August 28, 2025 • 53 mins
The Science Podcast explores surprising research that challenges conventional wisdom about dietary protein and cancer mortality while also examining how cats with dementia could unlock mysteries of human Alzheimer's disease. Water expert Cydian Kauffman reveals shocking truths about drinking water safety standards and the presence of "forever chemicals" in our water supply.
• New study shows animal protein may have a slight protective effect against cancer mortality
• Research contradicts previous findings that animal protein increases death risk
• Plant protein showed no association with mortality rates from any cause
• Cats naturally develop amyloid beta plaques similar to those in human Alzheimer's patients
• Studying feline dementia could lead to breakthroughs for both species
• EPA's legal limits for water contaminants are higher than health limits due to cost considerations
• PFAS "forever chemicals" present in water at extremely low but harmful concentrations
• Reverse osmosis systems now more affordable for home water treatment
• Water access directly impacts gender equality in developing regions
• Testing well water crucial as dangerous contaminants like arsenic are odorless and tasteless
Pure Water Northwest
Our all links to social media and more!
For Science, Empathy, and Cuteness!
Being Kind is a Superpower.
https://twitter.com/bunsenbernerbmd
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hello science enthusiasts.
I'm Jason Zukoski.
And I'm Chris Zukoski, we'rethe pet parents of Bunsen,
beaker, bernoulli and Ginger.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
The science animals on social media.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
If you love science.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And you love pets.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
You've come to the right spot, so put on your
safety glasses and hold on toyour tail.
This is the Science Podcast.
Hello and welcome back to theScience Podcast.
We hope you're happy andhealthy out there.
This is episode 25 of seasonseven.
So, chris, we didn't do a showlast week.
It was a gong show.
What was going on?
(00:45):
Why was there not a show lastweek?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Jason.
There was a show last week andit was a gong because gong show.
We were packaging up ourBernoulli stuffies and it was a
lot of work and there was noextra time to spare.
We wanted to make sure that webeat the time, beat the clock to
get them out to our customersin a timely fashion.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Exactly, we had a really big response to the
Bernoulli stuffy Not to make thewhole front of this about the
Bernoulli stuffy but we spentfour days solid packing.
It was a lot of work but it wasvery rewarding.
And we had to beat the clock,as you said, to get all of the
American packages to the borderbefore de minimis ends, which
(01:35):
means that the Americans will nolonger be able to bring in
under $800 without duties andtariffs.
So we were racing against theclock, clock, and it looks like
we made it by the hair of ourchinny chin.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Yeah, it was pretty incredible.
We I cannot believe how well weworked together.
Actually, I know how well weworked together because we just
worked well together, but it wasa lot.
It was a lot of printing andorganization and being tired and
just, it was a lot.
It was a lot of printing andorganization and being tired and
just it was a good time.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah, and the other thing that compounded everything
, too, is school is startingagain, right, you have kids
tomorrow, and that's anotherthing that started up again.
So it's been a very busy week.
We carved out some time tonightI think we should get to it.
We have two science articlesand we have a guest this week.
So one of the science articleswe'll be talking about is a
(02:33):
rather shocking study about howabout what we eat affects all
cause of death and cancer.
So all cause of death issometimes called all cause
mortality.
I don't want to give it away,so that's the lead there.
And in pet science, we're goingto be looking at linkages
(02:54):
between dementia in humans anddementia in cats both very sad
and tragic conditions, but fromone we could learn the other.
And our guest today is a waterexpert, and we're going to be
talking about potential issueslurking in groundwater and also
(03:15):
bust some of the myths or not.
It's a great discussion and wehaven't had a science guest in a
while.
Chris, what time is it?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Jason, it's science time this week in a while.
Chris, what time is it?
Jason?
It's science time this week inscience news.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
This science study really hammers home.
You are what you eat, from yourhead to your feet.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Hey, Jason, that's my line.
That's my line I always saythat you are what you eat, from
your head to your feet.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
We've talked about this before.
You are a lacto-ovo-vegetarian?
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Yes, I am.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah, so you have egg products and you have milk
products, but you do not eatanimal flesh.
If that's not too graphic, Isthat how you characterize it?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, and then I eat plant protein as well.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
I am a meatitarian.
No, I eat anything.
I really do eat pretty muchanything.
There's only a few things onthis earth I've eaten which I've
been like.
That's okay, I don't need toeat that again.
Eggplant is one of them.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Eggplant is one of them.
I made a delicious I don't evenknow eggplant dish and Jason
said no, thank you.
You were very polite, but yousaid maybe let's not make that
one again.
It's very salty, probablybecause of the Parmesan cheese I
put on it.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
All right.
So this study comes from theNational Health and Nutrition
Examination Study and there were15,937 people in the study aged
19 plus and sadly, as you lookat these long range studies,
(04:55):
3,843 people died during thefollow-up period.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
So the idea was looking at the people who lived
and the people who died theirlifestyle, but also, more
specifically, to the study whatthey ate.
Yeah, and the methods werepretty simple.
The participants reported whatthey ate in a 24-hour survey and
then scientists used advancedmath models to reduce errors
from self-reporting, becausewhen you're talking about
yourself, there sometimes issome bias.
(05:27):
They divided the proteins intocategories, so animal protein
being from meat, dairy and eggs,plant protein was from beans,
grains and nuts, and then therewere mixed foods.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Also within the study .
They wanted to test this is asubgroup of people in the study
whether IGF-1, which is ahormone linked to growth and
sometimes cancer risk, wasrelated to dying early.
So there's the methods.
You talked about the food thing, and then there was also a
subgroup of people where theylooked at this growth hormone.
And then there was also asubgroup of people where they
(06:05):
looked at this growth hormone.
Igf1, one helps you grow, butif it sticks around too long in
adults it has like anaboliceffects and it's really related
to insulin.
So potentially down the linethat could cause problems.
So they were looking at that.
So some of the key findings fromall cause mortality, that's,
death for many reason.
The people who had animalprotein within their diet had no
(06:28):
association.
No association means more orless.
This did not make people moreor less likely to die, so eating
more or less of animal proteindidn't change the overall risk
of dying from any cause, andplant protein had no association
at all.
Same result no impact onlifespan overall, which is a
(06:48):
little counterintuitive, becausesome studies I've read or some
suggestions I've read is thatpeople who are vegetarian and do
not eat red meat or animalprotein tend to live longer.
Not so much in this case.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
So the next one that they looked at was a CVD
mortality rate, and that's deathfrom a heart attack, stroke or
clogged arteries, and they foundthat protein animal protein had
no association, again, Again,more or less didn't affect their
heart-related death risk, andthat's interesting, as well as
(07:24):
plant protein no association,same, no effect.
Super interesting.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Now the next one is maybe going to ruffle some
feathers, and that was cancermortality, so death from cancer.
Animal protein in this studyhad a slight protective effect.
People who ate more animalprotein had a small but a very
real decrease in cancer-relateddeaths.
Plant protein had noassociation.
(07:54):
Eating plant protein didn'tincrease or decrease your chance
of cancer death.
Again, that's shocking.
I'm not going to lie.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
I know.
So maybe the whole idea is thatyou're just eating a
well-balanced, well-rounded diet.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Yeah, and the last one, that special subgroup,
igf-1,.
That had no association as well.
So higher or lower IGF-1 levelsweren't linked to more or fewer
deaths.
All cause mortality, cancer,heart-related, nothing.
It just didn't seem to relate.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And so, just to recap , everything had no association,
except for the animal proteinwhich had a slight protective
effect.
So people who were eating moreanimal protein had a small but
real decrease in cancer deaths.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Now, if we compare this to this other study that's
very famous that was in 2014,which concluded, or claimed,
animal protein raised death risk, especially cancer this study
that we just talked about,they're using the same data set
from the National Health andNutrition Examination Study.
That same data set ran from1988 to 1994, and then through a
(09:06):
follow-up period up to 2006.
This study used the same dataas that other one, but it used
better math models.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, better methods.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Yeah, it didn't confirm those other results.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Was there a difference for age, age of the
participants?
So we talked about the adultshad to be 19 plus to participate
.
But is there a difference inthe results for different ages?
Speaker 1 (09:35):
No, there's no difference.
No age group showed harm fromeating more protein.
No age group showed harm fromeating plant protein.
And in that previous study thatlinked kind of middle-aged
folks 50 to 65, to an increasedrisk of death from eating animal
protein, the study found noincreased risk.
So the devil's in the details.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Sometimes it's about how you do your math, I think
it's important to keep somelimitations of the study in mind
.
Like I said earlier, the foodintake was self-reported and
people often under-report whatthey eat.
I know if I'm trying to keeptrack on my fitness app
sometimes I don't do it daily.
The IGF-1 was realisticallyfrom a smaller subset of the
(10:21):
participants, so the data may ormay not be.
There may or may not be enoughdata to make a generalization,
and the follow-up stopped in2006.
Jason, that's a long time ago.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
I know, I just feel like the 90s.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I do I feel like it was yesterday, but 2006 is a
little bit far away from wherewe are now, so more recent data
could add more insights.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
That's what I'm interested in is like the data
up to now, because that otherstudy that said animal protein
bad.
We also use the older data andthis studies is animal protein
not so bad.
Use older data.
We need some newer data in thestudy use older data.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
We need some newer data in the study.
Yeah, because you know it.
That data did not test whathappens if you swap animal
protein for plant protein youstart your life eating lots of
red meat and then you switch tolegumes or if you start eating
chicken m McNuggets and then youswitch to chickpeas.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Ah, gotcha, I do have to say some of your fakie fake
meat tastes pretty good.
Some of it is very bad, likethey're not fooling anybody.
The Beyond Meat burgery thingsthat you get, those are tasty
Like they're good they certainlydon't taste like a ham.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Okay, whatever they are.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
They're good.
Those are tasty, like they'regood.
They certainly don't taste likea hamburger.
Okay, whatever they are,they're good.
I like them when we make them,I love them.
They're actually quite good,but they don't taste like a
hamburger.
So, while they're really yummy,they don't taste like a
hamburger.
And then I think some of theother stuff has a long way to go
, because every bite just tasteslike cardboard.
All right, that's science newsfor this week.
(12:06):
This week in pet science we'regoing to be looking at cats that
get dementia and how studyingthem could help humans when we
get dementia.
Now, none of my family olderfolks got dementia, but I do
know some people who are dealingwith that right now with their
(12:27):
older family members, and Idon't want to make light of it
because it's rough, it's bad.
