Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

Compared with other recreational drugs — including alcohol — marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use.

Those are the top-line findings of recent research published in the journal Scientific Reports, a subsidiary of Nature. Researchers sought to quantify the risk of death associated with the use of a variety of commonly used substances. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance, followed by heroin and cocaine.


And all the way at the bottom of the list? Weed — roughly 114 times less deadly than booze, according to the authors, who ran calculations that compared lethal doses of a given substance with the amount that a typical person uses. Marijuana is also the only drug studied that posed a low mortality risk to its users.

These findings reinforce drug-safety rankings developed 10 years agounder a slightly different methodology. So in that respect, the study is more of a reaffirmation of previous findings than anything else. But given the current national and international debates over the legal status of marijuana and the risks associated with its use, the study arrives at a good time.

It's important to note here that "safer than alcohol" doesn't mean "safe, full stop." Indeed, one of the more troubling lines of thought I see in some quarters of the marijuana legalization movement is that because marijuana is "natural," or because it can be used as (non-FDA approved) "medicine," it is therefore "safe."

But of course, rattlesnake venom is natural, too, and nobody would call that safe. And prescription painkillers are medicinal and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.

There are any number of risks associated with marijuana use. Most of these risks involve mental health issues, and most increase the earlier you start using and the more frequently you use.

That said, there are risks associated with literally anything you put in your body. Eat too much sugar and you're on the fast track to rotting teeth and diabetes. Take in too much salt and you're looking at increased odds of a stroke. Psychoactive substances, such as marijuana and alcohol, aren't at all unique for having risks associated with them.

What is unique is how these substances are treated under the law, and particularly the way in which alcohol and nicotine essentially get a free pass under the Controlled Substances Act, the cornerstone of the nation's drug policy. This study's authors note that legislative classifications of psychoactive drugs often "lack a scientific basis," and their findings are confirmation of this fact.

Given the relative risks associated with marijuana and alcohol, the authors recommend "risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs." And they say that when it comes to marijuana, the low amounts of risk associated with the drug "suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach."

In other words, individuals and organizations up in arms over marijuana legalization could have a greater effect on the health and well-being of this country by shifting their attention to alcohol and cigarettes. It takes extraordinary chutzpah to rail against the dangers of marijuana use by day and then go home to unwind with a glass of far more lethal stuff in the evening.

Source

Growing up unvaccinated

Dmitry Naumov/ThinkStock

I am the ’70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated. I was brought up on an incredibly healthy diet: no sugar till I was 1, breastfed for over a year, organic homegrown vegetables, raw milk, no MSG, no additives, no aspartame. My mother used homeopathy, aromatherapy, osteopathy; we took daily supplements of vitamin C, echinacea, cod liver oil.

I had an outdoor lifestyle; I grew up next to a farm in England’s Lake District, walked everywhere, did sports and danced twice a week, drank plenty of water. I wasn’t even allowed pop; even my fresh juice was watered down to protect my teeth, and I would’ve killed for white, shop-bought bread in my lunchbox once in a while and biscuits instead of fruit, like all the other kids.

We ate (organic local) meat maybe once or twice a week, and my mother and father cooked everything from scratch—I have yet to taste a Findus crispy pancake, and oven chips (“fries,” to Americans) were reserved for those nights when Mum and Dad had friends over and we got a “treat.”

As healthy as my lifestyle seemed, I contracted measles, mumps, rubella, a type of viral meningitis, scarlatina, whooping cough, yearly tonsillitis, and chickenpox. In my 20s I got precancerous HPV and spent six months of my life wondering how I was going to tell my two children under the age of 7 that Mummy might have cancer before it was safely removed.

So the anti-vaccine advocates’ fears of having the “natural immunity sterilized out of us” just doesn’t cut it for me. How could I, with my idyllic childhood and my amazing health food, get so freaking ill all the time?

My mother would have put most of my current “crunchy” friends to shame. She didn’t drink, she didn’t smoke, she didn’t do drugs, and we certainly weren’t allowed to watch whatever we wanted on telly or wear plastic shoes or any of that stuff. She livedalternative health. And you know what? I’m glad she gave us such a great diet. I’m glad that she cared about us in that way.

But it just didn’t stop me getting childhood illnesses.

I was so crunchy that I literally crumbled.

My two vaccinated children, on the other hand, have rarely been ill, have had antibiotics maybe twice in their lives, if that. Not like their mum. I got many illnesses requiring treatment with antibiotics. I developed penicillin-resistant quinsy at age 21—you know, that old-fashioned disease that supposedly killed Queen Elizabeth I and that was almost wiped out through use of antibiotics.

