circular wrote:I suspect animal therapy, which I just started a thread on viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1455, has effects similar to grounding. To me nature itself it grounding. Grounding can be done with shoes on too. Barefoot is good but not necessary. I used grounding in my mediations indoors, outdoors, in the car, shoes on, shoes off …
The psychological effects of nature exposure is certainly therapeutic, but I'm also curious about some of the phenomena on the more "woo-wooy" end of the spectrum, which might point to some biochemical changes from the physical contact itself.
Grounding during a single night of sleep resulted in statistically significant changes in concentrations of minerals and electrolytes in the blood serum
Grounding the body to the earth substantially increases the zeta potential and decreases RBC aggregation, thereby reducing blood viscosity.
apod wrote:The psychological effects of nature exposure is certainly therapeutic, but I'm also curious about some of the phenomena on the more "woo-wooy" end of the spectrum, which might point to some biochemical changes from the physical contact itself.
Oh yes, I'm with you. For some reason I just assume the biochemical changes but do wonder specifically what they are. I can't imagine there not being such changes, but that's just my thinking.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
One thing I've stopped doing is leaving my iPhone's cellular connection on all the time, just turning it on to check for anything.
I'll also try to stop surfing on the internet while in my (parked) car, since one article mentioned the RF waves bounce around inside cars (no proof of that offered and I'd think it can escape through the windows? … but just in case).
I'm beginning to wonder about microwaved food, particularly protein which I heard long ago can be "denatured" by microwaves? Not sure what that means or if it's true. I rarely heat protein in it anyway.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
circular wrote:I'm beginning to wonder about microwaved food, particularly protein which I heard long ago can be "denatured" by microwaves? Not sure what that means or if it's true. I rarely heat protein in it anyway.
The microwave's effect on food should be strictly thermal.
You might get some uneven heating, which could maybe burn some spots in a bad way, but nothing that you couldn't achieve with an oven. Often, you can retain a better nutrient profile with microwaving as it cooks quickly without much water. Any source of heat would denature protein (eg. if you use heat to turn a runny egg into a cooked egg, you've just denatured the protein.) The issue with heating sources of protein up has more to do with heterocyclic amines / advanced glycation endproducts / oxidized lipids / fermentation byproducts than denaturation. You can denature a protein with an acid, such as with digestion.
Thanks for that explanation. Only thing about heating protein with less water is I've always read it's high and dry heat that causes the advanced glycation end products. I usually steam my fish (occassional chicken), either in a steamer or in a countertop oven, at low heat. My very infrequent bison burgers I even steam using low heat on the stovetop.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
In general, the authors come to the same conclusion: that a significant amount of evidence does indicate that cell phone radiation could be harmful to male reproductive health, but that the study designs are inconsistent, often not reproducible, and don’t always adequately control for confounding variables. That said, there’s enough concerning preliminary evidence to warrant caution and further investigation.
Re. brain health, I found this tidbit suggesting cell phones affect brain glucose metabolism interesting... albeit inconclusive:
One of the few human studies involving cell phone exposure found that when two cell phones, one active and one inactive, were placed on either side of a participant’s head for 50 minutes, glucose metabolism increased on the side of the brain exposed to the active phone. (22) This study got a lot of attention, but a subsequent study came up with opposite results, where glucose metabolism decreased on the side of the brain exposed to cell phone radiation. (23) Regardless, the clinical implications of these results (if any) are unknown.
So, what's the verdict?
The bottom line is that we don’t know. As you’ve seen, there’s quite a bit of research on the safety of cell phones, but the results have been varied and inconclusive. Additionally, the biological mechanisms by which cell phone radiation could cause these adverse health effects are only just beginning to be understood, and until a clear mechanism exists, we can’t draw any conclusions from the epidemiological data we have.
That said, there’s enough concerning preliminary evidence to warrant caution. In a way, we’ve all unwittingly become part of an uncontrolled population-wide experiment on cell phone safety, and the precautionary principle applies: we don’t know that it’s harmful, but it makes sense to take reasonable measures to reduce exposure in case it is.
Luckily I don't feel a need to have my phone's cellular connection always on. I now almost always have it in airplane mode which shuts even GPS off, while I can selectively turn on Internet access when I want to use it for Internet activity. At least that's lower RF. I also stopped using it in my car, which I'd often do in parking lots to catch up on this and that, or call home. For years I've had an iPhone on in every way and carried in my bag everywhere that way. Bluetooth is lowest of cellular, Internet and Bluetooth, so if I can get my internet RF exposure down more I might not feel too bad if I decide to get a wearable fitness tracker running low Bluetooth. Haven't decided. Overall my lifestyle has just gotten too digital "always on" to the detriment of my chi, so I'm incorporating chi work back in to for balance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
The bottom line is if there are any risks, they are so low that in 20 years we haven't observed them in billions of users. I call that a definitive result.
Theoretically, RF frequencies of household products could be having an effect that's never been studied for, or could be contributing, in some way we're not aware of, to conditions we believe have other causes. I think the WHO said, based on their review, we just don't know yet, but I'd have to go find that again and I'm barely awake. Will try to do so.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