I've seen the TikTok videos.
I've heard some of mycolleagues talk about it.
So, yeah, if you're goingthrough that while we're going
to be talking about in the study, I just want you to know that I
do see it as being really toughto live through.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It is One of my colleagues.
He went through that with hisparents and then his wife has
something similar with herparents.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Yeah, it's tough.
So in this study we're lookingat data from the European
Journal of Neuroscience and it'sbasically talking about how
Alzheimer'sheimer's disease,dementia and dementia related
disease in humans.
Um, similar structures arefound in the brains of aging
(13:13):
cats.
Now, as cats get older, theystart to they may start to have
some of these behaviors.
Did you, did any of your catsstart to get dementia as they
got older?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
I don't believe so.
Poco was basically the samewhen she was a kitten to when
she was in her 20s, and Liebe, Idon't believe, had forms of
dementia, but she did have likeincontinence and other issues
that happened at the end of herlife.
(13:45):
One thing that you could lookfor, though, is, as cats get
older, they yowl more at night,and so those could be loud,
distressed vocalizations.
When they're yowling, theycould have trouble sleeping, or
they could sleep too much, andyou think how can a cat sleep
too much?
Don't they sleep like 24 hoursa day?
If your cat's sleeping 24 hoursa day, that's a little bit much
(14:09):
, and they might show signs ofbeing confused or disoriented.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
So there's these plaques called amyloid beta
plaques.
They're sticky clumps and wesee them in the brains of folks
with Alzheimer's.
Similar or identical are foundin the brains of aging cats and
these proteins build up and theycause, like an unfortunate
chain reaction of brain problems, like overstimulation or
(14:34):
overactivation of immune cells.
And of course, if youoverstimulate immune cells,
those can damage brain cells andthey overactivate supporting
brain cells and those cells.
Instead of helping you out,they may attack the synapses
those are the connectionsbetween the nerve cells, and as
those break, damage or die, thenyou start to have some of the
(14:56):
symptoms of dementia.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Yeah, jason, that's super interesting, and I want to
talk about how the study wasdone.
The researchers studied thepost-mortem brains of seven
young cats and that makes me sadthat seven young cats passed
away and 18 older cats were alsostudied, which included eight
(15:21):
with dementia-like behaviors.
They used fluorescent markersto detect those amyloid beta
proteins and they compared theprotein buildup in younger
versus older cat brains.
What they found is in the agedcats, with or without the
dementia symptoms, had moreamyloid beta than younger cats
(15:47):
and the plaques oftenaccumulated near the synapses,
which is the spots where theneurons communicate.
Additionally, they found thatthe immune cells in aged cats'
brains the cell called themicroglia, the cells that
regulate the inflammation, andthen another immune cell called
(16:09):
the astrocyte, which is a cellthat maintains brain stability
both were hyperactive in agedcats' brains and they were
clustered near the amyloidplaques.
So instead of just attackingthe plaques, they also damage
the synapses, and sadly I guessit's not really sadly, because
(16:32):
it's contributing to scientificknowledge this pattern closely
matches what happens in humanAlzheimer's brains.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
And one of the reasons why it's interesting and
important to study dogs andcats and other animals is when
you find an analog meaning thatyou find something in the cat
that happens in humans.
There may be breakthroughs.
I just have to think back toinsulin, right Like in this,
discovery of insulin came fromstudying dogs.
(17:04):
That was the breakthrough.
That didn't necessarily curebut saved everybody who had type
one diabetes from dying becausethey just died.
There was no cure for it.
And so this study shows thatcats do develop dementia, like
brain changes with age, and it'sa model close to Alzheimer's
than many other animals age.
(17:26):
And it's a model close toAlzheimer's than many other
animals, including lab mice.
And you must you actually haveto genetically engineer mice to
get Alzheimer's, but cats justdevelop it.
Some do spontaneously as theyage.
So it makes them a really goodnatural comparison.
The more we study this andunderstand feline dementia, of
course that might improve thequality of life for older cats,
but there may be spillover inthe human world into the
(17:48):
progression and study ofAlzheimer's disease.
So I guess, as we wrap it up, Ithink if one of our dogs got
dementia that'd be very sad.
I know there's a lady that weknow and her friend had a dog
with dementia and he struggledreally bad in the last couple
weeks of his life with likediarrhea and things like that.
(18:10):
Didn't know where he was.
So it's stressful having petswith dementia and of course,
folks with dementia eventuallybecome institutionalized or you
have.
They require 24-hour care.
It's a great area to study topotentially lessen the symptoms
and suffering.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I really like this study because it talks about the
spillover between cat healthand human health and I just
really am interested in moreexamples of that for people
potentially not with dementia,but with Parkinson's or with
other types of diseases, so wecan learn more about those
(18:55):
diseases and progression inhumans in comparison to our pets
or animals.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That's pet science for this week.
Hello everybody, here's someways you can keep the science
podcast free.
Number one in our show notessign up to be a member of our
paw pack plus community.
It's an amazing community offolks who love pets and folks
who love science.
We have tons of bonus Bunsenand Beaker content there and we
(19:26):
have live streams every Sundaywith our community.
It's tons of fun.
Also, think about checking outour merch store.
We've got the Bunsen stuffy,the Beaker stuffy and now the
Ginger stuffy.
That's right, ginger, thescience cat, has a little
replica.
It's adorable.
It's so soft, with the giantfluffy tail, safety glasses and
a lab coat.
(19:46):
And number three if you'relistening to the podcast on any
place that rates podcasts, giveus a great rating and tell your
family and friends to listen to.
Okay, on with the show.
Back to the interviews.
It's time for Ask an Expert onthe Science Podcast, and I have
Sidian Kaufman, the owner ofPure Water Northwest, with us
(20:06):
today.
Sidian, how are you doing?
Speaker 3 (20:09):
I'm great Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Yeah, where are you calling into the show from?
Where are you in the world?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Seattle.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Oh, seattle, okay.
So we were on the West Coast acouple months ago.
Oh, okay, of Canada, of course.
So I'm Canadian and we went toVancouver Island.
But Seattle's pretty far Westfor Americans.
I mean, I guess you could go toHawaii, that's the furthest
West you could go.
Have you lived in Seattle mostof your life?
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I have.
Yeah, my parents moved me herewhen I was nine from California
and I've been here over 40 yearsnow.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Oh I've.
I visited Seattle a my a coupletimes in my life.
I think it's a cool city.
Never rained when I was there,so is the rain a myth, or does
it rain quite a bit?
Speaker 3 (21:01):
it rains quite a bit, but like it's different.
If you want to know the truth,this rain is rain where and
seattle lights almost never useumbrellas.
Right, some of them are.
Some of them are very proud ofthe fact that they don't use
umbrellas, but if you thinkabout it, if you're in the
(21:23):
midwest and it rains, it's likegod turned a bucket upside down
on your head.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Oh, yeah, you gotta.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
You got to use an umbrella there.
We almost never get rain likethat in Seattle.
The rainfall can definitely beworse elsewhere.
Here it rains more often thanother places, but not
necessarily as much.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I tease some of our friends and family who are on
the west coast of Canada becausethey talk about the wet cold,
because we have, in Alberta,freezing temperatures in the
winter and they're like, oh, itmight be minus 40 Celsius, but
it's nothing like the wet coldwe have on the coast, and I'm
(22:07):
like really so when they talkabout the rain, I'm like you
guys don't know what you'retalking about.
You guys have wet rain, we havethe dry rain and it is so much
worse.
Yeah, and they don't like that.
So it's just a little fun tidbit.
So I introduced you as theowner of Pure Water Northwest.
I was wondering, just for ouraudience could you talk a little
(22:29):
bit about your training inscience and maybe what that is?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
What is Pure Water Northwest?
Yeah, it's a science-basedwater treatment company, and
what that really means is thatwe focus on water first rather
than product first, similar tohow a doctor might diagnose an
illness we look at what's in thewater, identify contaminants
and then customize a treatmentsystem, and what that means, too
(22:56):
, is we're running into a lot ofthe questions people have about
what's in their water getsthrown at us in a lot of
different ways, fromexpectations that the water is
already good to expectationsthat the water is bad, and very
often, people are wrong abouteither.
And it's an interestingviewpoint to take things from,
(23:19):
versus just trying to sell asystem to somebody.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Gotcha Now in the United States you guys have the
EPA, right, that's the, yourenvironmental protection agency.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's right yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah, I don't know what we have in up in canada
yeah, it's the health authoritythere.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
I think it's called health canada, right health can?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I was gonna say it's health canada.
That sounds very canadian,because health canada controls
everything.
As we have somebody on thatdeals with that, I was wondering
if you could talk to us alittle bit, because I'm sure
there's misinformation out thereabout what the epa drinking
standards are for water.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Water drinking, yep they have a similar thing going
on in canada.
The epa has the mcl, whichstands for maximum contaminant
level yeah and the in canada,the MAC, which is maximum
acceptable concentration.
So their legal enforceable limit.
(24:19):
For example, in the US you'retechnically allowed to have 15
parts per billion of lead andthat'd be like 15 drops in an
Olympic-sized swimming pool.
That would be the legal limit.
In Canada, it's five right andthe health limit for those,
(24:40):
however, is zero.
So they have a health limitthat is different from the legal
limit, which surprises a lot ofpeople when they learn that.
It surprised the heck out of me.
When I learned that seven yearsago I was like what?
How is that possible that thelegal limit is not equal to the
health?
Speaker 1 (24:59):
limit.
What's the rationale?
I'm a little stunned too.
What's the rationale for that?
Speaker 3 (25:06):
I don't know what it is in Canada, but I imagine it's
a similar thing In the US.
The EPA actually says veryclearly in writing that the MCL
is set as close to the MCLG,which is the word for the health
level.
The MCL is set as close to thehealth level as possible, taking
costs and other factors intoconsideration.
(25:29):
Those other factors areinfrastructure and available
technology, but mostly it's cost.
It's that in order to get leaddown to zero, it is nearly
impossible to perfect the waterto the point where it's not
going to strip some lead off ofpipes as it's traveling through
(25:51):
plumbing.
Old plumbing Infrastructurewould have to be completely
overhauled.
The treatment at the factory,the water treatment plant, would
have to be probably I don'tknow quintupled in size.
People's water bill wouldprobably 10x in order to achieve
that five part per billion or10 part per million billion
(26:14):
difference.
And in the US the EPA actuallysays that homeowners are going
to have the responsibility ifthey want it to be lower than
that.
