Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Buy Used
+ $3.99 shipping
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by AZ_Fulfillment
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: [Lightly Used Paperback. Possible light wear to cover. No markings in text but may be name or dedication inside cover. Any CD/DVD may have been removed by previous user.]
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Never Shower in a Thunderstorm: Surprising Facts and Misleading Myths About Our Health and the World We Live In Paperback

4.2 out of 5 stars 13 customer reviews

See all 4 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
New from Used from
"Please retry"
$4.59 $2.64
--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Get a FREE Amazon Echo with homework help
Choose from 40+ subjects with online tutors from The Princeton Review. Learn more
click to open popover

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

O'Connor, a contributor to the New York Times Science Times section, has amassed more than 100 peculiar tidbits on everything from the potency of Spanish fly to the cancerous effects of cellphone use. O'Connor easily waxes on about whether bicycle seats cause impotence or if knuckle cracking can lead to arthritis. While regular Times readers will remember many of these topics, the newly casual tone of the discussions will either entertain or distract, depending on one's tolerance for anecdote. For instance, in exploring the infamous "Will eating poppy seeds make you fail a drug test?" conundrum, O'Connor got right to the point in his 2005 column ("a couple of bagels heavily coated with poppy seeds can result in morphine in a person's system for hours"), but here he begins with the retelling of a Seinfeld episode where Elaine, after a bagel breakfast, tests positive for "You know, white lotus. Yam-yam. Shanghai Sally." All of O'Connor's research is backed by legit scientific studies, but he refers to them only in passing. A bibliography would have been welcomed. Nonetheless, medical receptionists take note: this is a great book for the waiting rooms of physicians, dentists and psychiatrists alike. (June)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter One
Human Nature?
The Great DNA Crap Game
Does your DNA determine your destiny? It used to be that scientists believed our genes were responsible for a select number of our physical features, and that was about it. We began almost as blank slates and our behavior was determined largely by our environment, molded over the years through stimulus and response.
It was an overly simplistic view. A better understanding of human genetics eventually showed that we don't have nearly as much control over who we are and how we behave as we think we do, even though that sounds insane. A few years ago, a look at the newly mapped human genome showed that there were genes that could help determine whether a person grew up to be fat, an alcoholic, or a thrill-seeking hang glider. There is even a shyness gene.
Suddenly, it seemed that the truth of the matter was somewhere in the middle: many of our traits are both inherited and environmentally responsive. It's not nature versus nurture, but nurture complementing nature. Our genes set us on a path at birth and guide us, but ultimately our past experiences lead us to decide how far we go and where we stop along the way.
That being said, it is human nature to wonder to what extent our genes control the course of our lives, and how. Part of it is that we want to know what makes us tick and why we are who we are. Another factor is our desire to gain some inkling of our fate. If someone told you he could let you in on the time and the date of your death, as the old saying goes, wouldn't you want to know?
Does Cutting Your Hair Make It Grow Back Thicker?
For some reason, people of all ages consider this question of haircutting one of biblical import, more urgent than questions about diseases and more pressing than the fear-inducing old wives' tales that mothers have been spreading for centuries.
Part of the reason might be that cutting or trimming hair on various body parts is something we all have to deal with at some point--sometimes hair we wanted to be thick and sometimes, unfortunately, hair we really didn't want at all. And almost all of us grew up convinced that the claim was true. I have to confess that I was one of those kids who would occasionally steal his father's shaving cream and razor, slip into the bathroom, and shave away nonexistent facial hair, hoping it would turn into a thick Tom Selleck mustache. For my sisters and other women, on the other hand, the notion that hair grows back darker and thicker is a nuisance, a reason to spend money on waxes and trips to the salon.
But despite what millions of people think, trimming or waxing hair on any part of your body isn't going to speed its rate of growth, make it thicker, or change its texture. When this myth was born is not exactly clear, but it's been around in the scientific literature for well over half a century. The first studies to show that cutting hair isn't going to stimulate growth were performed in the 1920s, and many more have been carried out since then. All had the same results: the length, texture, and coarseness of your hair are determined by genetics and hormone levels, not by how often you shave, pluck, or Nair it away.
