All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 26, 2011 - Skeptoid
16:09
Skeptoid #268: Student Questions: Energy Shots and Sunscreen

Skeptoid answers another round of questions sent in by students. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Sunscreen Myths and Energy Shots 00:06:35
It's another episode of Skeptoid and another round of student questions that have been sent in.
We talk about a lot of urban legends and strange things from pop culture, and all of us have questions about things we've heard on social media or from our friends.
So today, we're letting students get some of these off their chests.
That's today on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Student questions, energy shots, and sunscreen.
Although I ran, I've again been caught by students from around the world and peppered with questions about what's science and what's silly.
Today's classroom asks about the usefulness of those popular caffeinated energy shots, the various internet myths about sunscreen products, the meaning of the word information when thermodynamics are invoked to prove creationism, companies that claim to offer the secrets of suppressed miracle cures for cancer, and whether drinking hot water from the tap is as risky as some rumors say it is.
Let's get started with energy shots from a young man in Southern California.
Hi, Mr. Dunning.
What's your take on those five-hour energy shots and how they affect the users after the supposedly energetic five-hour period?
Despite the manufacturer's claims, the only active ingredient in such energy drinks is caffeine.
Caffeine is a psychoactive stimulant.
It does not provide your body with energy fuel like food does.
Instead, it temporarily reduces drowsiness and increases your alertness.
Anxiety is a primary side effect, and it's this that gives us the feeling of jumpiness.
Caffeine temporarily increases our ability to tolerate both mental and physical work, and the effect usually wears off in three to four hours.
The amount of caffeine found in these beverages is controversial.
It's common for testers to find more than is reported on the label.
Generally, they contain about the same as a cup of coffee, somewhere around 175 to 200 milligrams.
This is about six times what the average caffeinated soft drink contains.
That little bottle at the checkout stand packs the wallop of an entire six-pack of cola.
Many of these manufacturers state that their drinks contain vitamins, and this is where the energy boost actually comes from.
But basic nutrition tells us this makes no sense.
Vitamins do not provide usable energy.
That comes from the calories in carbohydrates, fats, and even some proteins.
Some have tried to backpedal and say their vitamins assist the metabolism of energy.
Well this is basically true, but your body's normal supply of vitamin B is more than enough to do this job, and supplementation is usually just wasted excess.
This claim is risky ground for them to tread.
If it were true, they'd basically be advising you to take a five-cent vitamin pill instead of their overpriced drink.
Hi, this is Alex, a grad student from Arizona State University.
I was wondering if any of the purported dangers of sunscreen are true.
I've heard that some fail to actually protect from the UV light that causes cancer, or that sunscreen itself is a carcinogen and causes health problems that outweigh the benefits.
You've raised two important questions that have been asked a lot in recent years.
First, is sunscreen itself unhealthy or even carcinogenic?
And second, are sunscreen SPF ratings actually true and reliable?
Fortunately, the United States FDA issued new rules in June 2011 that answer both.
The first question is simple enough.
There's no evidence that the ingredients in any commercially available sunscreen product have ever given anyone cancer or caused anyone to go blind, nor is there any plausible reason to suspect they might, when used as directed.
Neither have any victims ever surfaced.
This appears to be nothing more than your garden variety internet myth.
Manufacturers have a year from the date of the new ruling to comply with labeling rules that the consumer will finally be able to rely upon.
The FDA will basically allow two types of sunscreen labeling.
Broad spectrum sunscreen, which provides protection against both UVA and UVB ultraviolet light, will be permitted to show an SPF of 15 or higher and will be labeled broad spectrum.
They'll also carry labeling that states that when used as directed with other sun protection measures, they can reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging.
Other sunscreen products, with SPF of 14 or lower, will only be permitted to say that they've been shown only to help prevent sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging.
So look for sunscreen marked 15 or higher and that says broad spectrum, and you'll get the protection you expect without fear of getting skin cancer directly from the lotion.
Hi Brian, my name's Lachlan McGowan and I study geology and law at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
In my online battles with young Earth creationist trolls, I've noticed a new trend for them to use the word information to describe DNA.
They talk about it being impossible to create new information or about DNA losing information over time.
Quantum Risks in Tap Water 00:07:49
However, I can't get a definition of information out of them and the only places I can find the word information used in science outside of its conventional sense is in the deep physics of black holes and subatomic particles.
Is the argument from information even vaguely valid or is it equivalent to a homeopath's use of the word quantum?
