Arsenic in Brown and White Rice

I recently added more rice into my diet and wanted to understand the nutritional value of switching from white to brown rice. Then I recalled hearing about the potential risk of more arsenic so I dug into the research.

This 2016 risk assessment from the FDA provided baseline numbers of the amount of arsenic in rice and rice products as well as a quantitative estimate of lung and bladder cancer risk from long-term exposure of these products.

We found that average concentrations of inorganic arsenic – the more toxic form of arsenic – were as follows:

• 92 parts per billion (ppb) in white rice

• 154 ppb in brown rice

• 104 ppb in infants’ dry white-rice cereal

• 119 ppb in infants’ dry brown-rice cereal

The primary culprit of damage is inorganic arsenic in foods, which I learned in not a traditional heavy metal but a "toxic metalloid". The good news is this means inorganic arsenic doesn't bioaccumulate the same way other heavy metals do. The risk however is still continuous exposure over a long period of time which can damage DNA, the skin, and the vascular system.

Dr. Michael Greger also provides a good summary and insights in his video

Which Rice Has Less Arsenic: Black, Brown, Red, White or Wild?Evaluating differences in rice, we can observe:

• brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice

• long grain contains more than shorter grains, though this may be due more to where these grains are grown

• arsenic accumulates in the rice bran, which is why brown rice contain so much more arsenic

• many of the varieties of colored rice were worse than white rice for the reason above

• children under 6 should almost definitely avoid rice AND rice products, with regulations in the EU now adding more conservative limits on the amount of acceptable arsenic in rice products for infants

One bit of good news is brown rice MAY make the arsenic less bio-available as shown in this population study. As Dr. Greger says:

So, if you test the urine of thousands of Americans who don’t eat rice at all, they’re still peeing out about eight micrograms of toxic, carcinogenic arsenic a day. It’s in the air; it’s in the water; there’s a little bit in nearly all foods. But, eat just one food—a cup or more of white rice a day—and your exposure shoots up 65%.

Okay. But, what about those who eat a cup or more a day of brown rice, which technically contains even more arsenic? Your exposure shoots up the same 65%. No difference between the urine arsenic levels of white rice-eaters compared to brown rice-eaters. Now, this was not an interventional study, where they feed people the same amount of rice to see what happened, which would have been ideal. This was a population study. So, maybe the reason the levels are the same is that white rice-eaters eat more rice than brown rice-eaters. So, that’s why they ended up with the same levels? We don’t know, but it should help to put the minds of brown rice-eaters at rest.

So what is the risk? This analysis from the EPA used a Bayesian approach to estimate the dose response of inorganic arsenic exposure from water. It found a linear relationship of more arsenic exposure with bladder and lung cancer. If we extrapolate the EPA's 2025 upper-bound estimate: one daily cup of brown rice for life adds up to 0.42 percentage points of bladder or lung cancer risk (+5.5% relative to a 7.6% baseline); white adds 0.25 (+3%). At three cups: 1.45 (+19%) for brown and 0.8 (+10%) for white.

A more direct causal study would need to prove out this relationship, but this definitely took me aback. For rice staple cultures, three cups of rice daily is pretty normal. These upper bound figures begin to look similar to increased risk of cancer from a daily beer or alcoholic drink.

Unfortunately rinsing rice does little to remove arsenic, especially in brown rice. But researchers did find a parboil method could dramatically reduce the amount of arsenic, removing 54% & 73% iAs from brown & white rice. This is a specific method that requires a lot water that is then tossed out but it does retain a lot of the same nutrients.

My takeaway? We are exposed to arsenic across a number of ways; through our air, water, and food. The increased cancer risks are linear from continued exposure, which means the amount of arsenic consumption scales with risk. If I was a regulatory body in a country where rice is a staple food, I would set significantly stricter regulations to evaluate and limit the amounts in rice and rice products.

Personally, it doesn't seem worth eating rice regularly, especially brown rice. I'll probably try to have less than 3 to 4 servings a week and mix in other grains. I'd be especially careful with infants and rice products that may concentrate the arsenic levels.

Season 17, Episode 58: Why Does String Theory Have So Many Dimensions?

Hey StarTalkians! Episode 58 of season 17 was another Cosmic Queries edition, with guest and string theorist Professor Lara Andersson, Neil and Jordan. Many of the questions concerned the – seemingly excessive – number of dimensions in string theory. This one really gets to the heart of the matter:

Quantum Anomalies with Lara Anderson - StarTalk Radio

(from 30:30)

Professor Andersson explains it very well in layman’s terms. Truthfully, it’s difficult to convey without a lot of mathematics, but here, I’ll try to address the core issue in a little more detail.