My kids have had no childhood illnesses other than chickenpox, which they both contracted while still breastfeeding. They, too, grew up on a healthy diet, homegrown organics, etc. I was not quite as strict as my mother, but they are both healthier than I have ever been.

I find myself wondering about the claim that complications from childhood illnesses are extremely rare but that “vaccine injuries” are rampant. If this is the case, I struggle to understand why I know far more people who have experienced complications from preventable childhood illnesses than I have ever met with complications from vaccines. I have friends who became deaf from measles. I have a partially sighted friend who contracted rubella in the womb. My ex got pneumonia from chickenpox. A friend’s brother died from meningitis.

Anecdotal evidence is nothing to base decisions on. But when facts and evidence-based science aren’t good enough to sway someone’s opinion about vaccinations, then this is where I come from. After all, anecdotes are the anti-vaccine supporters’ way: “This is my personal experience.” Well, my personal experience prompts me to vaccinate my children and myself. I got the flu vaccine recently, and I got the whooping cough booster to protect my son in the womb. My natural immunity—from having whooping cough at age 5—would not have protected him once he was born.

I understand, to a point, where the anti-vaccine parents are coming from. Back in the ’90s, when I was a concerned, 19-year-old mother, frightened by the world I was bringing my child into, I was studying homeopathy, herbalism, and aromatherapy; I believed in angels, witchcraft, clairvoyants, crop circles, aliens at Nazca, giant ginger mariners spreading their knowledge to the Aztecs, the Incas, and the Egyptians, and that I was somehow personally blessed by the Holy Spirit with healing abilities. I was having my aura read at a hefty price and filtering the fluoride out of my water. I was choosing to have past life regressions instead of taking antidepressants. I was taking my daily advice from tarot cards. I grew all my own veg and made my own herbal remedies.

I was so freaking crunchy that I literally crumbled. It was only when I took control of those paranoid thoughts and fears about the world around me and became an objective critical thinker that I got well. It was when I stopped taking sugar pills for everything and started seeing medical professionals that I began to thrive physically and mentally.

If you think your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines.

But not everyone around you is that strong, not everyone has a choice, not everyone can fight those illnesses, and not everyone can be vaccinated. If you have a healthy child, then your healthy child can cope with vaccines and can care about those unhealthy children who can’t.

I would ask the anti-vaxxers to treat their children with compassion and a sense of responsibility for those around them. I would ask them not to teach their children to be self-serving and scared of the world in which they live and the people around them. (And teach them to love people with autism spectrum disorder or any other disability supposedly associated with vaccines—not to label them as damaged.)

The U.S. needs more churchyards like they have in the U.K. The kind that go back a couple centuries. Every one of them has a corner full of little stone baby lambs... grave markers... for children killed by childhood illnesses.

Most importantly, I want the anti-vaxxers to see that knowingly exposing your child to illness is cruel. Even without complications, these diseases aren’t exactly pleasant. I don’t know about you, but I don’t enjoy watching children suffer even with a cold or a hurt knee. If you’ve never had these illnesses, you don’t know how awful they are. I do. Pain, discomfort, the inability to breathe or to eat or to swallow, fever and nightmares, itching all over your body so much that you can’t stand lying on bedsheets, losing so much weight you can’t walk properly, diarrhea that leaves you lying prostrate on the bathroom floor, the unpaid time off work for parents, the quarantine, missing school, missing parties, the worry, the sleepless nights, the sweat, the tears, the blood, the midnight visits to the emergency room, the time sitting in a doctor’s waiting room on your own because no one will sit near you because they’re rightfully scared of those spots all over your face.

Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn’t do it without us pro-vaxxers. Once the vaccination rates begin dropping, the drop in herd immunity will leave your children unprotected. The more people you convert to your anti-vax stance, the quicker that luck will run out.

Source

Cat owners: Mind your moods

Babies "social reference" by checking out their parents' facial expressions and voice tones when they encounter a new or strange object or event in their environment — then base their own reactions on mom's or dad's. They look to their parents as they wonder: Is it OK to stay calm, or is it time to worry?

iStockPhoto

Animal behavior research shows that dogs do this, too. It's not surprising, given how closely dogs are attuned to us — as they have been for many millennia. New research posted this month on the website of the journal Animal Cognition shows that cats may participate in social referencing also.

It's another blow for the stereotype of the aloof feline, the cat who lives among us with a whiff of disdain for his or her cohabitation with mere humans. Even one of my favorite authors, Haruki Murakami, has just gone on record saying that cats are "egoistic" creatures.