They have the responsibility toput a system into their house
to get it lower than that.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So the question I have as a follow-up is 15 parts
per billion safe If the healthis zero?
If you drink that your wholelife and you drink 15 parts per
billion lead, is that going tobe a detriment to you?
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Yeah, yeah, if you're right at the limit there and
you're doing that for a longtime and you are particularly
vulnerable to it, you willnotice it in your lifetime.
Yeah, but there is a reason whythat is the limit it's going to
.
As a cross section of mostpeople, it is going to capture
(27:08):
most people and if they do that,only that for their whole
lifetime, most people willprobably be fine, but some
people won't be.
It is a cross section.
It is about luck.
Basically, I put it this way Ifyou don't filter your water,
you are the filter, and that isa stark reality.
(27:28):
Now, there are tons of peoplewho have had drunk a ton of lead
in their life and they're fine,and that is also a stark
reality.
The body is an amazinghomeostasis engine and it is
doing its job to keep youbalanced.
And so, yeah, there's going tobe a lot of people who can drink
(27:49):
way more lead than that, butthere's going to be some people
of people who can drink way morelead than that, but there's
gonna be some people who areless.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
It's like somebody knows their, their crotchety old
grandpa or grandma that drankand smoked and they live to be
102 that's real.
Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, okay, so that's interesting to know.
It would be.
I'm on, we're on well waterhere, hey, like we get our water
(28:14):
right from underground sources.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
I don't think we had.
When I do a test of well water.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
I'm looking at 50 different contaminants, not
three or four that they usuallydo when a real estate
transaction goes through.
My wife's Canadian and theirparents don't drink their water
and I've tried to get them asystem.
We'll see if that happens oneday, but they're just so used to
(28:56):
not drinking their waterbecause they know how much
arsenic they have in that water,but a lot of people don't, and
arsenic is going to hide fromyou.
Cyanide's the same way it'sflavorless, it's odorless, it's
not going to let you know thatit's there until it causes organ
failure or cancer great, okay,so yeah, it's one of those
(29:17):
things that a high percentage atleast in our area, at least 80
percent of wells have some levelof arsenic.
There is 80.
There is no safe level ofarsenic.
The health guideline for it isA lot of people are drinking it
and they're just having theirbody be the filter and they're
okay.
It gets too high and then itcan get really dangerous.
(29:39):
In the US, 10 parts per billionis the legal limit, so that's
0.01 parts per million, and thetruth is that it's usually very
cheap to find a full-spectrumtest.
I think Tapscorecom sells themfor $200 for 50 different tests
(30:02):
all in one panel $200 US.
I don't know what it would beup there $2,000 Canadian.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
No, I'm just kidding $2,000 Canadian.
No, the dollar's not that bad.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Yeah.
So the, yeah, the, the thing Iwould do if I owned a wellness,
I would do a full spectrum panel.
No, matter what.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
This is just becoming my own interest instead of
thinking about our listeners.
But when you get that, is it?
You just get to do a littlechemistry at home, or you take
the sample and send it away yeah, you send it away, yeah oh,
dang it.
See, there you go, I'm, I'm.
I have background in chemistry.
I teach chemistry in highschool, okay, so that would be
fun to do my own.
(30:45):
I don't have enough chemicalsto do 50 different tests on our
well water, but no, yeah, andarsenic.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
You've got to do a burn test.
You've got to burn off stuffand then suspend in an oil
solution and then do titration.
So it's complex and with yourbackground you probably could do
it, but they certainly wouldn'ttrust anyone to do it.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, all right.
So beyond lead and arsenic, arethere anything else, anything
else we should be worried about?
Or are there things that peoplethink that we should be worried
about but maybe aren't as big aculprit, if you know what I
mean?
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Yeah, so here's the problem.
Problem.
I can go on and on about thingsto worry about and I worry
about doing that because I thinkit gives people fatigue and
then they're like, oh, I don'twant to worry about any of it.
It's usually best for peopleand I'll do it, I don't mind for
your podcast, but I think it'sbest to ask people to just go
(31:48):
get their water tested so theyknow for sure, because I like to
follow a test don't guess modeland then, after you get results
, the lab who did it for you canhelp you.
If your listeners want to callme with some quick questions, I
don't mind.
The thing I just want people todo is test their waters.
They don't guess what they'redrinking about, especially if
(32:09):
they have children.
But, yeah, pfas, that's foreverchemicals.
There's about 14,000 to 16,000of those.
One recent study said therecould be over 700,000 different,
170,000 different variations,but we know of at least 14 to
(32:30):
16,000.
Only six out of those have beencarefully identified as to
whether they are of a healthconcern, and all six of those
have shown health concerns atincredibly small amounts.
So four parts per trillion,whoa?
(32:50):
Yeah, so we were talking about.
Parts per Whoa.
Yeah, so we were talking aboutparts per billion before.
Yeah, and if you can imagine athousand Olympic size swimming
pools, four drops in that isconsidered to be a health
concern.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
The NP fast.
For people who are listening,those are those polyfluoroalkyl
sub things, polyfluoroalkylsubstances there.
That's where the s and p fastcomes yeah exactly.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
You come from a random assortment of stuff that
we've made and put chemicals,man-made chemicals that are
designed to basically causethings to be resistant, so water
resistance.
They are used in fire foamspecifically because they're so
hard to break down.
They will smother fire thatwater can't.
(33:36):
They are called foreverchemicals because they go on and
on.
The most recent process thatI've heard someone theorizing
for destroying these becausecurrently we don't have an
amazing way to destroy these iscold plasma.
Oh my God, yeah, that'sexpensive.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
And we might just need to wait about 20 or 30
years and use a private rocketto send it into the sun.
That might be cheaper.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Yes, yeah, no doubt.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
No doubt.
And those PFAS, of course, theyget into our drinking water and
we drink it.
Yeah, no doubt, no doubt.
And those PFAS, of course theyget into our drinking water and
we drink it.
And it's spooky because wedon't really know how bad it
could be.
That's what I've read, I think.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
That's right.
That's exactly right.
We know there are healthconcerns.
We don't know how bad they'regoing to be.
So we are.
You know we're playing withthis unknown and the thing is
the solution is so easy forpeople.
Whole house systems can bebetter for PFOS because there is
some indication that skincontact can be of concern now.
(34:44):
But drinking is definitely ofconcern and a simple $1,000
installed under counter reverseosmosis will do the trick.
So to me, that's somethingpeople should be looking at.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
When you have your water tested, do they test for
PFAS, or is that too hard totest for?
Speaker 3 (35:06):
It's really hard to test for.
And this is the problem withpfos.
Right is that is that you do 16, you do you take samples from
15, 16 different locationsfrequently to do pfos testing.
You can't wear perfume oranything because it can screw up
the sample.
And then you cap them and thenout of those 16, a certain
(35:28):
number of them show for pfos.
That's how you know you have it, because it's really hard to
find in the water.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Four drops per thousand swimming pools.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Yeah, exactly, it's hard to just find it and they
did a very elaborate studyrecently with 19 different river
sources and they found it 98%of the time in that situation.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Oof.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Yeah, so it's kind of work.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
At the point we just have to assume it's there.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I would.
Yes, I would be assuming it'sthere, because municipalities
are finding it and thenpronouncing yes, it has been
found.
And unfortunately, the EPAstandards of four part per
trillion is not enforceableunder this administration until
2031.
So these municipalities now getto say, yes, we found it, but
(36:23):
we're within legal levels, whichis such a tricky thing to say
given that-.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
There's no enforcement, so they're within
any legal limit, right, exactly?
Yep, oh man, that's a littlebit.
Of lawyer speak there, somepolitical speak yeah, it's scary
because it gosh.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
I'm not trying to be all doomsday, but it's scary
because if you go that route andyou, you let everyone know yes,
there's unhealthy amounts ofPFAS in the water.
No, we can't get rid of it.
Yet People now are going tostart drinking more bottled
water.
What a billion bottles of waterconsumed every single day on
(37:04):
this planet.
So that's a lot.
That's a lot of plastic usage,a lot of microplastics, with
something like 300,000 strawsthrown away, and straws
currently cannot be with currenttechnology, cannot be recycled,
cannot be with currenttechnology, cannot be recycled.
(37:31):
So it becomes a whole thing.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
There's definitely a.
It's good our planet is as bigas it is.
Yeah, okay, let's I have aquestion for you.
That's, maybe we can talk aboutsomething.
It is good information to tellpeople about some of these
things and have it in the backof their mind, and if folks do
have the money, they could thinkabout that.
Reverse osmosis right, yeah,are there.
Do some people think water'sworse than it is?
And they're wrong.
What are some of the myths thatare maybe a good news myth?
(37:57):
Right, yeah, that's a good wayto go Fluoride.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
Some people think fluoride's really bad.
Fluoride has been shown tocause some IQ loss at some
levels.
These studies are really likemassively low amounts.
Fluoride is not necessarilythat good for you or that bad
for you.
It's of little concern and thefluoride levels are like in
(38:24):
Scandinavian countries.
They don't fluoridate and theyhave better teeth outcomes, but
they also don't use sugar.
So is fluoride needed?
We don't know.
But if people have fluoride intheir water, it's not.
In my opinion it's not of amajor concern.
Some people are worried aboutpharmaceuticals in the water.
There are a ton ofpharmaceuticals in the water,
(38:46):
that is true, and that isbecause people excrete that
through their urine and thenit's recycled.
But it takes a lot of reallyhigh levels of that stuff to
start affecting people.
Hormonal and thyroid changesrequire pretty large numbers,
which can happen, but it's notsuper likely.
(39:07):
So I'm not as worried aboutthat kind of thing and to me the
best news about water treatmentis, if you're handy, you can
even get those ROs for $150 anddo it yourself.
The thing is to just reallylook at it and not hide from it,
not let five years go by whereyou're like I'll do that later
(39:28):
and then you find out that forfive years you've been drinking
something you don't want.
Instead, it can be really easyto treat water, and that is to
me good news, because 10 yearsago, these reverse osmosis
systems were way more expensive.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
I remember that my family didn't have one growing
up, but I knew a family did andthey were of higher
socioeconomic status.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
We'll just say yeah, exactly, so, yeah, if you can
figure out how to get itinstalled, they can be really
affordable.
And even the really cheap ones,though, they will potentially
have leaks.
So you want to put a drip panon the really cheap ones.
