I come from a town where everyone always wants to try the latest juice cleanse. Personally, I have never seen the point in only drinking juice for 4-5 days. Even though juice cleanses are popular all across the world, I want to know if they are actually safe. Are people actually hurting their health when they go on a cleanse?

https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/urban-remedy.jpg

Before I can begin to describe the dangers of a juice cleanse, I must first describe what it is. Actually, it is exactly what it sounds like. Lasting for a few days or several weeks, cleansers limit their diets to fresh veggies, fruit juices, and water. Everything in this fast focuses on freshly made, unpasteurized juice. While there are many juice cleanse product manufacturers, some people prefer to make their juices at home.

The reality is that some of the truths about juice cleanses are not that pretty. Here is a list of all the reasons why one should take precaution before undergoing a juice cleanse:

1. Dangerous for some people
   • The juices actually contain more sugar than regularly prepared foods. People undergoing chemotherapy, diabetics, and people with nutritional deficiencies can run the risk of skyrocketed blood-sugar levels. These can then lead to fatigue, rapid weight loss, blurry vision, and slow healing of infections and wounds. Also, excessive juice consumption can encourage potassium build up in the blood.
2. Juicing removes nutrients from whole fruits and vegetables
   • Dietician Jennifer K. Nelson says that their is no scientific evidence that makes extracted juices healthier than the juice found in a whole fruit or vegetable. In fact, while the final liquid of juicing contains most of the vitamins and minerals found in the whole fruit, it lacks the healthy fiber that is in whole fruits and vegetables. This removal of nutrients can also affect blood-sugar levels.
3. Not as filling as whole fruits and veggies
   • Studies show that eating and chewing food satisfies the stomach better than just drinking it. Also, the loss of fiber as mentioned above rises the rate of consumption in the stomach. If the fiber wasn’t lost, then the fiber would have helped slow consumption.
4. Not an effective way to lose weight and keep it off
   • The chances of you losing weight on a juice cleanse is high, but the chance of you maintaining that weight is low. Dr. James Dillard from the Columbia University College of Physicians claims that the wight lost in a juice cleanse is just water weight. Water weight is very easy to gain back.
   • New York Times writer Judith Newman recently went on a juice cleanse. She observed that juices cleanses actually lower ones metabolism. If juice cleanses are done enough, metabolism can actually be permanently lowered.
5. There is nothing in the body that needs to be detoxed
   • Our bodies already have natural detectors! These are our livers, kidneys, and intestines! There is no need in putting our bodies through a strenuous diet when our bodies are already working tirelessly to filter out unwanted things. Chemical scientist Dr. John Emsley said our bodies are “very good at eliminating all the nasties.”

Even though juice cleanses are a big fad right now, people should still be careful. Is it really worth putting the body through such a limited diet? Before taking on a juice cleanse, one should weigh the risks to see if it is really worth it.

http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/files/2012/03/1233511701.jpg

I know that many people have posted about this topic throughout the semester, but I think that it is a topic worth addressing again. Cell phones are ubiquitous in our society. Everybody them and everybody uses them. Approximately 6 billion people on this planet have access to a mobile phone. But is this mainstream device dangerous? Yes, they provide convenience and entertainment but is the use of a cell phone really worth the risk that it carries?

Cellular devices use “electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range.” This is similar tot he type of radiation produced by other digital wireless systems. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cell phone radiation as Group 2B. This means that cell phone radiation is possibly carcinogenic. Some agents and mixtures also classified as Group 2B are acetamide, lead, uracil mustard, and cobalt. The agents and mixtures included in Group 2B usually have limited or inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity but relevant data proves a slim chance of carcinogenicity.

So what does this mean for cell phone users? Group 2B is a lot better than Group 2A (meaning probably carcinogenic) and Group 1 (carcinogenic). In order to truly tell if cell phone radiation is carcinogenic or not, long-term research must be conducted. However, scientists have begun conducting studies to try and understand the connection between cell phone use and cancer.

A scientist with the last name of Yakymenko conducted a meta-study. From his meta-analysis of epidemiological and experimental data, Yakymenko concluded that the exposure long term low intensity microwaves can lead to tumorigenesis. Yakymenko analyzed several studies that dealt with “radar radiation and cancer promotion,” “rodent model of cancer promotions by microwaves,” “microwaves and cell metabolism,” and “microwaves of radars and mobile communication systems.” Based on these conclusions, Yakymenko suggests that precautionary measures for everyday microwave exposure from cellular devices should be put into place. Despite the relatively low risk of brain cancer, people should still be cautious because ailments can take up to 30 years to fully develop. After reading through his study review fully, I believe in these results. However, I still must remain hesitant to believe it 100% because of the file drawer problem. Since this is a meta-study, it could suffer from the file drawer problem. Studies that found that cellular radiation had no affect on cancer formation could not have been published. Therefore, the results of those null-hypothesis studies would not be considered in Yakymenko’s analysis.

http://www.healthyfoodelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mobile.jpeg

It is unrealistic to tell the world to stop using cell phones. However, it is important that the world is aware of the dangers we may face because of cell phone radiation. The World Health Organization recommends that people try to adopt hands-free devices or texting to reduce the radiation exposure. Obviously, the exposure is higher when the cell phone is closer to our heads and bodies. It is also best to try and keep mobile phone use limited for children.

But despite all of this, there have been many studies that concluded that cell phones do not cause cancer. In 2010, the largest international study of brain tumor wish in mobile device usage was conducted. The Interphone study group conducted an “interview-based case control study” with over 4,00 glioma and meningioma patients. In the end, the Interphone study group saw no increase in risk of meningioma or glioma due to the use of mobile phones. However, the long-term effects still need to be investigated.

So what does all of this mean? Are cell phones good or bad? Well, I believe that it is still too early to tell. Cell phones have only been around for about twenty years. Only time will tell if the cell phone radiation will effect the world in the long term. To really find out what is going on, a study should be conducted now that follows thousands of people, with controls, throughout their lifetimes. For now, I would use my cell phone with caution, but there is no way that I am taking it out of my life.

I just finished reading a blog post titled “More Deaths for Babies Who Born on Weekends?” The author discussed a phenomenon that was new to me: the weekend effect. Apparently, there is a high correlation between babies born on weekends and infant mortality. While evidence was provided, I was still not convinced about this phenomenon. It made absolutely no logical sense! So, I decided to do some digging on my own.

http://melanomainternational.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hospital.jpg

As it turns out, the Weekend Effect doesn’t just apply to birthdates. It actually applies to everyone who is treated in hospitals during the weekend. Studies show that people who are admitted to the hospital on the weekends might receive different care than the care given during a standard work week.

In 2014, researchers decided to “examine the association of mortality by day of the week for emergency and elective patients.” In a retrospective observational study, the researchers looked at data from 28 hospitals from Australia, USA, England and the Netherlands during 2009-2012. The participants of the study were emergency and surgical-elective patients. The outcomes were measured by in-hospital deaths within 30 days of hospital admission or elective surgery. After examining 2,982,570 hospital records, participants who were admitted to the hospital during the weekend saw more postoperative deaths than those admitted on a week day. While the mortality outcomes of the sample do vary within each country, the results support the Weekend Effect. However, despite the data, the researchers are not able to determine a reason for these results. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a p-value for this study. But, since such a large, random sample, I feel as though the results of this study are reliable. I am starting to become more convinced that the Weekend Effect is in fact, real.

Another study, published in The American Journal of Medicine, compared mortality rates between patients admitted to the hospital on weekends and weekdays. The researchers also wanted to know whether the weekend-weekday variation rates would differ between patients in non-teaching and teaching hospitals in California. The participants were all patients admitted to the emergency department of hospitals with any of 50 common diagnoses. This allows for variation, but also keeps the study stable. The study concluded that weekend-admitted patients had a slightly higher risk of mortality than did patients with weekday admission. However, the study did find that the weekend effect was much larger in big teaching hospitals than in non-teaching hospitals. Like the last study, I was unable to find a p-value. But, I think this study is reliable because of how it was conducted. The sample size was large and random. I also like how the study looked at the difference between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. At first, I was afraid that this study might suffer the Texas sharpshooter problem. However, I do not think that this is the case. The study only looked at two different things. I do not think that that is enough to be classified as a Texas sharpshooter study. I think that that might be a solid reason as to why the weekend effect exists.

http://www.hospitalforsalelease.com/protected/views/hospital/maps/_Photo_20150513051322_hospital-hallway.jpg

Prior to this research, I was confused and hesitant about the Weekend Effect. I now believe that it is a real thing. However, I think there is a very logical explanation for this. I feel as if the Weekend Effect is due to a flaw in human nature. For whatever reason, the weekend changes a human’s work ethic. I think that to really draw a concrete conclusion on this topic, psychological studies must be conducted. How does the behavior of a person change on the weekend? I think that posing questions like that will be able to bring us closer to a mechanism for the weekend effect. For now, there is no doubt that the Weekend Effect is real, however the reason for this still remains a mystery.

My High School just built a turf field this summer. During my entire sports career, I was mostly playing on grass. But now, the times have changed. Nearly every school across the nation has turf fields. From the beginner to the professional level, turf seems to be best surface to play on. However, scientists are now claiming that turf might be a cause of cancer. Is this true? Let’s find out.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/images/synthturf720.jpg

In 2009, University of Washington women’s soccer coach Amy Griffin visited two goalies who were receiving chemotherapy at a Seattle hospital. That day, the nurse giving the treatments said to Griffin and the patients, “Don’t tell me you guys are goalkeepers. You’re the fourth goalkeeper I’ve hooked up this week.” While this is clearly an anecdote, it provides interesting ground for the basis of this question. Is turf actually causing cancer? I am in no position to draw any concrete conclusions yet. We know from Andrew that anecdotes are never enough evidence to formulate a conclusion. But, this comment from the nurse did strike a chord in Griffins mind. Griffin decided to take matters into her own hands. Griffin compiled a list of nearly 200 athletes who have been diagnosed with cancer. All of the athletes on her list played on artificial turf that contains “tiny black rubber pellets.” 150 athletes on the list were soccer players. 95 athletes of those 150 were goalkeepers. Griffin has been coaching soccer for thirty years. She said for the first fifteen years she never heard of her athletes being diagnosed with cancer like this. However, when turf became big, approximately fifteen years ago, Griffin saw and substantial rise in athlete-cancer patients. Of course, correlation does not equal causation. But this is still a very interesting finding.

Unfortunately, studies testing this correlation have not been conducted. The most common evidence is anecdotal. But, this makes sense that studies on this correlation have not been conducted. Is there really an ethical way to test this theory experimentally? It would be completely wrong to force a group of athletes to spend ‘x’ amount of time on a turf field and then have a control group spend time on grass. Of course, one would have to get a large, random sample and make sure the same activities are done on the turf and the grass fields. However, I believe that this would be unethical because if turf fields really do contribute to cancer, then technically the study conductors would be intentionally increasing peoples risk of cancer.

https://mgtvwric.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/crumb-rubber-turf.jpg?w=650

It is also important to remember that the black turf beads found on turf are actually bits of rubber tires. Tires contain main harmful toxins. In fact, some of the compounds in tires are “known or suspected carcinogens.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer conducted a study of the rubber industry. “Strong and sufficient evidence” for cancer in humans was displayed in a “series of epidemiology studies of rubber fabrication facilities” across the globe. Another study, based on a Taiwan tire crumb factory,  showed that mutagenic actions were 4-5 times higher in those that were exposed to the tire toxins than those who were not.

It is also interesting to look at the type of cancer these athletes are contracting. Many of the cancers that the athletes are diagnosed with are lymphomas. It has been determined that lymphomas are “heavily influenced by environmental factors.” Because the turf beads contain many carcinogenic compounds, that counts as an environmental factor. Also, the overall population of these patients has seen the presence of a single type of tumor. Since the majority of this group is being affected in the exact same way, it is an indication that they have all been exposed to the same types of chemical carcinogens.

We cannot say with clear certainty that synthetic turf contributes to cancer in athletes. However, we must take the following as fairly good evidence:

• 150/200 patients, from Griffins list,  with cancer were athletes who spent a lot of time on synthetic turf
• Tire bits contain harmful carcinogens and tire bits makes turf
• Many athletes are being diagnosed with lymphomas
• Lymphomas are caused by environmental factors

While basically all of this evidence is observational, it raises a lot of questions in my head. There is still not enough research to lead my to believe 100% that turf causes cancer. However, these correlation are enough to make me question the widespread use of turf. For all we know a third variable or chance could be causing these correlations. But, no matter what the case, something is going on and I believe that this is important enough to be further investigated.

What do you think? Does turf scare you now, or are you still not convinced?

Imagine a world where every step you took, every turn you did, and every move you made forced you to giggle. That world does not exist because it is nearly impossible to tickle ourselves. Have you ever wondered why you laugh when someone tickles your stomach, but get no response from yourself when you try to tickle your own stomach? The answer is quite simple, and it is all thanks to science.

http://vidyasury.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-pl7Th-dqobA/T5BZHB-XNPI/AAAAAAAAF4w/3rpE7epXVLA/s1600/Vidya%2BSury%2BTickle.gif

The human brain has the ability to distinguish between our own touch and the touch we feel from others. Guy Claxton of the University of London Institute of Education uses the predictability of the stimulus to explain this. When someone else tickles you, your brain is uncertain about the “place and time of onset of the stimulus.” However, when you try to tickle yourself, the brain knows exactly where it is coming from and when it is coming. 49 students, with ages ranging from 25 to 45 yrs, were used in Claxton’s study.  The tickling stimulus was applied to a bar forearm comprised of five strokes with a feather for five seconds. Since this study was conducted in 1975, the method used to create the four main conditions aren’t as technical. The four conditions are as follows:

1. Subjects shut their eyes and allowed themselves to be tickled by someone else. This created unpredictable stimulus.
2. Subjects kept their eyes open and allowed themselves to be tickled by someone else. This created relatively predictable stimulus.
3. Subjects, with open eyes, held a feather (tickling stimulus) in their hands. However, someone else moved theirs hands to crete and involuntary movement.
4. Subjects tickled themselves.