It's a stereotype that I've challenged before — and this new study only goes to show that those of us who live with cats may be quite closely scrutinized for our responses and moods.

In the paper, "Social referencing and cat-human communication," author Isabella Merola and colleagues report what happened when 24 cats and their owners participated in an experiment at the University of Milan in Italy designed to match tests done by other researchers on dogs. The stimulus deployed was an electric fan with plastic green ribbons attached, set up in a room with a screen at one end that hid a video camera; the screen also acted as a barrier for the cats (though they could see behind it) and marked the only way out of the room.

"The aim," the authors state, "was to evaluate whether cats use the emotional information provided by their owners about a novel/unfamiliar object to guide their own behavior towards it."

Once the cats were allowed to explore the room, cat owners were asked first to regard the fan with neutral affect, then to respond either positively or negatively to it. In either case, the owner alternated gaze between the fan and the cat. In the positive group, owners used happy expressions and voice tones, and approached the fan; in the negative group, the expressions and voice tone were fearful, and the owners moved away from the fan.

More than three-quarters of the cats, 79 percent, looked between the owner and the fan when the owner was in the neutral phase at the start of the experiment. This percentage closely matched the results for dogs in a similar setup, and shows that cats, too, rely on us for emotional cues when faced with unfamiliarity.

Cats in the "negative owner" group were significantly more likely to alternate their gaze between the screen and the fan than cats in the positive group. "The screen was the only possible way out," the authors write, "and thus looking at the screen and then at the fan potentially suggests the cats were worried about the fan and wanted to get away from it." In addition, cats in the negative-owner group began moving earlier than their counterparts in the positive group, "potentially showing that they started looking for an escape route sooner."

Surrounded, as I am, by cats — our current census is five in the house, two in the yard and 11 in our large outdoor enclosure for former ferals — I was naturally intrigued by these findings. (None of my cats, by the way, would have qualified as participants for this study. To be selected, a cat had to be friendly with strangers; accustomed to traveling in a carrier at least twice a month; and savvy about changes in the environment, perhaps because he or she is used to holiday travel with human families. Either shy or homebound or both, my cats would have received a rejection slip.)

As I walk around my house and yard, are my cats intently watching and listening to me? A beribboned and startling fan won't magically appear in our midst, but how about when there's an unexpected thunder clap, loud knock at the door or barking dog bounding through the yard? Should I endeavor in these circumstances to be a role model for cat calm?

Earlier this week, I asked this question, by email, of the study's lead author, Isabella Merola, now at Lincoln University in England:

Should those of us who live with cats be more aware of the effect of our emotions (our voice tones, our facial expressions, our body postures) on our cats, do you think?

And she replied:

Of course we should (as a cat owner I include myself in this), in particular in a situation of uncertainty and in new situations (for example in new environments or in presence of new objects). Further studies are needed to better investigate this communication and the valence of voice vs. facial expression or body posture, but owners can surely help their cats with positive emotions in new situations.

There you have it, cat caretakers. (Here's a stereotype that is true: No way do we "own" our cats!) Social referencing, feline-style, may be important to our cats, at least cats of certain personalities. The mythically huge gap between cats and dogs just narrowed a little bit more.

Source

How often you should shower...according to science

Do you know what really divides people? Showering. There are people who LOVE to shower, and there are people who HATE to shower, and there aren’t that many people who feel lukewarm (puns!) about the whole showering thing. We are not here today to judge anyone’s showering preferences, we are here to share some mega-scientific showering news.

Two dermatologists told BuzzFeed Life that Americans shower way more than they need to. This news isn’t terribly surprising, considering the fact that most of us know at least one person who showers two to three times a day. Well, the reality is we could really be showering once every two to three days.

The history behind our modern bathing rituals (and cultural over-showering) is pretty interesting, so let’s have a look-see, shall we?

Dr. Joshua Zeichner, assistant professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, said that our showering frequency and perception of body odor is “really more of a cultural phenomenon.” Dr. Ranella Hirsch, a dermatologist in Boston, agreed telling BuzzFeed. “We overbathe in this country, and that’s really important to realize,” she said. “A lot of the reason we do it is because of societal norms.”

But where did those norms originate from, you may be wondering? Well, for starters — advertising. Really really, ridiculously good (looking) advertising.

Katherine Ashenburg, author of The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History, told BuzzFeed Life, “After the Civil War, both advertising and toilet soap (AKA body soap) became more prevalent in the United States. Americans turned out to be much more gullible and susceptible to these things than Europeans.” Advertisements started working, and people started bathing more often, leaving them with less body odor.

