The rich really are different: Their bodies contain unique chemical pollutants
Now, I just need a scanner to detect these, so I can direct market to them better…
I think I’ll have sushi for lunch.
You don’t REALLY need a scanner. You just need something you can convince people is a scanner.
The researchers conducting the study were surprised by the results, really? Were they really expecting to find the same toxins in rich people and poor people despite radically different diets?
I doubt it was all that surprising, but it’s still worth knowing what the results are. Why the sneering?
There’s a difference between thinking “gee, it would make sense that there are differences in the toxins” and knowing “when we tested people, we found mercury versus plastic in rich versus poor.”
It’s basically the difference between religion (faith based belief in your intuition) and science (testing your hypotheses against observations).
There’s a lot of research on the impact of heavy metals, especially lead, on brain development. Not sure if these levels were high enough to be worrying (if they’re not worth worrying about, then what’s the point of the news?) If the rich are feeding their kids fish and sushi to the extent that it impedes brain development, then it would give poor children a better shot at upward mobility.
No one believes in basic research anymore? If there’s no instant policy or financial reason at the moment of discovery, why study it at all?
Sometimes applications take a while to figure out. Just be glad you still don’t live in the middle ages, because a lot of that really applicable stuff you use every day started out as basic research.
Besides, the initial hypothesis was probably that the poor eat worse foods and end up with more toxins in their system than the rich. What this seems to have uncovered, is that the rich have a bunch of toxins too (that part may be surprising, though once you know that answer, the rest - that they are a different set of toxins - suddenly seems obvious, time to cue sneering at academcs).
And lead was the primary brain impairment metal, which showed up in the poor kids. So if poor kids are full of lead, it may not help give them a better shot at upward mobility, unless mercury turns out to be worse than lead for the concentrations found.
I don’t think anyone on this board has come out against basic research. When someone says X is in your body, “is that bad” is a natural follow-up question. That’s like saying well there’s 1% Argon in the air. Does that matter? What’s the context?
Relying on the journalists’ commentary, apparently people are “walking toxic waste dumps”. I can’t imagine the authors of the study would use that terminology. The journalist appears to be making significantly stronger claims than what the basic research would imply [I’d read the actual article, but 1) I probably couldn’t evaluate the claims about the level of toxicity and 2) it’s behind a paywall.] I have trouble getting excited about the media hyping stories such as these.
They said it was surprising:
“In a finding that surprised even the researchers conducting the study…”
Ok, I see your point. I interpreted your remark “if they’re not worth worrying about, then what’s the point of the news?” in a different way than you meant it.
However, differences are still worth noting even if they aren’t critical. If it were “rich people like ‘blue’ better, while poor people prefer ‘red.’” you could argue that it’s not really important for anything, but it’s still interesting, and potentially useful (to the extent that the observations are valid): e.g. market high margin stuff in blue packaging to rich people, red to poor people, while using other colors for low margin stuff.
I agree that there are lots of problems with how science gets reported.
We all know there are “rich people’s diseases”, like when is the last time you see farmers with big belly and high cholesterol and suffer from heart diseases and diabetes??
Your point being???
And are farmers supposed to represent the rich or the poor here?
You’re right, when was the last time I saw a Janitor or Fast Food Employee who looked like a whale and was a heavy mouth breather… I would argue that the deseases you mentioned above are probably more associated with the poor than rich at this point in history - we’re not in the medieval ages.
I need to seriously cut back on sushi.
I wonder if yoga practice actually helps to release toxins as it’s being claimed.
^ Lululemon pants…yes or no?
You’ll catch me dead before I pay $90 for a pair of workout pants.
^ woman after my heart…i love the gals in the gym who wear old t shirts and shorts…so hot…so so so hot
it is difficult to use the ellipitical at times when you have a woodrow…oh well
I was thinking about this when my GF was talking about getting some new clothes for her pilates workouts.
The Lululemon stuff really does look extra nice. And you probably wear them a lot more often than your regular clothes that you’d be willing to pay a higher price for (except perhaps one’s jeans). And you’re not buying a different pair for each day of the week. I can see the argument for spending a more on something like that. It’s a different category than everyday wear.
I didn’t end up convincing my GF to buy at lululemon, but she did like what she saw there. She hasn’t bought any new stuff, so I’m thinking of just giving her a gift certificate instead.
You overpay for a brand at places like Lululemon or Athleta.
Gap carries a decent workout brand (forget the name of it) or at least it did 6 years ago when I got a couple of pants there for $20 each. They are still in a good form-fitting condition.
Also, I don’t wear workout clothes on the street.