Category: Daily Reads

  • Daily Reads: Healthy Dirtiness

    Daily Reads: Healthy Dirtiness

    This article I ran across on Vox makes me very happy because it reflects something I’ve been teaching students in my classes for years: that being too clean can make you less healthy. This is especially true for children. The article discusses what is known as the hygiene hypothesis, which proposes that exposure to allergens, viruses, bacteria, etc. – in other words, a less than fully sanitized environment – strengthens children’s immune systems by allowing them to develop defenses from a young age (although I hasten to note, as the article does, that this does not mean children should not be vaccinated. In fact, vaccination operates on the same principle: that exposure to a small amount of inert virus primes the immune system to respond when that virus is encountered in the wild. So this is not an excuse to avoid vaccination in favor of deliberately infecting your kid with a disease like measles). Research is starting to show that children who are kept in environments that are too clean are more likely to develop autoimmune diseases such as asthma. I have long railed against the use of products like antibacterial soaps and household cleaning products, hand sanitizers, and antibacterial wipes partly for this reason. I jokingly recommend to my students that if they ever have children, the kids should be rolled about in a dirt pile every day – but I’m not really joking. Here’s one good takeaway from the article: “In the wealthy world, adults who clean their houses with antibacterial sprays have higher asthma rates, and people who are more often exposed to triclosan  (the active ingredient in antibacterial soap) have higher rates of allergies and hay fever. Kids who grow up on farms or have pets, meanwhile, have lower rates of allergies and asthma.” Read the entire article to learn more about how our obsession with cleanliness may be affecting our health.

    The hygiene hypothesis: How being too clean might be making us sick

  • Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    When I first discovered the website Jezebel, the writer Lindy West quickly became one of my favorite contributors. She is fiercely intelligent, incredibly funny, and delightfully straightforward. I loved everything she wrote for Jezebel. Lindy has moved on to writing for The Guardian, and in this piece she talks about what it is like to be targeted by online trolls. Most of you already know this, but an internet troll is a person who leaves anonymous comments, tweets, or emails that are meant to insult or provoke. Trolls can be incredibly vicious and degrading, and for West, who frequently writes about feminism, the trolls are also virulently misogynistic. She writes that she has developed armor to help protect her from commenters who talk about how they want to rape or kill her, but she also acknowledges the heavy burden these trolls place on her and her colleagues. The story West has to tell is disturbing but also, potentially, hopeful – it involves how she ended up having a long conversation with one of her trolls who had come to recognize the error of his ways. West does more than write about this remorseful troll – she also did a piece on her experience with him for This American Life, which you can listen to here. West’s article and the radio piece are really about much more than just her particular trolls; they are about the breakdown in civility that can occur in the modern online world, and what can happen when people are given anonymity. I think it is an important read.

    What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll

  • Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Now that the Superb Owl has passed for another year, I’d like to share this article about how investments in sporting arenas and teams and the big events they generate are not the economic boon to cities that sports boosters would like us to believe. Travis Waldron of Think Progress zeroes in on the economic woes of Glendale, Arizona, host city to the 2015 Super Bowl, and details how the city has gone desperately into hock financing major sporting facilities and events. I personally found it extremely refreshing that Glendale’s mayor spoke publicly about the fact that the Super Bowl, rather than making money for his beleaguered city (see what I did there?), actually put Glendale deeper in the hole (note that the Super Bowl was awarded to Glendale before he became mayor). The public is taken in by the idea that the Super Bowl and events like it generate millions of dollars in economic activity, so the cities who get to host them will make big bucks. While it is true that there is millions of dollars in economic activity, what is not discussed is what those numbers really mean. “Economic activity” is a nebulous term – it does not parse the data to see where that economic activity is actually taking place and who benefits – or not – from the money that is changing hands. This article and others like it are important for us to understand what our cities may be signing up for when they tout sports teams, facilities, and events as positive economic drivers.