Why Does String Theory Have Extra Dimensions?

String theory is an attempt to unify all four fundamental forces – thus creating a “theory of everything.” When you’re doing this, it’s probably wise to not make any assumptions about the number of dimensions there are. After all, it’s possible that we aren’t aware of all of them.

So you can develop the ideas of string theory in a “dimension agnostic” way, just putting d in place of anything dependent on the number of dimensions.

Working this way, you eventually run into an issue. Any such theory would have to be invariant under a transformation called a Weyl transformation, but this can be broken by quantum mechanical effects. In order to form a consistent theory with these “Weyl anomalies,” they have to cancel out.

That’s when d comes back. It was found that with d = 26 (in the case of bosonic – force-related – string theory) or d = 10 (in the case of fermionic – matter related – superstring theory), you can ensure the cancellation. In this way, the dimensions kind of just come out of the theory, if it is to work at all.

How Many Extra Dimensions?

It depends on the specific theory. Five different variants of string theory quickly developed, which physicists found connections between by rescaling so-called “coupling constants” which appear in each. In 1995, Ed Witten realized that these five theories were just special cases of “M theory” – the mother of all string theories.

In M theory, there are 11 dimensions. This is therefore the best answer to how many dimensions are present in string theory.

So... Where Are They?  

As explained on the podcast, the complete lack of these dimensions in our experience is explained by “compactification.” This is questionable, from a philosophical perspective, but does fix the problem of “where are the extra dimensions?”.

HAZE in Malaysia

As the haze gets worse, I find myself wondering if this is one of the worst ones we've had since the 2019 or even 2015 El Nino fires.

Excerpts from News Article from South China Post

Fire emissions from Indonesia from September 1 to September 7 reached 19.7 million metric tons.

Emissions were 273% higher than the seasonal average, though still lower than the 21.7 million tons emitted in the same week of 2015.

Today we are at API 170-180+ range, and the fires in Kalimantan don't seem to be stopping anytime soon.

While looking it up, it was interesting to read that -

1. While El Niño events explain most of the year-on-year variation in fire, the creation of new districts increases fire and exacerbates the El Niño impacts on fire.

2. There are two plausible and related explanations for this finding: (a) districts use fire to create economic opportunity and grow the local economy, and (b) economic growth increases residents’ and local firms capacity to move, acquire land, and burn further.

I also found this recent review paper that outlined Malaysia's current air quality monitoring system, and more. Though given that our haze crises mostly stem from Indonesian forest fires, improving our own laws and infrastructure seems to be a bit helpless in this case, with the AATHP acting 'non-existent' once again, becoming a never-ending problem.

Can AI make scientific discoveries?

One thing I hear often is that "AI will help research, but it can't make original discoveries" (or some variant).

This article New ‘AI scientists’ are improving – but reveal their fundamental limits seems to say that LLM models can help research, but as they are based on language, they lack precision needed to validate fully hypothesis (and make discoveries on their own).

Surely this is all just a temporary limitation? Or is there some fundamental barrier?

(By the way check out credo summary of the article, which automatically pulls out the research papers cited!)

Colonial German descendants: 2% of population, but own 70% of Namibian land?

Saw an Instagram post (by @AidanSimardone) with this claim, which caught my attention.

I guess one shouldn't be surprised by the abysmal lasting legacy of colonialism. But nonetheless I looked into the claim to learn more.

TLDR: the claim is an exaggeration/simplification, but the actual figures/stats are "still bad".

The first article I stumbled onto was this BBC article: "What's the right price to pay for genocide?".

It summarises Germany's brutal 1904-1908 colonial campaign in (present day) Namibia, noting:

As many as 65,000 of the 80,000 Herero living in German South West Africa at the start of colonial rule are estimated to have perished, as well as perhaps 10,000 of an estimated 20,000 Nama.

and the two countries' efforts to account for it:

Since 2015, when Germany formally acknowledged that the atrocities constituted genocide, it has been negotiating a restorative justice deal with Namibia that will set a global precedent.

On the 70% land figure, the article highlights the historical land distribution/seizure:

... most of their land was split into private farms for German settlers. And today most Herero and Nama live either on small overcrowded areas of communal land that were later allocated to them ... .

and specifically on today's ownership:

German Namibians are believed to be the biggest group among the white farmers who own about 70% of the country's farmland.

