Wild Unicorn Herd

A POC/non-white/mixie nerd scrapbook. Because we’re awesome.






This is why I use paraben free deodorant.

0 sources???

akshewully…i rarely bother with antiperspirant, since the magic that is cross-sex transition-related hormone replacement therapy has removed most of my need for the stuff. BONUS!

Some people have all the luck. :P

This “parabens are correlated with cause basically the same thing amirite? breast cancer” thing traces back to a 2004 study by UK molecular biologist Philippa Darbre. This study in no means settled the question:

Darbre’s research did not look at the concentrations of parabens in other areas of the breast or body tissues and Harvey [an editor of the journal that published the study] cautions that the significance of the chemicals in tumour tissue should not be over-interpreted.

Furthermore, the study only involved forty women with breast cancer—none without; and some who said they had never used antiperspirant or deodorant also had traces of paraben.

The reason parabens are associated with breast cancer is that, because of their chemical structure, they kind of act like estrogen does and estrogen levels are linked to breast cancer risk.

There are two questions we need to ask: how much are we exposed to compared to other estrogen-mimicking chemicals, and how powerful are parabens’ estrogenic activity? Well, this 1998 study (on rats) found that parabens are at least 100,000 times weaker than estradiol. A 2005 review of the literature, with a focus on studies done on humans, concluded that even in the worst-case scenario, exposure to parabens is much lower than exposure to the estrogen-mimicking chemicals (like phytoestrogens) that occur naturally in our food. This 2008 review also found that there is no evidence that parabens (or aluminum salts, the active ingredient in antiperspirants) are linked to breast cancer.

Here is a thorough overview of the research and the media alarmism.



P. S. Y’know what would really prevent—if not cancer, then people dying from cancer? Access to free, non-racist, non-fatphobic health care. But it’s a lot harder to do than just avoiding deodorant.



domains: so-treu: blackmagickvoodoopussy: how to be Nola Darling (deux): if…



how to be Nola Darling (deux): if black women are unhealthy (rant)


then we need to think about why that is (by we I mean black women and sometimes black men who have checked their misogyny at the fucking door)..instead of blaming…

Ok, so, any sources that show a direct link between racism and all of this shit? Or is it just more Freudian theories backed up by weekly correlating data and a bow tie to try and pull everything together?

It’s not so much a racial issue as it is a socio-economic one. I find that the people trying to make everything out to be a racial issue are often cherry picking and making sure their results support their pre-conceived notions, because more often than not, there’s no real causation.

Also “Perceived Racism” and actual racism are two very different things.

I find it interesting that you think that racial issues and socio-economic issues are mutually exclusive. Are you just totally ignorant of the many studies that have been done to show the vast economic disparities between Black people and other racial groups? Or are you just playing ignorant because you thought it necessary to come into a post and insert your unsolicited, privileged opinions over the rest of us silly Black folks? No, I will not provide links on the socio-economic disparities. You can find them yourself, rather than demanding that every PoC here spoon feeds you an education.

I’ll play nice and give you a few links about the things you asked about, though. So. Let’s talk about Black women and health, shall we? Let’s talk about how unfounded, inaccurate racial stereotypes are taken as fact in the medical world, and how Black people have to be sicker than white people in order to get the same diagnosis for a condition. I know I said I wouldn’t give links, but, I changed my mind, so let’s talk about socio-econimic disparities in racial minorities and the effects of said disparities on physical and psychological health”; while we’re at it, let’s talk about how racism has a direct effect on heart conditions as well as a direct effect on mental health.

Let’s talk about how areas with higher PoC populations have less medical centers,and the fact that Black people are more likely to require treatment but less likely to receive said treatment. Shall we also get into how due to socio-economic status, and the placement of medical centers, many Black people can’t walk to these centers (some aren’t in good enough health to, either) and can’t afford the transportation it would take, nor can they afford the insurance that would cover said testing/treatment to begin with? Shall we get into how socioeconomic status and its relationship to dietary options. In fact, let’s linger on that one for a bit. Let’s discuss how low socioeconomic status not only has an effect on how Black people (and other PoC) navigate the health care system.

Funny enough, one of the articles states, “In fact, clinical trials are the only way to get white America to believe that racism causes trauma in the lives of African Americans.” You actually proved this point. Funny how that works, is it not? No, I won’t tell you which article it came from. You’ll have to read them all yourself and find out.

