It’s no secret I’m fond of Sam Harris, and his latest blog post on wood burning and the effects of wood smoke is yet another tour de force by the rational thinker. In it, he compares our aversion to the idea that burning wood – in any quantity, at any time, for any reason – is harmful, to the faithful’s aversion that they might be wrong: that there is no god, no divine morality, no “son” sent by a father, and so on. In his latest post, entitled The Fireplace Delusion, he spells out what scientists have known for decades:

There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.

Much of his evidence comes from a 2007 study from the University of Georgia, which describes that wood smoke is harmful, without exception, but the question remains how to address it: should we regulate it like cigarette smoke? Also of concern to the researchers is the specific particle size of wood smoke, and how it effects us versus smoke with different size particles.

This was news to me. Though there is much I know nothing about, I try to inform myself about the various health issues facing our society, from environmental toxins to lack of fitness, and of course (my favorite) diet. So to think that wood stoves – a staple in my grandparents’ house – and wood-burning cook-outs (of which I’m a big fan) are all harmful and pollute the environment, well, that’s kind of a shock. And that’s the point, says Harris. You try reconciling the long-time belief, habit, ritual, and comfort of wood burning lore with the current science that says unequivocally: it’s bad! That’s what we are up against, when it comes to the delusional believer, the Christian, or the Muslim, versus the rational freethinkers. They are committed to a world where there is a heaven, a hell, a god, and a set of rules they have to follow, much as wood burners are:

Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmful—and has always been so—is somehow offensive. The ritual of burning wood is simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternative—burning gas over fake logs—seems a sacrilege.

Not content to merely trust Harris’ research, I made a quick search using Pubmed and Google, and sure enough, there’s plenty of research out there: a toxicology review in 2002 claiming that “ exposure to woodsmoke, particularly for children, represents a potential health hazard.” A link between wood smoke exposure and lower respiratory disease (1990). Sydney, Australia claims that wood smoke adds billions to health bills and is considering banning wood stoves all together (The Herald article). The site burningissues.org (by Clean Air Revival) has a comprehensive list of the science behind wood smoke and its effects.

I’m all for renewable energy, and certainly we can make wood go round and round in a natural cycle through burning, composting, planting, etc. But at what cost? Just because wood has been burned for thousands of years doesn’t mean we should keep doing it, even if it is more “natural” than gas or electric. Those aren’t great either, but solar remains off in the horizon, inhibited by the cost that corporation aren’t willing to put into it.

Harris gives two strong arguments here: 1) burning wood is a bad idea, and 2) the resist 1) should illustrate the resistance the religious feel to changing their minds. Another great analogy by a great mind. For an up-to-date look at the wood smoke crisis, Harris suggests San Francisco-based group Families for Clean Air.

Photo: frostnova

Through the readings of Don Miguel Ruiz I’ve come to realize that, as it is often remarked, a compliment “says more about the person giving it than receiving.” While you may disagree, consider that anyone who gives you a sincere compliment felt comfortable enough to do so, confident enough to do so, and had the foresight to deliver it in an appropriate (hopefully!) manner. For “fake” compliments, or those that you feel are sort of a societal expectation (“It was great to see you!”), there’s a way to appreciate those, too.

The solution here is, as agreement number two says, “don’t take anything personally.” Surely you’ve heard this before, usually in the context of some argument or disagreement: “don’t take it personally, they’re just going through a lot” or “don’t take everything he says personally! They have their own issues…” Notice how we always add a modifier to the statement, as if we shouldn’t take what people say personally only because they have something “going on.” Break-ups, anger, depression, job loss…this is used an excuse to “not take personally” whatever that person is saying, as if they’re taking out on you – but not really – because you shouldn’t take it personally.

But what of compliments? If you recount a tale of praise to a friend, saying “and then she said, ‘that was one of the sweetest things you ever did for me’” should your friend retort, “it’s okay – don’t take it personally – they’re a very loving person.” Here the tables are turned, but it’s a logical response to the above modifiers and excuses. If we shouldn’t take things personally because people have anger, then we shouldn’t take things personally because people are loving. This is hard to do, and seems extremely off-putting at first. It feels wonderful when some gives us a genuine compliment; who am I, or anyone, to cast doubt on that? Ruiz writes:

It is not important to me what you think about me, and I don’t take what you think personally. I don’t take it personally when people say, “Miguel, you are the best” and I also don’t take it personally when they say, “Miguel, you are the worst.” I know that when you are happy you will tell me, “Miguel, you are such an angel!” But, when are you mad at me you will say, “Oh, Miguel, you are such a devil! You are so disgusting. How can you say those things?” Either way, it does not affect me, because I know what I am. I don’t have the need to be accepted. I don’t have the need to have someone tell me, “Miguel, you are doing so good!” or “How are you do that!”

