychosis, restlessness, rash, increased pressure in the eye, and frequent urination.”  It also increases the risk of high blood pressure when combined with certain medications.

Well, I was so surprised that I didn’t remember to write down the brand being advertised, so I did a web search on caffeine/pills/green tea and found this website listing 14 brands and “flavors” of caffeine pills.  There are so many exotic ways to sell caffeine with "magic" ingredients and vague promises, but those promises send you to a footnote way at the bottom of the page that reads, “Disclaimer: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Product results may vary from person to person.”  It’s still only caffeine – really a substitute for not getting enough sleep – but dressed up with a special bonding matrix, natural everything, green tea extract, ginseng and more.

Is it really true that promising to reveal questionable secrets or packaging a product to make it sound more natural constitutes such a strong lure?  Some clever marketing campaigns may employ sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques, but many, if not most, are transparent to anyone paying a little attention.

Risk Adaptation

Several years ago I mentioned partially in jest to my sister, at the time an elementary school teacher, that the stock market was doomed.  With all the safety features being implemented on playgrounds and other facilities for children, by the time they reached adulthood they would be too risk averse to want to invest in anything other than guaranteed accounts.  Farewell, stock market and entrepreneurship.

She immediately set me straight.  With padded playgrounds, instead of hanging upside down by their knees from the monkey bars, they were now hanging by one leg.  Reduce the risk; increase the risk taking.

That same idea came up again when I began to see the relationship between automobile safety features and careless driving.  And this is not new.

An article from 2006 tells of Researchers at Purdue, led by a civil engineering professor, that “determined that airbags and antilock braking systems do not reduce the likelihood of accidents or injuries because they may encourage more aggressive driving.”  The feeling back then was that drivers adapt to the new technology giving up some responsibility for safety “by becoming less vigilant.”

By 2012 technology and safety features and enhancements other than air bags and anti-lock braking systems became more common as they migrated to more cars from the luxury brands.  Some of these were vehicle crumple zones, stricter seat belt enforcement, side-impact protection, traction control, and better conceived speed limits.  According to another source, these were “all designed to save lives and make driving a less risky activity. However, despite all these safety measures, road accidents and fatalities have remained constant over the last few decades.”

Traditionally, safety innovations begin at the luxury level and work their way down, but today some of the autonomous vehicle research also contributes to the new technology.  Today we are beginning to see more backup cameras, collision mitigation systems, lane departure warning systems, blind-spot monitors, and drowsiness detection monitors.  Guess what!  A July article from Carfax cites their in-house study finding “that some drivers, especially younger drivers, may come to over rely on car technology safety features rather than basic safe driving habits.”

And just a few weeks later in an article principally about self-driving cars the Seattle Times confirms, “Driver-assist technology that keeps cars in their lanes, maintains a safe distance from other vehicles, warns of unseen traffic and slams the brakes to avoid rear-end crashes are rapidly spreading from luxury cars…But these automated aids aimed at improving safety are having an unintended consequence: They’re degrading driving skills.”  Drivers become lax through over-reliance on newer and newer technology.  Through interviews they confirmed that most drivers agreed that people tend to quickly become so comfortable with the technology that they would pay more attention to it than relying on their own driving skills; for example, listening for the warning chime instead of looking over their shoulder to check the blind spot.  But, of course as in most interviews, it’s always the other guy.

Driving is dangerous.  Better cars and better roads can’t totally change that.  This adaptation behind the wheel is as irresponsible as the grade-schoolers hanging upside-down by one leg, except if they slip they only hurt themselves, not their passengers or others on the road.

It’s also interesting to suppose where else this tendency to over-rely on technology may be leading, places where it's not so obvious because the consequences are subtler, hidden or delayed.

Sound Familiar?

It’s interesting how a little critical thinking can anticipate events.  Here is a list of just a few recent news items that looked so familiar in light of my entries on this site over the last six years.

Driverless vehicles:  Almost 4 years ago I asked the question, “What could lie ahead in the case of self-driving cars?”  I suggested driverless 18-wheelers moving freight from warehouses to stores, trash trucks with automatic lifts to both collect and drive the route, a robot to deliver mail from an autonomous vehicle sorting and filling the boxes, taxis with a touchpad to enter destination but no driver and even safer school buses with CCTV to take attendance and keep an eye on the children.

Today we have heard much about testing driverless trucks.  This Guardian article tells us the UK government has approved trials of convoys of semi-automated trucks on their highways.  “Up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will travel in convoy, with acceleration, braking and steering controlled by the lead vehicle, a concept named platooning.”