Let’s talk about one more thing, yeah? (No, I’m not done with you yet.) Let’s talk about how long it took me to find all of those articles. It took me less than two minutes to pull these articles up. No, that’s not an exaggeration. Less than two. Minutes. In fact, if you want to be approximate, it took me exactly one minute and 48 seconds. I timed it for your benefit. It’s amazing what Google can do, isn’t it? An yet, you found it easier to come and insist that we all provide proof for you. Well, here you have it. All the resources you could imagine. But the funny thing is that you’re still going to insist that race has nothing to do with it, aren’t you? Because you weren’t looking for answers. You just wanted to lord your unwanted opinions over what the rest of us know and recognize to be fact not only through statistics—-we don’t need them—but through live and shared experience. This is our lives. We don’t need fancy numbers calculated by white people to tell us Black folk what we already knew about our own community.

Actually, I lied. Let’s talk about one more thing. Your “perceived racism remark.” Ha! Because the millions of us on this planet are just living the same incorrect, irrational, made up fantasy, right? Has it ever occurred to you that we perceive racism because it’s there? And that you might not see it because it doesn’t affect you? I already know it hasn’t; you’ve said the same exact thing that thousands of white people before you have said. An none of them were able to comprehend that our lives are different from theirs either. But hey, now you know! So you don’t get to use that excuse.

OH! ONE MORE THING. Last thing, I promise. The nerve of you, coming into a discussion to demand proof. Well guess what? You got many links. And instead of demanding more, you should be saying “Thank you for taking the time out of your day to educate me on matters that I— rather than derailing a conversation on a problem within a community that isn’t my own and passive aggressively demanding an education—could’ve looked up myself.” And you owe everyone here an apology.

Take the rest of the night and read everything carefully, and do some research of your own, and don’t come back. Instead of asking for us to give you proof, why don’t you take a minute and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF? I changed my mind about discussing things with you. Let’s not discuss anything. Instead, you take those articles—take your condescending, derailing bullshit too—and hit the road.

Nobody asked for your thoughts on our very real problems. Pack up an ship out. Nobody invited you.

What I wrote to jewishramblings: 'Oh, hon. You have not experienced anti-black racism. You don't *get* to be the expert on what counts as anti-black racism. Start taking POC at their word, 'cause right now you're just a shande far di goyim.'






Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . [snip bullshit]

NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES. [snip science rage]

Very nice takedown, but there really is a pretty good Snopes post talking about it, as well as making more of a big deal over the method used to “prove” the OP’s point. [snip]

Heh, I shoulda guessed it was on Snopes. And yes, it is important to point out the shit-ton of things wrong with the “experiment”.

The one thing that keeps bugging me about your post, though, was that it began with yelling at the OPs. The phrase “pig-ignorant asswipes” come into mind.

Yeah, I mean, I get annoyed (pissed off, even, sometimes) with charlatans who want to take advantage of the general distrust of science and the scientific method, but I generally find being a douche helps my case less and instead cements other people’s perceptions of me and science-literate (or just skeptical people in general) as arrogant douchebags.

I mean, to use a metaphor that doesn’t map 100% to the whole situation: I work in IT. There are some things I find “obvious” (like, oh, I don’t know… don’t disable your antivirus just because it gives out some really annoying warnings that happen because it says your thumbdrive is infected with malware… because it is infected with malware) that other people don’t. In situations like this, I’ve seen two ways this can be handled:

  1. Treat the person like they’re idiots for making such an obvious mistake, tell them what they did wrong and why it’s wrong.
  2. Tell them what happened, tell them why doing some things can result in good things happening to them, and show them how to fix things themselves.

Route #1 is very satisfying, especially when the person you’re helping to troubleshoot things is annoying and deserves to be smacked down. Really, I know the temptation: I’ve met assholes in my time in customer support, and me and another survivor of the IT support trenches love to swap stories about how this one particular asshole got his comeuppance (protip: you want to get drivers for your PDA, you’re better off downloading it off the Internet from the official site rather than buying it off a someone selling pirated CDs). And point #2 is really slow, most people won’t get it, they’ll keep doing it again and again, and it really does feel thankless.

But I’ll tell you this: if you do #2 well, not only are you likely to get better compliance in the long run (because #1, while effective in the short-run, just means that end-users view you as assholes and that everything you say is treated as a commandment that can be ignored and subverted when convenient), but the same people who made that mistake can now spread the word out for you, thus saving you time and blood pressure.

Actually, I should be practicing what I preach and I should really talk about how I figure out if something is true or a hoax.

Generally the feeling I watch out for is the desire to reblog something, and when I get that feeling, I do this:

I type: “« a few short keywords from the article I want to reblog » site:snopes.com” on Google.

What this does is that it forces Google to search through snopes.com for articles mentioning those words. Usually this points me to a page that mentions the subject, and if it does, I post the link and say it’s fake / real / disputed / not what it seems.

If that doesn’t work I go through a few other sites: hoax-slayer.com is another one, and works pretty well for Facebook. A pretty good site for Facebook shares, mind you, is sophos.com, which can tell you more about that Justin Bieber scandalous video that your friend posted on Facebook, or that App on Facebook that allows you to see who has viewed your profile.

If I can’t find anything from Google-fu, I normally shrug my shoulders, repost what I did find in the reblog, and ask anyone else if they can verify the original post. That generally works okay — either someone else with better google-fu can dispute or disprove it, or someone else can post more info collaborating it, and so on.

Yeah, it takes more time. But hey. At least you’re not spreading rumors on the Internet without checking up on some facts.

Yeah, I admit I chose the gratuitously dickish option and am not likely to win anyone to the side of critical thinking. *hangs head*

I might have had more mercy if this iteration didn’t originate from an ~intellectual blog that purports to be "fighting ignorance, superstition, privilege, and power".




Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . [snip bullshit]

NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES. [snip science rage]

Very nice takedown, but there really is a pretty good Snopes post talking about it, as well as making more of a big deal over the method used to “prove” the OP’s point.


  • One plant could have been compromised from the very beginning and would have died even if both plants were treated alike.
  • The container used to store or boil the microwaved water could have introduced a residual substance into the water that hindered plant growth.
  • The soil or bedding material used for one of the plants might have contained something (either originally or introduced later) that hindered plant growth.
  • The two containers of water might have been heated and/or cooled unequally, resulting in one plant’s receiving warmer water than the other.
  • The plants might have been subject to differing environmental factors (e.g., light, heat) due to their placement, or affected differently by external factors (e.g., insects, pets).
  • Since the experiment was not conducted “blindly,” the possibility that the experimenter in some way influenced the results cannot be ruled out.

Generally when I see stuff like this, I just look out for a snopes post and post links to them. Getting mad is okay, too, but if I did that I’d have had a heart attack before I was 35, what with all that Internet rage.

Heh, I shoulda guessed it was on Snopes. And yes, it is important to point out the shit-ton of things wrong with the “experiment”.



Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . In it she took filtered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boiling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difference in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by microwave. As it turned out, even she was amazed at the difference, after the experiment which was repeated by her class mates a number of times and had the same result.

It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about, it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it.

Microwaves don’t work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave suffers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the original make-up of the substance. It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.

So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these ‘Safe’ appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it’s safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying!



the structure or energy of the water

what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it it isn’t water anymore and you would fucking notice

the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about

Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the different types of radiation:

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Cheat Sheet

Microwaves != nuclear reactors, so calm your tits.

it’s how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it

…do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein nucleic acid in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more cells. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not. The chemicals it cares about are things like vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like salt.

(You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is like what happens when you fry an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein—the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cool.)

Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster.

I…just…that is the fucking definition of heat, whether you’re heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don’t need to use as much heat. Water boils at 100°C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam; but that’s like the lowest setting on your oven. Oven- or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is transferred in a different way.

This movement causes friction

That’s not what friction is.

It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature.

Let’s take these one at a time.

  • Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble. So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B’s). Just plain heat doesn’t do that, so microwaving veggies—which keeps the water in—is actually a healthier option.
  • Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is still nutritious—that’s why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken.
  • Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table—sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements.)

Which brings me to the “radiolytic compound” bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron—you’re talking about breaking down the iron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays—the OOOH SCARY NUCULAR radiation—which we’ve already established do not come from your microwave.

things that are not found in nature

What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells. That’s right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU. You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long ago something died by how much of it is left.

Tons of shit that occurs naturally is horribly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you—like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications.


LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your veggies.