But according to dermatologists, there are several reasons why trimming your hair on a regular basis creates the illusion that it's growing back faster and thicker.
Many people--myself included--start shaving at an early age, while their hair is still lightly colored or not growing at the rate it's destined to reach. Since hair is darker and rougher at its roots, removing the tips gives the appearance of coarser hair. The bristly stubble that emerges after shaving is also more noticeable than the same amount of growth in hair that's already long. Plus, many people don't realize that the hair we see above the surface of the scalp is already dead, which means there's no way that cutting it can affect the living section that we don't see below the scalp. No matter how often you trim your hair, it will always grow back at a rate of about half an inch each month.
So, men and boys who shave their faces won't speed up the growth of their eagerly awaited lumberjack beard, and--fortunately for them--women who get peach fuzz removed from their faces won't sprout real mustaches.
Is Male-Pattern Baldness Inherited From Your Mother's Side of the Family Tree?
Before we answer this question, we should probably take a look at what seems like the much bigger issue here: Why do bald men get such a bad rap?
Ever since the Middle Ages, people have considered baldness a disease, like bad skin or leprosy. Hundreds of years ago, baldness was seen as a sign of mental illness; the thinking was that a frail mind couldn't support a full head of hair, much like dry soil can't support a plant. Then there were those who blamed a thin head of hair on sexual frustration, a belief that stems from observations of eunuchs, who have no desire for sex. People who have no testicles, it seems, never seem to go bald.
All these ugly connotations have driven men to go to extraordinary and sometimes ridiculous lengths to hold on to their hair, spending millions of dollars on pills, creams, and other dubious cures. Remember the "blood flow" craze of the 1980s, when thousands of men who feared going bald were driven to literally stand on their heads, all because of a bogus theory that thinning hair was caused by reduced blood flow to the scalp?
It was only five decades ago that researchers came up with a credible theory: that baldness has something to do with the X chromosome, which men inherit from their mothers. That prompted hordes of men who noticed their hair vanishing prematurely to lay the blame squarely on their mothers--or, more specifically, on their mother's father.
Most scientists, meanwhile, said that it couldn't be true. All this blame and resentment that maternal grandfathers have been getting from their balding grandsons was misplaced, they said, because baldness is caused by high levels of testosterone, hence the tendency for castrated men (and women in general) to avoid going bald.
We finally know that both sides were right. With sophisticated genetic testing, in 2005 scientists were able to pinpoint a gene variation that turns up frequently in bald men. It was identified in a study in the American Journal of Human Genetics that looked at balding men from ninety-five different families, each of which had at least two brothers with early hair loss. The culprit, a variant of the androgen receptor gene, sits on the X chromosome, which men get from their mothers (Y comes from the father). It turns out that this variant increases the effects of testosterone and other male hormones, called androgens, which have been linked to baldness for ages. Scientists say this gene variant may be the "cardinal prerequisite" for premature balding in a lot of men, but it's also possible that a number of genes and factors could be involved to a lesser extent, including genes that cause premature hair loss on a father's side.
All of which means at least two things. If you're a guy and your grandfather on your mother's side has little or no hair, start preparing yourself for the likelihood that you may go bald. Number two, if you're already bald and you're reading this while you're standing on your head, you can stand up now.
Do Babies Tend to Look More Like Their Fathers?
It's one of the first questions that cross a new parent's mind: Does the baby look like me? Any proud parent wants to see his or her own features in a child's face, but Dad really does have a stronger claim on the newest family nose. For new fathers, there may have been a time when seeing a familiar feature in that face was more a matter of necessity than vanity. A new mother can always be sure that a child belongs to her; that much we know. But long before the advent of paternity tests and The Maury Povich Show, a new father could never be certain that a child was actually his. If the basic goal of reproduction is to pass on genes, then why from an evolutionary standpoint would a male invest the time, energy, and resources needed to raise a child of dubious paternity when he could easily move on and father a new one?