The results showed that unpredictable and involuntary touching produced a greater sense of ticklishness. The p-value of this experiment has been recorded and less than .001. That proves that this study is highly reliable. I believe these results because the study was done ethically and the p-value is significant. Since this was an experimental study, reverse causation can be ruled out. While chance could still be a factor, it seem highly unlikely because of the p-value.

More recently, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of University College London investigated how the brain differentiates between the touch of the self and the touch of others. The study, consisting of six normal right-handed individuals (four females and two males with a mean age of 33 years) was approved by the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery. The participants gave consent to be a part of the study, so they knew exactly what was being tested on them. Split into two 12-minute sessions, the subjects “underwent 200 fMRI scans.” The subjects laid chest up on an MRI bed. A rod with a piece of soft foam at the end was placed in the hand of each subject. They then randomly underwent four different conditions:

1. Condition A: “Self-produced tactile stimuli (touch)”
   • In this condition, the subjects made “vertical sinusoidal movements of the rod with the right hand.” Tactile stimulation was produced in their left hands. Subjects we told that stimulation in the left palm would occur.
2. Condition B: “Self-produced movement; no tactile stimuli (move)”
   • Similar to Condition A, in Condition B, subjects made “vertical sinusoidal movements of the rode with the right hand.” However, tactile stimulation in the left hand was removed. Instead, subjects were told that in this condition, tactile stimulation would not occur.
3. Condition C: “Externally produced tactile stimuli (feel)”
   • Subjects did not move. Instead of producing stimulation themselves, the experimenters “moved the tactile stimulus sinusoidally across the subjects left palm.”
4. Condition D: “Rest”
   • Just like how it sounds, subjects were told to stay still and to not move.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v1/n7/pdf/nn1198_635.pdf

To the right are the results of the study in graph form. As you can see, only the conditions with no self-generated movement produced a BOLD signal. A BOLD signal measured the blood-oxygen-level dependent. In this case, it measures the sensations that are brain feels. More sensations were created in Conditions C and D than in Conditions A and B. Blakemore’s team did a fine job of conducting this experiment. The p-value has been recorded as less than 0.05 which is significant. This shows that the results are reliable. Personally, I believe these results. The structure of the study was nice. However, the sample size is very small. Six people is not enough to draw clear conclusions from. I would like to see this study model conducted on a larger sample size to see if the same conclusions are reached. I don’t think that the results will differ, however it is important to test on a large group of people because it accounts for differentiation.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tickling.jpg

So, the answer really is quite simple. Tickling is due to predictability. When we know the time and place of the stimulus, we won’t feel a tickling sensation. But if the stimulus is a mystery, our neurons send a message to the brain that makes us feel a tickling sensation. So go ahead and try to tickle your stomach. I am 99% sure that you won’t start laughing. But have your friend tickle you, and you will be begging him or her to stop!

Have you ever asked yourself why you yawn? I have always thought that yawning was a sign of fatigue, yet I would find myself yawning when I wasn’t even tired. The exact reason as to why we yawn is actually still unclear. Even though science can rarely prove things to be true without a shadow of doubt, it seems funny that the reason for such a common action, like yawning, still remains a mystery.

In June 2010, scientists who specialize in yawning met in Paris for the first International Conference on Yawning (yes, this actually happened!). The experts wanted to know what the point of yawning was. Why exactly does yawning accomplish? While nothing definitive was concluded, many hypotheses were talked about throughout the conference. According to the The Week, here are the five hypotheses that had the best evidence:

1. “A mechanism for cooling the brain”
   • Andrew and Gordon Gallup of the University of Albany came to this conclusion by studying yawning in college students. The participants consisted of 33 students, twenty females and thirteen males, all between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. The participants were split randomly into three groups of eleven. One group held a cold pack to their foreheads, while the two other groups held a hot pack and a room temperature pack to their foreheads, respectively. Each participant was instructed to hold the pack to his or her forehead for head for 4 minutes and 50 seconds. Out of all the participants who held the cold pack, only one participant yawned, and that was only one yawn. On the other hand, the total yawns for the warm pack and the room temperature pack were the exact same. Even though more people yawned with the room temperature pack. In conclusion, those that held warmer packs yawned more. The brain is more efficient when it is cooler, so when the brain is overheated, yawning helps send cold blood into the brain to “maintain optimal levels of mental efficiency.” However, some scientists doubt this theory because the body already has cooling mechanisms. What is the purpose of another one? I have confidence in this study because the reported p-value is .0199. That is a very significant number that proves that the data collected from the study is reliable. Also, the Gallup brothers designed the study quite well. They had a control group and manipulated the temperatures of the packs to create an experiment. However, the sample size is quite small. Studying 33 people is not as effective as studying 100 or 1000 people. However, the significant p-value leaves me convinced that I should trust the results of this study.
2. “An invitation to sex”
   • Yes, I am just as shocked and confused as you are, and probably for good reason. Dutch researcher Wolter Seuntjens contends that yawning is “sometimes a subconscious invitation to sex,” I have been unable to find any research study to support this claim. He developed this theory after hearing several anecdotes about people who yawn during intercourse. While this theory sounded quite interesting, I was unable to find any observational or experimental studies on the idea. AlsoAnd we know from SC200 that anecdotal evidence is not sufficient or reliable at all., Seuntjens’s logic does not make sense. Just because one is yawning during intercourse does not make it an invitation. Of course, there is the possibility that yawning could be a sign of sexual pleasure. However, I am hesitant to believe this theory because of this during-before issue. 
3. “A means of building empathy”
   • This hypothesis actually deals with “yawning’s infectious nature.”  Researchers at Birkbeck College of London University conducted a study of autistic children. These children were used in the study because they are often unable to to “develop normal emotional ties or feel empathy.” The study showed that autistic children do not become victims of contagious yawns. Unfortunately, I was not able to find out how the study was actually conducted so there is really no evidence that this is reliable. However, a study was conducted to analyze the connection between yawning and psychopathy. In other words, are psychopaths immune to contagious yawning? In the experiments, 135 college males and females were used. They were not randomly selected because their selection to participate in the study was based on a PPI-R exam. Participants were told to sit in a padded chair in a “dimly lit, radio frequency anechoic chamber.” They sat in front of computer monitors while wearing noise canceling headphones. The watched a movie of different people’s expressions. The test conductors got results through electrodes that were hooked up to the participants. The results found that more women yawned than men, however the difference was not significant (p-value= .249). In the end, those that showed more traits of psychopathy based off of the PPI-R test yawned less frequently than those who scored lower. I am hesitant to believe these results because it is difficult to measure psychopathy. Also, the p-value is a fairly large number, so there is a high probability that this study was due to chance or third variables.
4. “A way to boost oxygen in the body”
   • This was actually the leading yawning theory for many years. Scientists claimed that yawns were caused by low oxygen levels in the lungs. The air retrieved during a yawn would be able to boost the oxygen levels in the bloodstream. In fact, this theory dates back to the time of Hippocrates. In the fourth century B.C., Hippocrates described yawning as getting rid of “bad air” to increase “good air” in the brain. Despite this theory’s success, scientists have now discovered that human lungs are unable to detect low oxygen levels. More recent studies have now shown that people with oxygen-depriving medical conditions or exercisers do not yawn more than the average person. I think that this theory is very complex. Both sides of the theory seem plausible. But, because of this valid contradiction, I am still left in the dark on which side I believe.
5. “A leftover, useless behavior”
   • There are also may scientists who believe that we yawn for absolutely no reason. Richard Roberts from Tennessee’s Genetics and Prenatal Diagnostic Center believes that yawning is just a leftover action from everyones time as a fetus. After studying many ultrasound scans of fetuses with potential medical problems, he discovered that the fetuses began to yawn and hiccup as early as 11 weeks. Roberts noticed that the yawns on average lasted six seconds. Roberts believes that fetal yawning promote lung development. Therefore, yawning ex utero just became a habit born form everyones time as a fetus. There is no denying that fetal yawning is evident. However, the fact that yawning might be a useless habit does not settle well with me. How could something so contagious and so common be merely a leftover action? No matter what though, Roberts still has a very interesting theory on his hands.

http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/baby-yawn.jpg

Even after analyzing the top five theories of “why we yawn,” the answer to this common question is still unclear. I am starting to believe that these theories are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it seems highly possible that many of these theories can coexist. If scientists conduct a multi-experiment research study, that would be highly effective. Scientists should use a random and large sample size (1,000+ people). They could use all of the experimental studies used to test the other theories. But, conducting them on the same people would prove or disprove that these theories can all coexist. It is quite ironic how the purpose of an everyday action is still a mystery.

I do not go a day on campus without seeing someone smoking a cigarette. I always think to myself, “It is 2015. Don’t they know that smoking is unhealthy?” But just today I started to think about the negative effects that cigarettes have not only on the human body, but on out planet. It all began with me walking my usual route from the Willard Building to the library. To my left was a lady smoking a cigarette. Disgusted, I looked down at the ground. Right below my feet was a brown and white used cigarette. As I kept walking Inoticed another, then another, then another. During my three minute journey up Pattee Mall I counted eighteen cigarette butts on the ground. I was and still am shocked. Do these decompose? How much damage are they doing to the environment? Why do people just toss them on the ground. They may be little, but they sure can add up.

According to the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights website, cigarette butts are the “most commonly discarded piece of waste worldwide.” While many people hold the belief that cigarette butts are biodegradable, they are not. Approximately “1.69 billion pounds of butts wind up as toxic trash each year.” According to a recent study, cigarette waste “easily meets standardized tests for city and state agencies” to classify it as toxic waste.”

Cigarette filters “are composed of cellulose acetate,” which is a type of plastic. Many studieshave been conducted to test the biodegradability of cellulose acetate, but non have found “biological, chemical, and photo chemical degradation mechanisms.”Obviously, part of cellulose acetate is cellulose. As many should know, cellulose “is readily biodegradable by organisms that utilize cellulase enzymes.” However, once the acetate is thrown into the mix, things get much more complicated. The first step of biodegradation is delayed because now, esterases need to be present. Because of this, sources say that it takes between eighteen months and ten years for cigarette butts to degrade. The massive difference in time is due to different environments. Cigarettes that are littered in a dry place will decompose differently than ones littered near a river. Also, the tips of cigars are “predominantly plastic” as well.

Since the life of a cigarette butt is so long, it travels to many places. A website dedicated to cigarette litter prevention claims that “32% of litter at storm drains is tobacco products.” This means that groundwater is being contaminated by the cigarette butts.  The litter that travels through our storm drains and water systems usually winds up in “local streams, rivers, and waterways.” The litter can also become dangerous for animals because it can easily be mistaken for food. Cigarette butts are the “number one most littered item anywhere.” The butts pile up in gutters, near bus stops, and outside of doorways.It is shocking to learn that only 10% of cigarette butts are “properly deposited in ash receptacles.” In fact, cigarette butts are the “least likely item to be placed in a receptacle.” Smokers seem to have the understanding that since cigarette butts are already on the ground, they can add a few more.

In the middle 90s, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) “received 7917 reports of potentially toxic exposures to tobacco products among children aged less than or equal to 6 years in the United States.” All of these cases were due to ingestion of cigarette butt litter. The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDH) “conducted a case-control study.” The results shows that one third of the children who ingested cigarette butts “exhibited symptoms of illness such as spontaneous vomiting, nausea, lethargy, gagging, and flushing.”

It is quite evident that cigarette litter is a deadly problem. However, many people have identified this issue and action has been taken. Clean up costs are so immense that prevention is our planets best option. First, companies can develop biodegradable filters. Fines and penalties littering can also be raised and number of ash receptacle. But, perhaps the most successful way to end cigarette littering is to end smoking.

Before, whenever I though about cigarettes, I thought about lung damage and cancer. Now, Ithink of so much more than that. Cigarettes don’t just effect the environment through air pollution but through the cigarette butt itself. I urge you to combat the most common type of litter and properly dispose of all your waste. No matter what the size of the litter is and no matter what type of litter it is, it is all having a negative impact on the world.

I recently heard that farting on someones pillow has the potential of giving them pink eye. When I first heard this, I didn’t believe it. Later I realized that this would be a perfect blog post. I asked all of my friends and they all said that they knew of this myth and they believed it. My research has proven to me that this is just a myth and I am here to tell you why.

First, what is pink eye? It is also called conjunctivitis and it is the “redness and swelling of the conjunctiva,” which is the clear lining of the eye. When irritation of infection happy, the lining becomes “red and swollen.” This is such a common condition that it disappears in 7-10 days without medical interference. It is usually caused by infections, dry eyes, chemicals or fumes, and allergies. It is also highly contagious. Symptoms include red eyes, eyelid swelling, itchy eyelids, excessive tearing, and thick, “whitish drainage.”

Now that we know what pink eye is, can it actually be cause by farting on a pillow? Not really. This idea is an urban legend. Some people question whether or not gas from the body when someone farts can cause pink eye. However, most of the gas the is excreted from the body is methane, “and methane alone cannot cause pink eye.” The likelihood of getting pink eye from farting is very very slim. The conditions would have to be exactly as follows:

1. Someone farts on a pillow “without anything between themselves and the pillowcase.”
2. Enough bacteria would need to land on the pillow case to do any type of damage.
3. Someone would then have to “lie down on the pillow immediately in order to get the bacteria on your skin.” However, this is highly unlikely because bacteria can not survive very in long in open air.

While this “‘perfect storm’ of flatulence” can occur, it is very unlikely. Therefore, farting on a pillow will not, in majority of the cases, cause pink eye.

Now that this myth is busted, I want to explore the world of flatulence a little more. Can farting cause some other type of infection, sickness, or disease? “The average human passes wind approximately 15 times a day” so I feel like the likelihood of such a common act causing a medical tragedy is quite low. Let’s just say that the internet has come pretty interesting stuff. I stumble on an article title “Study: Smelling farts may be good for your health.” Folks at the University of Exeter in England claim that “exposure to hydrogen sulfide– a.k.a. what your body produces as bacteria breaks down food, causing gas– could prevent mitochondria damage.” In other words, they are suggesting that “smelling farts could prevent disease and even cancer.” The study is being conducted in “several models of disease” with potentially promising results. However, Professor Matt Whiteman and Dr. Mark Wood, the leaders of the study, are now “advancing the research to a stage where it can be tested in humans.” The mechanism for this phenomenon is not known. I do think that that this research is beginning to have a snow ball affect. The research “experiment was limited to cell exposure in a lab.” This alone is not enough to conclude that AP39, the stinky fart, can actually do something.

People are so quick to make assumptions in the early stages of research. I am fascinated by this question and this research but it is only preliminary. That is one of my criticisms of science. Or perhaps, how the media reports science. On Google, there were thousands of hits all on this “flatulence” topic. But the funny thing is that nearly all of the articles talked about the singular study conducted at the University of Exeter. One tiny, preliminary study alone cannot hold enough evidence to make an educated conclusion. Shoutout to Andrew for making me notice this.

So does farting cause pink eye? Nope. Can farting cure cancer? Eh, there is always the potential that it might be the cure but as of right now, it is way to early to tell and unlikely.

Around 4:00 PM on Monday August 2, 2010, I began to feel a dull pain in my stomach. I shrugged it off as if it was just a normal cramp or a hunger pain. After dinner, the pain got worse. I laid down on my couch to watch television in order to get my mind off of this mysterious pain. Finally, around 8:00 I told my parents that it was getting worse and worse. My dad, the rational one, told me to go to the bathroom because it was probably just gas pains. My mom on the other hand was not convinced. She began to research what this abdominal pain could mean. When I tried to get off of the couch to go to my bedroom, I could not stand up for my stomach hurt so bad. My mom began rattling off various things that could be happening to my body. She eventually came across appendicitis symptoms. Sure enough, I met the criteria. After a phone call to my pediatrician, a sign of a fever, and two hours later, my parents carried me to the car and raced to Golisano Children’s Hospital. The next morning I was taken into surgery and by noon on Tuesday August 3, 2010, I was without an appendix.

Ever since that day, I have wondered how I could live without my appendix. I constantly hear that the appendix is useless. Obviously it isn’t important right now because I have survived without it for five years now. But I have always been curious as to why I am functioning appendix-less. Why did I get appendicitis? If the organ is useless, why did it get infected?

The symptoms of an appendicitis are pretty straight forward. They include:

1.  abdominal pain that moves to the right of the abdomen
2. Nausea and/or vomiting
3. Fever of 99-102 degrees F
4. Pain during urination
5. Excruciating cramps
6. Constipation or diarrhea

Personally, I experienced 1, 3, and 5. Another symptom that was not listed on this site that I experienced is the inability to stand up straight without pain. However, despite the many symptoms, diagnosing an appendicitis proves to be very difficult. There are many other issues that go along with the symptoms listed above that are not appendicitis. Doctors need to run many tests before they can conclude that appendicitis is the case. These tests and procedures include:

1. “Physical exam to assess your pain”
   1. During this examination, doctors “apply gentle pressure on the painful area.” When the pressure is released, the pain should feel worse. This was the case for me. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most painful, I told the doctors I was at a 9 and one point.
2. Blood tests
3. Urine Tests
4. Imaging tests

After the doctors ran 1-3 on me, they took me to get an ultrasound. However, my gallbladder was blocking my appendix so the ultrasound didn’t show anything. They also looked at my ovaries in case I had an ovarian cyst. Since the ultrasound was unsuccessful I was later given a CT scan. Before a CT can be done, there is certain protocol that doctors have to follow. Preparation for the patient includes:

1. No food or drink for a couple of hours before scan
2. Removal of metal objects from the body
3. Ingestion of contrast material
   1. Contrast material is a “special dye” that “highlights the areas of your body being examined.” Every 30 minutes for about a few hours I was forced to drink this disgusting pink liquid. The contrast material “can help emphasize blood vessels, intestines or other structures.”

• Side Note: The CT Scan freaked me out a little bit. I was alone in this machine, with horrible stomach pain, and was so tired. Even though the CT was able to aid the doctors in the making the diagnosis, it was not a pleasant time.

After the results of the CT scan came through, the doctors finally concluded that I had an appendicitis and action needed to be taken as soon as possible. I learned from the doctors that once the appendix is inflamed, within 24-48 the appendix can actually burst, which has the potential to be very deadly. My surgery was originally scheduled for noon on Tuesday August 3. But the doctor had an opening and I was in the Operating Room by 8 AM on Tuesday.

After the surgery, the recovery wasn’t very bad. However, I unfortunately had some type of allergic reaction to the anesthesia. I was sick for about a day after the surgery. Hence why I was not discharged until Wednesday evening.

who are recovering from an appendectomy are advised to not do heavy lifting for three weeks. I have three very small scars on my stomach from the surgery. I have one on my upper right abdomen, one directly above my belly button, and one on my lower left abdomen.

So, it has been five years since the removal of my appendix. My life is the same as it was before my appendix became inflamed. I am physically able and haven’t ben hospitalized since. Since I am functioning fine with this oran, why does it continue to appear in every human?

300,000 people have undergone appendectomies every year, in the United States alone. It is such a common surgery. Plant- eating vertebrates possess larger appendixes that help “digest a largely herbivorous diet.” Now, biologists are beginning to believe that the human appendix is “left behind from a plant-eating ancestor.” Charles Darwin actually suggested that the human body contains several vestigial organs “that were left over from the course of evolution.” The appendix has become one of those left over organs

Why does this useless organ become inflamed and become a serious threat to the body? Appendicitis can happen when the appendix becomes blocked by stool, a “foreign body, or cancer.” The appendix can also become infected and the swelling is a response to the swelling. Personally, I am not sure what exactly caused my appendicitis. It is very hard to tell. It also near impossible to prevent an appendicitis for it can happen to anyone.

