Climate Change: Overlooking the Details

You can’t really call it a lie, but when people who should know better spread misinformation, it feels like the same thing. The latest example came a few days ago on the national news when a reporter said the Paris Climate Accords “set global standards” for emissions. This is clearly incorrect. The agreement consists of a compilation of NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions. They are not a global standard but targets set by each individual country, i.e., nationally determined, with no enforcement mechanism for those who fall short and no authority to reject a proposal as inadequate. (Follow this link to access all of the individual NDCs. See this link for a Washington Post article praising the “few countries” that are meeting the standards they set for themselves.)

This is a common misunderstanding of the agreement that leads to unnecessary handwringing over the fact that the United States is no longer a signatory. Despite that withdrawal, according to the EPA the green house gas emissions by the US are decreasing and are lower today than they were in 1996.

Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying about carbon dioxide, criticizing all the SUVs on the roads, a far more powerful greenhouse gas is flying under the radar of public interest. The BBC warns, “It's the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years.” Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a gas used by the electrical industry in the switching equipment in power stations, wind turbines and sub-stations to prevent short circuits, fires and other accidents. “In terms of warming potential, SF6 is 23,500 [times] more powerful than CO₂."

It is intended by design to remain contained within the insulator, but problems arise when leaks occur and evidence shows that they are occurring regularly as the global use of the gas “is expected to grow by 75% by 2030.” BBC puts the amount of leaking in the UK alone at the equivalent of an “extra 1.3 million cars on the road.” And the reason for the growth is a need for more of the switching equipment driven by the increase in sustainable power, such as wind and solar.

Here in the US, the EPA is aware of the problem, and Pacific Power & Gas is one of the utilities with plans to solve it. Fixing a single SF6 leak has an average cost of $25,000, so they are looking for alternatives and expect to have the problem solved in their business region by 2030.

Make no mistake; with so many more sources, carbon dioxide is still a far larger problem than SF6. But where is the balance? Why do we hear about the benefits of wind and solar while the drawbacks are ignored? Why do we hear the “dangers” of nuclear power while its remarkably  safe history is glossed over? Why are we urged to panic over unsigned Climate Accords when the truth is far more nuanced? 

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Can some people just not take a hint?

Enough Said!

Do You Believe in Miracles

I don’t have to see a statue crying or a cancer go into remission to believe in miracles. I don't buy the sales pitch of the many "snake oil" vendors with their miracle supplements and miracle cures and miracle diets and neither should you. To see real miracles, it just takes a little perspective and appreciation of common events.

The example in this case is watermelon. In late May I planted five rows of watermelon hills in a 1000 square-foot space at the Master Gardeners’ Vegetable Demonstration Garden. I prepared 17 hills with about 6 seeds each. The total planted was about 12 grams of seeds; that’s less than half an ounce.

About 120 days later I had harvested and donated to the local food pantries about 800 pounds of watermelon – and – I hauled away three or four wheelbarrows full of spent vines. All it took was some water, sun, decent soil and patience to produce 800 pounds from half an ounce! That is surely a miracle. (By the way, the seeds I used were leftovers, two and a half years beyond their expiration date.)

The sun did most of the work, producing the energy to be converted into fruit. (It is not surprising that many ancient civilizations worshiped the sun.)

I used no insecticides; I was lucky not to have insect problems. I used no herbicides, choosing to eliminate weeds mechanically, which means wading in among the vines a couple of times a week and pulling them by hand. I did feed the hills a couple of times with (cover your ears, foodies) chemical fertilizer, because it added precisely the required nutrients and could be applied precisely where it was needed, eliminating any possible runoff problems.

The change in appearance over the summer from hills of soil to a network of vines with ripe fruit was truly miraculous. It only takes perspective to appreciate it. Just take a little time to “stop and smell the melons.” 😀

So Much Filler

With so much time dedicated to news, the media faces the choice of either saying the same thing over and over until people get sick of hearing it and it loses its edge, or trying to come up with enough extra items to fill the time available. The trend has been to accuse “cable news” of this use of filler (and other things, like using unverified sources), but it's found on the networks as well.

The practice of using filler goes beyond the cute animal pictures from the Internet and the feel-good, human-interest stories at the end of evening newscasts. This explains why every time I hear a newscaster start with the words, “A new study shows,” I tend to roll my eyes and tune it out. It is there to fill airtime and is either incomplete, inconclusive or both, featuring words like linked to and may cause and leads to or simply a rehash of common knowledge – often both.

A prime example turned up last week. It appeared not only on network news, but on CNN and Time.com. Napping is good for you.

 “In a new paper published in the journal Heart, researchers found that Swiss adults who took one or two daytime naps per week had a lower risk of heart problems, including heart disease and strokes, than non-nappers.” They followed about 3500 people between the ages of 35 and 75 for eight years, dividing them into four groups based on self-reporting: no naps, 1-2 times per week, 3-5 naps per week and about daily. 

They drew the conclusion by sorting that data by the 155 people in the study who developed heart problems. (Except their conclusion did not apply to people over 65.) Time also reports: “The study was limited by its observational design—which allows researchers to find only patterns, not cause and effect.” There, late in the article come the disclaimers. 

CNN's piece was a little more forthright at the beginning with the headline: "Daytime naps once or twice a week may be linked to a healthy heart.” Their expert doesn’t think changing habits to conform to the study findings will improve heart health. It may be more about overall choices behind those sleep habits. It is “far better to aim for regular good night's sleep and to follow usual lifestyle advice of good diets and decent activity levels.”

The whole story is very heavy on may be linked and no definite cause and effect, concluding with common advice on healthy lifestyles.

One wonders why it even considered newsworthy when the study itself gives the same vague information: “Nap frequency may help explain the discrepant findings [in other studies] regarding the association between napping and [cardiovascular disease] events." [Emphasis added.]

The researchers acknowledged limitations: reliance on self-reporting, the small number of subjects with CVD events (155) – especially in the 1-2 naps per week group, the possibility of underestimating morning napping due to the questionnaire’s wording and the possibility of residual confounding, which means that other factors not included in the study could have affected the results. Therefore, “these results should be interpreted with caution,” and generalizing conclusions beyond the Swiss population “is not guaranteed.” 

Looking into the details confirmed my suspicions. This study may have been of interest to other research groups working on napping-related questions, but it was very limited and of no value at all to the American public. Why then did 76 news outlets pick up the story with some providing more thorough and accurate information than others? – Filler!

How Can Facts Compete With Fads?

A couple of years ago beet juice was all the rage. Promoters sold a powder to dissolve in water.  They called it a circulation super-food. They backed up their claim with a pile of testimonials but scant scientific evidence; except that beets are vegetables, and vegetables are healthy. Does that make any vegetable a super food?

Well, step aside beet juice. It’s time for celery to take a turn.

How do we know celery juice is the latest super food? – Testimonials, of course! Says one article, “Celery juice is everywhere. So much so, that the two New York Whole Foods locations I’ve gone to in the past two weeks have been out of celery” as people buy it in bulk to take it home and run it through the blender.

These are not ordinary testimonials. Apparently the fad start when the Medical Medium (MM not to be confused in any way with MD) told his thousands of on-line followers that celery juice was “one of the most powerful and healing juices we can drink.” Since then it has been “rising in popularity within the health and wellness world” with tens of thousands of personal endorsements on Instagram. Among them are celebrity/influencers including Gwyneth Paltrow, Kim Kardashian and Debra Messing.

When I looked up articles about celery juice, though, most that I found said that those claims are false. This one begins with a headline, “Celery Juice ‘Benefits’ Are Total B.S., According to Nutrition Science.” The claims of it reducing chronic inflammation are grossly exaggerated. It doesn’t necessarily help with weight loss, because juicing any vegetable “will yield a higher concentration of sugar.” Any mention of detox should automatically be a red flag for anyone with an ounce of nutritional common sense.

