 |
En la Parte 1 de este articulo discutia de esta cultura del miedo, auspiciado por entes externos, que busca quitarnos de nuestra paz y tranquilidad.
Buscaba algo para presentar la idea, y me llego una buena anallogia. De la del tipo de:
 |
| No, estas no son las bacterias que contaminaron las teclas de Maripily. |
X ES MAS SUCIO QUE UN INODORO
Especificamente el adagio de GERMOFOBIA
X tiene germenes
los germenes son malos y nos matan
por ende X es malo y nos mata
La discusion es cortesia de Primera Hora, donde repite, sin siquiera verificar, un estudio donde se indica lo contaminado que estan los carritos de compra de supermercados. Quizas alguien con un apice de inteligencia le pudo haber comentado al periodico que vivimos en un planeta lleno de microorganismos. Muchos son buenos, muchos estan en simbiosis con nosotros, y hasta nos hacen el ca/nita en Navidades sin pedir nada a cambio. Si, es cierto que los carritos estan llenos de E Coli, pero tambien es cierto que nuestro cuerpo tiene anticuerpos que degradan estos mucho antes de atacarnos. El E Coli muestra presencia de materia fecal, pero eso no necesariamente indica que es un virus o patogeno. El E Coli es un organismo indicador.
El reporte de Primera Hora aqui: http://www.primerahora.com/72porcientodeloscarritosdelacomprapresentarestosfecales-481134.html
Se trata de que un estudio de la Universidad de Arizona, recogido por Fox News, reveló que los carritos de compra contienen más de un millón de gérmenes, convirtiéndolos en algo más sucio que un baño público.
Con el resultado de este estudio, se corroboran otras investigaciones realizadas con anterioridad en Austria, Corea del Norte y España, que aseguran que el 72 por ciento de los carritos tiene bacterias coliformes, originarias de las heces y asociadas con condiciones sanitarias precarias.
Universidad de Arizona...Fox News...Antibacterial...Heces Fecales...
busquemos la fuente:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/shopping-carts-found-dirtier-public-toilets-20110302-103426-581.html
Researchers from the University of Arizona swabbed shopping cart handles in four states looking for bacterial contamination. Of the 85 carts examined, 72 percent turned out to have a marker for fecal bacteria.
The researchers took a closer look at the samples from 36 carts and discovered Escherichia coli, more commonly known as E. coli, on 50 percent of them — along with a host of other types of bacteria.
Lo copiaron a verbatim.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41838546/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
http://health.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/01/6161165-are-you-worried-about-grocery-cart-germs-how-do-you-deal-with-dirty-shopping-carts?threadId=3066314&commentId=52083332
A fin de cuentas el bottom line es el siguiente. Queremos vivir en tal asepsia que lo que hacemos es matar indiscriminadamente todos los microorganismos. A la larga esobaja nuestras defensas. Algunos articulos que apoyan mi teoria:
http://darrengarnick.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/swine-flu-germs-purell/
Despite explicit instructions not to touch a molecule, regardless of
how pristine it may appear, my three-year-old son acts like a “Price
Is Right” game show hostess in a public restroom. He slowly brushes
his hand across the stall partitions and the waste baskets. He
showcases the paper towel and soap dispensers. His fingerprints even
wind up on the floor tiles.
Scrubbing him down is a logistical nightmare because he cannot reach
the sink. I tuck him underneath one arm like a football and use the
other hand to rub his hands with soap. In the end, at least a half
gallon of water winds up on his shirt. When my child is tall enough,
I’ll teach him the essentials of urinal yoga: How to flush any toilet
with your sneaker.
En ese tema de arriba, recientemente nos llego un comunicado de safety en mi oficina donde un empleado tuvo que recibir atencion medica por una caida que tuvo tratando de flushear un inodoro con un zapato...Obviamente con las politicas de seguridad se pueden imaginar al extremo que pueden llevar esto.
Y si hubiese sido con una chancleta?
Y si el toilet hubiese tenido colera?
Y si estaba con casco?
En mi casa?
Quien paga la ambulancia?
Sentido comun. el menos comun de los sentidos.
Kill The Nanny State - Let the Bacteria Live In Peace
Por si tienen algun rato para perder. Tiene sentido comun. Demasiada reglamentacion nos mata.