I wonder what will happen to my body in 10, 20, 50 years. Will my lack of an appendix finally have an affect? Will the appendix every become functional again? It is so interesting to me that I am living without an organ. How many people can say that?

It is time for Blog Post #3. In a desperate attempt to find a topic for this post, I googled “weird science discoveries.” I was brought to livescience.com. From there I clicked on an article about the worlds oldest person. What is her secret? Supposedly, it is her daily serving of bacon. Yes, sizzling strips of bacon. So, what makes a person survive 100+ years? Could the secret actually be bacon? Luck? Or something else?

Lets start with where my newfound curiosity began. Susannah Mushatt Jones of New York is the world’s oldest living person. At 116 years, she “recently said that she eats a serving of bacon every day.” However, Jones claims that “bacon is not a fountain of youth.” She credits her “good sleeping habits, as well as her abstinence from tobacco and alcohol, for her continued good health.” So, is the bacon important at all? Or is the bacon just a coincidental piece in a healthy lifestyle. But, Dr. Thomas Perls of Boston University believes that Jones’s genetics are more of a cause than he’s healthy habits. For the past 10 years, Perls has been studying why some lives last longer than others. He does claim that “there’s just no scientific evidence that suggests people who eat bacon every day live longer.” People have conducted research to figure out the correlation between red meat consumption and lifespan, and the findings actually refute Jones’s bacon success story.

In 2012, Harvard scientists conducted a study with 120,000 people. Over the course of 28 years, “one daily serving of unprocessed red meat such as steak or pork chops was associated with a 13 percent increased risk of dying during the study” since 20% of the subjects died during the study. And, daily consumption of “processed red meat, such as a hot dog or bacon, was associated with a 20 percent increased risk.” The study also found that substituting red meat with a “healthy protein source” helped lower the mortality risk. The results of the study are synonmous with a 2010 meta-analysis developed by the different scientists at Harvard. The meta-analysis concluded that “consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus.” So, it appears that its not the color of the meat that matters but whether it is processed or not. I am sure the bacon that Jones has been consuming all of her life is processed. Dr. Perls has another idea…
How long one lives might be determined by genes.  Dr. Perls claims that “a person’s genes play a relatively small role in determining whether an individual lives to see his or her mid-80s or 90s.” He says that once a person passes that point, genes are very important. He and his team studied 1,055 centenarians (over 100) and 1,267 controls (under 100). They discovered “150 DNA sequence variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms among those 100 years old and above that may have contributed t their healthy aging.” So theoretically, “15% of the American populations is predisposed to live to be 100.”

So no, Susannah Mushatt Jones cannot really thank bacon for her 116 and counting years. She can however thank her mom and dad because her right now, her genes are most likely the ones to blame.

Susannah Mushatt Jones!

I remember once being told that looking at a screen before bed time is harmful to ones sleep schedule. I heard that watching TV before falling asleep actually made one more awake. I was always confused by this because in High School I would always fall asleep on the couch to the sound of the television. So, when brainstorming ideas for my next blog post I remembered hearing about this theory. I decided to Google ” do bright screen affect sleep,” and I was shocked at what I found.

According to an article in Scientific American, bright screens are actually delaying sleep. Mariana Figueiro of RPI discovered that “two hours of iPad use at maximum brightened was enough to suppress people’s normal nighttime  release of melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that is released by the pineal gland in the brain. It controls ones sleep cycle. At nighttime, melatonin levels are high (or at least they should be), and during the day, the levels should be low. The exposure to the bright light right before bedtime forced the body to think that it was in fact not nighttime, causing the melatonin levels to lower. Figueiro also says that the dose of light is crucial. “Brightness and exposure time, as well as the wavelength, determine whether it affects melatonin.”

An article form the Huffington Post draws more radical conclusions. The author claims that “reading on a screen before bed might be killing you.” Brigham and Women’s Hospital conducted a study with 12 participants. For 2 weeks, the participants read LE-e-Books on an iPad for 4 hours right before bed time each night for 5 nights in a row. Then after that, they were instructed to do the same thing with printed books. The conductors of the study randomized the reading so some were reading the iPad then the printed version and vice versa. The participants who read the iPad before falling asleep were found having lower melatonin levels and spent less time in REM sleep. While it is clear that the brightness affected the melatonin level in this study, I am hesitant to completely agree. The study was only done with 12 participants. If the study conductors really wanted to be more certain in their findings they should conduct the study again with a larger sample size.
I think that another interesting question would be whether or not age can help or hinder this issue. Young children have essentially grown up with electronics and screens. Since screens have been around their whole lives, does the exposure make them immune to the harmful effects?

Anyway, I now know that if I want to get a good nights sleep I should put my phone away well before I fall asleep. I should even turn the TV off before I call it a night.

I have always chosen a pen and paper over a keyboard when taking notes. I like how it is so much easier to scribble information across a page than be limited to the functions of Word. Besides, in High School, computers weren’t allowed in class. But, now that I am in college I see MacBooks and PCs on almost every desk. I don’t understand how students find it easier to take notes on a computer. So now I am wondering whether or not one form of taking notes is better than the other? Should
I turn over to the digital side or keep my pencil in my hand?

In 2013, a teaching assistant at Princeton University conducted a study to see if laptop note taking was less effective than traditional note taking. Pam Mueller with the help of her professor, Daniel Oppenheimer, created a study consisting of three parts:

1. First, students watched a video, TED talk, or something similar. While watching the video each student either took notes on his or her computer or in a notebook. After the video, they “completed difficult mental tasks for 30 minutes,” then took a quiz.
2. The second group of students were given a warning by an administrator:

   “People who take class notes on laptops when they expect to be tested on the material later tend to transcribe what they’re hearing without thinking about it much. Please try not to do this as you take notes today. Take notes in your own words and don’t just write down word-for-word what the speaker is saying.”

   After the warning, the students proceeded exactly like the first group.

3. The third and final group waited an entire week since watching the video before taking the quiz. Some students were allowed to review their notes before they took the quiz.

In all three parts of the study, the results were the same. Students who chose a pencil and paper over a laptop scored higher on the quizzes. Despite the warning given to the students in Group Two, verbatim notes were still being typed. Why could the students not obey the warning? Mueller points out that typing is a whole lot faster than writing. Typers seem to feel invincible and copy “large parts of lecture content verbatim.” Hand writers do not have the luxury of doing this. Instead, they must pick out key words to write down for “that initial selectivity leads to long-term comprehension.”