Basically, what they're doing here is misusing scientific sounding terminology that they've heard but don't properly understand.
So to answer your final question, yes, it's exactly like new agers throwing around the term quantum as if the word is an explanation supporting whatever they feel like claiming.
Classical information, like words printed in a book or the arrangement of proteins in DNA, can easily be created and destroyed all day long.
One famous example is writing a book to create information, then burning it to destroy it.
This does not violate entropy or thermodynamics or anything else, because quantum laws apply only in the quantum world, not in the classical world.
Information in that sense refers to the quantum state of particles, which is not changed at all when a book is written or burned or when a baby is conceived, then dies and decomposes.
So the reason you can't get a definition of information out of them is that they have no idea what kind of information the laws of thermodynamics refer to.
Their claimed paradox of DNA losing information over time is exactly analogous to taking their Bible and occasionally tearing a page out of it.
There's no reason you can't do this, and doing so proves nothing.
The quantum state of the particles in amino acids is not changed by the degradation of DNA, and the quantum state of particles in the discarded Bible pages is not lost either.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Málaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finish the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hi, Brian.
This is Michelle from Sydney, Australia.
I'd like to know if you're aware of the group called Health Sciences Institute of Baltimore.
They help themselves to my mother's bank account to the tune of about $80 a year.
I think, and for this fee, they share with her a monthly email about secret discoveries such as a secret cure for cancer, which they say comes from the Amazonian tree called Graviola.
I want to hear what you have to say about this and their many other exposés of real but secret health cures.
Thanks, Brian.
Quack miracle health cures have always been and will probably always continue to be just about the most marketable products on the planet.
150 years ago, street corner Victorian pitchmen sold snake oil and the promise of miracles was so perfect then that it hasn't had to be updated in any meaningful way.
Throughout their history, the pitches for these cons have had three basic points.
One, make up or read about virtually any substance and call it a miracle cure for any condition you want.
Two, give a testimonial from someone, real or invented, makes no difference.
Three, suggest that it's secret or suppressed by some conspiracy of the medical establishment.
Something they don't want you to know.
Your example hits all three points pretty squarely.
No, I've not heard of your particular institute or their particular miracle cancer cure, but just Google Secret Cancer Cure to see how innumerable these are.
24 million results for the search I did just now.
Why so popular?
Well consider your example.
For $80 a year, it's probably one guy who has to do nothing more than write one email a month.
If he has a thousand customers, he's making a living.
There will always be people desperate for a miracle.
I'd love to have one myself.
So there will always be someone happy to take their money to promise it.
Hi, Brian.
My name's Scott from the University of Melbourne.
I've been brought up to think that I shouldn't drink hot water from the tap.
Can I please get your thoughts on this?
This is an interesting case because the reasons for it are sound and there is actually a risk.
But the reality is that the risk is probably negligible.
Tap water is not pure water, obviously.
Even the cleanest and safest contains contaminants, chemical, mineral, and organic.
Hot water dissolves contaminants more quickly than does cold water.
The hot water pipes in your home, those between the water heater and your tap, are probably more corroded than the cold water pipes.
Those corroded minerals, including lead from solder, end up in your glass when you fill it with hot tap water.
But consider the actual risk.
Imagine a pile of all those corroded minerals on your desk after 20 years.
It's probably not a very big pile.
Perhaps the size of a grapefruit or melon is a rough estimate.
Consider that nearly all of it went through the bathtub, shower drain, dishwasher, or clothes washing machines.
The tiny percentage of that total that went into your coffee mug, over 20 years, can probably be scooped up on your fingernail.
That's it.
It pales in comparison to what everyone gets environmentally just by existing on Earth.
So is it a real risk?
Yes.
Should you drink hot water from the tap?
Not if you have an alternative.
Do you need to worry about it?
Probably not.
Now infection by Legionella bacteria is another risk that's been discussed.
Legionella can cause a potentially fatal infection.
However, Legionella grows best in warm water, below 140 degrees, and most home hot water heaters are set to higher, which will kill it.
In addition, the infection is transmitted by breathing in water vapor, not by drinking.
So if you're going to catch Legionnaire's disease at home, it'll be in the shower, not from drinking a glass of hot tap water.
Legionella Infection and Skepticism 00:01:41
If you're a student and have a question, send it on in.
You can do it in two seconds with the voice memo feature on your phone.
Come to skeptoid.com and click on student questions.
And of course, anyone can ask me a science question at any time on Twitter.
Just follow me at twitter.com slash BrianDunning.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection