Recently a very annoying person happily posted a comment about my peanut anarchy. This person's annoyance-ability initially stems from posting a comment as "anonymous". Unless one is wanted by the FBI for human trafficking it is very silly to write in terms of anonymity on the internet. Blogs are where stupid things are supposed to be said (just read most of my posts).
Now, onto her comments. (How I know it was a female is my little secret. - YEARS of very-expensive government training)
This piece will consist of Ms. Anonymous' quotes followed by my highly evocative and disdainfully sarcastic reply.
"My concern is about some of the unintended misinterpretations that have been made in your piece."
If the interpretation is unintended it is a corollary that it is a misinterpretation. This is a literary error known as a reverse-axiomatic entendre' with a syllogistic falsification. (Please see Jesse Jackson for a detailed explanation of its usage)
"For those who are NOT peanut allergic (a large majority), it is actually very important that they are regularly exposed to peanuts."
I heartily agree. My next proposal would be that all children between the ages of 6 and 11, be buried in peanut butter at least once per week. I am going to assume that "anonymous" is suggesting prolonged exposure to peanuts either to develop in children a system prophylactic against allergens or because she wants them to smell nutty. Not sure which. However, if it is the former, this type of prophylactic measurement does not work with all allergens and may not work with peanuts. For example, all humans are highly allergic to tetrodotoxin, found in highest concentration, I believe in the ovaries of puffer fish. If we were to apply Ms. Anonymous' theory to this substance we would lose large segments of our population. (as long as we started in California or Massachusetts, it really wouldn't be such a big deal).
"On the flip-side, peanuts are one of the single most dangerous allergies known to man. This sounds dramatic right? However, those with severe reactions, can be effected by simply the smell. As you might be aware, smelling a peanut doesn't require that it be actually placed in one's nose."
Actually, it does. When one uses the word "smell" and is not referring to the President, or Charlie Sheen's acting, one is referring to the use of an organ medically referred to as a "nose". The nose is a wonderful thing. It provides a transport pathway from the outside world into your respiratory system. But it does much more. Have you ever seen a Mexican or Latin woman with huge, black hairs growing out of her nose? Didn't it give you the heebee-jeebies? (Just imagine if you were her husband!) Anyway, as unerotic (is that a word) as those hairs may be, they are part of a defensive system which keeps all sorts of nasty creatures from poisoning you. As air enters your nose, the hairs within it, capture foreign particles and screen them out. These particles, some of them known as "airborn pathogens" could be very harmful. The nose also warms the air, etc. But back to peanuts. In order to be physiologically harmed by a substance, said substance must interact with our bodies on at least the tissue level. An allergen which could harm you through your nose must be airborne. Medically this is known as a "aeroallergen". I am not Leonardo DaVinci (you thought I was going to say DiCaprio, didn't you!) but I am pretty certain neither peanuts or peanut butter are airborne unless one throws them. Now, certainly, Ms. Anonymous is correct if someone heaves a honking-sized peanut up your nose. You will be hating life - BIG TIME. But otherwise, it can't harm you physiologically. But Psychologically is another matter. I'm not a psycho so I can't address that.
"Imagine, little Joey sits at his peanut-free table in the school cafeteria. Joey's best friend Matt can't sit with his buddy. This is because he is at the table across the aisle is eating his peanut-butter sandwich. After lunch, Matt says "hhhhi" to Joey. The peanut butter smell from Matt's breath enters Joey's cardiovascular system. Joey's system begins to shut down. His blood vessels throughout his body begin to constrtict. His airways begin to close. Joey can no longer breathe and begins to turn blue. He passes out. If an epipen is not near, he will go into a coma and die. This isn't a hypothetical - this is what happens."
If Matt's saliva, laced with toxic peanuts flies into Joey's mouth or nose (see above), then Joey would need access to vasodilator such as epinephrine. Even the folks who make the "EpiPen" in whose best interest it is to SELL them as often as possible state, "There have even been rare cases documented in which inhalation exposure to a food has triggered an anaphylactic reaction." They cite a parameter from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and immunology, which must provide the most extreme possibility for doctors to be aware of. But Joey cannot have a physiological reaction to something he is not actually exposed to. He can have a psychological reaction to a problem, but that is for the psycho's to comment upon - I am not qualified. So obviously, this is not "what happens". Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.
"The Food and Allergy network does NOT recommend peanut bans in schools, but instead education. But while you can certainly trust Joey to wash his hands and stay away from peanut products, how do you ensure that Matt washes his hands well enough? That a small amount doesn't get smeared on the monkey bars? That he brush his teeth? Should peanut allergic kids be kept in a bubble?"