Next time you are in class try and write down notes with your hand. See if you feel more engaged in the lecture. Then, see how well you do on the next test. Based on the findings of this study, and personal experience, I am definitely keeping my laptop closed and notebook open in class.

As I was brainstorming possible topics for my next blog, I began to think of interesting things that I wish humans could do. Things like flying and becoming invisible. I decided to Google “will humans ever be able to breathe underwater.” I wasn’t expecting to find anything but I found something very fascinating. I learned that underwater breathing my actually become a possibility.

Scientists from the University of Southern Denmark have developed crystals that can “store oxygen in high concentrations.” This basically means that they can take a rooms worth of oxygen and transform it into a box of crystals. Professor Christine McKenzie led a study in which they found that 10 liters of microscopic grains could successfully “suck the Roxy ten out of a room.” She said “In the lab, we saw how this material took up oxygen from the air around us.” Not only can the material take oxygen from the air, but can also take oxygen from water. If scuba divers could use these crystals instead of air tanks then they would be able to explore the water for longer periods of time. As of right now, the material can only hold pure oxygen. Unfortunately, humans breathe a mixture of oxygen and other natural gases. The next step is to take this newly found mechanism and adjust it to fit our specific oxygen constraints.

Underwater breathing isn’t the only possibility that comes with these crystals. Patients who are forced to carry oxygen tanks around for their lungs can take these crystals. This is a lighter, simpler alternative to a heavy oxygen tank. A few grains of crystals hold enough oxygen for one breath. While that isn’t a lot, these crystals constantly recycle the oxygen around them so these few grains are really all one would need. Imagine a sponge. Sponges can constantly absorb and release water without having to stop.

“The crystalline material changes color when absorbing or releasing oxygen. Crystals are black when they are saturated with oxygen and pink when the oxygen has been released.” – collective-evolution.com

The developed material has a crystalline structure. Through x-ray diffraction, the scientists were able to analyze the atom arrangement inside the material when oxygen was and wasn’t present. Metal cobalt is an “essential component” int his new material. This “controls the process of absorption.”

So yes, scientists have developed a way to create a practically unlimited supply of oxygen. Being able to swim underwater while still breathing is a huge possibility. Not only that, but this has the ability to change peoples lives. People with sick lungs can travel without lugging an oxygen tank and humans can explore the depths of the ocean with little to no trouble at all.

I have to consider myself a ‘foodie.’ I absolutely love cooking food, eating food, and trying new dishes at various restaurants. Sometimes when I do not eat good food I begin to feel like I am in a slump. I want to know if eating unhealthy food can actually make me feel worse mentally, despite how delicious it might taste at the time

It has been proven that the link between sugar and hyperactivity is false. However, sugar and feelings might have something to do with it. Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD, says that “the link between emotions and eating is no myth.” We obviously know that people who eat better, feel better. But does eating bad food make you feel worse? Despite a lack of experimental evidence, “research suggests that diet quality influences depression risk.” A study in Australia evaluated relationships between dietary patterns, symptoms of depression, and socioeconomic status. The results showed that there is a correlation between diet and depressive symptoms. It is also important to note that when someone is depressed, they are more likely to have a change in appetite. This is more evidence of a possible link between depression and diet.

Another study taken in New Zealand in 2014 analyzes this connection as well. In a cross-sectional, population-based design scientists used questioners to determine the populations diets. The healthy and unhealthy people were then examined on two separate scales. The PedsQL instrument was used to determine the mental health of the population in the study. The results showed that the ones who ate better scored higher on the PedsQL scale. While the mechanism is yet to b
e discovered the correlation between diet and mental health is beginning to seem stronger and stronger.

Guaranteeing an ample amount of protein, vitamins, and fiber in ones diet can help make him/her “healthy and happy.” It is also very important to continue to feed oneself throughout the day. NBC News recently reported research that one should eat every 4-5 hours to keep blood sugar at a good level. It is also not good to skip meals. A lack of a diet is an unhealthy diet!

In no way does this mean that you should avoid Berkley Creamery or Insomnia Cookies. This post just means that you should try to stick with some fruit over a piece of cake majority of the time to avoid the crummy feeling (no pun intended) that you might get a few hours after the sweetness goes away

I have had fairly straight hair all my life yet I still own a flat iron and straighten my hair on occasion. Fortunately, I do not have to become religious about the hot tools but I do have many friends who heat their hair practically everyday. I want to know how badly their hair is suffering from the constant heat. And, are the straighteners actually helping with the styling or do they just end up making things worse?

Flat irons are used for good reasons. They control the terrible frizz, dismiss the curls, and create a sleek, healthy looking mane. But, when is enough enough? The heated tongs temperarily alter the hydrogen bonds inside the hairs. As soon as the hair is exposed to natural weather such as humidity and rain and the shower, the hydrogen bonds return to their original shape and the hair begins to look natural again. However, when too much heat is applied to the outer cuticle of the hair the strand can become damaged through dry ends, wispy hairs, and breakage. Not too mention if the flat iron comes into contact with wet or damp hair the consequences could be catastrophic in the beauty world.

Heat damage can also result in hair loss. But for those of you that cannot live without the straightener there are ways to protect the luscious locks. For starters,know that most all straighteners have adjustable temperature settings. Always use a lower setting rather than a higher one to avoid burning the hair. Overheating and strip away the hairs cuticles. Once that is gone the cortex of the hair is left exposed and vulnerable. With continued use, the hair might break off permanently. Use a heat protectant on your hair to try and avoid this. The Panthenol in the heat protectant spray will make sure that heat is evenly distributed throughout the head so nothing burns.

Heat damage can also result in hair shedding. Keeping your diet packed with proteins, irons, and vitamins can help add extra protection to your precious hair.

It is also important to know that hair damage cannot be fixed over night. If you are anything like me then you know that some peoples hair grows very slowly. Just one inch of damage on the end of the hair take a few months to get back to normal.

I am not saying that you need to pack up the blow dryer and toss out the flat iron. It is just important to be aware of the damage that can be happening to your hair. Be safe and don’t be like the YouTube girl who burned a chunk of her hair off.

“I just burned my hair off”

A little over a year ago my family had to make the difficult decision to put our dog of 10 years to sleep. Homer, my beautiful and perfect yellow lab developed a cancerous wart on the side of his mouth and was slowly crumbling before my eyes. Despite the difficulty, in the end it was the best decision to put our favorite pup out of his misery. Ever since then, the house has been lonely. We don’t hear the pitter patter of his nails on the hard wood or the scraping of his paw on the screen door. When I put my hand down beside the couch there isn’t a soft little body covered in fur to pet or play with. Of course, I have grown to accept the fact that he is gone and have continued on with my life. But I have to know; was I better off with my pup hanging around? Was I happier knowing that an animal was living under the same roof as me? Are dog owners less likely to be depressed than non dog owners?