Another website mocks the whole idea of the detox claim saying, “this entire celery juice trend is the epitome of bullshit pseudoscience.” It’s all about being a member of the super cool crowd that crowed about kale until celery juice was declared the new kid in town. It’s more about a need to belong, than a desire to be healthier.

Another reason people are drawn to juice fads is the convenience. The answer to not having time for fruit and vegetables is to grab a bottle or tumbler of the liquid equivalent, but it’s not really equal. The process of juicing compromises some of the nutritional value because it loses the beneficial fiber you find in raw veggies.

And Americans don’t get enough fiber.

This BBC article argues, “people who eat more dietary fiber are actually feeding their gut microbiome,” and “fiber leads to greater satiety, less insulin secretion, and more short-chain fatty acids, which all amounts to one thing: less body weight.”

Studies show that “those who had the highest intake of fiber or total fiber actually had an almost 80 percent greater likelihood of living a long and healthy life over a 10-year follow-up, [and] were less likely to suffer from hypertension, diabetes, dementia, depression, and functional disability.” 

This fiber, that BBC calls a lifesaving food, is easily available. “You find it in fruit and vegetables, some breakfast cereals, breads and pasta that use whole-grains, pulses such as beans, lentils and chickpeas, as well as nuts and seeds.” That’s whole fruits and vegetables, not the ones that have been run through a blender.

Once again, that’s the truth about another so-called super food. But how does the truth compete with celebrities, influencers and self-declared wellness experts with thousands of Instagram followers but no formal training in nutrition or science? All these fad diets are based on testimonials and endorsements that appeal to the emotions without any scientific basis with the sole intent of selling to gullible people their books, products and other secrets of good health.

Taking Retirement Seriously

When I started my first job after leaving the army, part of my orientation was a description of the company’s pension plan. That didn’t seem important to me at the time. It was not realistic to be looking 40 years into the future after just two days on the job. Unfortunately, some people seem to have a similar reaction as they reach their 40s and 50s. They will reach retirement age and be forced to keep working, painting themselves as unfortunate victims of the economy (or something else). In other cases, they barely scrape by, and look for help from the government or AARP lobbying while complaining about being on a fixed income.

“According to the research, the average retirement savings for people in their 50s was $124,831 in 2018. It was $163,577 for the people ages 56 to 61.” That’s not nearly enough. In a different article, CNBC states, “Although $1 million is the oft-cited amount needed to retire comfortably, data shows it might not be enough” to maintain a comfortable lifestyle based on current life expectancy. The recommendation is to have saved at least 10 times your annual pay.

But one million dollars seems like an enormous sum in this environment where data from earlier this year shows that “just 40 percent of Americans could pay an unexpected $1,000 expense.” Can’t save a thousand; can’t even imagine saving a million! Most consider having a million dollars set aside as being rich.

The secrets (if they can be called that) lie in discipline and perspective and were summed up in three articles I read recently.

The first was about how to become rich and gave two pieces of advice that could apply to any saver. “Take a percentage of your income, say 5%, and have it automatically invested.” Then adjust your spending to correspond to what’s left. This can be adjusted upward as time passes. (Retirement websites advise setting aside 10% as a minimum.)

The second piece of advice is to be thoughtful about life’s major purchases. “A big reason people struggle to save 10% or so of their income is they buy houses and cars they can't afford.” Houses on average appreciate only at the rate of inflation. Some get lucky on the timing but in general, a house is shelter, not an investment. And cars depreciate over time. Look back 50 years. The fact is that average house size grew while family size was shrinking.

