J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Would people be more likely to avoid unhealthy foods if they received a tax incentive to do so? A few countries think so, and have enacted laws to increase taxes on fat, sweet and salty foods. The outgoing conservative Danish government has passed a “ fat tax” on foods high in saturated fats. Hungary has also introduced a new tax popularly known as the “Hamburger Law” that involves higher taxes on soft drink, pastries, salty snacks and food flavorings.  

Denmark now has a life expectancy much lower than other surrounding countries. “Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,” health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said, because “saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.”  The “fat tax” would help curb the country’s obesity problem and estimates are that it will increase the average life expectancy of Danes by three years over the next 10 years.

 Denmark’s and Hungary’s efforts to tax unhealthy foods might not be such a bad idea. While it seems that many people will not act to protect their own health, they might be a little more likely to eat healthy foods if they receive a financial incentive to do so. I doubt that the United States would ever have the political will to raise taxes on unhealthy food. We will just wait and pay the health costs. However, perhaps we could do it by lowering taxes.

Since many state legislatures have exhibited a passion for cutting taxes, they could encourage people to live longer and lead healthier lives by removing the sales tax on healthy foods. There are a number of resources such as Harvard’s Nutrition Source  that could provide the information that would be necessary to do that. Even without the financial incentive, it would be a good idea for everyone to become familiar with Nutrition Source, or even Dr. Oz’s list of 100 healthy foods.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Research Credit: Barbara Moore

Science is about using observation and reason to understand the physical world. Some people are suspicious of computer models and theories; so here is the basic data about global warming in pictures.

Ice core data gives a good picture of what has happened to the Earth in the last several ice ages. Please note that the concentration of CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm in the warmer interglacial periods but now the CO2 concentration is  387 ppm – much higher than any time in the ice core record:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

 CO2: Man is now putting about 30,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Much of it stays there and you can see how it is building up in air:

http://susty.com/image/keeling-curve-carbon-dioxide-parts-per-million-co2-summer-uptake-by-trees-plants-soils-graph-red-line-illustration-image.jpg

 Temperature: CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases that warm the Earth and NASA’s graph shows how its increase is changing the Earth’s temperature:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

 Changing Earth: Many of the changes in the Earth are subtle but here is one of NASA’s pictures that clearly shows  how the Earth is changing:

http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Arctic-1.jpg

  The full article, with pictures,  is here: http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/09/01/global-warming-in-pictures/

(c) 2011  J.C. Moore

“Pictures of the polar region from 1979 and 2003 clearly show that about 30% of the Arctic  ice has melted. This has greatly affected the way of life of the native Inuit who live and hunt on the Polar ice.  While some may adapt, their way of life and culture, which sustained them for centuries, will be destroyed.”

Although arguments still rage about whether the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, the disappearance is a fact of life for those who live near the Arctic Ocean.   The photos clearly show that the Arctic Sea ice is disappearing. A recent TulsaWorld article described how the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice has affected the lives of the native Inuit people in Greenland. Ice which used to be 2 meters thick in the winter, now grows only a few centimeters thick, far too thin to allow dogsleds to go to the nearest town, 50 miles away across the bay. They can no longer venture onto the ice to hunt for seals or walrus, a mainstay of their diet,  nor can they go out on the ice to fish. The Polar bears they sometimes hunt have no fat, as the bears cannot swim to the ice packs to hunt, and they sometimes prowl the villages looking for food.

Drilling for oil has picked up in the area as the ices disappears, but so far little oil has been found. Exploration continues, and if oil is eventually found, it carries the possibility of  economic development. But it also carries  the possibility that an oil spill, almost impossible to clean up in the icy  environment, would destroy much of the ocean life the natives now depend on for food. The sad thing is that they are being forced to change a way of life that sustained them for centuries. While some may adapt, their way of life and culture will be destroyed, and many will likely end up among the poor and unemployed.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Senator Jim Inhofe is wirting a book that he claims will disprove global warming. It will be interesting to see what research he cites and what might comprise such a proof. Last winter, after a blizzard, Sen. Jim Inhofe built an igloo for his grandchildren and claimed  that the record snowfall disproved global warming.  It will take more proof than that. Oklahoma is now experiencing a record drought and heat wave. Recently, Bruce Plante, a Tulsa World political cartoonist,  drew a cartoon of a hot, perspiring person asking at the library if Jim inhofe’s  book, disproving global warming, was out yet.  Dean Jones, a supporter of Inhofe, sent a letter to the Tulsa World entitled “Global Cooling” (TW, 7/20/2011), which takes issue with the cartoon and “global warming advocates”.  However, there are no advocates for global warming – but there are those who advocate  that we listen to climate scientists who say that global warming is causing the weather events that occur to be more extreme.(1)  Have you noticed any extreme weather lately?

 There is little evidence for Mr. Jones’ claim of “global cooling”.  NASA’s records of the Earth’s mean temperature show a clear  trend upward with the whole Earth now being about 1.2°F warmer than a century ago. (2) A warmer Earth means water evaporates faster and that the air can hold more moisture.  Areas that are normally dry, dry out faster. And, when conditions are right for precipitation, the combination of more energy and moisture in the air increases the chance of severe storms and flooding.