So according to the article, it's not exactly 70% of all land, but 70% of farmland. And it's not "white Germans" only, but they are the biggest group.

So the original claim is off, but the sentiment remains.

So what are the actual numbers?

I found this piece by "Namibia Fact Check" (an initiative by a Namibian think tank) – that did the math based on Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) data:

1. It states "previously advantaged farmers" own ~70% of commercial (freehold) farmland.

2. The piece says "Previously advantaged farmers" isn't strictly speaking "white Germans", and says it's not clear what percentage of the population they make up (but it sounds like that data isn't officially available, and it is understood to mean white Germans and South Africans pretty much. From googling it sounds like white make up ~2-6%).

3. And commercial (freehold) farmland constitutes ~42% of total land surface.

And so, "previously advantaged farmers" (basically white Germans and South Africans, that make up 2-6% of the population) own ~a third of total land (70% x 42%).

So yes, the original claim seems to be an exaggeration – but the sentiment remains. The actual figures aren't exactly rosey.

Claim: The “Living Carnivore” Diet is Good for Weight Loss

Verdict: Broadly true, but misleading

“Within 30 days I lost 20 pounds. JD Vance is also on the diet and you can see how different he looks.”

“The way that you're supposed to eat it is bite for bite. You take a bite of the meat, you take a bite of the sauerkraut”

RFK Jr.

After Vice President JD Vance credited his weight loss to RFK Jr’s recommended “meat and sauerkraut” diet, the “Living Carnivore” diet has been under the spotlight. But does it really work?

The Good News: Weight Loss is Reasonable

For the goal of weight loss – without considering other issues – and despite no direct evidence on the Living Carnivore diet specifically, it doesn't seem too bad. This largely comes down to the benefits of eating fermented foods. Generally speaking, there are multiple benefits to consuming fermented foods, as shown by a study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 to 2018.

The study found that each 100 g of microbe-containing foods was associated with reduced BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein, plasma glucose and triglyceride, and increased high density lipoprotein cholesterols. The mechanisms of action get a little complicated, but generally include influencing gene expression, slowing gastric emptying and modulation of the gut microbiome.

The carnivore side of the diet is where the problems come in. Purely for weight loss, there is some evidence that they can lead to weight loss and increased satiety.

The Bad News: Nutrient Deficiencies and Cholesterol

A 2026 scoping review focused on the carnivore diet noted these benefits for weight loss, but stressed the “substantial risks” of nutrient deficiencies. Overall, the carnivore diet can lead to deficiencies in thiamine, vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, iodine, potassium, calcium and fibre. The deficiency in fibre is also pretty extreme, at less than 1/25th of the adequate intake. It's debatable whether you could rectify these issues by adding fermented foods.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol generally increase, carrying risks of heart disease, and some versions have high sodium, potentially leading to high blood pressure and more.

And it should go without saying that eating “bite for bite” is probably useless, it takes a long time to digest food, relative to actual eating process. It all hits your stomach basically simultaneously anyway.

Overall, the diet – especially fermented foods – could help weight loss, but it’s terrible as an overall diet.

Claim: DARPA is Spraying Chemtrails Out of Planes via Jet Fuel

Verdict: False and highly misleading

“That is not happening in my agency. We don’t do that. It’s done, we think, by DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]. And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel. You know, those materials are put in jet fuel. I’m going to do everything in my power to stop it.”

– RFK Jr.

Inside RFK Jr.’s Health Agenda 100 Days In | Dr. Phil Primetime

Last week, after his discussion of electromagnetic fields, RFK Jr. made an off-hand reference to “chemtrails.” Although he didn’t say much about it in that speech, he’s been more open about it in the past. So is RFK Jr. right about chemtrails?

Chemtrails vs. Contrails

As a 26-year old Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet explains, the commonly-seen trails emitted from aircraft are contrails. These are simply line-shaped “clouds” formed by condensed water that has frozen into tiny particles of ice.

Air can only hold so much water, and this amount increases as the air temperature increases. So there is condensation – and contrails – if there is too much moisture, or if the temperature decreases.

Hot water vapour is a by-product of the combustion of jet fuel. However, as it is released into the surrounding air, it cools and often condenses into liquid droplets. This is the true cause of most things called “chemtrails.”

What Do Experts Think About Chemtrails?