Those rules are a good start, but the problem remains of adjusting lifestyle after setting aside savings. Market Watch had a recent opinion piece with some suggestions. “These 16 money wasters are why so many Americans can’t save for retirement.” Here is part of the list as presented with the comments abbreviated and modified:

• Vacations. Never go into debt to pay for one, even adding to credit card debt. Relaxation does not require traveling.
• College. Consider affordability over prestige.
• Restaurants. Eating out is expensive, especially the daily luxury coffee.
• Opportunities lost. The standard examples are the employer match on a 401(k) plan or other tax-free opportunities such as Roth IRA or a flexible spending account.
• Transportation. As mentioned above, don’t buy too much car or an unnecessary truck.
• Credit cards. If you use them, pay them off monthly.
• Lottery. Don't throw money away on a long shot.
• Clothing.“The average adult spends $161 a month on clothing. We are obsessed with keeping up with the latest fashions” and fads.
• Shoes. See clothing.
• Extra Stuff. Many of my neighbors can’t park in their garage for all the stuff. Look at the explosion in the self-storage business.
• Holidays. Spending too much on gifts, decorations – Halloween costume for the dog?
• Toys. For children and adults.
• Haircuts. In most cases there are less expensive options (barber vs. salon).
• Cell Phones. Besides demanding the latest model, “Americans also spend approximately $88 a year on apps and unlimited data plans typically cost around $80 a month.”

That is not an exhaustive list, but it all adds up. It takes perspective to separate wants from needs, and discipline to stick with those decisions. It may not sound like any fun, but what fun is it to try to retire when you're broke?

Essential Oils and Climate Change

To try to win an informal debate, I remember hearing a woman once say, “I don’t care what the scientists say; I just feel better when I eat gluten free.” I also happened to know that this same person took the opposite view on climate change. She was convinced that climate change was a real, impending disaster based on information that the vast majority of climate scientists agreed on the premise.

Furthermore anyone who held a different view on climate change would be condemned, labeled a “denier,” someone whose opinion on that or any other subject should be disregarded because they were stupid. But it was not enough to ignore them. Anyone who disagrees in the least must be branded, cast out, unfriended or otherwise ostracized for the good of the world.

Using the opposite arguments in defense of two strongly held points of view did not faze her or the people she associated with at all. On one hand, science was good; on the other, science was too skeptical of the ancient wisdom or the latest fad.

Speaking of the latest fad, one that has been going strong for the last few years is a belief in the power of essential oils.

Although the name might imply it, there is nothing particularly essential about an essential oil, in the sense of it being necessary for life. The name comes from the fact that the oils extracted, usually by fermentation, contain the essence of a plant’s fragrance.

As this article written by a scientist, professor at McGill University with a PhD in Chemistry, explains, most of the claims about the powers of essential oils are unproven, untrue, misrepresented or exaggerated. For example, promoters claim that “either sniffing the right essential oil or rubbing it on the skin can support the immune system, enhance mood, promote sleep, cleanse the body’s organs, boost the libido, ease breathing, foster alertness, treat kidney stones, oxygenate the blood, relieve pain, reduce anger, prevent constipation and, of course, eliminate toxins, … readjust chakras, harmonize bio-electrical frequencies, cleanse negative energies, drive out evil spirits and promote sexual stimulation.”

He explains that a few of these are backed by evidence, such as using lavender aroma as a sleep aid. Many of the other claims have resulted in warnings to companies by the FDA, but that can’t control all the outrageous claims. “Sales of essential oils are dominated by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies,” who sell to independent distributors relying on commissions. No one can monitor what every one of these sellers promises in private conversations. 

Once again it is so easy to ignore the science, or simply not ask what studies have confirmed the seemingly magical powers. Take it on faith.

Interesting how, in one particular realm, scientific consensus is considered a strong argument in favor, with any minor expression of doubt leading to the accusation of being a denier. Meanwhile, in so many others areas, from psychic powers to performance bracelets to the healing power of magnets to detox cleanses to super foods to essential oils, taking the opposite stance is the favored response. No deniers there! No critical thinking either.