 If you don’t believe that the weather has become more extreme, just watch your insurance bill.  Insurance giants  Swiss Re and Munich Re, who insure other insurance companies, have assessed the risks and found that global warming has increased the risk of insurance losses.  If your insurance rates go up – blame those who have prevented effective action to mitigate global warming.

(1) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/22/the-case-of-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/

(2) See the graph at http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/12/13/science-climate-change-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

(c) 2011  J.C. Moore

Fluoride is toxic at high levels but has health benefits  at low levels. Fluoride  is added to water at concentrations less than 1 ppm as it  helps to prevent tooth decay by hardening tooth enamel.  Tooth decay can allow bacteria to enter the bloodstream where they cause heart disease and other infections.  There are places where fluoride occurs naturally in water at ten times the concentration used to fluoridate water and there have been no long term effects except fluorosis, a brown stain on children’s teeth.

Fluoride is chemically about like chloride ion in the body – except that at high concentrations it forms a precipitate with calcium and ties it up. That’s the reason it is toxic at high levels. Fluoride can be used at fairly high doses to treat osteoporosis as it will keep calcium from leaving bones.  At 0.5 to 1 ppm, the amount usually used to fluoridate water, there have been no serious side effects. At above 1.5 ppm, fluorosis, a brown stain on the teeth may form in a few % of the population. There are places where natural sources of fluoride are as high as 10ppm and fluorosis is the only health effect found. Fluoride is toxic at high levels with an  LD50 of  125 ppm in rats and it is assumed to be about the same in humans. For comparison, the dose rate for aspirin is about 5 ppm  and the  LD₅₀ in rats is 200 ppm (1 ppm is 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight).

There are very few sources of fluoride in people’s diets except water or products where it is an additive. The source of the fluoride doesn’t really matter as most inorganic fluorides hydrolyze to form fluoride and bifluoride ion in water. Many toothpastes use stannous fluoride. Many countries add fluoride to salt or even to milk as tooth decay  is considered to be a much more serious health risk than fluoride exposure. The exposure from all sources should be kept below 1.0 pm so those who have fluoridate water or salt should not use other fluoridated products or toothpaste. If you are worried about fluoride in you water, there are water filters that remove it from drinking water and it is easy to avoid it from other sources.

Update, 3/14/2011: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is announcing a proposal to change the recommended fluoride level to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The standard since 1962 has been a range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter. There was no health risk at the higher level, but fluorosis has been observed in kids teeth, particularly those who may get fluoride from other sources.

(C) 2010

V  Share this.

The “Fair Tax” proposal would replace income taxes with a “revenue neutral” consumption tax. To fund our government at the current level would require a national sales tax of  30%. The Fair Tax proposal  might simplify our tax codes, but it would also have ripple effects across our economy with unknown consequences.

Economist Mike Moffatt has identified the likely winners and losers under the Fair Tax proposal. Winners would be people who are inclined to save, people who can shop in other countries, those who can avoid sales taxes by unscrupulous means, and the wealthiest one percent who will get an average tax cut of about $75,000.

The losers would be the working poor, families with incomes less than $200,000, people who derive income from the current system (tax accountants, IRS employees and income tax lawyers), and seniors who have already paid a lifetime of income taxes and would now be taxed on spending as well.

The “Fair Tax” proposal would shift more of the tax burden to middle and lower income groups, those groups already benefiting the least from recent tax cuts. Our present graduated income tax code is based on the ideas that those who profit most from our country’s wealth, resources, and opportunities should pay a greater share of their bounty in taxes. The current system seems fairer and more pragmatic than shifting taxes to those who could least afford to pay.

For more information and references, click Here.

Is Social Security Going Broke? No. According to the actuaries at the Social Security Administration, Social Security (SS) is financially as sound as the U.S. government. The surplus in the SS trust fund today stands at $2.4 trillion and is entirely invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds, which earn interest. The Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith of the US government and SS would only go broke if the U.S. government went bankrupt.

There was a hike in the Social Security payroll tax (FICA)in the 1980s so that baby boomers would pay a bigger share of their own retirement. That hike created a surplus which went into the SS trust fund. The trust fund is projected to grow and reach its peak in 2027 at nearly $6 trillion. From that and collections, there will be sufficient money in SS to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041.

A few small changes now could extend the trust fund far into the future. A poll conducted for USA Today by Gallup shows that 67% of Americans would support lifting the cap on FICA contributions. That change alone would extend the SS trust fund until 2083.   More, and references  Here.

Complaints about  “scientific secrecy” are disingenuous: There is very little secrecy in science. Scientific papers are presented and openly debated at meetings where anyone can attend. The peer reviewed papers include the data, the results, and the reasoning and are available at public libraries and many are now online. Also:

Researchers are required to keep records of their research so that any other scientist with comparable training and skills could reproduce the research. The “reproducibility” of the research is an important factor in the reviewer’s evaluation of the research. The public has a right to information produced by publicly funded research and that may be requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Usually a “Gatekeeper”, such as the project’s director, is designated to handle FOIA requests. That Gatekeeper has a responsibility to see not only that the public’s rights are upheld, but also to see that the FOIA process is not abused and that the scientists are protected. (1)

Only a few things are kept confidential to preserve the integrity of the peer review process.  The main barriers preventing a better understanding of science by the public is not “secrecy”, but poor science education, the lack of responsible and informative reporting by the media, and an ongoing campaign to spread misinformation by those who find the conclusions of science inconvenient to their ideological or financial interests.