Scientists have argued for years that evolutionary pressures would have made it beneficial for a child to resemble his or her father. In the event that a father believed that a child was not his, the likelihood of him abandoning it or even killing it outright would be terrifyingly great. Look no further than the fact that infanticide is widely prevalent among chimpanzees and others in the animal kingdom for some evidence. In addition, scientists who support this theory also point out that even among humans today, children are far more likely to be abused or killed by stepparents than natural parents.
But there is also reason to suspect that the reverse theory might be true: Couldn't it also be in a child's interest to conceal his or her identity? If a child unambiguously resembled his or her father, then a prospective father could be certain not only when a child was his, but also when a child was not. For the child, bearing a strong resemblance to one particular man could heighten the odds of being abandoned almost as much as being accepted.
Yet studies have tended to find the opposite. One from 1995 in the journal Nature, for example, put the question to the test by having 122 people try to match pictures of children they didn't know--at one year, ten years, and twenty years--with photos of their mothers and fathers. The group members correctly paired about half of the infants with their fathers, but their success rate was much lower matching the infants with their mothers. And matching the twenty-year-olds with either parent proved to be just as tough.
Another paper from 2003 echoed those findings, although this time the team that carried out the study took a more unusual approach. The researchers took head shots of a group of people and morphed them with photos of baby faces without the subjects' knowledge. When they presented the group with the digitally created faces, the men were more likely to indicate that they would adopt or spend time with the babies--male and female--who had been rendered with more of their facial characteristics. The women in the study meanwhile showed no preference at all for the children with their features.
As with most evolutionary theories, the case is not closed, perhaps because there are too many holes. Think back thousands of years ago, before there were mirrors, windows, and cameras. How would our predecessors have even known what they looked like?
So even if a baby did slightly resemble its father, how would he know?
No one can say for sure. But at least now we have daytime television to clear up cases of paternity uncertainty.
Don't Identical Twins Have Identical Fingerprints?
They share personality traits, interests, and habits. They come from the same fertilized egg and share the same genetic blueprint.
To a standard DNA test, they are indistinguishable. But any forensics expert will tell you that there is at least one surefire way to tell identical twins apart: despite what most people think, they do not have matching fingerprints.
Like physical appearance and personality, fingerprints are shaped by a person's DNA and by a variety of environmental forces. Genetics help determine the general patterns on a fingertip--arches, loops, whorls. An individual finger can have just one of these patterns or a mix of them.
But there are plenty of other factors that play unique roles too. While a fetus is developing, the ridges along the patterns on the fingers are altered by bone growth, pressures within the womb, and contact with amniotic fluid. This, said Gary W. Jones, a former fingerprint specialist with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is what causes the unique ridge characteristics in every person's fingers.
Identical twins will often have similar arrangements of patterns because of their identical genes. But they never have the same minute details. "It's impossible for people to have identical fingerprints," said Jones, who now works as a private consultant in Summerfield, Florida. "The study of fingerprints has been around for about a hundred years, and in all that time, two people have never been found to have the same prints."
The patterns on a person's fingers, palms, and feet are fully formed by roughly the fifth month of pregnancy. Barring any changes brought on by severe mutilation or a skin disease, the patterns stay the same for life. But even with severe traumatic damage, they change very little.
John Dillinger, the notorious Depression-era bank robber, famously tried to elude the authorities by altering his face and obliterating the skin on his fingertips with acid. It turned out to be his very last mistake. After the legendary gangster was killed, experts discerned a few of his remaining ridge patterns and had no trouble identifying him.
Copyright © 2007 by Anahad O'Connor. All rights reserved.
--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