At the same time that Uber is testing self-driving taxis, in Ann Arbor, MI “Domino’s and Ford are teaming up to see if customers will warm to the idea of pizza delivered by driverless cars.”  It’s all coming true and probably faster than expected.

On another subject:  Many Americans look to our neighbors to the north to set the example for medical care, but recently Manitoba, “the only remaining Canadian province that covers a portion of chiropractic care” has reduced the per visit insurance by about 30 percent and it covers only the manipulation.  This according to Dynamic Chiropractic.

Only a few weeks ago I warned about the dangers and possibilities of fraud concerning chiropractic services.  Apparently most Canadian provinces address these issues by refusing to pay for any of it, letting citizens pay their money and take their chances.

Low-fat diets:  A new analysis presented at the European Society of Cardiology spanning more than a decade and considering 135,000 adult subjects from five continents reveals flaws in government dietary guidelines around the world.  “The ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) project has found both saturated and unsaturated fat intake linked to better heart health, that a high-carb diet is a better predictor of health risks than fat consumption, and that the health benefits of fruit, vegetables, and legumes like beans and chickpeas may plateau at three to four servings per day.

  

The dispute about the dangers of eating fat has been going on for almost 60 years.  Unfortunately, the political side crowded out the science.  As I put it earlier this year, "With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, [the authorities] assumed that 'if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.'  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion."

On the subject of homeopathy:  Recently, a couple of negative articles arrived at my desk on this subject.  One listed almost fifty warning letters sent by the FDA to makers of homeopathic products over the last 10 years.  “Nearly all ordered the seller to stop claiming that products could effectively treat specific diseases or conditions. Some ordered the seller to stop claiming that products were vaccine equivalents. A few involved the failure to use good manufacturing practices.”

The second revealed that the Russian Academy of Sciences “has become the latest body to declare homeopathy has ‘no scientific basis’ and endangers people who believe it to be effective.”  I came to pretty much the same conclusion two and a half years ago in “Homeopathy – Does It Really Work?”

I’m sure there are at least several more, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind or happened to catch my attention.  Seeing some of the trends before they become broadly accepted requires only that one pay attention and try to stay strong in the five key dimensions.

Parents and Homework

As another school year has begun, I saw in a syndicated advice column called Living With Children a question that addresses the idea of parental responsibility and school homework.  I had mixed reactions.

The letter writer, the parent of a child entering the first grade, says that they were notified that the local school expects all parents to check a website, called the Parent Portal, every night to keep up with their children’s homework assignments and to help them when they get stuck.  This parent doesn’t like the idea, feeling that “in effect, we are being made responsible for what, in our estimation, is a teacher’s responsibility.”  Other parents agree.

The columnist also agrees, arguing that such websites take advantage of parental anxiety based on an erroneous belief that “children’s grades reflect the quality of their parenting.”  He worries that these setups will turn parents into “micromanaging enablers” by transferring “a significant amount of responsibility for academic instruction to the home.”  The column continues that enabling in any form shifts responsibility off the children (and possibly the teachers) producing over the long term less mature and effective adults.

The final advice is to not check every night but to help occasionally, letting the “children know that they are responsible for their homework and that there will be consequences should they require [their parents] to get involved." 

My mixed feelings arose from the columnist letting the parents too much off the hook.  The writer seems to want to ignore the website, which was probably too aggressively pushed on them; but this website could also be seen as a tool.  Should those parents wait around as in pre-Internet days for a teacher’s conference to find out their child is lagging behind or not doing assignments as expected?  With this modern tool, parents can spot check what is expected and reinforce those expectations without becoming overly involved.  When parents ask, “Do you have any homework?” and are met with the shrug or the vague answer, they have a tool to fall back on to find the answer.  Reinforcing expectations or answering questions is not enabling.  Nagging constantly and checking answers before they are turned in is.

I also don’t buy the idea that parental involvement has no impact on student performance.  In their book, The Why Axis, Gneezy and List studied the effect of motivation and incentives on student performance.  They tried different incentive programs with students, parents and teachers in Chicago Heights public schools and found that when the incentives were properly designed, the minority students performed just as well as their suburban counterparts in rich, white neighborhoods.  All three parties:  students, parents and teachers, must be motivated and involved.

It’s true enabling weakens – if only Washington could figure that out – but parents should not use the fear of enabling as an excuse to drop the ball or pass all the responsibility back to the teachers.  This lack of parental involvement is one reason more and more decisions about our schools are moving away from the local level toward state capitals and Washington.