Which, to me, doesn’t sound terrible.

And now on to the science of showering: Zeichner and Hirsche reported to BuzzFeed that frequent showering (specifically in hot water) can dry out skin and cause irritation, wash away good bacteria that exists on the skin, and introduce small cracks that put people at a higher risk of infection. That part definitely sounds terrible.

According to BuzFeed Life, the doctors also said that parents shouldn’t bathe babies and toddlers every day. “Early exposure to dirt and bacteria may make the skin less sensitive as you age and prevent allergies and conditions like eczema”.

So, what we’ve learned is that next time you want to sleep in or are too cold to get undressed to get in the shower, just don’t! And don’t you dare feel bad about it.

Source

Vision hacks you have to see to believe

The benefits of a month without booze

Andre Babiak

As New Year's resolutions go, cutting back on food and drink are right at the top of the list. And while those vowing to change their eating habits may cut the carbohydrates or say a sweet goodbye to sugar, for regular drinkers, the tradition may involve what's known as a "dry January": giving up booze for a month.

But could such a short-term breakup with alcohol really impart any measurable health benefits?

The staff at the magazine New Scientist decided to find out, using themselves as guinea pigs. The findings of their small but intriguing experiment suggest the answer is a resounding yes.

The magazine is based in the U.K., where the dry January concept has been gaining traction, thanks to an annual campaign by the charity Alcohol Concern. In late 2013, 14 healthy New Scientist employees filled out lifestyle questionnaires, underwent ultrasounds and gave blood samples. Then, 10 of them gave up alcohol for five weeks, while four of them continued drinking normally.

"Normal" drinking for the New Scientist group ranged from 10 units of alcohol per week — the equivalent of about eight 12-ounce bottles of regular-strength beer — to 80 units, or 64 beers, per week. Those numbers may seem high, but in Britain, where drinking is a national pastime, the group's supervising doctor told them none were problem drinkers. (Incidentally, Britain's National Health Service recommends no more than 14 to 21 alcohol units per week.)

The results of these changes were significant enough to make you put down your pint and take notice.

Dr. Rajiv Jalan, a liver specialist at the Institute for Liver and Digestive Health at University College London, analyzed the findings. They revealed that among those in the study who gave up drinking, liver fat, a precursor to liver damage, fell by at least 15 percent. For some, it fell almost 20 percent.

Abstainers also saw their blood glucose levels — a key factor in determining diabetes risk — fall by an average of 16 percent. It was the first study to show such an immediate drop from going dry, Dr. James Ferguson, a liver specialist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham in England, told us last year.

Overall, the evidence is convincing but not all that surprising, said Ferguson, who was not involved in the experiment.


"If you take time off from alcohol, it's going to be beneficial for your liver from the reduction of fat," he told The Salt. "People always forget the amount of calories in alcohol, so if you take a month off, and you usually consume 20 units, you're going to lose weight and fat. It's a massive reduction in calories. "

The main causes of excessive fat in the liver are obesity and excessive alcohol consumption. Alcohol changes the way the liver processes fat, resulting in more fat cells that can cause inflammation, leading to liver disease.

But Ferguson warned that a dry January could trigger the same sort of negative boomerang effect as do restrictive diets: First you abstain, then you binge to make up for it. He questioned whether a dry January leads to a wetter-than-normal February.

Beyond that, there's the question of whether and how much these improvements last in the long run. Ferguson offered a sobering view.

"I don't think taking one month a year off alcohol makes any difference," he says. "It's more important to cut back generally."

Source

How to take the best nap, according to science

You're probably getting sleepy just reading this. It's already been a long day at work, and maybe, just maybe, you feel compelled to shut your eyes just for a few minutes.

Hey, don't feel guilty. That nap compulsion is in your nature. Indeed, 85 percent of mammals are meant to sleep in short spurts throughout the day, according to the National Sleep Foundation.

What we don't know about the role of sleep in our lives could surely fill volumes of books. But we do know that sleep is very, very good for us — and that includes napping.

First, a quick refresher. There are two kinds of sleep: rapid eye movement (REM) and non-REM (NREM). NREM occurs in four stages, throughout which your physiological activities slow down. Stage 1 begins with feeling drowsy while your brain and muscle activities begin to dial down. Stage 2 builds on the previous stage, but your eye movements stop, heart rate slows, and your temperature decreases. Stages 3 and 4 — also known as slow wave sleep — is when your blood pressure lowers, your breathing slows, and your body temperature drops even further. Your body no longer moves.