The really cheap ones will workbecause membrane technology is
membrane technology and,although there are levels of
(40:15):
membrane technology, even thecheapest membrane in the world
is going to massively improvewater quality.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
That's good news.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, that's what I think.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Yeah, we actually covered the whole fluoride
debate on our podcast a couple,about a month or two ago.
A city south of us, Calgary inAlberta, 15, 20 years ago,
fluoride was voted out Likepeople didn't want fluoride in
the water.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
So they took fluoride out, maybe based on that study,
maybe based on misinformation,maybe based on many things and
then they did see, you know, asteady increase in dental issues
, yeah, and, and then fluoridewas voted back in.
So now, for the water incalgary is fluoridated.
Oh, so it's an interestingthing.
(41:05):
The doctors and the people that, of course, were for
fluoridation.
They cited what you said isthat you would need to have a
lot of fluoride to cause damageto a population base, and then
they concluded the help forteeth definitely outweighed any
(41:26):
very insignificant, negligibleyeah, but anyways, I just
thought that was cool that youmentioned that oh yeah, and
teeth health is not to bediscounted like that.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
There are such direct links to strange things related
to teeth health.
Alz, alzheimer's has a relationto dental health.
They're shocking relations.
So I definitely yeah, Idefinitely am very interested in
that story because I actuallyhave been looking for.
Thank you for sharing that withme.
(41:57):
I've been looking for somethingexactly like that, an anecdote
that's exactly like that that Icould study and look into.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
It's very interesting yeah, yep, just google calgary
fluoride debate.
Yeah, that was a, it was.
I was shocked too.
I didn't even know whathappened.
It was like this one of the,that's the biggest city in
alberta, just like south of us,and I was like, oh, I didn't
know this happened.
Yeah, it's cool, yeah um now oneof the things we had been
(42:28):
talking by email about and maybe, like before we get to my
standard questions, this is aninteresting one how water, water
access, impacts things likegender equality, like you had
mentioned that in an email and Iwas a little interested if you
could elaborate on that.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
I can, yeah, so if you have a country where access
to water is a little more scarceI was actually talking to
somebody today about this whereshe's in Africa, she's in Zambia
.
I was talking to her today andshe had.
She lives in a fairly populousplace, so they have access to
(43:06):
water, but not more than 10kilometers from her they have
people who are having to walkquite a ways away from their
village to get water, and who doyou think is doing that?
Speaker 1 (43:23):
I would say women.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
Women and children, basically yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
And usually, if they're children, it's going to
be a female child versus a malechild, but not always.
So this is a cultural reality.
In a lot of the worldespecially, there is a cross
section, a demographic crosssection, where in poorer
countries they are morepatriarchal, which I guess.
(43:52):
I don't know why exactly.
I guess there's something aboutstrength being related to
survival in those situations Alittle bit, who knows?
But it's just a reality.
There tends to be a higherpatriarchal culture, not that
not that I can state how thathappens, but that's what happens
(44:13):
, right.
So then then we've got okay,who's going to go fetch the
water?
The guys I have to work formaking money and bringing in
food.
So you're fetching the water Ifyou.
If that's the scenario, how doesa woman leave her husband?
(44:34):
And abuse rates can be higherin situations where a woman
cannot leave.
But in these situations where awoman can't leave because if
she leaves she can't besupported, then she's got to do
her job in the relationship,which is, in that case, getting
water, which means she's notgetting her own income, and
(44:56):
again she can't leave.
It's like a vicious circle.
She also can't get educated avicious circle.
She also can't get educated.
And then children if they're inschool.
They're fetching water firstbefore going to school, because
everybody needs water for theday.
So it is a dramatic socialimpact to have water right next
(45:18):
to you and in these cultures youliterally could not even start
women's rights without access towater.
It would be essentiallyimpossible Not completely
impossible, but essentially itwould be impossible.
So that's a very real thingpeople struggle with, and access
to clean access to any waterand ideally, clean water
(45:43):
dramatically changes entirecultures.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
So, like the idea, the time it takes to get water
right.
Yeah, it's that much of yourday.
Speaker 3 (45:52):
Four hours yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
Four hours On average yeah.
So half an eight-hour workdayright.
Exactly, if you want to thinkof an eight-hour workday.
Speaker 3 (46:01):
Yep right.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Yeah.
Yep, yeah, just yeah, yeah, youget it one of our standard
questions that we asked that.
Sorry, let me start that again,I got tongue tied.
One of the standard questionswe ask our guests about is a pet
story.
Um, what do you have a petstory from your life you could
(46:22):
share with us?
Speaker 3 (46:24):
Oh my gosh, I have two dogs and three rats right
now, but my pet story would my.
I don't know if I have a funpet story.
I have, like I have a pet thatwas in my life when I was
younger.
It's.
It was really interestingbecause when I was like 10, I
had this dog and his name wasRaven and he was just a black
(46:50):
lab and they're awesome dogs.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
Black labs are great dogs.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Yeah, I, yeah, I, he was my friend, like as a 10 year
old this I'm not trying to besad here but I was not like
liked, I was probably on thespectrum a little bit and and
definitely I had zero friends.
But I felt and I know 10 yearolds have these weird ideas
(47:17):
about things I felt and I thisis weird to even say as an
almost 50-year-old.
At that time, though, I really,truly believed that I could
talk to this dog and it couldcommunicate back to me and I
understood it and it understoodme.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Aw, that's not silly, that's sweet.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
It is Okay, it's sweet, but it is such a visceral
memory for me that obviouslythe dog wasn't doing that.
Yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly,definitely felt like it, yeah,
and the memory is of it beingreal.
So that's, that is a veryinteresting.
I've never had that experiencewith an animal since, but I've
also not I haven't been 10 yearsold since either.
(47:57):
Yeah, it's a fun.
It's a fun memory to have,because you're not ever going to
have that memory again.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
And you have two dogs now.
What are they and what's theirnames?
Speaker 3 (48:11):
A Caton de Touillere, because it turns out I'm
allergic to fur.
Speaker 2 (48:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:17):
I have a Caton de Touillere.
His name is Kip yeah.
And then I have a little ShihTzu with a little bit of poodle
mixed in there, and his name isPan.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Ah, sweet.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
Very cute little dogs , and all of whom have hair
instead of fur, so they're finefor me.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
Oh yeah, we are drowning in fur at our house
here with the two burners and agolden retriever and a cat oh
yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 3 (48:48):
Yeah, you guys are like if anyone had allergies
vacuum every couple days.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
Yeah, yeah, people who have lots of dogs.
When you go to their house,like they, they either are
cleaning around the clock andthere's they.
They're obviously very on pointfor cleaning or it's like our
house, where there might be aclump of fur in the corner.
Yeah, so that's what.
You just can't get rid of.
(49:15):
It all because we don't vacuumevery three hours.
Speaker 3 (49:18):
Yeah, no doubt.
And if it's between that or nothaving a pet, like, obviously
that's an easy choice, so Iagree with you.
Yeah, and if it's between thator not having a pet, like,
obviously that's an easy choice,so I agree with you, yeah, and
rats, hey.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
Like we've talked to lots of people who have rats as
a pet they I've never had one asa pet, but they apparently make
great pets.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Oh yeah, yeah, I've got a.
The rats are cause of my middlechild, iris.
She's 11 and she really wantedthem.
At 10 years old she was likedesperate to have rats.
So we made her prove that shewould take care of rats by being
the only one to take care ofthe dogs for a month, and she
did that.
Oh yeah, exactly.
So we got her rats and then wegot her.
(49:57):
We were going to get her a rat,but then we learned that
they're not good to have alone.
So then we got we were going todo two rats, but then we found
this place that was trying tohouse some rats, and so we ended
up getting three rats.
One of the rats has such aninteresting story.
It was actually it was going.
It was given to a snake as foodand the snake started to
(50:25):
swallow it and then spat it backout, okay, and then it just
refused to eat it.
So that rat was traumatized.
Yeah, so we have that rat andthen that rat's a little scaredy
cat.
The other two are just likebrother and sister, I think, and
they're both boys, like brotherand sister, I think, and
they're just, I know.
(50:45):
They're both boys, brother andbrother, and and they're both
happy that's sweet.
Yeah, even the rat tasted bad,who knows I know it's such a
funny, weird story, right?
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (50:58):
their natural selection works in weird ways.
Perhaps there's some kind oflike genetic mutation that made
its fur taste bad to snakes, andthen you never know.
Speaker 3 (51:07):
Which would be cool yeah exactly.
I love that idea.
Speaker 1 (51:15):
Sitting in.
We're at the end of our chat.
Thank you for giving up yourtime.
I so appreciate it.
A couple of things before wewrap.
Can people find your companyonline?
Are you on social mediaanywhere for people to follow?
Speaker 3 (51:29):
Yeah, we're on a few social media places, but if you
look up Pure Water Northwest,you'll find us and my name is
such a weird name.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Cool, I had to ask you how to say it before we
started this.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
I know.
Thank you, people who look meup usually can find me very
easily.
So, yeah, we're pretty easy tofind and happy to help anyone
who needs it.
Speaker 1 (51:55):
Sounds good.
We'll make sure there's a linkto Pure Water Northwest.
Oh, did I get the company rightthere?
I'm sorry you got it.
Yeah, we'll make sure there's alink in our show notes to pure
order, pure water northwest.
Speaker 3 (52:11):
So you know people who listen to the show and, like
I, want to learn more.
Just your click away.
Yeah, yeah, appreciate itthat's awesome.
Speaker 1 (52:14):
I think we're gonna get our water tested, so this
was eye-opening for me.
I drink our water.
I love our well water.
My wife does not like the tasteof it, so she drinks lots of
bottled water, yeah.
So I guess for my own health, Ibetter get it tested.
So yeah, I'll take a look atthose kits.
Maybe there's a Canadian analogtoo, instead of an American one
(52:34):
.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
Yeah, maybe that's an interesting question.
Speaker 1 (52:38):
Thanks for chatting and best wishes in the future.
Speaker 3 (52:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
That's it for this week's show.
Thanks for coming back weekafter week to listen to the
Science Podcast.
And a shout out to all the topdogs.
That's the top tier of ourPatreon community, the Paw Pack.
You can sign up in our shownotes.
