I've been listening to a podcast called "Science Vs". It's hosted by Wendy Zukerman, whom some of you might remember from ABC's Catalyst. In each episode, she investigates the science—or lack thereof—behind everyday stuff. In the latest episode, she takes a look at "body cleansing/detoxifying", which I think I've debated the effectiveness of with somebody on here before, so I thought this might make for interesting listening (Of course, if it was Melba, she's probably not going to see this anyway).
In any case, you can download it here or stream it here or …
The episodes are usually more concerned with subject breadth than they are with depth, which I've been willing to forgive, since I thought they were relatively short. However, looking at the actual timestamps on these things, I can see that they're not really. It must just seem that way because I listen to them at 3x normal speed.
4 comments :
1) why won't Melba see this, apart from being AWOL?
2) I don't have time for 42 mins but how on earth do you hear it all at 3x speed?
3) I never felt better gut-wise than after my colonoscopy. (of course that was before I was told my sister had died) I know when I feel bad now it's either 1) the Crohn's, which only hurts in specific places or 2) that I ate too many things I shouldn't have (much more likely, as it turns out)
1) Do I need a reason on top of that reason?
2) I think I've talked about this before (maybe with Melba, I don't remember). Most media players these days have controls that let you speed up or slow down the audio without shifting the pitch (ie: getting chipmunk effect). The trick is to start off with something easy, like say 1.5x; and then, every few weeks, you turn the speed up by 0.1 or so. Your brain just adjusts to it without you even noticing. Also it's very funny when you turn it back to normal speed and everybody sounds like they're drunk.
My player goes up to 4x, but it doesn't allow for setting the speed for each podcast independently, and some of the podcasts I listen to have poor audio quality or people with really thick accents, so 3x is my lowest (highest?) common denominator. I keep thinking that one day I'm going to download the source code for the player and modify it, but that's pretty low on the list of priorities.
3) I know you had your colonoscopy because you had symptoms; but do you know at what age you're supposed to go in for a preventative one? My folks have one every few years, and they always find polyps that need to be removed.
I don't know that you ever need a preventative colonoscopy unless you have
1) a positive screening test (that thing the govt sends you in the mail once you hit 50, or one requested by the doctor, known as a FOBT, or faecal occult blood test, which detects hidden blood in your poo)
2) a strong family history
or
3) symptoms suggesting you need it (pain, frank blood in your stools, unexplained weight loss)
I think you need to discuss with your doctor (or at least A doctor) whether your parents' history means you need a colonoscopy too, and at what age. My mother's history of having a metre cut out of her bowel when she was in her 40s meant that when I first developed symptoms (bleeding), I immediately thought I was dying and my doctor, who didn't think I was dying (goes to show that 25 years in a hospital does NOT make me a doctor), did think a colonoscopy was a good idea.
My Dad's doctor is an old mate of his, and he's one of those blokes who likes to catch things early, rather than taking the "wait and see" approach. He referred my dad for a colonoscopy because he was "at the age where he probably had something starting to grow in there", and he referred my Mum a few years after that. He was right on both counts, but at this point, I've forgotten what age they were when that all happened. I think they were in their fifties.
Post a Comment