During REM sleep, however, your brain is very active. Breathing may become more rapid, irregular, and shallow. Your eyes may move even though they are shut. Your heart rate increases and your blood pressure can rise. In addition, your limbs may be immobile. Though it sounds like something out of a nightmare, it's actually during this period of sleep that you dream and sort out your experiences throughout the day.

If you don't get enough nighttime shuteye, you're probably going to be hankering for a nap. "[People usually nap] because they have not gotten enough sleep at night, or the sleep they have gotten is poor and disrupted," Joyce Walsleben, an associate professor at the NYU School of Medicine, told The Week.

But how do you take the perfect nap?
First, aim for the afternoon. The National Sleep Foundation also suggests making sure your sleep environment is calm and peaceful. The temperature should be comfortable, and noise and light should be kept to a minimal level. And make sure you are actually sleeping: While just resting in bed may make you feel better, it's not going to refresh you as much as a nap will.

The perfect nap needn't be long, either.

"Twenty minutes keeps you from upsetting your schedules, getting into deeper sleep, and waking up groggy and refreshing you enough to continue safely," Walsleben said.

She added that if you don't have enough time to sleep in one chunk, napping throughout the day can have the same effect of getting a full night's rest. You just need to get enough sleep to get rid of your tired feeling.

And guess what? Napping is really good for you. One study in the Journal of Sleep Researchsuggested that napping is tied to better memory recall. Subjects were asked to remember a list of 30 words after either 60 minutes of napping or doing an activity. People who took a nap did significantly better. The boosted results were even observed when the subjects were just allowed to nap for six minutes.

Harvard sleep researcher Robert Stickgold says napping also helps with problem solving abilities. His studies have shown that people who take naps have an easier time separating facts from the extemporaneous clutter in their minds. If the person reaches REM phase in their nap, they'll have an easier time making connections between ideas.

And a study from NASA on 747 pilots showed that subjects who were allowed to nap — on average 25.8 minutes a day — were 16 percent more vigilant when it came to reaction time and 34 percent more likely not to have lapses in judgment compared to those who didn't nap.

Another study on physicians and nurses who were working 12-hour shifts showed that those who were given 40 minutes to nap had fewer performance lapses, more vigor, less fatigue, and less sleepiness than their counterparts who powered through.

Got it? Now go take a nap.

Source

Tequila might help you lose weight

We Heart It

I’m about to make your day: based on a recent study, tequila can aid in weight loss.

Yes, you read that correctly. TEQUILA WILL HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT.

Not only will it assist in the weight loss process, but it will also help to lower blood sugar. This is amazing news for people suffering from type-2 Diabetes.

A recent study conducted at the American Chemical Society has blessed us with this amazing information on this glorious humpday.

Basically agavina, a sugar that comes from the agave plant used to produce tequila, triggered insulin production and lowered blood sugar in an experiment conducted with mice. In addition to these astonishing results, the sweetener also helped the overweight mice drops some hefty LBS.

Agavin, unlike sucrose, fructose and glucose, is not absorbed by the body, so it will not increase blood glucose.

Can I get a “hallelujah”? Yeah, I’m talking to you Jeff Buckley.

We’re not telling you to rip tequila shots with every meal, however — these agavins are actually a type of fiber that creates a full feeling, ergo suppressing appetite.

The scientists who conducted this study believe that agavins are a viable light sweetener substitute since, ”they are sugars, highly soluble, have a low glycemic index, and a neutral taste, but most important, they are not metabolized by humans.”

Currently there are approximately 26 million Americans suffering from diabetes, with another 2 million getting diagnosed annually.

The fact that there is the potential for developing a different type of sweetener that lowers sugar levels instead of raising them is revolutionary.

Stayed tuned as the study and tests continue to progress.

Source

Science confirms the five-second rule is actually a real thing

Research at the U.K.’s Aston University has confirmed the old adage that food dropped on the floor for five seconds is clean—or at least it’s less likely to be dirty than if it sits there.

To test out the rule, students dropped toast, pasta, biscuits, and candy onto a floor that had been exposed to common bacteria and measured how much of the bacteria transferred when it was left on the surface for durations ranging from three to 30 seconds.

The results found that food left on the floor for less time does indeed get exposed to less bacteria. But more importantly, the texture of the floor that food is dropped on to is the most significant factor in how much bacteria is transferred.

Carpet is actually the cleanest surface to drop food onto, contrary to its connotations as a fibrous home for germs. It carries “the lowest risk of bacterial transfer onto dropped food,” Professor Anthony Hilton explains. Laminate and tiled floors are the worst offenders for dropped food infection.

That said, we’re not taking any chances.

Source

Even science can't figure out why we sleep

Scientists predict colder, harsher winters ahead

A warmer Arctic could permanently affect the pattern of the high-altitude polar jet stream, resulting in longer and colder winters over North America and northern Europe, US scientists say.

The jet stream, a ribbon of high altitude, high-speed wind in northern latitudes that blows from west to east, is formed when the cold Arctic air clashes with warmer air from further south.

The greater the difference in temperature, the faster the jet stream moves.

According to Jennifer Francis, a climate expert at Rutgers University, the Arctic air has warmed in recent years as a result of melting polar ice caps, meaning there is now less of a difference in temperatures when it hits air from lower latitudes.

"The jet stream is a very fast moving river of air over our head," she said Saturday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"But over the past two decades the jet stream has weakened. This is something we can measure," she said.

As a result, instead of circling the earth in the far north, the jet stream has begun to meander, like a river heading off course.

This has brought chilly Arctic weather further south than normal, and warmer temperatures up north. Perhaps most disturbingly, it remains in place for longer periods of time.

The United States is currently enduring an especially bitter winter, with the midwestern and southern US states experiencing unusually low temperatures.

In contrast, far northern regions like Alaska are going through an unusually warm winter this year.

This suggests "that weather patterns are changing," Francis said. "We can expect more of the same and we can expect it to happen more frequently."

Temperatures in the Arctic have been rising "two to three times faster than the rest of the planet," said James Overland, a weather expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Francis says it is premature to blame humans for these changes.

"Our data to look at this effect is very short and so it is hard to get very clear signal," she said.

"But as we have more data I do think we will start to see the influence of climate change," she said.

The meandering jet steam phenomenon, sometimes called "Santa's Revenge", remains a controversial idea.

"There is evidence for and against it," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snowland Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

But he said rising Arctic temperatures are directly linked to melting ice caps.

"The sea ice cover acts as a lid which separates the ocean from a colder atmosphere," Serreze told the conference.

But if the lid is removed, then warmth contained in the water rises into the atmosphere.

This warming trend and the shifting jet stream will have a dire impact on agriculture, especially in the farm-rich middle-latitudes in the United States.

"We are going to see changes in patterns of precipitation, of temperatures that might be linked to what is going on in the far north," said Serreze.

Jerry Hatfield, head of the National Laboratory for Agriculture and Environment in the midwestern state of Iowa, warned that this is not a phenomenon that affects only the United States.

"Look around the world -- we produce the bulk of our crops around this mid-latitude area," he said.

The main impact on agriculture and livestock will not come from small temperature changes, but rather from temperature extremes and the weather patterns that hold them in place for longer periods of time.

Droughts and freezes are already having "a major impact on animal productivity, it influences meat production, milk and eggs production," he said.

Source

Most unfortunate design flaws in the human body

Sometimes evolution is stupid, and the human body is proof. Here are the most problematic physical and behavioral "scars of evolution" we humans have to deal with.

The human body is, in many respects, a resounding tribute to the adaptive powers of natural selection. We've evolved gloriously large, complex brains capable of abstract thought and foresight. We're bipedal, dextrous, and enjoy relatively long lives (lives that include a fairly generous fertility window), to list a few of the qualities that have allowed us to propagate and thrive across the planet.

But that doesn't mean we're perfect. Far from it, in fact. Not only did evolution create a species that's "good enough," it also produced some distinctly negative traits. Back in 1951, the biologist Wilton Krogman referred to these as the "scars of human evolution."

In some respects, these "scars" can be seen as vestigial traits, but that's not quite accurate. Rather, they're examples of the various trade-offs and side-effects of evolution. They're also not physical or psychological limitations per se (like our poor sense of smell or inability to grasp large numbers — those traits weren't adaptive in our recent evolutionary past). Also, I left out aging and age-related disorders; those aren't so much "flaws" of evolution as they're an indelible and insurmountable limitation of biological evolution. Lastly, I decided to include some characteristics that evolution designed rather poorly.

Without further ado here are humanity's most unfortunate design flaws; please add any that you think I overlooked to the comments.

Physical Characteristics

The Dual Function of the PharynxThis is one of the most problematic "features" of the human body — and the cause of innumerable deaths throughout human history. Like many other primates, we're forced to use the same anatomical structure for both ingestion and respiration. But when obstructed, airflow is blocked, which can lead to choking, and in some cases, death.

