Never really gave this much thought but obviously some people do. According to a study published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, it appears that clapping is contagious. A lot of people including me, assumed that it was merely a means of showing our enthusiasm and appreciation for a performance.
According to Richard Mann, a mathematics teacher at Uppsala University in Sweden, this type of behavior can be initiated by one or two (or more presumably) people who decide to clap for whatever reason. Seems that once a few people begin the clapping process, everyone suddenly feels the necessity to join in. Sort of a giant clap-in. Thinking further about this, one - me - wonders if it would be applicable while clapping to keep one's fingers from going numb in cold weather.
Let's say you're standing at a bus stop in freezing cold weather, waiting in line along with a dozen or so people for the bus or train or whatever to arrive. A clapping motion is initiated by one person to keep the fingers from going numb, would others do the same thing? Is it also applicable to feet stomping? Anyone know? But I digress.
Mann and his colleagues arrived at this conclusion having researched how birds move in flocks and fish swim in schools. Not sure how this is applicable to humans but then who am I. To test the theory, a group of 13 to 20 students were placed in an audience and told to watch a short presentation given by another student (wonder how many of them were texting...just saying). The students were filmed while watching the speech after being instructed to applaud once the speech was over since the speaker was a volunteer. After repeating the experiment six times with different audiences, the conclusion drawn was that the act of clapping is precipitated (love that word) by the amount of people around who initiate the clapping. Furthermore and statistically, the first person started clapping 2.1 seconds following the presentation and the entire room was clapping by 2.9 seconds.
While this is - well - interesting, one wonders how people get grants for this type of study. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, how does human kind benefit? Perhaps theatre producers, TV and film people might find the end results interesting and possibly useful but what does it do for you and me? Thinking further, I've been to theatre performances and movies where a few people suddenly feel the urge to clap and were told by the audience vociferously to refrain from any further clapping movement.
The ultimate goal, according to Mann, is to expand their research to more complex behaviors. Taking it one step further, perhaps at some point in the future, somebody will research the effect of coughing and whether a coughing fit can cause a mass cough-out. We all know - okay... I read it somewhere - that extensive yawning in public causes people within the viewing range of the yawn-er to do the same thing.
Speaking or writing about contagious yawning, Wikipedia shares on their write-up of yawning, "A study by the University of London has suggested that the "contagiousness" of yawns by a human will pass to dogs. The study observed that 21 of 29 dogs yawned when a stranger yawned in front of them, but did not yawn when the stranger only opened his mouth. A recent study from Lund University showed that dogs, like humans, develop a susceptibility to contagious yawning gradually, and that while dogs above 7 months 'catch' yawns from humans, younger dogs are immune to contagion.[The study also indicated that nearly half of the dogs responded to the human's yawn by becoming relaxed and sleepy, suggesting that the dogs copied not just the yawn, but also the physical state that yawns typically reflect." This is stuff you want (not necessarily need) to know, people!
I clap. You clap. We all clap but in the end, do we care why we do?
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Sunday, October 16, 2011
So what's on your cell phone? Lotsa germs
These days it's uncommon to see people without a cell phone in their hands while carrying on their every day lives. This includes from personal experience, talking while using a public toilet. Why the necessity and urgency to communicate with someone while answering nature's call to put it politely, is a mystery to me. I've been privy to people in nearby stalls gossiping on their cell phones while using the toilet facilities, making social arrangements and other inconsequential chatter. It can wait people! But I digress.
Research conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London, a study suggested that one in six cell phones is - wait for it - contaminated with faecal matter, according to research for Global Handwashing Day, which took place on October 15. The researchers took almost 400 samples from phones ande hands in twelves British cities. Their findings are interesting in that 16% of phones and 16% of hands harbored E. coli bacteria.
Although 95% of people said they washed their hands with soap where possible, 92% of phones and 82% of hands had bacteria on them. Furthermore, 16% of hands and 16% of phones were found to harbour E. coli – bacteria of a faecal origin. Thinking further, this indicates at least to me that not everyone washes their hands when possible and not everyone tells the truth when asked.
Researchers travelled to 12 cities in various locations in England and took 390 samples from mobile phones and hands which were analysed in the lab to find out the type and number of germs lurking there. They also asked participants a series of questions about their handwashing habits.
To get back to National Handwashing Day, how many people reading this were even aware that this was a day put aside to - well - draw attention to the importance of washing hands. In the way of background information, the day was established by the Global Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing in 2008 to:
• Foster and support a global culture of handwashing with soap.
• Shine a spotlight on the state of handwashing in every country.
• Raise awareness about the benefits of handwashing with soap.