The latest book club pick from Oprah
"The Underground Railroad" by Colson Whitehead is a magnificent novel chronicling a young slave's adventures as she makes a desperate bid for freedom in the antebellum South. See more

Product Details

  • Paperback: 256 pages
  • Publisher: Times Books; 1st edition
  • ISBN-10: 1616793244
  • ISBN-13: 978-1616793241
  • ASIN: B001O0EGPK
  • Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 8 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,222,989 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

By W. Dormann on February 20, 2008
Format: Paperback
I bought this book to entertain me for a trans-pacific flight, and boy was I disappointed. Most of the questions are answered along the lines of: "Maybe, but it can't hurt to [blah]..."

Nothing is really backed up, and you're just supposed to trust the author. At some point in the book, it was talking about hair loss caused by tight hair styles. And it made the statement of Andre Agassi wearing hats all the time and then suddenly he was bald. So the hats must have caused him to lose his hair. Uh, maybe he wore hats because he had thinning hair?

I was not happy with this purchase at all.
2 Comments 33 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
About: Facts and myths about health explained. Includes such topics as "Is too much sleep bad for you?" (yes) and "Can you swim right after eating?" (also, yes)

Pros: Quick read, interesting.

Cons: Sources are not cited, a large downside when debunking myths or providing facts.

Grade: B
1 Comment 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
This book was great fun to read. Many myths, legends, sayings, old wives' tales, etc., all related in some way to health and life, are either debunked or confirmed - and rationales are provided. The author appears to have researched each topic quite exhaustively - not only through reviewing published papers in the scientific and medical literature but also through interviewing acknowledged experts in each field. The book's writing style is friendly, authoritative and very engaging. But what stands out the most is the author's clever wit and humor; on several occasions I found myself laughing out loud. This is a wonderful book that could be enjoyed by anyone, especially those who have ever pondered the veracity of what may or may not be a bit of misinformation.
Comment 23 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This was not as interesting or as full of fun information as I expected. I was disappointed and actually became bored. Never actually finished it and passed it along to a used book sale in our community - hopefully someone else enjoyed it.
Comment One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Found this book courtesy of the Mental Floss website and read the available preview of this book online and knew I had to read the rest of it. Full of great laughs and things that will surprise and inform you. Very well written!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
"Never Shower in a Thunderstorm..." is easy to read no matter what your background is. The scientific info is given in succinct but complete passages. The author uses the latest data available, which can be a double-edged sword. While the advice is good... for now, the data may need to be changed in future publications due to new information. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know whether or not their mother's directives were based in scientific fact or superstition.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
This book by New York Times columnist Anahad O'Connor made me think of two things that were twin fantasies for a long time. First is the old Hercules cartoon from my youth (think 1970's). Remember when Herc would be attacked by some huge monster and it would be smacking him and his little micro-mini toga all over Olympia? Of course it would throw him into the same rock wall as every other episode and Herc would suddenly remember that he had a ring in his belt that makes him invincible, right? (side note: why did he ever take the ring off?) So the monster charges Herc, screaming its horrible hiss, and Herc seems to pause time while he puts on the jewelery - lightening flashing and crashing - then it's game on, mofo, and Herc kicks the creature a new scream-hole.

It's the time-pausing aspect I'm interested in here. Imagine pausing time in a conversation.

Couple that with the newish TV commercial for the cellular phone company that has the subscriber constantly surrounded by his or her "network". Hundreds of people who follow you around at all times; imagine that concept only with hundreds of experts in various fields of science, literature and culture at your beck and call to check your facts and offer up opinions that are based on more than what the weirdos at the bait shop think.

That's what O'Connor's book is. It's like getting up in the morning and all through the day you get asked about urban legends and old wives' tales and silly pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. You though, today, have the ability to Herc-pause time so you can check with your network of experts. You can check your references, cite your sources, and generally have the "smugness of certainty" (as far as science can be certain).
Read more ›
1 Comment 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse