Wait. We knew all this already

[elfs]

So, there's this article buzzing around the Internet: "Seven Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe," or some such. The "myths" they list are:

• People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day
• We use only 10% of our brains
• Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death
• Shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker, or coarser
• Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight
• Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy
• Mobile phones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals.

The oddest thing about this article is that I thought we already knew all of these. Haven't articles like this been floating around the medical literature for years? Maybe not all collected in one place, but I know I saw an article about how the "64oz of fluids a day requirement" got translated into the "8 glasses a day myth" last year, and the bit about there not being enough tryptophan in turkey to cause drowsiness is a decade old, at least. Articles pointing out that there's no clinical evidence associating reading in dim light with long-term vision problems have been around at least since 2003.

I'm just surprised to see it all coming out so quickly; fully eight percent of my "You must read this" RSS feed was that one article, or some report on that article. It's just weird.

Comments

[katybeth]

So why do hospitals prohibit cell phones?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Out of fear that cell phones might cause interference. The same reason that airplanes do, even though there's been no significant evidence there either.

[katybeth]

I've decided after recent trips and plenty of bus rides that I'm glad airplanes ban cell phone use. Can you imagine a flight with 200 people talking loudly on their cell phones for 5 hours?

[fallenpegasus]

That's a function of older people (older meaning "over 15") getting bad habits from older cellphones and from even older POTS handsets.

Modern state of the art cellphones and headsets work Just Fine with low conversational speaking voice, and some experamental ones are just about at the "subvoc" level.

When people complain about someone nearby talking on a cellphone, I wonder if they would have the same complaint if they were having a face to face conversation with the person next to them at the same loudness.

[katybeth]

I don't think the bad habit comes solely from older cell phones. If I'm in a noisy environment when I make my call, I can't hear the person on the other end as well because of background noise on my end, so my natural tendency is to raise my voice so that they can hear me better, too. I realize that noise on my end doesn't affect them, and they can hear me just fine even if I talk so quietly I can barely hear myself, but it takes a conscious effort to keep my voice low. I try to keep my cell phone calls in public short and quiet, and use text when possible.

I have witnessed courteous quiet cell phone calls. I've had the person on the bus seat next to me make a call so quietly that I couldn't overhear his conversation. Probably many such calls are made but we don't notice them as much because they are quiet and unobtrusive.

Two people talking loudly on the bus are almost as annoying as one person talking loudly on a cell phone, yes. I don't see that as often, though.

[blaisepascal]

Two governmental organization officially banned cell-phones from airplains. The FAA banned them because of concerns over avionics interference. I believe they recently lifted that ban because evidence is that it isn't a problem.

The FCC banned them because the cells weren't designed to deal wtih airborn phones. Handling hand-offs with phones which can be heard by 1-3 cells and stay within a cell for minutes to hours at a time is one thing, but when the phones are visible to 100 cells and stay within close-range to a given cell for under a minute, it's more difficult.

[srmalloy.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's because old cell phones did cause interference. The really old ones, around the time that wireless phones were making the transition from briefcase-size to brick-size -- units similar to the Motorola DynaTac 8000X. Old electronic gear was a lot noisier than modern equipment. However, back in 2004, researchers from the Mayo Clinic did a study of six different telephones; sixteen different medical devices were tested and interference occurred in seven (44 percent). The researchers conducted 510 tests by holding the phone next to the devices and then rotating it once a call was received from a wired telephone. The cellular phones were placed near vulnerable sites on the device, such as serial ports, cable connection ports and displays. The farthest distance away that a device was affected was 32 inches. Most interference occurred with devices that display ECG or EEG waveforms and involved noise interference. Two ventilator devices also experienced interference. So it's not entirely an urban legend; however, the actual degree of interference is overblown.

[solarbird]

Whelp, he's ready to run for Congress!

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Probably because it's all over the UK TV channels. Slow news day. They were even reduced to reporting that there wasn't a lot of traffic on the road this evening.

[woggie.livejournal.com]

Okay, my current understanding is that:
- we need six cups of water per day minimum to be fully hydrated, but more is better
- reading in dim light promotes eye strain
- tryptophan in turkey makes you sleepy, but you can override it with exercise

...the others I haven't heard anything about in years, in support or otherwise. Are you saying none of these things are true?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Reading in dim light causes short-term eye fatigue, but your eyes recover fully after rest, and the evidence to support the contention that it causes long-term damage is about as solid as the evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot.

We need about 64 oz of fluids a day, but that includes everything you eat or drink: all the water in food, all of your drinks (including coffee and soda pop), everything.

Snopes says of tryptophan (http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/turkey.asp): "Tryptophan doesn't act on the brain unless it is taken on an empty stomach with no protein present, and the amount gobbled even during a holiday feast is generally too small to have an appreciable effect."

All hail snopes

[mouser.livejournal.com]

According to Snopes, the entire 64oz thing is itself in question. (http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp)

Re: All hail snopes

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Ah, good point.

[fallenpegasus]

On the other hand, I am noticiably smarter and less irritable when I'm a bit over hydrated, and am much less likely to "munch and graze" when I have a water bottle to hand.

Being "ahead of my thirst" also helps a lot when I'm working out.

The rule of thumb that one's piss should be clear may be overkill, but it's harmless, and most people are not hydrated enough, not over hydrated.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

all of your drinks (including coffee and soda pop)

Actually, coffee and carbonated drinks are diuretics and since they make you pee more, they actually dehydrate you.

A friend of mine was in the hospital a while ago with dehydration, and he was drinking pop all day.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Actually, the best one I've heard that isn't on that list is "Chocolate gives you acne". I got that one from a doctor personally.

While there are people who are allergic to chocolate and thus break out (as can happen with any food really), chocolate in particular doesn't cause acne. This was proven before I was in grade school, and had its own aside in sex ed.