Global Handwashing Day was originally created for children and schools, but can be celebrated by anyone promoting handwashing with soap.
Each year, over 200 million people are involved in celebrations in over 100 countries around the world. Global Handwashing is endorsed by a wide array of governments, international institutions, civil society organizations, NGOs, private companies, and individuals.
Thinking further (again), 200 million people world wide are involved are involved in some way to the act of washing their hands.
Here's a link for Global Handwashing Day: http://www.globalhandwashingday.org/About.asp
Research conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London, a study suggested that one in six cell phones is - wait for it - contaminated with faecal matter, according to research for Global Handwashing Day, which took place on October 15. The researchers took almost 400 samples from phones ande hands in twelves British cities. Their findings are interesting in that 16% of phones and 16% of hands harbored E. coli bacteria.
Although 95% of people said they washed their hands with soap where possible, 92% of phones and 82% of hands had bacteria on them. Furthermore, 16% of hands and 16% of phones were found to harbour E. coli – bacteria of a faecal origin. Thinking further, this indicates at least to me that not everyone washes their hands when possible and not everyone tells the truth when asked.
Researchers travelled to 12 cities in various locations in England and took 390 samples from mobile phones and hands which were analysed in the lab to find out the type and number of germs lurking there. They also asked participants a series of questions about their handwashing habits.
To get back to National Handwashing Day, how many people reading this were even aware that this was a day put aside to - well - draw attention to the importance of washing hands. In the way of background information, the day was established by the Global Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing in 2008 to:
• Foster and support a global culture of handwashing with soap.
• Shine a spotlight on the state of handwashing in every country.
• Raise awareness about the benefits of handwashing with soap.
Global Handwashing Day was originally created for children and schools, but can be celebrated by anyone promoting handwashing with soap.
Each year, over 200 million people are involved in celebrations in over 100 countries around the world. Global Handwashing is endorsed by a wide array of governments, international institutions, civil society organizations, NGOs, private companies, and individuals.
Thinking further (again), 200 million people world wide are involved are involved in some way to the act of washing their hands.
Here's a link for Global Handwashing Day: http://www.globalhandwashingday.org/About.asp
Saturday, January 08, 2011
News you want to know: insects produce less gas
There is nothing like cyber-surfing to find interesting stories and getting educated about stuff one would otherwise never know. Things like edible insects produce smaller quantities of greenhouse gasses than cattle AND pigs. I mean - go figure! Teeny-weeny insects some of which are barely visible to the human eye, to put it bluntly, fart less than people.
Be that as it may, this fact came to light in the Science Daily with scientists of Wageningen University who recently joined together with government and industry to look into whether the rearing of insects could contribute to more sustainable production. Moreover, insect meat could therefore be an alternative to your regular type meat products. Cattle farming worldwide is a major producer of greenhouse gases.
Far be it to criticize the scientific community but speaking as your "average" human, the idea of eating insects somehow has little appeal. In fact, most of us averages find insects worthy of elimination. Let's just leave it at that.
Why they did this is anybody's guess but the research team for the first time quantified the greenhouse gases produced per kilogram of insect product. This leads one - me - to ponder how they accomplished this. Take your ordinary house fly - please - and try to catch it, never mind assessing the amount of gas it produces. Never even occurred to me that insects - well - fart. The gases involved were methane and nitrous oxide (isn't the latter the laughing gas that dentists use for nervous patients?). The results demonstrated that insects produced much smaller quantities of greenhouse gases than conventional livestock. Duh!
An additional advantage of insects over mammals is that they convert their food into meat quicker. Is this information we need to know? There is, however, some interesting facts one rarely thinks about like did you know that a pig produces between eight and twelve times as much ammonia per kilogram of growth, compared to crickets, and up to fifty times more than locusts. Can't speak for others but this is a revelation to me!
Further research is required to ascertain whether the production of a kilogram of insect protein is also more environmentally friendly than conventional animal protein when the entire production chain is taken into account. This makes one - me again - wonder how much money the scientists received for working on this exciting project. The university, by the way, is located in the Netherlands.
A while back and in the name of science and a TV taping, I ate some chocolate covered grasshoppers. Actually, they were quite good until one of the grasshopper legs became visible after biting into the chocolate. That was it for me! Just thought I'd throw that in since the story focused on insects. thing is and realistically speaking, it's doubtful whether farmers will give up cattle raising et al, in favor of insects. Would love to hear from any insect raisers reading this.
Be that as it may, this fact came to light in the Science Daily with scientists of Wageningen University who recently joined together with government and industry to look into whether the rearing of insects could contribute to more sustainable production. Moreover, insect meat could therefore be an alternative to your regular type meat products. Cattle farming worldwide is a major producer of greenhouse gases.
Far be it to criticize the scientific community but speaking as your "average" human, the idea of eating insects somehow has little appeal. In fact, most of us averages find insects worthy of elimination. Let's just leave it at that.
Why they did this is anybody's guess but the research team for the first time quantified the greenhouse gases produced per kilogram of insect product. This leads one - me - to ponder how they accomplished this. Take your ordinary house fly - please - and try to catch it, never mind assessing the amount of gas it produces. Never even occurred to me that insects - well - fart. The gases involved were methane and nitrous oxide (isn't the latter the laughing gas that dentists use for nervous patients?). The results demonstrated that insects produced much smaller quantities of greenhouse gases than conventional livestock. Duh!
An additional advantage of insects over mammals is that they convert their food into meat quicker. Is this information we need to know? There is, however, some interesting facts one rarely thinks about like did you know that a pig produces between eight and twelve times as much ammonia per kilogram of growth, compared to crickets, and up to fifty times more than locusts. Can't speak for others but this is a revelation to me!
Further research is required to ascertain whether the production of a kilogram of insect protein is also more environmentally friendly than conventional animal protein when the entire production chain is taken into account. This makes one - me again - wonder how much money the scientists received for working on this exciting project. The university, by the way, is located in the Netherlands.
A while back and in the name of science and a TV taping, I ate some chocolate covered grasshoppers. Actually, they were quite good until one of the grasshopper legs became visible after biting into the chocolate. That was it for me! Just thought I'd throw that in since the story focused on insects. thing is and realistically speaking, it's doubtful whether farmers will give up cattle raising et al, in favor of insects. Would love to hear from any insect raisers reading this.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Fast walkers live longer according to study
If it's not one thing, it's another. Now I have something new to worry about. Just came accross a report indicating that the speed one walks could be an indicator of a short or long life span. Researchers have discovered that walking speed can be - notice those words - can be a useful indicator of how long older adults will live.
The first thing that sprung to mind is many older adults a.k.a. seniors, tend to walk slower than younger adults i.e. middle aged and under. People who walk 2.25mph or faster, consistently lived longer than others of their age and sex who walked more slowly.
The results of this study particularly hit home personally, being a slow-ish-type walker.
"We're able to show that a person's capacity to move strongly reflects vitality and health," said study researcher Dr. Stephanie Studenski, a professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
The researchers did emphasize that the aim of the study wasn't to get people to walk faster or to live longer. According to Dr. Stephanie. Our bodies tell us the ideal speed appropriate for us. Actually, my body especially the legs, knees, thighs and right on down to the ankles, tend to send my brain messages to the effect, "slow her down - you're killing us!"
Still more bad news we don't want to know in that a change of walking speed won't lengthen our lives. Dr. Stephanie suggests that we need to address underlying health issues. The researchers showed they could reliably predict the 10-year survival rate of a group of people based on how fast they walked along a 4-meter track.
Track? How many "average" people use a running track, one wonders. Walking speed for those with an average life expectancy was (or is) approx. 1.8 mph, for most age groups of both sexes. So this leads one - me - to wonder how one would assess one's walking speed. Is there some type of mathematical formula or does one have to carry a pedometer while walking to ensure the correct speed? Came accross a piece on the e-How site that provides a formula as to how to calculate walking speed:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8939_estimate-walking-speed.html
The findings were based on analysis of nine previous studies that examined the walking speed, sex, age, body mass index, medical history and survival rate of almost 34,500 people.
There's a lot more statistics and information for anyone interested in the study here: http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/fast-walk-may-predict-long-youll-live-20110105-091802-892.html
Still, when it all said and done, walking is a great exercise. For the record, it's amazing the speed my feet travel in a mall, travelling from store-to-store, whenever there's a sale. A person has'ta do what a person has'ta to.
The study is published in the January 5 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The first thing that sprung to mind is many older adults a.k.a. seniors, tend to walk slower than younger adults i.e. middle aged and under. People who walk 2.25mph or faster, consistently lived longer than others of their age and sex who walked more slowly.
The results of this study particularly hit home personally, being a slow-ish-type walker.
"We're able to show that a person's capacity to move strongly reflects vitality and health," said study researcher Dr. Stephanie Studenski, a professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
The researchers did emphasize that the aim of the study wasn't to get people to walk faster or to live longer. According to Dr. Stephanie. Our bodies tell us the ideal speed appropriate for us. Actually, my body especially the legs, knees, thighs and right on down to the ankles, tend to send my brain messages to the effect, "slow her down - you're killing us!"
Still more bad news we don't want to know in that a change of walking speed won't lengthen our lives. Dr. Stephanie suggests that we need to address underlying health issues. The researchers showed they could reliably predict the 10-year survival rate of a group of people based on how fast they walked along a 4-meter track.
Track? How many "average" people use a running track, one wonders. Walking speed for those with an average life expectancy was (or is) approx. 1.8 mph, for most age groups of both sexes. So this leads one - me - to wonder how one would assess one's walking speed. Is there some type of mathematical formula or does one have to carry a pedometer while walking to ensure the correct speed? Came accross a piece on the e-How site that provides a formula as to how to calculate walking speed:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8939_estimate-walking-speed.html
The findings were based on analysis of nine previous studies that examined the walking speed, sex, age, body mass index, medical history and survival rate of almost 34,500 people.
There's a lot more statistics and information for anyone interested in the study here: http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/fast-walk-may-predict-long-youll-live-20110105-091802-892.html
Still, when it all said and done, walking is a great exercise. For the record, it's amazing the speed my feet travel in a mall, travelling from store-to-store, whenever there's a sale. A person has'ta do what a person has'ta to.
The study is published in the January 5 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Do not drink the toilet water, okay? And don't juggle hand grenades, either
We human beings can always be counted upon to provide - how shall we say - interesting material that makes us shake our head in wonderment and bewilderment.
So for whatever reason, let's say somebody reading this decides to visit the Phoenix area perhaps for work or pleasure. While checking out the city and Chandler, Arizona in particular following a large consumption of coffee...or tea...whatever, nature calls and a trip to the bathroom is necessary. It appears there are signs posted in restrooms of a new $73 million, five-story building warning people not to drink water out of the urinals and toilets, which happen to use re-cycled water. Unless one gets down on one's hands and knees, this is not a probability, anyway. Mind you, non-human four-legged non-humans like cats or dogs might find this a deterrent. Thinking further, would this law apply to them?
The reason for the posting is that city code regulations located 20 miles southeast of Phoenix to post signs or tint water blue to flag the existence of non-potable "gray water."
*************************************************************************************
Been juggling various life choices? Someone in San Francisco for whatever reason known obviously only to him, decided that it might be fun and definitely an attention-getter, to perform a juggling act at Fisherman's wharf. What makes this news is that his choice of juggling material was a hand grenade. Presumably, this was a one-item juggling act. But I digress. Bomb squad investigators responding to this man's choice of items, closed down the entire block in response. After further investigation, police determined that the grenade was a fake.
The performer, who has not been identified, was arrested and may face charges. I bet.
*************************************************************************************
Last but definitely not least - another study
Love those studies. Some researchers living in Montreal, Canada, obviously and again for whatever reason known only to them, conducted studies that revealed the sight of red meat on a dinner table seems to calm men down and makes them less aggressive.
The research recruited 82 men men who believed they could punish an aide reading a script with various volumes of sound every time he made an error while they sorted photos, some with pictures of meat and others with neutral images. This leads one to wonder what this has to do with meat. But I digress.
The researchers initially believed the men would inflict more discomfort on the script reader while they sorted photos of cooked red meat, but that didn't turn out to be the case.
The researcher says in hindsight, it makes sense that our ancestors would be calm at the sight of meat that is ready to eat as they would be surrounded by their loved ones at meal time. O-kaaaaay....
This leads one to wonder - again - whether the sight of real meat would have the adverse affect, or whether the same would be applicable when seeing photos of raw chicken and other varieties of meat. Also, what about cooked meat? As a person who prepares meals regularly, my feeling is that the sight of a cooked meal when one doesn't have to prepare it is infinitely better. Really.
So for whatever reason, let's say somebody reading this decides to visit the Phoenix area perhaps for work or pleasure. While checking out the city and Chandler, Arizona in particular following a large consumption of coffee...or tea...whatever, nature calls and a trip to the bathroom is necessary. It appears there are signs posted in restrooms of a new $73 million, five-story building warning people not to drink water out of the urinals and toilets, which happen to use re-cycled water. Unless one gets down on one's hands and knees, this is not a probability, anyway. Mind you, non-human four-legged non-humans like cats or dogs might find this a deterrent. Thinking further, would this law apply to them?
The reason for the posting is that city code regulations located 20 miles southeast of Phoenix to post signs or tint water blue to flag the existence of non-potable "gray water."
*************************************************************************************
Been juggling various life choices? Someone in San Francisco for whatever reason known obviously only to him, decided that it might be fun and definitely an attention-getter, to perform a juggling act at Fisherman's wharf. What makes this news is that his choice of juggling material was a hand grenade. Presumably, this was a one-item juggling act. But I digress. Bomb squad investigators responding to this man's choice of items, closed down the entire block in response. After further investigation, police determined that the grenade was a fake.
The performer, who has not been identified, was arrested and may face charges. I bet.
*************************************************************************************
Last but definitely not least - another study
Love those studies. Some researchers living in Montreal, Canada, obviously and again for whatever reason known only to them, conducted studies that revealed the sight of red meat on a dinner table seems to calm men down and makes them less aggressive.
The research recruited 82 men men who believed they could punish an aide reading a script with various volumes of sound every time he made an error while they sorted photos, some with pictures of meat and others with neutral images. This leads one to wonder what this has to do with meat. But I digress.
The researchers initially believed the men would inflict more discomfort on the script reader while they sorted photos of cooked red meat, but that didn't turn out to be the case.
The researcher says in hindsight, it makes sense that our ancestors would be calm at the sight of meat that is ready to eat as they would be surrounded by their loved ones at meal time. O-kaaaaay....
This leads one to wonder - again - whether the sight of real meat would have the adverse affect, or whether the same would be applicable when seeing photos of raw chicken and other varieties of meat. Also, what about cooked meat? As a person who prepares meals regularly, my feeling is that the sight of a cooked meal when one doesn't have to prepare it is infinitely better. Really.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
GO ON - LAUGH A BIT!
The arrival of the month of April always makes me smile, accompanied by occasional outbreaks of laughter. The reason for my feeling of happiness is that April is designated as National Humour Month. Not that we need an excuse to laugh but a celebration of “feeling good” is a holiday in which we all should partake.
The creator of this gleeful celebration is one Larry Wilde, who decided in 1976 to devote the entire month to laughter. His aim was and presumably still is, to heighten public awareness on how the joy and therapeutic value of laughter can improve health, boost morale, increase communication skills and enrich the quality in one’s life. Sounds like a good enough reason to me!
Over the years researchers have explored laughter’s effects on the body and produced some interesting information on how it affects us. For example, a study conducted by researchers of the University of Maryland studied the effects on blood vessels when people were shown either comedies or dramas and concluded that blood vessels of the group watching comedies expanded and contracted easily, while the blood vessels of the people watching dramas, tended to tense up restricting blood flow. Other studies also reveal that the ability to use humour may raise the level of infection-fighting antibodies and boost the level of immune cells.
Want more proof? There’s even scientific evidence that it may offer protection against a heart attack. A study with results presented at the American Heart Association’s 73rd Scientific Session showed that people with heart disease were 40% less likely to laugh in a variety of situations compared to people of the same age without heart disease.
A happier person has a positive outlook towards life, lives each day without worrying about the future, appreciates and enjoys the blessings in life and is able to enjoy life to the fullest. Is that you?
Here’s an interesting piece of information for people who are watching their weight. Giggling for a mere 15 minutes per day burns enough calories to shed up to 5lbs. of fat over the year. Researchers measured the number of calories expended by 45 adults while watching a comedy film including nature and comedy shows. Bouts of laughter when watching a comedy film used up 20% more energy than at rest. You can read more about the research conducted by surfing over to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6274119.stm
So what does this all mean in the scheme of things? You don’t need medical proof that laughter makes you feel good. In the way of celebrating throughout the month, rent some ‘nutsy’ comedies at least once per week or watch a (good) TV sitcom. Share funny stories and/or jokes with friends – chances are at least one (hopefully more) will elicit a smile or laugh. Read some books written by people who are known for their comedic expression. Some personal favourites are books by the late humorist, Erma Bombeck or compilations by columnist, Dave Barry and don’t forget to laugh at yourself now and then.
Drop by http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/03/funny.websites/index.html and you’ll find a list of 10 sites to make you laugh out loud. Actually, I feel a laugh coming on right now. You?
Friday, October 02, 2009
Bra cups runneth over as a gas mask
For most females (and males as the case may be) a bra is something one wears to enhance/shape/retain/contain one's breasts. There could be other lesser known uses, for example, a sling-shot or a small container in which to carry seashells collected on a beach. Interesting but lesser-known stuff. However, the winner of the 2009 Ig Nobel Prize, one Dr. Elena Bodnar, took home the public health prize for creating a dual bra that could be converted (if necessary obviously) into two gas masks.
Note the "Ig" in front of Nobel Prize signifying that this is not "the" Nobel Prize, which usually spring to mind. In fact, "The Ig Nobel Prizes' - there are numerous categories - honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology."
Obviously pleased to be a recipient and winner, Dr. Bodnar did a demo and then gave the Nobel laureates each their very own gas bra/gas mask.
So this leads one - me - to wonder about the comfort aspect of this bra-come-gas mask. Is it padded to prevent chaffing from the gas...whatevers? More importantly, how many colors does it come in? Are there different cup sizes or is it a one-size-fits-all?