Need, validation, acceptance – these are all complex topics that humans explore on a daily basis. But what I want to get across is how to take a compliment, any compliment, simply by not taking it personally. Whether sincere or insincere, the compliment roots from the person giving it, not you. Consider the following: someone tells you that you are pretty, or handsome. Before they say that, you either 1) believe you are pretty, or 2) you do not. If you feel indifferent, pick a different adjective and feel on which side you come down stronger on. When they deliver this compliment, if you already believe you are pretty, the compliment is simply a statement about a reality, something you already know! Be happy, and joyful, that they feel open, loving, confident, comfortable, and determined to state this. If you don’t believe you are pretty (case 2), then there statement is a falsehood, in your mind, about the world. It simply doesn’t matter.

If someone says to you, “you are so ugly” and you believe it, then it’s very easy to take that personally. But while it says something about the person delivering it, it says something about you, too. They didn’t reveal a fact about the world that then hurt your feelings: you already hurt your own feelings by believing that you are ugly. If you don’t believe you’re ugly, then it doesn’t matter! They might as well be speaking gibberish. What they said comes from them, so don’t take it personally.

When someone compliments you, you can feel good. You can feel good because of the love that person is sharing with you – not necessarily romantic love – but joy, pride, confidence, aspiration, and so on. Don’t take it personally, and use their compliments to deflect what you believe, but appreciate their willingness to share, to be open, and to speak honestly with you.

All of this is easier said than done, but it provides a great awareness, or framework, for dealing with others. When my partner says to me, “I love you,” it’s very, very hard for me not to take that personally. In fact I do take that personally, and I often ruminate on what Ruiz would say about that. Use the above framework to take compliments (and ignore insults) from your acquaintances, new colleagues, and anyone to whom you have trouble taking compliments from. A simple “thank you” is still the best reply, but remember what you’re thankful for: you are thankful that they are sharing their feelings with you. You are thankful for their words, their honesty, and their love, however genuine or fleeting it may be. We can take any compliment simply by not taking it personally.

I highly suggest Ruiz’s most popular book, The Four Agreements. While I don’t align with all of the spiritual stuff, the practical wisdom is spot-on!

Did you like this post? Help me grow my followers! Click “Like” or “Tweet” up at the top, or subscribe to the blog via RSS or e-mail.

Photo: Leandroid

Poking around the Twitter Help Center, I found this:

Once you’ve followed 2000 users, there are limits to the number of additional users you can follow: this limit is different for every user and is based on your ratio of followers to following. When you hit this limit, we’ll tell you by showing an error message in your browser. You’ll need to wait until you have more followers in order to follow more users—basically, you can’t follow 10,000 people if only 100 people follow you.

This “ratio of followers to following” has always interested me. There’s a handy calculator at tffratio.com with the following guide: less than 1 means your’e “seeking knowledge but not getting a lot of love in return,” 1.0 is pretty average, 2.0 – 10 means you have some cred and some people care, and above 10.0 means “rock star” or some social gadget wizard-y. I’m around 2.0, while rock stars like Tim Ferriss are in the 900s. Yeah, seriously. Strangely, tech. mogul Guy Kawasaki only has around 1.6, but he has almost 500,000 followers. Tech Crunch went even further to include the number of tweets in their discussion of ratios.

Did you know Twitter doesn’t consider itself a social network? It “facilitates social networking.” They explain:

…[T]witter works quite differently from social networks: when you accept friend requests on social networks, it usually means you appear in that person’s network and they appear in yours. Following on Twitter is different, because instead of indicating a mutual relationship, following is a one-way action that means you want to receive information, in the form of tweets, from someone. Twitter allows people to opt-in to (or opt-out of) receiving a person’s updates without requiring mutual following.