Medicare For All?

People who are excited about the idea of “Medicare for all” obviously have as meager an understanding of Medicare as they do of Social Security. In fact Medicare is much more complicated than Social Security. It’s not a matter of walking into the doctor’s office, showing an ID card, receiving services and leaving without a bill.

When Medicare was passed in 1965, the government tried to follow a private insurance model. As a result they came up with two parts. Generally speaking, Part A covers hospitalization, and Part B covers regular visits to the doctor. But just like private insurance there are many details about what is covered and what is not.

In most cases Part A has no premium, but it does have a deductible of $1,364 for the first 60 days of Medicare-covered inpatient hospital care. Note that it’s the same for one day as it is for 60 days, so several short hospital stays can become quite expensive. From the 61^st through the 90^th day a $341 per day charge applies. 

The standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B enrollees is $135.50 for 2019. Some pay less and some pay more depending on an income scale. The annual deductible for all Medicare Part B beneficiaries is $185.

This government website gives more details of both parts, but it is clearly not free healthcare with the government picking up the tab.

But there is more. “With Part B coinsurance you typically pay 20% of the Medicare-approved cost of most services, after your deductible is met.” The bill comes from the provider showing the standard charge, Medicare reduces it to the Medicare-approved charge and pays 80%, then the remaining 20% is the patient's responsibility.

But there are also three classes of doctors. The 20% applies to participating doctors. “Non-participating doctors have not signed an agreement with Medicare and therefore might not ‘accept assignment’ for all of their services. A non-participating doctor may take the payment…for 80% of Medicare’s approved cost. But he or she can charge you 15% of the approved cost on top of the 20%.” Doctors who do not accept Medicare assignment can charge in full at the time of the visit.

Part D was added early in this century to cover prescription costs. It is a nightmare of private insurance options, premiums and differing formularies (a list of what drugs are and aren’t covered at different levels by each insurer). And what is available differs by location.

Because Medicare doesn’t cover everything, private companies sell supplemental insurance, sometimes called Medigap plans. There are 10 plans available in most states. “These plans are labeled Plan A, B, C, D, F, G, K, L, M and N, and each plan covers a different set of basic benefits.” How’s that for an additional headache?

Besides the complexity and added costs, two additional problems arise: reimbursement levels and funding.

The Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals is typically lower than private health insurance and much lower than the actual billed rate. (One of my recent bills for a simple annual checkup came in at 60% of the billed rate.) This can discourage providers, who must cover their costs. This source, for example, is not as current as I’d like but “a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that 93 percent of non-pediatric primary care physicians were participating providers with Medicare in 2015, but only 72 percent were accepting new Medicare patients.” In addition, a recent change to a flat rate payment program may discourage doctors from accepting Medicare for more challenging medical conditions. Will it soon become difficult, even under the current system, to find a participating doctor? Will fewer young people be inclined to study medicine if the program is expanded, further squeezing doctors' ability to earn an adequate living? All the insurance in the world does not help if you can't find a doctor.

Finally, there is the problem of funding. The money taken from each paycheck (with a matching amount from the employer) pays 88% of the cost of Part A, but the Part A trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2026. This may result in the institution of premiums for Part A. Premiums paid for Part B contribute only 26% to the cost with the rest covered by general government tax revenue. “Medicare spending was 15 percent of total federal spending in 2018, and is projected to rise to 18 percent by 2029.” (This website has some excellent graphs showing current and projected costs with no change to the system, particularly in Figures 6 and 7.)

As it is today the system is complex, and anything but free. It has many of the drawbacks of private insurance systems including waiting months for the paperwork to arrive. Already, many wonder how the government can afford to keep it up. 

This rather long explanation only scratches the surface. “Medicare for all” is easy to promise, but extremely difficult to explain. And, as I wrote years ago, the only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to address the cost directly in ways that introduce transparency and competition, not by making it easier to pay ever-increasing prices.

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.