The mind boggles at its potential usage in the military. A soldier (female and/or male) who wears said double-duty bra, could when there is the scent of gas and lurking danger, disrobe, unhook said bra and place it on their face(s). This act in itself could cause a shock wave among the enemy. I mean, it's rare for your average person to walk around with a bra over one's face, period. Then again, the time delay in actually getting access to the bra might be a problem.
The ceremony was organized by the magazine, "The Annals of Improbable Research", which is a good name given the nature of the awards. For the full list of names, try this site:
http://improbable.com/ig/winners/
And for a diagram of the winning bra...that is to say, gas mask...whatever, try here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285380.stm
Note the "Ig" in front of Nobel Prize signifying that this is not "the" Nobel Prize, which usually spring to mind. In fact, "The Ig Nobel Prizes' - there are numerous categories - honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology."
Obviously pleased to be a recipient and winner, Dr. Bodnar did a demo and then gave the Nobel laureates each their very own gas bra/gas mask.
So this leads one - me - to wonder about the comfort aspect of this bra-come-gas mask. Is it padded to prevent chaffing from the gas...whatevers? More importantly, how many colors does it come in? Are there different cup sizes or is it a one-size-fits-all?
The mind boggles at its potential usage in the military. A soldier (female and/or male) who wears said double-duty bra, could when there is the scent of gas and lurking danger, disrobe, unhook said bra and place it on their face(s). This act in itself could cause a shock wave among the enemy. I mean, it's rare for your average person to walk around with a bra over one's face, period. Then again, the time delay in actually getting access to the bra might be a problem.
The ceremony was organized by the magazine, "The Annals of Improbable Research", which is a good name given the nature of the awards. For the full list of names, try this site:
http://improbable.com/ig/winners/
And for a diagram of the winning bra...that is to say, gas mask...whatever, try here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285380.stm
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Look up - is it...could it be...flying cheddar?
Let's say you're walking along minding your own business enjoying everything the summer has to offer when suddenly you spot a colored object flying and/or floating in the sky. The object doesn't emit any sound so an airplane is out. Upon closer examination it appears to be yellow-ish or orange-ish, wedge shaped and the question arises as to whether aliens are becoming more creative and assuming the guise of cheese. There is a simple and much more weird explanation along with essential background information.
Y'see... the West Country Farmhouse Cheesemakers group wanted to be the first to send a piece of cheese into space. You read it right: cheese into space.
Shades of Monty Python!
So on Tuesday, July 28, they launched a 300g wedge of cheddar cheese into space, suspended under a weather balloon. This makes one (at least me) wonder if this could be the real explanation for the UFO landing in Roswell, New Mexico. It really wasn't a UFO but a wedge of cheddar cheese. It's possible!
Furthermore, not your mozzarella or French brie or good, old American cheese but a chunk of British cheddar.
The aim was to send the cheese 18.5 miles into earth's upper atmosphere where they anticipated (and hoped presumably) the cheese would explode and float back to earth via parachute.
If this had worked you can imagine the reaction of people experiencing raining cheese.
As is frequently the case, things didn't work out exactly as planned since the GPS tracking system broke down along the way and the cheesemakers have lost the cheddar chunk. As in gone. Vanished. Pfft.
They're assuming its location is somewhere along a 200-mile corridor in southern England but they're not sure. The launch was made to mark the 40th anniversary of NASA's lunar landings.
This is the same group by the way, that used a webcam to enable people to watch a slab of cheddar age in 2007. Talk about excitement!
Meanwhile if you come accross the cheese, you might want to alert the organizers:
http://www.farmhousecheesemakers.com/
Or just open a bottle of wine and enjoy.
Y'see... the West Country Farmhouse Cheesemakers group wanted to be the first to send a piece of cheese into space. You read it right: cheese into space.
Shades of Monty Python!
So on Tuesday, July 28, they launched a 300g wedge of cheddar cheese into space, suspended under a weather balloon. This makes one (at least me) wonder if this could be the real explanation for the UFO landing in Roswell, New Mexico. It really wasn't a UFO but a wedge of cheddar cheese. It's possible!
Furthermore, not your mozzarella or French brie or good, old American cheese but a chunk of British cheddar.
The aim was to send the cheese 18.5 miles into earth's upper atmosphere where they anticipated (and hoped presumably) the cheese would explode and float back to earth via parachute.
If this had worked you can imagine the reaction of people experiencing raining cheese.
As is frequently the case, things didn't work out exactly as planned since the GPS tracking system broke down along the way and the cheesemakers have lost the cheddar chunk. As in gone. Vanished. Pfft.