All right, Chris, let's hearthose names that are part of the
top dogs.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
Amelia Fetig Rhi Oda, carol Hainel Fettig Rhi Oda
Carol Hainel, jennifer Challen,Linnea Janik, karen Chronister,
vicky Otero, christy Walker,sarah Bram, wendy, diane Mason
and Luke Helen Chin, elizabethBourgeois, marianne McNally,
catherine Jordan, Shelley Smith,laura Steffensen, tracy
(53:20):
Leinbach, anne Uchida, HeatherBurbach, kelly Tracy Halbert,
ben Rather, debbie Anderson,Sandy Breimer, mary Rader,
bianca Hyde, andrew Lin, brendaClark, brianne Hawes, peggy
McKeel, Polly Burge, kathyZerker, susan Wagner and Liz
Button.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
For science, empathy and cuteness.
Hello science enthusiasts.
I'm Jason Zukoski.
And I'm Chris Zukoski, we'rethe pet parents of Bunsen,
beaker, bernoulli and Ginger.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
The science animals on social media.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
If you love science.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And you love pets.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
You've come to the right spot, so put on your
safety glasses and hold on toyour tail.
This is the Science Podcast.
Hello and welcome back to theScience Podcast.
We hope you're happy andhealthy out there.
This is episode 25 of seasonseven.
So, chris, we didn't do a showlast week.
It was a gong show.
What was going on?
(00:45):
Why was there not a show lastweek?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Jason.
There was a show last week andit was a gong because gong show.
We were packaging up ourBernoulli stuffies and it was a
lot of work and there was noextra time to spare.
We wanted to make sure that webeat the time, beat the clock to
get them out to our customersin a timely fashion.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Exactly, we had a really big response to the
Bernoulli stuffy Not to make thewhole front of this about the
Bernoulli stuffy but we spentfour days solid packing.
It was a lot of work but it wasvery rewarding.
And we had to beat the clock,as you said, to get all of the
American packages to the borderbefore de minimis ends, which
(01:35):
means that the Americans will nolonger be able to bring in
under $800 without duties andtariffs.
So we were racing against theclock, clock, and it looks like
we made it by the hair of ourchinny chin.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Yeah, it was pretty incredible.
We I cannot believe how well weworked together.
Actually, I know how well weworked together because we just
worked well together, but it wasa lot.
It was a lot of printing andorganization and being tired and
just, it was a lot.
It was a lot of printing andorganization and being tired and
just it was a good time.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah, and the other thing that compounded everything
, too, is school is startingagain, right, you have kids
tomorrow, and that's anotherthing that started up again.
So it's been a very busy week.
We carved out some time tonightI think we should get to it.
We have two science articlesand we have a guest this week.
So one of the science articleswe'll be talking about is a
(02:33):
rather shocking study about howabout what we eat affects all
cause of death and cancer.
So all cause of death issometimes called all cause
mortality.
I don't want to give it away,so that's the lead there.
And in pet science, we're goingto be looking at linkages
(02:54):
between dementia in humans anddementia in cats both very sad
and tragic conditions, but fromone we could learn the other.
And our guest today is a waterexpert, and we're going to be
talking about potential issueslurking in groundwater and also
(03:15):
bust some of the myths or not.
It's a great discussion and wehaven't had a science guest in a
while.
Chris, what time is it?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Jason, it's science time this week in a while.
Chris, what time is it?
Jason?
It's science time this week inscience news.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
This science study really hammers home.
You are what you eat, from yourhead to your feet.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Hey, Jason, that's my line.
That's my line I always saythat you are what you eat, from
your head to your feet.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
We've talked about this before.
You are a lacto-ovo-vegetarian?
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Yes, I am.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah, so you have egg products and you have milk
products, but you do not eatanimal flesh.
If that's not too graphic, Isthat how you characterize it?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, and then I eat plant protein as well.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
I am a meatitarian.
No, I eat anything.
I really do eat pretty muchanything.
There's only a few things onthis earth I've eaten which I've
been like.
That's okay, I don't need toeat that again.
Eggplant is one of them.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Eggplant is one of them.
I made a delicious I don't evenknow eggplant dish and Jason
said no, thank you.
You were very polite, but yousaid maybe let's not make that
one again.
It's very salty, probablybecause of the Parmesan cheese I
put on it.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
All right.
So this study comes from theNational Health and Nutrition
Examination Study and there were15,937 people in the study aged
19 plus and sadly, as you lookat these long range studies,
(04:55):
3,843 people died during thefollow-up period.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
So the idea was looking at the people who lived
and the people who died theirlifestyle, but also, more
specifically, to the study whatthey ate.
Yeah, and the methods werepretty simple.
The participants reported whatthey ate in a 24-hour survey and
then scientists used advancedmath models to reduce errors
from self-reporting, becausewhen you're talking about
yourself, there sometimes issome bias.
(05:27):
They divided the proteins intocategories, so animal protein
being from meat, dairy and eggs,plant protein was from beans,
grains and nuts, and then therewere mixed foods.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Also within the study .
They wanted to test this is asubgroup of people in the study
whether IGF-1, which is ahormone linked to growth and
sometimes cancer risk, wasrelated to dying early.
So there's the methods.
You talked about the food thing, and then there was also a
subgroup of people where theylooked at this growth hormone.
And then there was also asubgroup of people where they
(06:05):
looked at this growth hormone.
Igf1, one helps you grow, butif it sticks around too long in
adults it has like anaboliceffects and it's really related
to insulin.
So potentially down the linethat could cause problems.
So they were looking at that.
So some of the key findings fromall cause mortality, that's,
death for many reason.
The people who had animalprotein within their diet had no
(06:28):
association.
No association means more orless.
This did not make people moreor less likely to die, so eating
more or less of animal proteindidn't change the overall risk
of dying from any cause, andplant protein had no association
at all.
Same result no impact onlifespan overall, which is a
(06:48):
little counterintuitive, becausesome studies I've read or some
suggestions I've read is thatpeople who are vegetarian and do
not eat red meat or animalprotein tend to live longer.
Not so much in this case.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
So the next one that they looked at was a CVD
mortality rate, and that's deathfrom a heart attack, stroke or
clogged arteries, and they foundthat protein animal protein had
no association, again, Again,more or less didn't affect their
heart-related death risk, andthat's interesting, as well as
(07:24):
plant protein no association,same, no effect.
Super interesting.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Now the next one is maybe going to ruffle some
feathers, and that was cancermortality, so death from cancer.
Animal protein in this studyhad a slight protective effect.
People who ate more animalprotein had a small but a very
real decrease in cancer-relateddeaths.
Plant protein had noassociation.
(07:54):
Eating plant protein didn'tincrease or decrease your chance
of cancer death.
Again, that's shocking.
I'm not going to lie.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
I know.
So maybe the whole idea is thatyou're just eating a
well-balanced, well-rounded diet.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Yeah, and the last one, that special subgroup,
igf-1,.
That had no association as well.
So higher or lower IGF-1 levelsweren't linked to more or fewer
deaths.
All cause mortality, cancer,heart-related, nothing.
It just didn't seem to relate.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And so, just to recap , everything had no association,
except for the animal proteinwhich had a slight protective
effect.
So people who were eating moreanimal protein had a small but
real decrease in cancer deaths.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Now, if we compare this to this other study that's
very famous that was in 2014,which concluded, or claimed,
animal protein raised death risk, especially cancer this study
that we just talked about,they're using the same data set
from the National Health andNutrition Examination Study.
That same data set ran from1988 to 1994, and then through a
(09:06):
follow-up period up to 2006.
This study used the same dataas that other one, but it used
better math models.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, better methods.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Yeah, it didn't confirm those other results.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Was there a difference for age, age of the
participants?
So we talked about the adultshad to be 19 plus to participate
.
But is there a difference inthe results for different ages?
Speaker 1 (09:35):
No, there's no difference.
No age group showed harm fromeating more protein.
No age group showed harm fromeating plant protein.
And in that previous study thatlinked kind of middle-aged
folks 50 to 65, to an increasedrisk of death from eating animal
protein, the study found noincreased risk.
So the devil's in the details.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Sometimes it's about how you do your math, I think
it's important to keep somelimitations of the study in mind
.
Like I said earlier, the foodintake was self-reported and
people often under-report whatthey eat.
I know if I'm trying to keeptrack on my fitness app
sometimes I don't do it daily.
The IGF-1 was realisticallyfrom a smaller subset of the
(10:21):
participants, so the data may ormay not be.
There may or may not be enoughdata to make a generalization,
and the follow-up stopped in2006.
Jason, that's a long time ago.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
I know, I just feel like the 90s.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I do I feel like it was yesterday, but 2006 is a
little bit far away from wherewe are now, so more recent data
could add more insights.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
That's what I'm interested in is like the data
up to now, because that otherstudy that said animal protein
bad.
We also use the older data andthis studies is animal protein
not so bad.
Use older data.
We need some newer data in thestudy use older data.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
We need some newer data in the study.
Yeah, because you know it.
That data did not test whathappens if you swap animal
protein for plant protein youstart your life eating lots of
red meat and then you switch tolegumes or if you start eating
chicken m McNuggets and then youswitch to chickpeas.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Ah, gotcha, I do have to say some of your fakie fake
meat tastes pretty good.
Some of it is very bad, likethey're not fooling anybody.
The Beyond Meat burgery thingsthat you get, those are tasty
Like they're good they certainlydon't taste like a ham.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Okay, whatever they are.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
They're good.
Those are tasty, like they'regood.
They certainly don't taste likea hamburger.
Okay, whatever they are,they're good.
I like them when we make them,I love them.
They're actually quite good,but they don't taste like a
hamburger.
So, while they're really yummy,they don't taste like a
hamburger.
And then I think some of theother stuff has a long way to go
, because every bite just tasteslike cardboard.
All right, that's science newsfor this week.
(12:06):
This week in pet science we'regoing to be looking at cats that
get dementia and how studyingthem could help humans when we
get dementia.
Now, none of my family olderfolks got dementia, but I do
know some people who are dealingwith that right now with their
(12:27):
older family members, and Idon't want to make light of it
because it's rough, it's bad.
I've seen the TikTok videos.
I've heard some of mycolleagues talk about it.
So, yeah, if you're goingthrough that while we're going
to be talking about in the study, I just want you to know that I
do see it as being really toughto live through.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It is One of my colleagues.
He went through that with hisparents and then his wife has
something similar with herparents.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Yeah, it's tough.
So in this study we're lookingat data from the European
Journal of Neuroscience and it'sbasically talking about how
Alzheimer'sheimer's disease,dementia and dementia related
disease in humans.
Um, similar structures arefound in the brains of aging
(13:13):
cats.
Now, as cats get older, theystart to they may start to have
some of these behaviors.
Did you, did any of your catsstart to get dementia as they
got older?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
I don't believe so.
Poco was basically the samewhen she was a kitten to when
she was in her 20s, and Liebe, Idon't believe, had forms of
dementia, but she did have likeincontinence and other issues
that happened at the end of herlife.
(13:45):
One thing that you could lookfor, though, is, as cats get
older, they yowl more at night,and so those could be loud,
distressed vocalizations.
When they're yowling, theycould have trouble sleeping, or
they could sleep too much, andyou think how can a cat sleep
too much?
Don't they sleep like 24 hoursa day?
If your cat's sleeping 24 hoursa day, that's a little bit much
(14:09):
, and they might show signs ofbeing confused or disoriented.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
So there's these plaques called amyloid beta
plaques.
They're sticky clumps and wesee them in the brains of folks
with Alzheimer's.
Similar or identical are foundin the brains of aging cats and
these proteins build up and theycause, like an unfortunate
chain reaction of brain problems, like overstimulation or
(14:34):
overactivation of immune cells.
And of course, if youoverstimulate immune cells,
those can damage brain cells andthey overactivate supporting
brain cells and those cells.
Instead of helping you out,they may attack the synapses
those are the connectionsbetween the nerve cells, and as
those break, damage or die, thenyou start to have some of the
(14:56):
symptoms of dementia.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Yeah, jason, that's super interesting, and I want to
talk about how the study wasdone.
The researchers studied thepost-mortem brains of seven
young cats and that makes me sadthat seven young cats passed
away and 18 older cats were alsostudied, which included eight
(15:21):
with dementia-like behaviors.
They used fluorescent markersto detect those amyloid beta
proteins and they compared theprotein buildup in younger
versus older cat brains.
What they found is in the agedcats, with or without the
dementia symptoms, had moreamyloid beta than younger cats
(15:47):
and the plaques oftenaccumulated near the synapses,
which is the spots where theneurons communicate.
Additionally, they found thatthe immune cells in aged cats'
brains the cell called themicroglia, the cells that
regulate the inflammation, andthen another immune cell called
(16:09):
the astrocyte, which is a cellthat maintains brain stability
both were hyperactive in agedcats' brains and they were
clustered near the amyloidplaques.
So instead of just attackingthe plaques, they also damage
the synapses, and sadly I guessit's not really sadly, because
(16:32):
it's contributing to scientificknowledge this pattern closely
matches what happens in humanAlzheimer's brains.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
And one of the reasons why it's interesting and
important to study dogs andcats and other animals is when
you find an analog meaning thatyou find something in the cat
that happens in humans.
There may be breakthroughs.
I just have to think back toinsulin, right Like in this,
discovery of insulin came fromstudying dogs.
(17:04):
That was the breakthrough.
That didn't necessarily curebut saved everybody who had type
one diabetes from dying becausethey just died.
There was no cure for it.
And so this study shows thatcats do develop dementia, like
brain changes with age, and it'sa model close to Alzheimer's
than many other animals age.
(17:26):
And it's a model close toAlzheimer's than many other
animals, including lab mice.
And you must you actually haveto genetically engineer mice to
get Alzheimer's, but cats justdevelop it.
Some do spontaneously as theyage.
So it makes them a really goodnatural comparison.
The more we study this andunderstand feline dementia, of
course that might improve thequality of life for older cats,
but there may be spillover inthe human world into the
(17:48):
progression and study ofAlzheimer's disease.
So I guess, as we wrap it up, Ithink if one of our dogs got
dementia that'd be very sad.
I know there's a lady that weknow and her friend had a dog
with dementia and he struggledreally bad in the last couple
weeks of his life with likediarrhea and things like that.
(18:10):
Didn't know where he was.
So it's stressful having petswith dementia and of course,
folks with dementia eventuallybecome institutionalized or you
have.
They require 24-hour care.
It's a great area to study topotentially lessen the symptoms
and suffering.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I really like this study because it talks about the
spillover between cat healthand human health and I just
really am interested in moreexamples of that for people
potentially not with dementia,but with Parkinson's or with
other types of diseases, so wecan learn more about those
(18:55):
diseases and progression inhumans in comparison to our pets
or animals.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That's pet science for this week.
Hello everybody, here's someways you can keep the science
podcast free.
Number one in our show notessign up to be a member of our
paw pack plus community.
It's an amazing community offolks who love pets and folks
who love science.
We have tons of bonus Bunsenand Beaker content there and we
(19:26):
have live streams every Sundaywith our community.
It's tons of fun.
Also, think about checking outour merch store.
We've got the Bunsen stuffy,the Beaker stuffy and now the
Ginger stuffy.
That's right, ginger, thescience cat, has a little
replica.
It's adorable.
It's so soft, with the giantfluffy tail, safety glasses and
a lab coat.
(19:46):
And number three if you'relistening to the podcast on any
place that rates podcasts, giveus a great rating and tell your
family and friends to listen to.
Okay, on with the show.
Back to the interviews.
It's time for Ask an Expert onthe Science Podcast, and I have
Sidian Kaufman, the owner ofPure Water Northwest, with us
(20:06):
today.
Sidian, how are you doing?
Speaker 3 (20:09):
I'm great Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Yeah, where are you calling into the show from?
Where are you in the world?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Seattle.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Oh, seattle, okay.
So we were on the West Coast acouple months ago.
Oh, okay, of Canada, of course.
So I'm Canadian and we went toVancouver Island.
But Seattle's pretty far Westfor Americans.
I mean, I guess you could go toHawaii, that's the furthest
West you could go.
Have you lived in Seattle mostof your life?
Speaker 3 (20:40):
I have.
Yeah, my parents moved me herewhen I was nine from California
and I've been here over 40 yearsnow.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Oh I've.
I visited Seattle a my a coupletimes in my life.
I think it's a cool city.
Never rained when I was there,so is the rain a myth, or does
it rain quite a bit?
Speaker 3 (21:01):
it rains quite a bit, but like it's different.
If you want to know the truth,this rain is rain where and
seattle lights almost never useumbrellas.
Right, some of them are.
Some of them are very proud ofthe fact that they don't use
umbrellas, but if you thinkabout it, if you're in the
(21:23):
midwest and it rains, it's likegod turned a bucket upside down
on your head.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Oh, yeah, you gotta.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
You got to use an umbrella there.
We almost never get rain likethat in Seattle.
The rainfall can definitely beworse elsewhere.
Here it rains more often thanother places, but not
necessarily as much.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
I tease some of our friends and family who are on
the west coast of Canada becausethey talk about the wet cold,
because we have, in Alberta,freezing temperatures in the
winter and they're like, oh, itmight be minus 40 Celsius, but
it's nothing like the wet coldwe have on the coast, and I'm
(22:07):
like really so when they talkabout the rain, I'm like you
guys don't know what you'retalking about.
You guys have wet rain, we havethe dry rain and it is so much
worse.
Yeah, and they don't like that.
So it's just a little fun tidbit.
So I introduced you as theowner of Pure Water Northwest.
I was wondering, just for ouraudience could you talk a little
(22:29):
bit about your training inscience and maybe what that is?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
What is Pure Water Northwest?
Yeah, it's a science-basedwater treatment company, and
what that really means is thatwe focus on water first rather
than product first, similar tohow a doctor might diagnose an
illness we look at what's in thewater, identify contaminants
and then customize a treatmentsystem, and what that means, too
(22:56):
, is we're running into a lot ofthe questions people have about
what's in their water getsthrown at us in a lot of
different ways, fromexpectations that the water is
already good to expectationsthat the water is bad, and very
often, people are wrong abouteither.
And it's an interestingviewpoint to take things from,
(23:19):
versus just trying to sell asystem to somebody.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Gotcha Now in the United States you guys have the
EPA, right, that's the, yourenvironmental protection agency.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's right yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Yeah, I don't know what we have in up in canada
yeah, it's the health authoritythere.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
I think it's called health canada, right health can?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I was gonna say it's health canada.
That sounds very canadian,because health canada controls
everything.
As we have somebody on thatdeals with that, I was wondering
if you could talk to us alittle bit, because I'm sure
there's misinformation out thereabout what the epa drinking
standards are for water.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Water drinking, yep they have a similar thing going
on in canada.
The epa has the mcl, whichstands for maximum contaminant
level yeah and the in canada,the MAC, which is maximum
acceptable concentration.
So their legal enforceable limit.
(24:19):
For example, in the US you'retechnically allowed to have 15
parts per billion of lead andthat'd be like 15 drops in an
Olympic-sized swimming pool.
That would be the legal limit.
In Canada, it's five right andthe health limit for those,
(24:40):
however, is zero.
So they have a health limitthat is different from the legal
limit, which surprises a lot ofpeople when they learn that.
It surprised the heck out of me.
When I learned that seven yearsago I was like what?
How is that possible that thelegal limit is not equal to the
health?
Speaker 1 (24:59):
limit.
What's the rationale?
I'm a little stunned too.
What's the rationale for that?
Speaker 3 (25:06):
I don't know what it is in Canada, but I imagine it's
a similar thing In the US.
The EPA actually says veryclearly in writing that the MCL
is set as close to the MCLG,which is the word for the health
level.
The MCL is set as close to thehealth level as possible, taking
costs and other factors intoconsideration.
(25:29):
Those other factors areinfrastructure and available
technology, but mostly it's cost.
It's that in order to get leaddown to zero, it is nearly
impossible to perfect the waterto the point where it's not
going to strip some lead off ofpipes as it's traveling through
(25:51):
plumbing.
Old plumbing Infrastructurewould have to be completely
overhauled.
The treatment at the factory,the water treatment plant, would
have to be probably I don'tknow quintupled in size.
People's water bill wouldprobably 10x in order to achieve
that five part per billion or10 part per million billion
(26:14):
difference.
And in the US the EPA actuallysays that homeowners are going
to have the responsibility ifthey want it to be lower than
that.
They have the responsibility toput a system into their house
to get it lower than that.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So the question I have as a follow-up is 15 parts
per billion safe If the healthis zero?
If you drink that your wholelife and you drink 15 parts per
billion lead, is that going tobe a detriment to you?
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Yeah, yeah, if you're right at the limit there and
you're doing that for a longtime and you are particularly
vulnerable to it, you willnotice it in your lifetime.
Yeah, but there is a reason whythat is the limit it's going to
.