Our Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin CVitamin C plays a crucial role as an anti-oxidant and in collagen synthesis. But certain animals, such as primates, guinea pigs, and some bats and birds, have completely lost the ability to synthesize this compound. So, when Vitamin C-rich food sources are scarce, such as fruits, we experience a weakened immune response —not to mention scurvy in extreme cases.

Also, because we can't make all the vitamins we need, we carry a host of deadly bacteria in our bowels, which produce them for us. But when this process is disrupted, like a hole in the intestine, it can flare into peritonitis.

The Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Tract
The urinary tract in males passes through — rather than being routed around — the prostate gland, which can swell and block urinary function.

The Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum
Not only is this aesthetically displeasing, it's also unhygienic. Combined with our short urethras — especially in women — this leads to frequent urinary tract and bladder infections (UTIs) (remember, front to back, ladies). As the character Darald quipped in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, "Let me just say that if God was a city planner he would not put a playground next to a sewage system."

Our Multi-Function Genitals
Relatedly, our genitals are forced to perform multiple functions. While on the one hand it can be seen as conservation in design, it creates health problems. Again, it's unhygienic. For women, sexual intercourse pushes bacteria further into the urethra, leading to UTIs. Additionally, both men and women can contract UTIs from two sexually transmitted bacteria, chlamydia and mycoplasma. And of course, for women, this is also the part of the body where, in addition to sex and urination, newborn babies come out.

The Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal
Speaking of which, human females have an unreasonably narrow birth canal, resulting in significantly increased risks to both mother and child during birth (not to mention prolonged labors and extreme levels of discomfort). In fact, death in childbirth used to be the leading cause of death for women during their reproductive years (our big, bulbous heads also has something to do with it). This is a consequence of our quick evolutionary leap from quadrupeds to bipeds, resulting in our narrow pelvis — the passage through which newborn babies pass.

Our Over-Loaded Lower Backs
This is also a consequence of our transition from four-legged to two-legged creatures. According to paleoanthropologist Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio,
When humans stood upright, they took a spine that had evolved to be stiff for climbing and moving in trees and rotated it 90 degrees, so it was vertical—a task Latimer compared to stacking 26 cups and saucers on top of each other (vertebrae and discs) and then, balancing a head on top. But so as not to obstruct the birth canal and to get the torso balanced above our feet, the spine has to curve inwards (lordosis), creating the hollow of our backs. That's why our spines are shaped like an "S." All that curving, with the weight of the head and stuff we carry stacked on top, creates pressure that causes back problems—especially if you play football, do gymnastics, or swim the butterfly stroke. In the United States alone, 700,000 people suffer vertebral fractures per year and back problems are the sixth leading human malady in the world. "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through to about 40 or 50," said Latimer. "After that, you're on your own."

Our Achy Knees
Again, an aftereffect of bipedalism. We have to distribute all our weight on just two limbs, which often leads to aches and pains. You can also add achy, or arthritic hips, to this list.

The Overly Complicated Human Foot
Anthropologist Jeremy DeSilva of Boston University put it this way:

Starting with the foot, DeSilva held up a cast with 26 bones and said: "You wouldn't design it out of 26 moving parts." Our feet have so many bones because our ape-like ancestors needed flexible feet to grasp branches. But as they moved out of the trees and began walking upright on the ground in the past 5 million years or so, the foot had to become more stable, and bit by bit, the big toe, which was no longer opposable, aligned itself with the other toes and our ancestors developed an arch to work as a shock absorber. "The foot was modified to remain rigid," said DeSilva. "A lot of BandAids were stuck on these bones." But the bottom line was that our foot still has a lot of room to twist inwards and outwards, and our arches collapse. This results in: ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendonitis, shin splints, and broken ankles. These are not modern problems, due to stiletto heels; Fossils show broken ankles that have healed as far back as 3 million years ago.

A better design for upright walking and running, DeSilva said, would be a foot and ankle like an ostrich. An ostrich's ankle and lower leg bones are fused into a single structure, which puts a kick into their step—and their foot has only two toes that aid in running. "Why can't I have a foot like that?" asked DeSilva. One reason is that ostriches trace their upright locomotion back 230 million years to the age of dinosaurs, while our ancestors walked upright just 5 million years ago.

Our Inefficient Sinuses
Humans have several sinuses — air-filled cavities that help with drainage of mucus and fluid. But our maxillary sinuses, located on our cheekbone, drain upwards. This often leads to the build-up of fluids and mucus, which can cause an infection.

