Soy products are very much a staple in my life. I enjoy my cheerios (every morning!) with soymilk, tofu prepared in many, many ways, and every now and then whole soybeans (edamame).
I knew that soybeans contain isoflavones, a type of phytoestrogen, but I hadn’t realized the great controversy surrounding them. Here is one vehement protest. In this article, Jim Rutz claims that soy is feminizing, creates sexual confusion, and is accountable for homosexuality. Moreover, “research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat,” and uses this to suggest that soy is also possibly behind today’s rising obesity rates.
I admit I laughed at the last bit. That’s almost like saying, “Divorce rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed within the past year; there is a similar trend in soy consumption, so this must imply correlation if not causation!!” I’m interested to see his citations for this article.
Here is a much more objective article from the FDA. While the controversy over phytoestrogen is similarly acknowledged, the FDA affirms that research is far from conclusive.
“…[S]ome studies suggest that high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer… [S]ome studies show just the opposite–that under some conditions, soy may help prevent breast cancer… Unlike the controversy surrounding soy isoflavones, available evidence on soy protein benefits is much clearer.”
I take many statistics with a grain of salt. It seems as though for every statistic that shows one thing, there’s an existing one that shows the opposite. How confusing!
Anyway, until the arrival of more concrete results, I will continue my soy-lifestyle. It’s funny.. most people use soy as a substitute for something else, but for me I can’t think of anything that could adequately replace soy.
Apparently, Google just deviated from its Don’t-be-evil gospel to make the most out of the shopping season.
This should cheer you up. Here’s a quick round up of some of the funnest stuff, measured by my own bizarre
… are Washington and the Kremlin are now no farther apart than the speed of light, atleast technically.
I found this interesting trivia in 

Bockwurst and I were discussing an interesting question today: how much Internet traffic would remain if every human on Earth suddenly died? The Internet was designed to withstand a nuclear attack, but what would it be like if it did? What kind of applications would still be exchanging data with one another. How much data? How long would the power last? One imagines email clients and RSS readers would continue fetching on desktop machines, operating systems and security packages would continue phoning home for updtates, DNS servers would continue to exchange names. What other services would be running? Anyone care to offer a back-of-the-napkin calculation of how much traffic would remain, and for how long?