How do you know you can trust Joey to wash his hands? The Monkey bars? Joey needs to stop licking them. Brushing his teeth? Tell Joey to stop using Matt's toothbrush!
You may have just stumbled onto a solution for the problem of this generation - stopping radical Islam and extricating the U.S. from Iraq. Peanuts! If we have thousands of Americans brush their teeth after having eaten peanut brittle, we can then partially sterilize the brushes and send them in deceptive packaging to the terrorists who will then use them and die! Or, we can construct hundreds of sets of Monkey bars, laced with peanut butter throughout Baghdad. Either way, we win!
Yea Baby!!!!!!!!!
And some of you want a woman to be President?
Friday, September 30, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The fearsome Peanut
When chemist George Washington Carver began his discovery of the myriad uses of the peanut, little did the unwitting American public understand that Dr. Carver was in fact creating a monster. ( I was tempted to use the term "peanutstein" but that would be going to far. )
Anyway, 100+ years later, Carver's discoveries strike fear in the hearts of frail children and anxiety-ridden mothers from Seattle to Annapolis and all points in between. Peanut Butter - once the staple food of champions (and something I literally lived on for more than 2 months at sea) is now believed to be as deadly as Anthrax and something to be avoided at all costs. The reason? Allergies.
School districts throughout the country are asking parents to rid their children's lunch boxes of this nasty menace. Is this fear unfounded? Or is the sinister peanut biding its time, while hapless children munch blithely away on their modern hemlock?
Today a frantic mom told me that she was asked not to pack peanut butter anymore because the "scent" of it is enought to trigger allergic reactions in some children.
Since I am embarking upon a career in science (well, sort of - medicine is actually a combination of art and science) I thought I would use this time to find out what the skinny is regarding peanut butter.
For the frantic mom, I didn't need to consult the latest scientific journals because I already knew that peanut butter's molecular structure is a SOLID, not a GAS, so unless someone stuffs it up their nose, it would be impossible for the substance of peanut butter to react with one's immune system.
Now, as the Thomas Dolby would say; science!
In the Journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy (Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 35 Issue 7 Page 933 - July 2005), the results of a test conducted by researchers at the Imerial College at St. Mary's London tested 13,638 seven-year old individuals, of which 6,412 yielded results. (I guess the others snuck off for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich - ungrateful cretins).
Anyway, the chillins were exposed to MTV, aeroallergens (dust mites, cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, and one other thing. Then, as if this weren't cruel enough the children were exposed to peanuts and other nuts as well as more than a few very angry squirrels.)
The result of all of this exposure was that 8.5% of the population demonstrated some reaction to the airborne allergens and 1% demonstrated the same reaction to the evil nuts. Hopefully they were all allergic to MTV.
If this data is to be extrapolated (and it is), this test reveals the following:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are now approximately 72 million persons under the age of 18 living in this country. If 1% of them would suffer an allergic reaction to the peanut or any nut, this amounts to 720,000. If we spread them evenly between states, (which, of course they are not) then we would get 14,400 children per state who demonstrate an allergic reaction to peanuts. In Texas there may be 81 school districts (not sure - couldn't get a definite number from the TEA website) which would mean 177 children per district. The state's largest district is Houston, which has more than 50,000 students. There are at least 300 schools in this district (per the HISD website, not counting charter or magnet schools) which means a bit more than half of all schools could have a child with an allergic reaction to nuts.
But this test was conduct with BRITISH children, not Americans. When a similar test was conducted by the NIH (Prevalences of positive skin test responses to 10 common allergens in the US population: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.) they found that Americans are far more sensitive to allergens than our English counterparts. The NIH study - not nearly as comprehensive, nearly 3% demonstrated a positive reaction to nut allergens.
Even if the results were tripled, this would still mean that each school district in Texas (statstically, very loose, I know) would only have 2 or 3 students who were allergic to peanut allergens. While this seems incredibly inconsequential, it is very symbolic of our nation at this time. We are ruled by minutae. Instead of the minority or aberrant, making their way in society, society must bend to make way for them. This is why the single Epehdra patient who died was allowed to create a huge windfall for the plaintiff's lawyers, and why persons who die from smoking still sue tobacco companies for wrongful death.
And this is why school districts want the thousands of parents with children who don't have allergies to change their lives to accomodate the very few who do.