An interesting paper presented supposed “evidence” of chemtrails to 77 experts in either contrails or atmospheric deposition. Most of this was either in the form of photos of contrails or chemical analyses of water, snow or soil samples.

All but one expert said they had not encountered evidence of a large-scale atmospheric program. For all the photographs, no expert said that such a program was the simplest explanation, and offered explanations generally relating to humidity. For the chemical analyses, over 82% said chemtrail-like programs weren’t the simplest explanation. Here, there was more uncertainty, with up to 14% saying they weren’t sure of the cause, and one even backing a secret atmospheric program as an explanation.

The Final Verdict

RFK Jr.’s claims were made without evidence. There appears to be no DARPA program doing such activity, several agencies regulate aircraft emissions, and jet fuel does not release the chemicals proponents claim it does [3]. This could be all done in secret – theoretically – but there is no evidence of it. 

Amazonian Homeopathy - Which of them Currently have Scientific Backing ❓

Was listening to Dr Mike's podcast with Paul Rosolie and was very intrigued by the effects of the natural plants and treatments mentioned by Paul. 💊🌿

The Ancient Medicine of Uncontacted Amazon Tribes | Paul Rosolie

Thought it be interesting to explore which had some truth to them. 🤔 Some had loads of evidence while other had no clear papers available.

1. sangre de drago: Amazonian dragon's blood resin (from the Croton lechleri tree)

   >> It has been FDA-approved for providing symptomatic relief of non-infectious diarrhea in adults with HIV/AIDS.

   Paul mentions it being good for covering wounds, on top of being good for the GI tract. Though this recent review also mentions C. lechleri resin having anti-inflammatory properties and has potential as an anti-tumour agent but further reseach is still needed.

2. Barbasco: A plant extract obtained from species of Lonchocarpus nicou

   >> A fish stupefacient containing active ingredients like rotenone; used to stun fish in rivers for easy harvesting.

3. Bark of Cetico tree and Amasisa for stingray stings

   There isn't much research available directly addressing stingray sting treatment, this review mentions the Cecropia genus having potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects.

Overall, it was an interesting episode. it was also fascinating to hear about Amazonian freshwater manatees, freshwater stingrays, and freshwater dolphins and how they came about.👀

The "carnivore diet" may promote weight loss, but risks nutrient deficiencies and high cholesterol.

Season 17, Episode 56: What is the Planck Length and Why Does it Matter?

Hey StarTalkians! Episode 56 of season 17 was a Cosmic Queries edition, with Neil, Chuck, Gary and astrophysicist Charles Liu. About halfway through, they received this mind-bending question:

Cosmic Queries – The Fractal Universe with Charles Liu - StarTalk Special Edition

(From 30:30)

You can tell from the strained response that this isn’t a simple matter, but it all revolves around the so-called Planck length. Beyond this limit, we’re pretty sure our theories break down. But what even is it, and why is it so significant?

Planck’s Units Explained

Planck’s constant is familiar to anyone who’s studied quantum mechanics, but it’s worth starting with Max Planck’s original idea of a new system of units. In an 1899 paper, in a short final section entitled “Natural Units of Measurement,” Planck points out the terrestrial nature of our units of measurement.

Planck was interested in proposing units that would make sense to anyone, even extraterrestrial cultures. To this end, he worked with two constants from the problem he solved in the paper (including what we now call Planck’s constant, h), along with the speed of light in a vacuum (c) and the gravitational constant (now called G).  

By combining these constants in appropriate ways, he derived values for what we now call the Planck length, the Planck mass and Planck time, as well as Planck temperature.

These values diverge from “everyday” human-world values quite a bit. For instance, while the Planck mass is closer to a useful size, the Planck length is unimaginably tiny. As Symmetry magazine explains, if a proton was the size of the observable universe, the Planck length would stretch only from Chicago to Tokyo.

The Physical Significance of Planck Units

Planck was not trying to make some bold prediction about quantum gravity when he proposed his units, but they end up central to these discussions anyway. In the 1950s physicists started to notice the Planck length cropping up in their work on quantum gravity. For example, John Archibald Wheeler investigated quantum fluctuations of the spacetime metric, and found that these fluctuations become significant at the Planck length – even though he didn’t even know about Planck’s units at the time!

As Neil stressed in the podcast, many different results like this indicate that the Planck scale is where our ideas about the universe start to break down. We’d need a theory of quantum gravity to make sense of it.