As a cross section of mostpeople, it is going to capture
(27:08):
most people and if they do that,only that for their whole
lifetime, most people willprobably be fine, but some
people won't be.
It is a cross section.
It is about luck.
Basically, I put it this way Ifyou don't filter your water,
you are the filter, and that isa stark reality.
(27:28):
Now, there are tons of peoplewho have had drunk a ton of lead
in their life and they're fine,and that is also a stark
reality.
The body is an amazinghomeostasis engine and it is
doing its job to keep youbalanced.
And so, yeah, there's going tobe a lot of people who can drink
(27:49):
way more lead than that, butthere's going to be some people
of people who can drink way morelead than that, but there's
gonna be some people who areless.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
It's like somebody knows their, their crotchety old
grandpa or grandma that drankand smoked and they live to be
102 that's real.
Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, okay, so that's interesting to know.
It would be.
I'm on, we're on well waterhere, hey, like we get our water
(28:14):
right from underground sources.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
I don't think we had.
When I do a test of well water.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
I'm looking at 50 different contaminants, not
three or four that they usuallydo when a real estate
transaction goes through.
My wife's Canadian and theirparents don't drink their water
and I've tried to get them asystem.
We'll see if that happens oneday, but they're just so used to
(28:56):
not drinking their waterbecause they know how much
arsenic they have in that water,but a lot of people don't, and
arsenic is going to hide fromyou.
Cyanide's the same way it'sflavorless, it's odorless, it's
not going to let you know thatit's there until it causes organ
failure or cancer great, okay,so yeah, it's one of those
(29:17):
things that a high percentage atleast in our area, at least 80
percent of wells have some levelof arsenic.
There is 80.
There is no safe level ofarsenic.
The health guideline for it isA lot of people are drinking it
and they're just having theirbody be the filter and they're
okay.
It gets too high and then itcan get really dangerous.
(29:39):
In the US, 10 parts per billionis the legal limit, so that's
0.01 parts per million, and thetruth is that it's usually very
cheap to find a full-spectrumtest.
I think Tapscorecom sells themfor $200 for 50 different tests
(30:02):
all in one panel $200 US.
I don't know what it would beup there $2,000 Canadian.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
No, I'm just kidding $2,000 Canadian.
No, the dollar's not that bad.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Yeah.
So the, yeah, the, the thing Iwould do if I owned a wellness,
I would do a full spectrum panel.
No, matter what.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
This is just becoming my own interest instead of
thinking about our listeners.
But when you get that, is it?
You just get to do a littlechemistry at home, or you take
the sample and send it away yeah, you send it away, yeah oh,
dang it.
See, there you go, I'm, I'm.
I have background in chemistry.
I teach chemistry in highschool, okay, so that would be
fun to do my own.
(30:45):
I don't have enough chemicalsto do 50 different tests on our
well water, but no, yeah, andarsenic.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
You've got to do a burn test.
You've got to burn off stuffand then suspend in an oil
solution and then do titration.
So it's complex and with yourbackground you probably could do
it, but they certainly wouldn'ttrust anyone to do it.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, all right.
So beyond lead and arsenic, arethere anything else, anything
else we should be worried about?
Or are there things that peoplethink that we should be worried
about but maybe aren't as big aculprit, if you know what I
mean?
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Yeah, so here's the problem.
Problem.
I can go on and on about thingsto worry about and I worry
about doing that because I thinkit gives people fatigue and
then they're like, oh, I don'twant to worry about any of it.
It's usually best for peopleand I'll do it, I don't mind for
your podcast, but I think it'sbest to ask people to just go
(31:48):
get their water tested so theyknow for sure, because I like to
follow a test don't guess modeland then, after you get results
, the lab who did it for you canhelp you.
If your listeners want to callme with some quick questions, I
don't mind.
The thing I just want people todo is test their waters.
They don't guess what they'redrinking about, especially if
(32:09):
they have children.
But, yeah, pfas, that's foreverchemicals.
There's about 14,000 to 16,000of those.
One recent study said therecould be over 700,000 different,
170,000 different variations,but we know of at least 14 to
(32:30):
16,000.
Only six out of those have beencarefully identified as to
whether they are of a healthconcern, and all six of those
have shown health concerns atincredibly small amounts.
So four parts per trillion,whoa?
(32:50):
Yeah, so we were talking about.
Parts per Whoa.
Yeah, so we were talking aboutparts per billion before.
Yeah, and if you can imagine athousand Olympic size swimming
pools, four drops in that isconsidered to be a health
concern.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
The NP fast.
For people who are listening,those are those polyfluoroalkyl
sub things, polyfluoroalkylsubstances there.
That's where the s and p fastcomes yeah exactly.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
You come from a random assortment of stuff that
we've made and put chemicals,man-made chemicals that are
designed to basically causethings to be resistant, so water
resistance.
They are used in fire foamspecifically because they're so
hard to break down.
They will smother fire thatwater can't.
(33:36):
They are called foreverchemicals because they go on and
on.
The most recent process thatI've heard someone theorizing
for destroying these becausecurrently we don't have an
amazing way to destroy these iscold plasma.
Oh my God, yeah, that'sexpensive.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
And we might just need to wait about 20 or 30
years and use a private rocketto send it into the sun.
That might be cheaper.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Yes, yeah, no doubt.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
No doubt.
And those PFAS, of course, theyget into our drinking water and
we drink it.
Yeah, no doubt, no doubt.
And those PFAS, of course theyget into our drinking water and
we drink it.
And it's spooky because wedon't really know how bad it
could be.
That's what I've read, I think.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
That's right.
That's exactly right.
We know there are healthconcerns.
We don't know how bad they'regoing to be.
So we are.
You know we're playing withthis unknown and the thing is
the solution is so easy forpeople.
Whole house systems can bebetter for PFOS because there is
some indication that skincontact can be of concern now.
(34:44):
But drinking is definitely ofconcern and a simple $1,000
installed under counter reverseosmosis will do the trick.
So to me, that's somethingpeople should be looking at.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
When you have your water tested, do they test for
PFAS, or is that too hard totest for?
Speaker 3 (35:06):
It's really hard to test for.
And this is the problem withpfos.
Right is that is that you do 16, you do you take samples from
15, 16 different locationsfrequently to do pfos testing.
You can't wear perfume oranything because it can screw up
the sample.
And then you cap them and thenout of those 16, a certain
(35:28):
number of them show for pfos.
That's how you know you have it, because it's really hard to
find in the water.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Four drops per thousand swimming pools.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Yeah, exactly, it's hard to just find it and they
did a very elaborate studyrecently with 19 different river
sources and they found it 98%of the time in that situation.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Oof.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
Yeah, so it's kind of work.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
At the point we just have to assume it's there.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I would.
Yes, I would be assuming it'sthere, because municipalities
are finding it and thenpronouncing yes, it has been
found.
And unfortunately, the EPAstandards of four part per
trillion is not enforceableunder this administration until
2031.
So these municipalities now getto say, yes, we found it, but
(36:23):
we're within legal levels, whichis such a tricky thing to say
given that-.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
There's no enforcement, so they're within
any legal limit, right, exactly?
Yep, oh man, that's a littlebit.
Of lawyer speak there, somepolitical speak yeah, it's scary
because it gosh.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
I'm not trying to be all doomsday, but it's scary
because if you go that route andyou, you let everyone know yes,
there's unhealthy amounts ofPFAS in the water.
No, we can't get rid of it.
Yet People now are going tostart drinking more bottled
water.
What a billion bottles of waterconsumed every single day on
(37:04):
this planet.
So that's a lot.
That's a lot of plastic usage,a lot of microplastics, with
something like 300,000 strawsthrown away, and straws
currently cannot be with currenttechnology, cannot be recycled,
cannot be with currenttechnology, cannot be recycled.
(37:31):
So it becomes a whole thing.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
There's definitely a.
It's good our planet is as bigas it is.
Yeah, okay, let's I have aquestion for you.
That's, maybe we can talk aboutsomething.
It is good information to tellpeople about some of these
things and have it in the backof their mind, and if folks do
have the money, they could thinkabout that.
Reverse osmosis right, yeah,are there.
Do some people think water'sworse than it is?
And they're wrong.
What are some of the myths thatare maybe a good news myth?
(37:57):
Right, yeah, that's a good wayto go Fluoride.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
Some people think fluoride's really bad.
Fluoride has been shown tocause some IQ loss at some
levels.
These studies are really likemassively low amounts.
Fluoride is not necessarilythat good for you or that bad
for you.
It's of little concern and thefluoride levels are like in
(38:24):
Scandinavian countries.
They don't fluoridate and theyhave better teeth outcomes, but
they also don't use sugar.
So is fluoride needed?
We don't know.
But if people have fluoride intheir water, it's not.
In my opinion it's not of amajor concern.
Some people are worried aboutpharmaceuticals in the water.
There are a ton ofpharmaceuticals in the water,
(38:46):
that is true, and that isbecause people excrete that
through their urine and thenit's recycled.
But it takes a lot of reallyhigh levels of that stuff to
start affecting people.
Hormonal and thyroid changesrequire pretty large numbers,
which can happen, but it's notsuper likely.
(39:07):
So I'm not as worried aboutthat kind of thing and to me the
best news about water treatmentis, if you're handy, you can
even get those ROs for $150 anddo it yourself.
The thing is to just reallylook at it and not hide from it,
not let five years go by whereyou're like I'll do that later
(39:28):
and then you find out that forfive years you've been drinking
something you don't want.
Instead, it can be really easyto treat water, and that is to
me good news, because 10 yearsago, these reverse osmosis
systems were way more expensive.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
I remember that my family didn't have one growing
up, but I knew a family did andthey were of higher
socioeconomic status.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
We'll just say yeah, exactly, so, yeah, if you can
figure out how to get itinstalled, they can be really
affordable.
And even the really cheap ones,though, they will potentially
have leaks.
So you want to put a drip panon the really cheap ones.
The really cheap ones will workbecause membrane technology is
membrane technology and,although there are levels of
(40:15):
membrane technology, even thecheapest membrane in the world
is going to massively improvewater quality.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
That's good news.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, that's what I think.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Yeah, we actually covered the whole fluoride
debate on our podcast a couple,about a month or two ago.
A city south of us, Calgary inAlberta, 15, 20 years ago,
fluoride was voted out Likepeople didn't want fluoride in
the water.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
So they took fluoride out, maybe based on that study,
maybe based on misinformation,maybe based on many things and
then they did see, you know, asteady increase in dental issues
, yeah, and, and then fluoridewas voted back in.
So now, for the water incalgary is fluoridated.
Oh, so it's an interestingthing.
(41:05):
The doctors and the people that, of course, were for
fluoridation.
They cited what you said isthat you would need to have a
lot of fluoride to cause damageto a population base, and then
they concluded the help forteeth definitely outweighed any
(41:26):
very insignificant, negligibleyeah, but anyways, I just
thought that was cool that youmentioned that oh yeah, and
teeth health is not to bediscounted like that.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
There are such direct links to strange things related
to teeth health.
Alz, alzheimer's has a relationto dental health.
They're shocking relations.
So I definitely yeah, Idefinitely am very interested in
that story because I actuallyhave been looking for.
Thank you for sharing that withme.
(41:57):
I've been looking for somethingexactly like that, an anecdote
that's exactly like that that Icould study and look into.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
It's very interesting yeah, yep, just google calgary
fluoride debate.
Yeah, that was a, it was.
I was shocked too.
I didn't even know whathappened.
It was like this one of the,that's the biggest city in
alberta, just like south of us,and I was like, oh, I didn't
know this happened.
Yeah, it's cool, yeah um now oneof the things we had been
(42:28):
talking by email about and maybe, like before we get to my
standard questions, this is aninteresting one how water, water
access, impacts things likegender equality, like you had
mentioned that in an email and Iwas a little interested if you
could elaborate on that.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
I can, yeah, so if you have a country where access
to water is a little more scarceI was actually talking to
somebody today about this whereshe's in Africa, she's in Zambia
.
I was talking to her today andshe had.
She lives in a fairly populousplace, so they have access to
(43:06):
water, but not more than 10kilometers from her they have
people who are having to walkquite a ways away from their
village to get water, and who doyou think is doing that?
Speaker 1 (43:23):
I would say women.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
Women and children, basically yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
And usually, if they're children, it's going to
be a female child versus a malechild, but not always.
So this is a cultural reality.
In a lot of the worldespecially, there is a cross
section, a demographic crosssection, where in poorer
countries they are morepatriarchal, which I guess.
(43:52):
I don't know why exactly.
I guess there's something aboutstrength being related to
survival in those situations Alittle bit, who knows?
But it's just a reality.
There tends to be a higherpatriarchal culture, not that
not that I can state how thathappens, but that's what happens
(44:13):
, right.
So then then we've got okay,who's going to go fetch the
water?
The guys I have to work formaking money and bringing in
food.
So you're fetching the water Ifyou.
If that's the scenario, how doesa woman leave her husband?
(44:34):
And abuse rates can be higherin situations where a woman
cannot leave.
But in these situations where awoman can't leave because if
she leaves she can't besupported, then she's got to do
her job in the relationship,which is, in that case, getting
water, which means she's notgetting her own income, and
(44:56):
again she can't leave.
It's like a vicious circle.
She also can't get educated avicious circle.
She also can't get educated.
And then children if they're inschool.
They're fetching water firstbefore going to school, because
everybody needs water for theday.
So it is a dramatic socialimpact to have water right next
(45:18):
to you and in these cultures youliterally could not even start
women's rights without access towater.
It would be essentiallyimpossible Not completely
impossible, but essentially itwould be impossible.
So that's a very real thingpeople struggle with, and access
to clean access to any waterand ideally, clean water
(45:43):
dramatically changes entirecultures.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
So, like the idea, the time it takes to get water
right.
Yeah, it's that much of yourday.
Speaker 3 (45:52):
Four hours yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
Four hours On average yeah.
So half an eight-hour workdayright.
Exactly, if you want to thinkof an eight-hour workday.
Speaker 3 (46:01):
Yep right.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
Yeah.
Yep, yeah, just yeah, yeah, youget it one of our standard
questions that we asked that.
Sorry, let me start that again,I got tongue tied.
One of the standard questionswe ask our guests about is a pet
story.
Um, what do you have a petstory from your life you could
(46:22):
share with us?
Speaker 3 (46:24):
Oh my gosh, I have two dogs and three rats right
now, but my pet story would my.
I don't know if I have a funpet story.
I have, like I have a pet thatwas in my life when I was
younger.
It's.
It was really interestingbecause when I was like 10, I
had this dog and his name wasRaven and he was just a black
(46:50):
lab and they're awesome dogs.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
Black labs are great dogs.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Yeah, I, yeah, I, he was my friend, like as a 10 year
old this I'm not trying to besad here but I was not like
liked, I was probably on thespectrum a little bit and and
definitely I had zero friends.
But I felt and I know 10 yearolds have these weird ideas
(47:17):
about things I felt and I thisis weird to even say as an
almost 50-year-old.
At that time, though, I really,truly believed that I could
talk to this dog and it couldcommunicate back to me and I
understood it and it understoodme.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Aw, that's not silly, that's sweet.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
It is Okay, it's sweet, but it is such a visceral
memory for me that obviouslythe dog wasn't doing that.
Yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly,definitely felt like it, yeah,
and the memory is of it beingreal.
So that's, that is a veryinteresting.
I've never had that experiencewith an animal since, but I've
also not I haven't been 10 yearsold since either.
(47:57):
Yeah, it's a fun.
It's a fun memory to have,because you're not ever going to
have that memory again.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
And you have two dogs now.
What are they and what's theirnames?
Speaker 3 (48:11):
A Caton de Touillere, because it turns out I'm
allergic to fur.
Speaker 2 (48:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (48:17):
I have a Caton de Touillere.
His name is Kip yeah.
And then I have a little ShihTzu with a little bit of poodle
mixed in there, and his name isPan.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Ah, sweet.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
Very cute little dogs , and all of whom have hair
instead of fur, so they're finefor me.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
Oh yeah, we are drowning in fur at our house
here with the two burners and agolden retriever and a cat oh
yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 3 (48:48):
Yeah, you guys are like if anyone had allergies
vacuum every couple days.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
Yeah, yeah, people who have lots of dogs.
When you go to their house,like they, they either are
cleaning around the clock andthere's they.
They're obviously very on pointfor cleaning or it's like our
house, where there might be aclump of fur in the corner.
Yeah, so that's what.
You just can't get rid of.
(49:15):
It all because we don't vacuumevery three hours.
Speaker 3 (49:18):
Yeah, no doubt.
And if it's between that or nothaving a pet, like, obviously
that's an easy choice, so Iagree with you.
Yeah, and if it's between thator not having a pet, like,
obviously that's an easy choice,so I agree with you, yeah, and
rats, hey.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
Like we've talked to lots of people who have rats as
a pet they I've never had one asa pet, but they apparently make
great pets.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Oh yeah, yeah, I've got a.
The rats are cause of my middlechild, iris.
She's 11 and she really wantedthem.
At 10 years old she was likedesperate to have rats.
So we made her prove that shewould take care of rats by being
the only one to take care ofthe dogs for a month, and she
did that.
Oh yeah, exactly.
So we got her rats and then wegot her.
(49:57):
We were going to get her a rat,but then we learned that
they're not good to have alone.
So then we got we were going todo two rats, but then we found
this place that was trying tohouse some rats, and so we ended
up getting three rats.
One of the rats has such aninteresting story.
It was actually it was going.
It was given to a snake as foodand the snake started to
(50:25):
swallow it and then spat it backout, okay, and then it just
refused to eat it.
So that rat was traumatized.
Yeah, so we have that rat andthen that rat's a little scaredy
cat.
The other two are just likebrother and sister, I think, and
they're both boys, like brotherand sister, I think, and
they're just, I know.
(50:45):
They're both boys, brother andbrother, and and they're both
happy that's sweet.
Yeah, even the rat tasted bad,who knows I know it's such a
funny, weird story, right?
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (50:58):
their natural selection works in weird ways.
Perhaps there's some kind oflike genetic mutation that made
its fur taste bad to snakes, andthen you never know.
Speaker 3 (51:07):
Which would be cool yeah exactly.
I love that idea.
Speaker 1 (51:15):
Sitting in.
We're at the end of our chat.
Thank you for giving up yourtime.
I so appreciate it.
A couple of things before wewrap.
Can people find your companyonline?
Are you on social mediaanywhere for people to follow?
Speaker 3 (51:29):
Yeah, we're on a few social media places, but if you
look up Pure Water Northwest,you'll find us and my name is
such a weird name.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Cool, I had to ask you how to say it before we
started this.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
I know.
Thank you, people who look meup usually can find me very
easily.
So, yeah, we're pretty easy tofind and happy to help anyone
who needs it.
Speaker 1 (51:55):
Sounds good.
We'll make sure there's a linkto Pure Water Northwest.
Oh, did I get the company rightthere?
I'm sorry you got it.
Yeah, we'll make sure there's alink in our show notes to pure
order, pure water northwest.
Speaker 3 (52:11):
So you know people who listen to the show and, like
I, want to learn more.
Just your click away.
Yeah, yeah, appreciate itthat's awesome.
Speaker 1 (52:14):
I think we're gonna get our water tested, so this
was eye-opening for me.
I drink our water.
I love our well water.
My wife does not like the tasteof it, so she drinks lots of
bottled water, yeah.
So I guess for my own health, Ibetter get it tested.
So yeah, I'll take a look atthose kits.
Maybe there's a Canadian analogtoo, instead of an American one
(52:34):
.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
Yeah, maybe that's an interesting question.
Speaker 1 (52:38):
Thanks for chatting and best wishes in the future.
Speaker 3 (52:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
That's it for this week's show.
Thanks for coming back weekafter week to listen to the
Science Podcast.
And a shout out to all the topdogs.
That's the top tier of ourPatreon community, the Paw Pack.
You can sign up in our shownotes.
All right, Chris, let's hearthose names that are part of the
top dogs.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
Amelia Fetig Rhi Oda, carol Hainel Fettig Rhi Oda
Carol Hainel, jennifer Challen,Linnea Janik, karen Chronister,
vicky Otero, christy Walker,sarah Bram, wendy, diane Mason
and Luke Helen Chin, elizabethBourgeois, marianne McNally,
catherine Jordan, Shelley Smith,laura Steffensen, tracy
(53:20):
Leinbach, anne Uchida, HeatherBurbach, kelly Tracy Halbert,
ben Rather, debbie Anderson,Sandy Breimer, mary Rader,
bianca Hyde, andrew Lin, brendaClark, brianne Hawes, peggy
McKeel, Polly Burge, kathyZerker, susan Wagner and Liz
Button.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
For science, empathy and cuteness.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.