The Straight Dope 07/14/2006

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 07/14/2006

Dear Cecil:

I've searched your archive in vain--how is it that the vital field of
phytoestrogen research has escaped your scrutiny? The straight dope,
please: Can herbal supplements containing phytoestrogens truly increase
a woman's breast size significantly? Is this method safe, or are there
negative side effects (sure they're bigger, but they feel like
baseballs)? You know you're the only source I trust. --Impatient, via
e-mail

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! 
See http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

You don't need me to help you figure this one out, Imp. You need about
as much brains as you'd find in the average fish tank. Obviously if the
stuff worked as advertised it'd be the hottest thing since Viagra and
half the women on the planet by now would look like Salma Hayek. Don't
get me wrong; I'm not saying phytoestrogens don't have their
advantages--just not the one most purchasers are looking for.

For those who don't know phyto from fiduciary, a little theory:
Phytoestrogens are chemicals found in plants that mimic the female sex
hormone estrogen. Female sex hormones give rise to female secondary sex
characteristics, e.g., the enlargement (sometimes to an impressive
degree) of the milk-producing glands whence the class Mammalia derives
its name. Ergo, some would reason, phytoestrogens = more hormones =
bigger tits.

Elements of said reasoning are not entirely without basis in fact. For
one thing, some plants undeniably yield significant amounts of
phytoestrogens when eaten, notably soy, hops, flaxseed, alfalfa, and red
clover. Second, phytoestrogens do have a measurable impact on human
biochemistry--one study showed that men given soy milk daily for two to
four weeks experienced a 13 to 14 percent decrease in two key hormones.
For those running a significant estrogen deficit, such as postmenopausal
women or male-to-female transsexuals, it's not impossible that
phytoestrogens could increase estrogen levels.

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060714.html

STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

With the flap in San Francisco over the grand jury indictments of the
police chief and a lot of his top staff, I'm wondering about the origins
and history of grand juries. Is this a U.S. invention? Who originally
thought this would be a good idea and how did they get it past the
politicians? --Patrick Temple  

SDSTAFF Gfactor and guest contributor Bricker reply:  

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Costello v. United
States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956), Justice Black answered your question: "The
grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the
early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders."
According to the opinion, the purpose of the English grand jury was "to
provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against
persons believed to have committed crimes." Grand jurors were summoned
from the body of the people and weren't hampered by strict rules of
procedure or evidence. Grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and
were free to indict on such information as they saw fit. Those are the
basics. But who first came up with the idea?   It all started with the
Assize of Clarendon. As Mark Kadish writes in a 1996 law review article
on grand juries:

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgrandjury.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 04/05/1991

Dear Cecil: 

Thank you for your answer to my question on the cost of the Vietnam war.
I was astounded to think we spent the equivalent of 32 years' worth of
Vietnam's GNP trying to kill half the people who lived there. Now I have
another question. Imagine that instead of the former Soviet Union
rushing headlong toward capitalism, the rest of the world decided to
become socialist. If all the world's wealth were divided up equally
among all its inhabitants, how much would each of us have? --Stephen W.,
New York  

Cecil replies:  

What was once the Soviet Union is definitelyrushing headlong toward
something, Steve; would that it were only capitalism. Be that as it
may, you do raise what seems like the obvious next question.   
As before, the answer has to be larded with caveats. The numbers for
world wealth are even shakier than those for the Vietnam war, where
at least you had the benefit of unlimited MBAs to count the
change. National bumbling aside, the figures reported by former
Communist bloc countries have to be regarded with skepticism because
there's no free-market valuation of goods and services. Ditto for
countries where a sizable portion of the population relies on
subsistence agriculture. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_162.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2006 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]