Children who have allergic reactions to peanuts should not touch them. Such reactions can be anaphylactic or hypotensive, meaning they can bring on very nasty symptoms. If your child has a KNOWN allergy to these substances, then avoid them. But don't try and make all of society accomodate you and your child. Instead send your child to school with chicken salad, or just jelly and train them to avoid the foods which cause problems. There are many more times the number of children in society who suffer from genetic diabetes. Should all sugars be eliminated so that they won't be tempted to risk their lives by eating them? Of course not, and parents of diabetic children DO teach their kids what they can and cannot eat.
Give GW Carver his due and society a break. The peanut is a great thing; so is peanut butter. We ought to be asking ourselves why we are 3 times more allergic that the Brits, but we should also be willing to take responsibility for ourselves, our children and our actions - and hopefully research will soon bring about a prophylactic against peanut allergies.
Meanwhile, if you care to join me, I would be happy to share my peanut butter sandwich with you!
Anyway, 100+ years later, Carver's discoveries strike fear in the hearts of frail children and anxiety-ridden mothers from Seattle to Annapolis and all points in between. Peanut Butter - once the staple food of champions (and something I literally lived on for more than 2 months at sea) is now believed to be as deadly as Anthrax and something to be avoided at all costs. The reason? Allergies.
School districts throughout the country are asking parents to rid their children's lunch boxes of this nasty menace. Is this fear unfounded? Or is the sinister peanut biding its time, while hapless children munch blithely away on their modern hemlock?
Today a frantic mom told me that she was asked not to pack peanut butter anymore because the "scent" of it is enought to trigger allergic reactions in some children.
Since I am embarking upon a career in science (well, sort of - medicine is actually a combination of art and science) I thought I would use this time to find out what the skinny is regarding peanut butter.
For the frantic mom, I didn't need to consult the latest scientific journals because I already knew that peanut butter's molecular structure is a SOLID, not a GAS, so unless someone stuffs it up their nose, it would be impossible for the substance of peanut butter to react with one's immune system.
Now, as the Thomas Dolby would say; science!
In the Journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy (Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 35 Issue 7 Page 933 - July 2005), the results of a test conducted by researchers at the Imerial College at St. Mary's London tested 13,638 seven-year old individuals, of which 6,412 yielded results. (I guess the others snuck off for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich - ungrateful cretins).
Anyway, the chillins were exposed to MTV, aeroallergens (dust mites, cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, and one other thing. Then, as if this weren't cruel enough the children were exposed to peanuts and other nuts as well as more than a few very angry squirrels.)
The result of all of this exposure was that 8.5% of the population demonstrated some reaction to the airborne allergens and 1% demonstrated the same reaction to the evil nuts. Hopefully they were all allergic to MTV.
If this data is to be extrapolated (and it is), this test reveals the following:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are now approximately 72 million persons under the age of 18 living in this country. If 1% of them would suffer an allergic reaction to the peanut or any nut, this amounts to 720,000. If we spread them evenly between states, (which, of course they are not) then we would get 14,400 children per state who demonstrate an allergic reaction to peanuts. In Texas there may be 81 school districts (not sure - couldn't get a definite number from the TEA website) which would mean 177 children per district. The state's largest district is Houston, which has more than 50,000 students. There are at least 300 schools in this district (per the HISD website, not counting charter or magnet schools) which means a bit more than half of all schools could have a child with an allergic reaction to nuts.
But this test was conduct with BRITISH children, not Americans. When a similar test was conducted by the NIH (Prevalences of positive skin test responses to 10 common allergens in the US population: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.) they found that Americans are far more sensitive to allergens than our English counterparts. The NIH study - not nearly as comprehensive, nearly 3% demonstrated a positive reaction to nut allergens.
Even if the results were tripled, this would still mean that each school district in Texas (statstically, very loose, I know) would only have 2 or 3 students who were allergic to peanut allergens. While this seems incredibly inconsequential, it is very symbolic of our nation at this time. We are ruled by minutae. Instead of the minority or aberrant, making their way in society, society must bend to make way for them. This is why the single Epehdra patient who died was allowed to create a huge windfall for the plaintiff's lawyers, and why persons who die from smoking still sue tobacco companies for wrongful death.
And this is why school districts want the thousands of parents with children who don't have allergies to change their lives to accomodate the very few who do.
Children who have allergic reactions to peanuts should not touch them. Such reactions can be anaphylactic or hypotensive, meaning they can bring on very nasty symptoms. If your child has a KNOWN allergy to these substances, then avoid them. But don't try and make all of society accomodate you and your child. Instead send your child to school with chicken salad, or just jelly and train them to avoid the foods which cause problems. There are many more times the number of children in society who suffer from genetic diabetes. Should all sugars be eliminated so that they won't be tempted to risk their lives by eating them? Of course not, and parents of diabetic children DO teach their kids what they can and cannot eat.