They're assuming its location is somewhere along a 200-mile corridor in southern England but they're not sure. The launch was made to mark the 40th anniversary of NASA's lunar landings.
This is the same group by the way, that used a webcam to enable people to watch a slab of cheddar age in 2007. Talk about excitement!
Meanwhile if you come accross the cheese, you might want to alert the organizers:
http://www.farmhousecheesemakers.com/
Or just open a bottle of wine and enjoy.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Coffee drinking a possible link to the dearly departed
Is there no end to all the new scientific data and findings that is supposed to improve but ultimately affect our every-day lives?
If you're a big-time coffee drinker, have you hallucinated lately or been visited by the dearly departed? According to a report, you might.
Seems that scientists at Durham University have linked too much coffee and caffeine in particular, to - well - seeing dead people. Seriously.
Actually- and why am I not surprised - the initial findings were discovered by UK researchers who seem to have access to funds for "interesting" projects. According to the research and of course it's not conclusive but enough to make coffee drinkers a little edgy, people who drink too much coffee could - notice the word could - start seeing ghosts or hearing strange voices.
People who drank more than seven cups of instant coffee a day were three times more likely to hallucinate or hear people speak when nobody was around, compared to low caffeine users, defined as drinking less than the equivalent of one cup of java per day. However, academics say the findings do not prove a "causal link".
Among the experiences reported were seeing things that were not there, hearing voices, and sensing the presence of dead people. Instead of gazing into a crystal ball or joining hands in a seance, perhaps participants should consider drinking a lot of coffee instead. Much simpler.
Presumably sensing there could be a sudden decrease in coffee sales, a Dr. Euan Paul of the British Coffee Association stressed that the study focused strictly on people with a very high caffeine intake. For the record herbal tea drinkers were not included but most likely, there will be yet more statistics that herbal tea causes visions of Elvis.
If you're a big-time coffee drinker, have you hallucinated lately or been visited by the dearly departed? According to a report, you might.
Seems that scientists at Durham University have linked too much coffee and caffeine in particular, to - well - seeing dead people. Seriously.
Actually- and why am I not surprised - the initial findings were discovered by UK researchers who seem to have access to funds for "interesting" projects. According to the research and of course it's not conclusive but enough to make coffee drinkers a little edgy, people who drink too much coffee could - notice the word could - start seeing ghosts or hearing strange voices.
People who drank more than seven cups of instant coffee a day were three times more likely to hallucinate or hear people speak when nobody was around, compared to low caffeine users, defined as drinking less than the equivalent of one cup of java per day. However, academics say the findings do not prove a "causal link".
Among the experiences reported were seeing things that were not there, hearing voices, and sensing the presence of dead people. Instead of gazing into a crystal ball or joining hands in a seance, perhaps participants should consider drinking a lot of coffee instead. Much simpler.
Presumably sensing there could be a sudden decrease in coffee sales, a Dr. Euan Paul of the British Coffee Association stressed that the study focused strictly on people with a very high caffeine intake. For the record herbal tea drinkers were not included but most likely, there will be yet more statistics that herbal tea causes visions of Elvis.
Monday, September 01, 2008
No swat - flies know when they're being stalked
by Eleanor Tylbor
One can hear them flitting around the room, the drone of their buzz reaching human hearing range. The "normal" reaction is to grab the nearest object and wait until they are within swatting range in an attempt to rid the source of the annoying noise. The end result, however, for the most part is the fly lives to fly another day.
Once again and all in the name of important scientific research, U.S. scientists think they have solved the mystery of why flies are difficult to swat.
Given the scientific and medical issues and questions requiring their attention, one would think that there are more pressing issues than studying why harrassed humans miss swatting flies. Be that as it may...
They think - presumably unproven - that the fly's ability to sustain its life cycle is due to its fast acting brain and ability to plan ahead. Go figure that flies can plan ahead!
The study includes high speed, high resolution video recordings revealing that the insects quickly work out where a threat is coming from and prepare an escape route. Furthermore,
the research suggests that the best way of swatting a fly is to creep up slowly and aim ahead of its location.
So, the swat-er being the human, must anticipate the landing spot of the swat-ee being the fly, and wait and hope that the fly will at some point land in the vicinity of the waiting newspaper/ fly swatter/whatever, to hit the mark.
Read the entire story for hints on more effective fly-swatting and an explanation on how the research was conducted here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7586868.stm
The study has been published in the journal Current Biology. One wonders how much money was involved in this important scientific research.
