With finals week fast approaching many of us college students will find ourselves staying up late into the night to prepare for the upcoming exams, and though we may not plan on it, coffee will become our new best friend. With so many people drinking coffee on a daily basis its no wonder that the science community has taken up an interest with coffee’s short and long term effects.

We’ve all heard the myths, coffee is terrible for your health, it can lead to heart problems and maybe even cancer in our future’s, but how much is rooted in reliable studies seems to be unclear.

Lucky for people like me who happen to rely on coffee on a daily basis, some studies seem to suggest the exact opposite of the supposed health risks surrounding the highly addictive beverage.  A study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health found no relation between daily coffee consumption and an increase in mortality. The study included about 130,000 volunteers all above the age of forty, and while the large amount leaves less room for error, the age of the volunteers shouldn’t really reassure anyone our age that a lifetime consumption of the drink is without consequence.

While this study and a few others point in the direction of coffee being almost harmless, one has to wonder about the hundreds of other experiments claiming the risks of coffee are simply to high to even entertain. So what’s the truth? I obviously can’t claim to know where the change originated, but I do remember my grandmother smoking each time she had a coffee, and she certainly wasn’t alone. Coffee and cigarettes seem to have a strong connection with many people, so it is completely plausible that many past studies didn’t take this into consideration when they ruled coffee as the main perpetrator when it came to cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Of course this all speculation.

Though when it comes to the study conducted by Harvard, a closer look is obviously required. We can pretty safely rule out reverse causation, unless heart disease and certain cancers increase ones desire to drink coffee, which seems highly unlikely. The study seems to suggest that any correlation between coffee drinking and increased mortality in the past was simply due to coincidence or poor execution of experiments and has noting to do with causation.

This would be the best case scenario for me and anyone else planning on surviving finals using coffee, though it may not be the truth. It’s a personal decision certainly, whether to continue drinking coffee, but if you have any recent studies advising against drinking coffee I wouldn’t mind reading up on them, I know I rely too heavily on the stuff as it is, and this study has, if not encouraged me then at least reassured me that I’m not doing too much damage yet.

Works:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/coffee/

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/coffee-and-health/faq-20058339

We’ve all heard it before, ‘Finish your milk it will make your bones strong’. It’s been said by parents, and children’s television, reminding us that drinking milk is an important part of healthy living and growing up to be tall and strong. But what if they were all wrong? A study was conducted in Sweden over the course of 23 years, with 100,000 participants suggests that they very well might be.

The study found no link between milk consumption and fracture risks decreasing. Surprisingly, higher milk consumption in women was linked to an increased risk of hip fractures, by almost 60%. The most worrying find of the study suggests that women were more likely to die of heart disease with an increase of milk incorporated into their diet. Yet the Dietary Guidelines for America recommend three cups of milk a day for anyone over the age of eight, and many European countries also follow this suggestion. So what can be said for this rule? The researchers of this trial point out that no randomized control trials were made to support the daily consumption of milk being conducive to ones health, and any observational studies have had inconclusive results. But it may not be time to swear off the stuff just yet.

The authors of the study point out that while they factored in smoking, alcohol intake, and weight they may have been understated, and there is always a risk that the results could be up to chance. They also made note that the people used in the study were aged from 40 to 75, so the death rates are not all that surprising. While chance is still a very real option in this study it is safe to rule out reverse causation, because it would suggest that people more likely to fracture bones were more likely to be chosen to drink higher levels of milk in the trial, which is highly unlikely. The study may also suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter Problem, with so many factors including age, daily lives, and previous health history, it’s a very real possibility that there are other aspects to consider.

With all of this in mind, I’m probably not going to completely cut milk from my diet. Though I will most definitely reduce the amount, I’m a little to impartial to chocolate milk to swear off the creamery for good without more conclusive proof.

Works Cited:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/milk-might-not-be-as-good-for-us-as-we-thought-study-suggests-9823870.html

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-milk-health-risks-20141029-story.html#page=1

Okay, so this post isn’t about that cute character from Finding Nemo, but it does have to do with a type of ink. That is, tattoo ink. As someone who has a tattoo (and a mother who warned me about the dangers for months) the topic is something that raised a personal interest. How dangerous can tattoos be? And are they worth the risk?