Ah, semantics. Wikipedia says Twitter is a “social networking service” which is also what it calls Facebook. So should that entry be updated? Honestly, it probably doesn’t matter. Twitter’s appeal is firmly implanted in the American subconscious (and world-wide, but we make up over 50% of all tweets), and if you need any evidence of that, note the recent study that just came out of Chicago University: “Twitter is harder to resist than cigarettes and alcohol.” Now, the participants were in Germany, but are they really that much different than Americans? They go to work, eat, drink, smoke, tweet, and have desire and cravings just like anybody else. The study found that it was hardest to resist the urge to use social media, more so than smoking or drinking. Weird!

What’s the weirdest thing you’ve uncovered about our beloved Twitter?

Photo: DBarefoot

Which of the following would you rather put on your body?

Sodium Lauroyl Isethionate, Stearic Acid, Sodium Tallowate or Sodium Palmitate, Lauric Acid, Sodium Isethionate, Water, Sodium Stearate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Cocoate or Sodium Palm Kernelate, Fragrance, Sodium Chloride, Tetrasodium EDTA, Tetrasodium Etidronate, Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891).

or

Blend of Organic Coconut Oil, Olive Oil, Apricot Kernel Oil, Rapeseed Oil (all saponified), Purified Water,  Blends of essential oils, Ground Herbs and Plants.

Obviously, most of us, without thinking too hard, would go with #2. A bunch of oil from plants and some herbs. Indeed, the act of cleaning is just as much friction as it is the stuff you’re cleaning with, and oil helps lube up the surface for germs to run away on (they don’t do so willingly!) in a similar fashion to sodium tallowate or lauric acid. Lauric acid actually comes from plants, so why pull it out and mix it with a bunch of other crap? (Hint: because it’s cheap)

But no mind all this – the second soap comes from the lovely Kalliste Soaps, a “vibrant pop soap shop located in Scarsdale, New York.” They craft handmade, organic, 100% vegan soaps from oils and herbs, and were kind enough to link to me, so I thought I’d return the favor. What I like about Kalliste is their unabashed statement about being vegan and their commitment to it:

Kalliste Organics Inc. uses a traditional hand-crafting process of soapmaking incorporating only the purest, most natural plant, vegetable and fruit ingredients. These soaps, certified cruelty free and vegan by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) gently cleanse and naturally hydrate even the most sensitive skins.

A common ingredient used in the consumer soap industry, Sodium Tallowate, or Tallow, is a saturated fat derived of processed and rendered beef and mutton. This animal byproduct is inexpensive which is why it is so widely used, and is said to clog pores, creating blackheads and increase the incidence of eczema in sensitive skin.

Kalliste offers some pretty bangin’ soaps, like these tasty-looking Cupcake Soaps or Rose Soap, which, instead of a generic fragrance, contains essential oil of rose. Kalliste offers “private label” versions of their soaps if you want to carry or distribute them, and they’re pretty active on Facebook, Twitter, and under-utilized Paper.li.

Kalliste was generous enough to offer readers of TNTSU 10% off on their orders! Just head to their store (look at that oatmeal soap!) and enter TNTSU10 at the check-out! Being vegan is about intention, not perfection, but there’s no excuse for soap any longer!

Photo: Twitpic; the ingredients in the first soap was Dove “White Beauty Bar“

Details’ February 2012 issue features a one-page spread on “Why Hollywood Loves The Alkaline Diet” which definitely caught my eye, mostly because the rest of the magazine is overpriced fashion garbage. The alkaline diet made waves in the vegan community too, when Brendan Brazier, former triathlete and purveyor of Vega products released Thrive; a book targeted eating an alkaline, vegan diet for better performance and overall health.

Details, along with places like E! News, report on the diet, saying it’s “heavy on fruits and vegetables, light on meat, dairy, sugar, and grains.” Sound pretty close to vegan? Uh, yeah. Apparently celebrities such as Channing Tatum and Jennifer Aniston have embraced the diet, which means that it will spread, albeit through strange mediums like these psuedo-tabloids. But, so what? If it gets people to eat less meat and dairy, awesome. Thrive and the accompanying “Thrive Foods” Brazier released afterwards could enjoy some attention from all this, and get people on the path of veganism. While I have yet to fully embrace the belief that the pH of our food and bodies is the deciding factor in health, consuming more plants and less animal products is always a good thing.