For those who care, see a close up of a fly's head here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8463947@N08/701598636/
One can hear them flitting around the room, the drone of their buzz reaching human hearing range. The "normal" reaction is to grab the nearest object and wait until they are within swatting range in an attempt to rid the source of the annoying noise. The end result, however, for the most part is the fly lives to fly another day.
Once again and all in the name of important scientific research, U.S. scientists think they have solved the mystery of why flies are difficult to swat.
Given the scientific and medical issues and questions requiring their attention, one would think that there are more pressing issues than studying why harrassed humans miss swatting flies. Be that as it may...
They think - presumably unproven - that the fly's ability to sustain its life cycle is due to its fast acting brain and ability to plan ahead. Go figure that flies can plan ahead!
The study includes high speed, high resolution video recordings revealing that the insects quickly work out where a threat is coming from and prepare an escape route. Furthermore,
the research suggests that the best way of swatting a fly is to creep up slowly and aim ahead of its location.
So, the swat-er being the human, must anticipate the landing spot of the swat-ee being the fly, and wait and hope that the fly will at some point land in the vicinity of the waiting newspaper/ fly swatter/whatever, to hit the mark.
Read the entire story for hints on more effective fly-swatting and an explanation on how the research was conducted here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7586868.stm
The study has been published in the journal Current Biology. One wonders how much money was involved in this important scientific research.
For those who care, see a close up of a fly's head here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8463947@N08/701598636/
Friday, September 07, 2007
WHAT NEXT? POPCORN CAUSES POPCORN LUNG...MAYBE...COULD BE...
Is there nothing left in life to enjoy? Weight watchers have been told that two cups of popcorn is a healthy and less fattening snack food and recommended for people on a diet. Now researchers are telling us that butter-flavored popcorn may be bad for our health. I mean - c'mon! Popcorn and movies are like...sacred, almost!
The public is being warned by lung specialists that not only factory workers could be in danger as a result of the fumes from buttery-flavored microwave popcorn, in a letter issued by federal regulars from a physician at a leading lung research hospital.
Oh? Somebody is getting research funds to study popcorn and I wasn't asked to participate?
A pulmonary specialist at Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center has written to federal agencies reporting that doctors working there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
The public is being warned by lung specialists that not only factory workers could be in danger as a result of the fumes from buttery-flavored microwave popcorn, in a letter issued by federal regulars from a physician at a leading lung research hospital.
Oh? Somebody is getting research funds to study popcorn and I wasn't asked to participate?
A pulmonary specialist at Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center has written to federal agencies reporting that doctors working there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
This begs at least from my perspective, the question as to how many of us actually eat pop popcorn several times a day? This person obviously had a popcorn addiction that went untreated for many years for this to occur. Perhaps had she/he been weaned away... But I digress.
"We cannot be sure that this patient's exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease," cautioned Dr. Cecile Rose. "However, we have no other plausible explanation."
The July letter, made public Tuesday by a public health policy blog, refers to a potentially fatal disease commonly called popcorn lung that has been the subject of lawsuits by hundreds of workers at food factories exposed to chemicals used for flavouring.
Note there is no Latin term as yet for the new syndrome. Popcornus lungitis bad-forus springs to mind.
In response to Rose's finding, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association issued a statement Tuesday recommending that its members reduce "to the extent possible" the amount of diacetyl in butter flavourings they make. It noted that diacetyl is approved for use in flavours by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
One national popcorn manufacturer, Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis, said last week it would replace the butter flavouring ingredient because of consumer concern. Congress has also been debating new safety measures for workers in food processing plants exposed to diacetyl.
The FDA said in an e-mail it is evaluating Rose's letter and "carefully considering the safety and regulatory issues it raises."
Fred Blosser, spokesman for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, said it is the first case the institute has seen of lung disease apparently linked to popcorn fumes outside the workplace.
A spokesman for National Jewish Medical, confirmed the letter was sent by Rose, a specialist in occupational and environmental lung diseases and director of the hospital's Occupational and Environmental Medicine Clinic.
"There have been no other cases that we know of other than the industrial occupational ones," Allstetter said.
Rose acknowledged in the letter that it is difficult to confirm through one case that popping buttered microwave popcorn at home can cause lung disease. However, she said she wanted to alert regulators of the potential public health implications.
Perhaps if we don't inhale...
Rose said the ailing patient, a man whom she wouldn't identify, consumed "several bags of extra butter flavoured microwave popcorn" every day for several years. He described progressively worsening respiratory symptoms of coughing and shortness of breath. Tests found his ability to exhale was deteriorating, Rose said, although his condition seemed to stabilize after he quit using microwave popcorn.
Read an up-close-and-personal story about the man who has allegedly experienced first-hand the effects of popcorn lung here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/health/main3239379.shtml
Writers & Friends
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)