I still have fun with Science X Newsletter. Of course there are a lot of articles way over my head, starting with anything mentioning quarks or going into way technical jargon without explanations of what they're talking about. Obviously those aren't meant for me. And many are the kind that confirm what a few seconds thought will confirm as obvious, while even others beg the question, "Yeah, OK, but have you even considered ________ ?" What's almost a painful waste of time and energy is reading that melting glaciers, with the resulting rivers being responsible for some large area's prime source of water, will be endangering their water supply after they are gone. It's almost too obvious to bother studying. OK, maybe if they're looking for numbers to plug in, but the bare facts, DUH!!! A is what produces B, almost everything uses B, A goes away, there's no B left. HELLO !!!
Or there was one on bees, showing that bringing in domestic populations result in declining wild bee populations in an area. Here's where the "have you considered____?" comes in. If there are domestic bees, that means agriculture of some kind. That usually means, these days, chemicals are likely being used as the easy way to get rid of weeds or pests (meaning insects), and those are likely to be harmful to bees. We're already looking at colony collapse in domestic bees. What are the odds the small changes in domestic populations who survived the chemicals in the last 20 years or so have mutated from inadvertent selective breeding, and their offspring are a bit better at dealing with the poisons we spread while wild bees, not so much? Is anybody looking at that as their next question to ask?
There are always some new things to learn. For example, an ice sheet split off from Antarctica, described as the size of Chicago, and we can suddenly see the previously inaccessible sea floor and its denizens. There are some interesting new-to-us critters down there!
Of course there are other discoveries that in my opinion are badly over-hyped, like a far away galaxy that is judged to have been like ours but did this scary other thing instead. OK, so what are we talking, 8 billion years ago? One? Pardon my Alfred E. Newman, but at that time scale, "What, me worry"? Somebody just had to put "Frightening" in the study title. Must have needed more attention, eh? Grants hard to get these days?
While those above are not likely to affect me, there was one I did take note of. As a senior citizen, I try to keep abreast of practices for my own good health. I count carbs, for example, and try not to keep eating too late in the day when a swig of water might achieve the same results of satisfying me. I take recommended pills, and a few extra on my own that I believe help me, like some B vitamins and a little extra C. I try to avoid too much sun on my skin, though I suspect that ship sailed decades ago. Oops. It fully accounts for that one speedy cataract which blinded one eye. (The replacement lens is perfect.) I'm slowly losing weight, and while I'll never be slim, there's 70 pounds I'm not toting around any more. Apparently I've traded those in for lumps and wrinkles. (Sighhhhh) Some would call that "interesting". I have other words for it.
Now I never would have thought of coffee as having any connection to cholesterol. Would you? Unless you add fatty things to it to make it taste better or perhaps less acid in the stomach, it's pretty hard to believe. There were reassuring studies a while back showing that 2 or 3 cups in the morning are good for our cardiac health. Cool! I'll still keep it to one cup though. But what the heck were they talking about with cholesterol?
No it's not actually in the coffee, but there are some chemicals in coffee that get your body to produce more of the worst kinds of it, the diterpenes cafestol and kahweol. (Just rolls off the tongue, right?) That doesn't quite jibe with the heart health info, though, so I read on. They were studying different methods of producing the drink itself. It turns out that coffeemakers which have paper filters are pretty good at - ahem - filtering out the chemicals that produce cholesterol, Other kinds of filters, or none at all, don't do that. Only the paper ones. There is some kind of affinity there.
Now since I drink instant coffee, I decided to take those chemical names and google whether they are in instant, and should I be concerned? It turns out most processes for making instant coffee use paper filters. So I mostly shouldn't worry. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether the stuff I buy uses that process or some other. So I'm getting a supply of paper filters in the larder. I'll be working on a way to make sure my instant brew goes through a paper filter to clear out whatever of those chemicals might still be in it before I drink it. I figure mix powder and hot water first, then pour it through a paper filter lined mug, pull out the filter and toss it.
I'll have paper towels or a dish rag handy of course. If you don't anticipate drips and spills during that process, you just haven't met me!
And then of course, there'll be the cocoa to deal with... afterwards. No way I'm filtering that out! I don't care how many studies might find something less than ideal in cocoa! It's already sugarless, and I have powdered milk to add. No point in getting totally fanatical about it, now is there?