Most people are aware of the most common risk, unsanitary equipment and infection. Because tattoos are technically an open wound for the first few days, playing around in germ infested places like swimming pools can lead to serious infections, and if you go to a place that’s offering to do your huge tattoo of a tiger on your back for fifty bucks, you have every right to be skeptical. But what about other risks? Can it lead to skin cancer?

Well nothing is confirmed yet, but some ink colors do contain dangerous chemicals that are by no means safe to inject under ones skin. Yet even with this information, how many tattoos would it take to have an adverse reaction in your body? Again nobody can be sure on this account. Though a study was done on those who had some sort of reaction to the ink, like itching or infection, and 83% were colored tattoos, and seemed to occur on the legs or arms more often then on the trunk of the body, this could simply be due to more exposure to the sun then to the actual placement of the tattoo.

The most prevalent risks of tattoos are scarring (duh), infection, and itching. As of now, there is almost no evidence of more serious reactions being linked to tattoos, so the real risk is whether or not you’re gonna want that girls name on your arm forever, or if that Japanese symbol really means peace.

Works:

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm048919.htm

http://www.prevention.com/beauty/beauty/how-dangerous-are-tattoos

http://theconversation.com/to-dye-for-jury-still-out-on-tattoo-ink-causing-cancer-19796

A study has proven that the taller you are, the more likely you are to have twins. Interestingly, this isn’t the first time something like this has been proven, there are many things that can improve your chances of having kids. If you’re of West African descent you’re more likely to conceive twins. So what gives? You have a higher chance of twins if you or your partner is a twin, but that sounds completely reasonable, It runs in your genes, so why does your stature have to do with it?

Well Dr. Gary Steinman has the answer. He conducted a study,measuring the heights of around 150 women, all who carried twins or triplets, finding them on average to be at least an inch taller then the average woman. This doesn’t explain much though, at least not until you get the full story, like you will with this direct quote “He conducted the recent study revealing the height connection to twin pregnancies. He says taller women have more insulin-like growth factor (IGF), a protein released from the liver in response to growth hormone. This protein causes the ovaries to be more likely to release more than one egg at a time.” (http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=14572)

Now the average height of women is 5 feet 4 inches (www.cdc.gov), but I wouldn’t get  discouraged or too excited if you’re over or under that height and hoping to get your own pair of children born within a day of each other, while being tall may increase your chances it presents no guarantee, nor does not having twins if your under 64 inches, it all depends on your circumstances and your body.

Works:

http://www.livescience.com/1019-tall-women-twins.html

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=14572

http://www.whattoexpect.com/preconception/ask-heidi/twins.aspx

Um…I can’t remember.

No, but seriously, there was a recent study that linked blood type to memory loss. The rarest blood type, AB, is only possessed by 4 percent of the U.S. population, and just this week a story was published in the journal Neurology with an experiment done on more then 1,000 people, ( a obviously very large test group) and found that people with AB blood type are 82 percent more likely to experience cognitive decline and dementia later in life. There, of course, can be other things that these people share, that can be leading to the memory loss, like a certain gene, protein, or hormone that comes along with their blood type, but this isn’t the first time that blood type has been linked to diseases or higher risks for certain sicknesses. A study was done in Pakistan that received results that people  with type A blood were more likely to develop heart problems. Even with this, many other studies have shown that stroke and diabetes can lead to dementia decline, so perhaps it has more to do with diabetes leading to memory loss and people with type AB more likely to develop diabetes.

Despite all the information gleaned from the study, researchers are still very much in the dark as to why these connections are, or what the implications are. At this point the study is almost useless until we can put more effort into the study and it’s uses it’s simply an interesting fact that, with more research could lead to a new breakthrough concerning serious dementia.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/type-ab-blood-you-may-be-more-prone-to-memory-loss-97230693847.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140910185913.htm

I was twelve when I went into anaphylactic shock from eating tree nuts. For those of you who don’t know, anaphylaxis, is a severe allergic reaction, that could lead to death. I had eaten nuts my entire life, my dad used to bring home huge sacks of macadamias, and we spend the night cracking them open and eating them by the handful.

I was never given a straight answer as to why I developed my allergies later in life, most doctors said that I had built up an immunity, like peanuts were a disease that my body didn’t want. But for the most part, the reasons behind allergies, especially ones to food, remain simply speculation. Why do our eyes get itchy from grass? Why do our throats literally close when confronted with a strawberry? The most popular hypothesis is that we live in a first world country where our bodies no longer build up immunity to the allergens. This hypothesis is supported widely in the scientific community and is not without solid background, it would explain why the amount of people with allergies has steadily increased, and why less developed countries don’t usually have a similar problem, but another hypothesis can also support both of these claims.

The food we eat in today’s day and age is simply too processed, or too’fake’. GMO’s have been blamed, as well as the lack of healthy food that we intake every day, it;s the idea that our bodies have rejected our daily diet and are shutting down. Personally this hypothesis seems a little too much like an old man telling me that my generation is doing something wrong, because back in his day there wasn’t any such thing as allergies. Though it could make sense scientifically, nobody has proven anything, and the food industry would have to change absolutely everything on speculation to prove it correct, which is costly and unlikely. It also doesn’t focus enough of outside allergies, or hay fever, which is the leading allergen, so it really would only explain half the problem anyways.

I’m certainly more inclined to agree with the first guess, but I’m still speculative. Why do I and many members of my family in America, have allergies, and my cousins in Ireland, which is also a first world country, don’t? Is it the food in America that is forcing our bodies to develop these defense mechanisms? Perhaps allergies are becoming more common because they have more ways to save the people suffering from them or simply to detect them, maybe a child choking to death in the seventies was an allergic reaction. For now science is divided on this topic, are you?

http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergies.aspx

http://fooddrugallergy.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=40

http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/allergy-statistics.aspx

In August of 2006, Pluto was declared to no longer be a planet. After years of memorizing that stupid anagram (My Very Educated Mother Just served Us Nine Pizzas) Eleven year old me was Plutoless and pizzaless. Pluto was downgraded from the title ‘Planet’ to that of ‘dwarf planet’, because it was found that Pluto shared more characteristics with dwarf planets then it did with the other 8 planets.  Astronomers discovered that there were at least 70,000 other icy objects with a similar make up as Pluto, that made up the Kuiper belt. 

Take Eris for example, it was discovered in 2005, and was the tipping point for Pluto’s  declassification as a planet. While Eris may be farther out, it is estimated that it has 25% more land mass then Pluto, and is composed of the exact same ice/rock mixture. This meant that not only were there others like Pluto, there were ones better qualified to be considered a Planet.

There wasn’t actually a definition for the word planet until 2006, thanks to the dismissal of Pluto. Definition- “According to this new definition, an object must meet three criteria in order to be classified as a planet. First, it must orbit the Sun. Second, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball. And third, it must have cleared other objects out of the way in its orbital neighborhood” (http://missionscience.nasa.gov/nasascience/what_is_a_planet.html) Many astronomers disagree with this new definition, and still many are in support of it. One’s argument is how does one define exactly what round is round enough to be a planet. Even everyday people are completely against the stripping of Pluto’s status, there’s a whole communities, including  ebsites, clubs ad teams, dedicated to the conservation of Pluto’s original title.

So that’s what I’m asking you, do you still consider Pluto a planet? If I’m being sentimental, I would defend Pluto until the end, I have a strange soft spot for what used to be our solar systems smallest planet, but logically, with so many similar and better suited ‘dwarf planets’ to take Pluto’s title it seems almost pointless to try and argue this viewpoint. In reality, I don’t think there’s much difference between a dwarf planet and an official planet, but nobody wants to remember hundreds of names of worlds we’e never going to see in our lifetime, so perhaps it is pure human laziness that has stripped Pluto of the title that we originally placed upon it.

Is this debate even still relevant? Underneath are some links just in case you’re a little more interested in the ongoing topic of Pluto’s relevancy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110824-pluto-dwarf-planet-definition-nasa-iau-space-science/

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/nasascience/what_is_a_planet.html

http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/ICQPluto.html

1.) I took this course because it fulfilled my science requirement without having to take chemistry or physics, and my adviser recommended it when I said that I didn’t do very well in most of my previous science classes.

2.) I don’t plan on majoring in science because I was terrible at chemistry in high school and most fields of science require chemistry or something similar, and I didn’t want to put myself through that.