Give GW Carver his due and society a break. The peanut is a great thing; so is peanut butter. We ought to be asking ourselves why we are 3 times more allergic that the Brits, but we should also be willing to take responsibility for ourselves, our children and our actions - and hopefully research will soon bring about a prophylactic against peanut allergies.
Meanwhile, if you care to join me, I would be happy to share my peanut butter sandwich with you!
More tales of the nutty and insane
Today I received an email telling me that someone I know who is a fireman, was being shot at by residents of Beaumont, Texas who wanted their houses to burn so they could get the insurance money. Others were actually setting their houses on fire. I know that stupidity is rampant (always has been), but do these people actually think their insurance company isn't going to ask the local fire inspector who started the blaze that consumed their house?
This is almost as bad as the morons who looted the convenience store here in Houston. After they broke in, the owner went to the store and boarded it up and called the police. The police waited in the parking lot across the street and sure enough, the morons returned to re-loot the store and were arrested. When a local reporter asked one of the world's dumbest people why he did such a stupid thing, his only reply was "I was only inside - that's all". Good thing for him breathing is an automatic reflex.
Filed under the "funny, but kind of wierd" section are the people who are now angry that the Hurricane didn't even bring enough rain to water their lawn or alleviate the 100+ temperatures we are having. I thought not being hit by a hurricane was a GOOD thing? Who knew?
How about the supra-genius mayor of New Orleans, inviting Louisiana residents to return to their flooded, biologically infected disaster area? Does anyone else have qualms about giving this guy and Governor "hold it, I'm weeping", Blanco 50 Billion dollars to rebuild their corrupt state? Am I being to harsh? Well, the 100+ families I interviewed at a relief center here in Houston all told me "We ain't goin' back". They were stunned that somebody like Nagin would receive 50 cents to rebuild the city (er, slum) of New Orleans. The only people I found who really wanted to return were a group of very friendly Rastafarians and in this particular blog I can't tell you why :)
I know there are some folks who think that Christians ought not to label certain acts as "stupid" or the people who do them as "morons", but there is a precedent for doing such things. When Job's wife advised him to curse God and die after he had suffered so much, Job told her "you speak as one of the foolish women". In other words, you are an idiot. (very large paraphrase from the Hebrew). Job then went on to say "are we to accept good from God and not bad"? (Job 2:10). People are always made in the image of God, but when I do something very stupid, I want people to let me know so that I don't continue to do it. If I were going to rob the same convenience store twice in one day, I would hope someone would have sense enough to call me an idiot.
This is almost as bad as the morons who looted the convenience store here in Houston. After they broke in, the owner went to the store and boarded it up and called the police. The police waited in the parking lot across the street and sure enough, the morons returned to re-loot the store and were arrested. When a local reporter asked one of the world's dumbest people why he did such a stupid thing, his only reply was "I was only inside - that's all". Good thing for him breathing is an automatic reflex.
Filed under the "funny, but kind of wierd" section are the people who are now angry that the Hurricane didn't even bring enough rain to water their lawn or alleviate the 100+ temperatures we are having. I thought not being hit by a hurricane was a GOOD thing? Who knew?
How about the supra-genius mayor of New Orleans, inviting Louisiana residents to return to their flooded, biologically infected disaster area? Does anyone else have qualms about giving this guy and Governor "hold it, I'm weeping", Blanco 50 Billion dollars to rebuild their corrupt state? Am I being to harsh? Well, the 100+ families I interviewed at a relief center here in Houston all told me "We ain't goin' back". They were stunned that somebody like Nagin would receive 50 cents to rebuild the city (er, slum) of New Orleans. The only people I found who really wanted to return were a group of very friendly Rastafarians and in this particular blog I can't tell you why :)
I know there are some folks who think that Christians ought not to label certain acts as "stupid" or the people who do them as "morons", but there is a precedent for doing such things. When Job's wife advised him to curse God and die after he had suffered so much, Job told her "you speak as one of the foolish women". In other words, you are an idiot. (very large paraphrase from the Hebrew). Job then went on to say "are we to accept good from God and not bad"? (Job 2:10). People are always made in the image of God, but when I do something very stupid, I want people to let me know so that I don't continue to do it. If I were going to rob the same convenience store twice in one day, I would hope someone would have sense enough to call me an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