Algunos articulos relacionados al abuso de antibioticos y desinfectantes:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-Or-Consequences,-Could-Your-Germaphobia-Come-Back-to-Bite-You?&id=4512167
http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-Or-Consequences,-Could-Your-Germaphobia-Come-Back-to-Bite-You?&id=4512167
Este tema se ha alargado. Pero toco un nuevo tema. Me gusta el termino. Churnalism. O sea escribir noticias directamente de comunicados de prensa sin verificar. Como si hicieras mantequilla (to Churn).
http://enjustaperspectiva.blogspot.com/2011/03/en-japon-no-meten-miedo-ni-te-restregan.htmlFinalmente, una nota al calce.
Sensacionalismo y Panico - Contraste Entre Japon y Puerto Rico
Solo Joe expuso otro punto con el sensacionalismo y panico del terremoto de Japon y los efectos a largo plazo del incendio en la Planta Nuclear de Daiichi. Los de la crisis estan en aceptacion, resolviendo el asunto, con paciencia. En posiblemente el fin de sus vidas. Cuando nos llegue la hora a nosotros, haremos lo mismo?
Mapa del Plumacho del incidente Daiichi aqui:
No tengan miedo, no pasa nada...pero fijate ese plumacho pudiese contener radiacion.
Periodistas irresponsables!!! Diciendo PANICO en la portada. Ya el inventario de iodo escasea.
Fermi Radiation Training Manual from 1999 Here
Some important points to go along with this chart:
 |
| Kirk: En cuanto tiempo tendremos agua de nuevo Scotty? Scotty: En tres horas Kirk: Si no tenemos agua en 1 hora nos quemamos Scotty: En una hora sera se/nor. [*hij'eputa] |
• The risks of radiation exposure are radiation sickness, and/or increased lifetime risk of cancer. Only people receiving very high doses develop radiation sickness—the Fukushima 50, working inside the power plant, are at risk of this. Somebody in Tokyo is not.
The other risk—an increase to the victim's lifetime risk of developing cancer—is a lot more complicated. Key thing to remember: On an individual basis, it's an increase in risk, not a promise that cancer will develop. And it has to be understood in context with already existing cancer risks. In the footnotes of the chart, Kelly Classic points out that the average American has a 42% risk of developing (not dying from) some kind of cancer in his or her lifetime. If one of us gets hit with a 300 rem dose of radiation—a high enough dose that we'd have symptoms of radiation sickness—we'd see our lifetime risk of cancer increase to 42.03%.
The other risk—an increase to the victim's lifetime risk of developing cancer—is a lot more complicated. Key thing to remember: On an individual basis, it's an increase in risk, not a promise that cancer will develop. And it has to be understood in context with already existing cancer risks. In the footnotes of the chart, Kelly Classic points out that the average American has a 42% risk of developing (not dying from) some kind of cancer in his or her lifetime. If one of us gets hit with a 300 rem dose of radiation—a high enough dose that we'd have symptoms of radiation sickness—we'd see our lifetime risk of cancer increase to 42.03%.
• When this table says "n/a" under the risk heading, that's not because the information isn't available. It's because, at that dose, the health effects are so small as to be unmeasurable.
Radiation dose and risk works on what Ralf Sudowe, professor of health physics and radiochemistry at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, calls "linear no threshold." Scientists assume that any amount of radiation—no matter how small—carries some risk. They also assume that the risks increase linearly, along with the dose.
But, Sudowe (as well as Kelly Classic, and the other health physicists I've spoken to) also say that, even though radiation isn't safe at any level, that doesn't mean there's reason to panic at every level. At low enough doses, scientists can no longer find evidence of an increased rate of cancer. And that's pretty much the point where we don't have to worry.
Radiation dose and risk works on what Ralf Sudowe, professor of health physics and radiochemistry at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, calls "linear no threshold." Scientists assume that any amount of radiation—no matter how small—carries some risk. They also assume that the risks increase linearly, along with the dose.
But, Sudowe (as well as Kelly Classic, and the other health physicists I've spoken to) also say that, even though radiation isn't safe at any level, that doesn't mean there's reason to panic at every level. At low enough doses, scientists can no longer find evidence of an increased rate of cancer. And that's pretty much the point where we don't have to worry.
• Time also matters. "A high exposure given in a short time (minutes, hours) that could cause a harmful effect may not do anything if given over years because our body adapts and our cells repair minor damages," Kelly Classic says. "So if I was exposed to 500 mSv in a period of minutes, my blood would show some changes, but if I was exposed to 500 mSv over 50 years, I'd have an increased risk of cancer, but no discernible signs of radiation exposure [meaning no radiation sickness]."