The Huffington Post published an article, complete with GIFS, on 13 reasons why dogs are better for you. While it is not very scientific, it is a good place to start. Apparently dogs can detect whether you not have cancer, promote exercise through the necessity of walking them, and strengthen relationships “between humans.” Reason number 5 really stands out to me though. The author, Renee Jacques, claims that “just looking at your dog will make you feel happier.” Is this true? A “2009 study by Miho Nagasawa of Azabu University in Japan” supports this claim. When a human spends time with a dog, his/her oxytocin level increases. Oxytocin is essentially a love hormone that “acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain.” Nagasaki measured the “urinary concentrations of OT concentrations of owners before and after interaction” with dogs. There was a controlled and experimental group. The controlled group was instructed not to stare directly at their dogs. The experimental group spent time with their dogs like normal. But, within the experimental group were two sub groups consisting of different amounts of time spent with the dogs. The owners who spent more time with their dogs recorded higher levels of OT. This showed a “high correlation” between a dog’s gaze and the amount of OT released. But, in class we learned that correlation does not equal causation. Is this due to chance or reverse causation? Could their possibly be a third variable, Z, involved?

Scientists have come to the conclusion that “OT is at least partially responsible for the calm, relaxing feeling” humans get when interacting with dogs. In another study, OT levels were examined during an exchange between humans and dogs after they have been separated all day. The study found that the interaction with the dog helped to lower the stress of the men and women after a long day at work.

Other studies have found that being around dogs helps to lower ones blood pressure and harmful hormones that are involved with depression and anxiety. Some other studies analyzed the effect dogs have on humans social behavior. 3 different studies “found consistent evidence” supporting the correlation between pets and humans social relationships. The 3rd study conducted was experimental:

“Although Studies 1 and 2 were correlational, we conducted a third study in the lab to experimentally examine the ability of pets to benefit people. In this experiment, 97 pet owners came to the lab and some were induced to feel socially rejected while others were not. Afterwards, pet owners either (1) wrote about their pet, (2) wrote about their best friend, or (3) drew a map of campus (a control condition). As expected, those who drew a map after experiencing social rejection felt worse at the end of the experiment than they were at the beginning of the study, showing that our social rejection manipulation was effective. However, those who wrote about their dog were just as happy as those who wrote about their best friend (both groups did not show any negative feelings, even after the rejection experience was induced). In short, thinking about one’s pet staved off the negativity that accompanies social isolation as effectively as thinking about one’s best friend. To borrow from the old adage, although pets may not be one’s best friend, pets may be every bit as good!”

So yes, dogs are a mans best friend. They make us happier and give us the ability to make stronger social ties between humans. But, why is it that animal abuse is still present. How is it possible to abuse something that makes us so happy? Animal abusers are closely linked with inflicters of “violent crimes against people.” The abusive seed is usually planted during traumatic experiences in childhood. So, something within them must be wired to be immune to the cuteness of the canines. Perhaps that would be a good start for my next post.

I agree that life without a dog is not a life I want to live. Now, I scientifically know why Homer made me smile all the time. If only I could have a puppy in my dorm, then I would be able to relieve myself of all the college stress!

In my world, fashion trumps comfort (most of the time anyway). Spending the day running errands calls for cute sandals or ankle boots. And the answer for a fun night out is always a pair of heels. Whether you choose a wedge, a pump, or stiletto, a heel always adds a little pep to everyone’s step. But, is this iconic fashion choice doing more harm than good? Will my body suffer later in life due to my fashion choices now?

I know what I am getting myself into when I slip on a pair of heels for the night. 30 minutes in and my feet start to turn red. An hour later and it is impossible to stand up. By the end of thenight I am squirming around the shoe in pain as I trek home. Why force my foot to sit in such an unnatural position for so long? As much as it hurts, I am willing to sacrifice my comfort for my outfit. But, according to some research maybe this sacrifice isn’t the smartest choice.

According to an article from Women’s Health, more than just a woman’s feet are affected when wearing high heels. Ones ankles and calves, knees, hips, and back all suffer. Laura Beil, the author of the article, claims that “stiletto devotees can develop chronically taut (and Shortened!) ankle and calf tendons, making walking–even in flats–painful.” Hearing this, I am beginning to be concerned for my future health.

Women’s Health isn’t the only one who has made these claims. Marco Narici, a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University, “wondered if constantly wearing high heels could also cause muscle shortening.” He figured that this would be very easy to experiment because a huge number of women already wear high heels on a daily basis. He conducted a study with 11 women who have worn stilettos five days a week for two or more years. Like a good scientist, he had a control group of 9 women who “did not regularly wear heels.” He measured each woman’s calf muscle using MRI. However, he didn’t notice a difference between the two groups. He decided to try something else. Using an ultrasound, he measured the “length of the calf muscle fibers.” Sure enough, the fashionistas calfs were 13% shorter than the flat footers. So what does this mean? Well, the high heels also effect the Achilles tendon. When one wears heels, her achilles tendon actually gets thicker. The thick tendon counterbalances the “shorter muscle fibers and allows the muscle to behave normally.” While the muscle may function normally, these opposing forces cause soreness in women’s feet.

So now we know why heels cause pain. But is the pain very unhealthy? High heels put extra pressure “on the balls of the feet and squeeze the toes together.” Consequently, this can make the foot bend inward. Apparently, instead of ditching the heels, some women are beginning to get surgery to shave down the bones of their toes. That is an extreme measure.

Now that I that my foot is slowly bending inward and my calf muscles are shortening, is there anything else terrible happening to my body?

For as long as I can remember I have had terrible posture. Sitting with my back hunched is just more comfortable than trying to constantly engage my core to straighten my back. High heels alter a woman’s posture greatly. In fact, heels force the pelvis to tilt forward 10 to 15 degrees. This tilt unevenly distributes body weight on the feet. Majority of the weight is forced on the already cramped toes. Negative outcomes include bunion development, Morton’s neuroma, and hammer toes.

Wonderful, I don’t want shortened calves, bunions, or any of the horrors caused by heels. But what happens if I decide to keep them out of my closet. I don’t wear heels everyday so my chances of experiencing these things are actually limited. Some preventative tips include stretching your leg muscles before and after, avoid pointed toe heels, and vary your shoe type to give your feet a break.

So no, fashion is not killing me but it might not be the best thing for me. I’ll still wear heels everyone once in a while but as soon as I feel pain those babies are coming right off.

Hello my name is Maggie Kreienberg and I am a freshman studying print journalism.

I chose to take this course because my advisor recommended it at NSO. I have never been a huge fan of science so I was told that this course would be perfect for me because it will fill the GenEd requirement but keep my interest.

I am not a science major because I never really liked science. I always appreciated the subject in High School but I did not enjoy chemistry, biology, physics, etc, as much as I enjoyed English and Social Studies.

I hope to work at Vogue someday!

And here is a picture of where I am from. (Rochester, NY)