    The Super Bowl Comes To Glendale, The City Ruined By Sports

  • Daily Reads: Measles Mania

    Daily Reads: Measles Mania

    Today’s Daily Read relates to the post I wrote a few days ago about how difficult it can be to convince people to accept ideas that go against their already strongly-held beliefs. I actually have two articles to share today. The first, from the Washington Post, made my eyeballs pulse with rage when I read it: it talks about a medical doctor in Arizona who has catapulted into the media spotlight because he supports anti-vaxxers. Jack Wolfson is a cardiologist who now practices holistic medicine. He supports his anti-vaccination stance with thoroughly unscientific and debunked ideas about “chemicals” in vaccines being harmful (forgetting or ignoring the fact that there are chemicals in everything); arguing that people should get viruses because they are natural (clearly he has never heard of the naturalistic fallacy – just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you); and proposing that following a paleolithic diet provides enough immune protection to make vaccines unnecessary (not considering that paleolithic humans had infant mortality rates of over 50 percent, life spans of around 40 years, and suffered from boom and bust food cycles that could leave them malnourished, vitamin and mineral deficient, and prone to disease; not to mention that he hasn’t considered the fact that “paleo” diets were incredibly diverse depending on which population of ancient humans you are following. I, for one, wonder how many modern followers of paleo would go the Inuit route and eat almost nothing but raw fish and seal blubber). Of course, Wolfson has been embraced by anti-vaxxers as a champion, especially in light of the ongoing measles outbreak.

    The second article is from last year and comes from Chris Mooney of Mother Jones. I linked to it in my post from a few days ago too, but I want to bring it up again here because it discusses a study that shows how presenting anti-vaxxers with information that refutes their views causes them to embrace those views even more fervently. I include it because even though people like Wolfson make me want to pelt them with facts and studies, I have to remind myself that the backfire effect, as detailed in Mooney’s article, makes this approach futile. Fortunately there is some new research that is looking into how to approach these issues in a way that makes people receptive to new information, but so far, it seems that most people are still yelling past each other and not changing any minds at all.

    Amid measles outbreak, anti-vaccine doctor revels in his notoriety

    Study: You Can’t Change an Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind

  • Daily Reads: Got Water?

    Daily Reads: Got Water?

    Here’s a great idea from some folks in Oregon: use the treated wastewater produced from sewage to brew beer. Writing on the NPR blog The Salt, Cassandra Profita discusses the process by which clean, drinkable water can be produced from sewage sludge. Although Oregon does not approve this water for consumption, a new experiment is allowing small craft brewers to use this water in their beer. This is a terrific idea. People get grossed out by the idea that the water came from sewage, but as I have written about before, this is a mental and cultural block. There is no reason to fear drinking water that has been reclaimed from waste; consider the fact that most of our municipal water sits in reservoirs filled with fish and plant matter, as well as trash, fuel and oil residue from boats, and other unsavory flotsam and jetsam. That water goes through the same treatment process as wastewater. So why not use it? Drought conditions and continued water scarcity means we need to look at every option, and as far as I can tell there is no downside here.

    Why Dump Treated Wastewater When You Could Make Beer With It?

  • Daily Reads: Underpolicing

    Daily Reads: Underpolicing

    In this very thought-provoking article in the Wall Street Journal, author Jill Leovy writes about what she calls the “underpolicing of Black America.” Leovy, who is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times and the author of the book Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America (from which this article is adapted) argues counterintuitively that focusing on non-violent petty crimes such as loitering, vandalism, and public drunkenness in minority neighborhoods – the so-called “broken windows” method of policing – distracts attention from violent crimes such as assault, robbery, and murder. In other words, the police go after the “low-hanging fruit” and ignore the more difficult to solve crimes. This makes it seem as if the police are cracking down on crime in underprivileged neighborhoods because they can boast of high arrest rates; but it also teaches the community that violent crimes are unlikely to be investigated and are therefore easier to commit. Leovy argues, provocatively, that the police harassment of Blacks and other minorities against which so many are now protesting is actually cloaking a larger injustice: a weak police presence in those neighborhoods that allows for larger-scale violence. As she puts it, “Today’s controversial policing tactics are part of a law enforcement model in which prevention is everything and vigorous response an afterthought. Officers are better at stopping people at random than at tracking down those who do real harm; they are better at arrest sweeps than at investigating major crimes.” The result is that these communities see the police as wielders of state-level control rather than as campaigners for justice, and serious offenders are able to continue operating with near-impunity.

    The Underpolicing of Black America