The "Blind Spot" in Our Eyes
Our so-called "blind spot" is the result of a quirk that happens during embryological development. To deal with this, we've had to evolve elaborate and costly perception-correcting mechanisms. Our very own Esther Inglis-Arkell describes it like this:

Light gets into the eye by passing through the pupil. It hits the retina at the back of the eye. The retina is covered with light-sensing proteins. They relay what they sense to the optic nerve which carries the information back into the brain. The problem is, the optic nerve ends in the field of the retina itself. This is a little like having to plug the power cable for a TV directly into the screen. It creates a dark spot. Most of the time, the other eye will see what's happening in its partner's blind, but if the blind spots overlap while looking at a certain object, or if the person is only looking through one eye, the brain just fills in the spot looking at the surrounding picture.

A Single Set of Adult Teeth
This is where evolution got unreasonably cheap on us, providing humans with just one set of teeth for our entire adult lives. Once we hit 35, our teeth start to go — one of many signs that evolution primed us for reproduction, followed by a brief period of child-rearing, and pretty much nothing else (unless you subscribe to the grandmother hypothesis).

Behavioral Characteristics

Our fondness for sweet, salty, and fatty foods
Our bodies need sugar, salt, and fat — just not in extreme quantities. But in a state of nature, these foods are often scarce or difficult to preserve. That's why we find these food unreasonably delicious and irresistible. It's our body's way of saying, "Yo, eat this stuff while you can, it's good for you." But most of us now live in a world of tremendous abundance, and we consume these foods in ridiculous quantities, leading to all sorts of modern health problems.

Tribalism
Humans have a kind of ingrained fear or distrust of the "out-group." It's a previously adaptive trait that binds small groups of individuals together and prevents them from wandering off or joining other groups. But it also leads to ethnocentrism and divisions between groups. Studies show that oxytocin, while strengthening feelings of trust between individuals, increases fear of "the other." This characteristic was obviously important back when we lived in family clans or tribal arrangements, but today it leads to all sorts of social problems, including racism, prejudice, and our inability to empathize with people we don't immediately know.

Any Number of Cognitive Biases
Many of our cognitive biases — annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions — are a consequence of our limited intelligence and predisposed tendencies. Examples include the confirmation bias (we love to agree with people who agree with us), the gambler's fallacy (the tremendous weight we tend to put on previous events that aren't causal factors), our tendency to neglect or misjudge probability, and the status-quo bias (we often make choices that guarantee that things remain the same). Some of these are adaptive traits, but others are simply cognitive deficiencies.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
This is an example of how we've potentially pathologized a perfectly "normal" human psychological characteristic. Because ADHD appears to have a genetic component (it affects about 5% of school-aged children), questions have been raised about its prior role as a trait required for survival, namely its adaptive function in hunter, fighter, and wader theories. But today, we see it as something maladaptive — something that needs to be treated. Put another way, and like our penchant for sweet, salty, and fatty foods, it's a trait that's not so much nonoptimal as it's ill suited for present-day society.

Source

Bionic hand allows amputees to feel what they're holding

Real life technology predicted by Star Trek

The effects of sleep deprivation

Forget hits to the head—just one night of sleep deprivation creates changes in the brain similar to a mild concussion, according to new research from Sweden.

The small study was done on 15 healthy guys. One night they got 8 hours of sleep in the lab, and another night, total sleep deprivation. The men played games, read, or watched movies to stay awake.

After the all-nighter, blood samples revealed that certain levels of neurochemical markers associated with brain cell damage rose by 20 percent compared to when the guys snagged a full night’s rest.

“Dysfunctional sleep has been linked with a range of health problems, and it looks like that’s because we’re injuring our brain by not getting enough sleep,” says Men’s Health sleep medicine advisor W. Chris Winter, M.D., medical director of the Martha Jefferson Sleep Medicine Center in Charlottesville, Virginia. Why? Your lymphatic system is 10 times more active when asleep in order to get rid of cell debris and toxins, he says. When you don’t sleep, your brain can’t clean itself up and you deal with brain fogginess or feel sick the next day.

The good news: Your brain was built to bounce back from the occasional night up—it’s long-term repeated nights of little sleep that may cause future damage. So ditch the perception that you might be really good at going without sleep—“it’s not a badge of courage,” says Dr. Winter. Make clocking the 7 to 8 hours you need every night a priority. If not for your brain, do it for your body: After a sleepless night, you’re more likely to crave junk food and skip workouts, according to a 2013 study.

Source

Comedians have psychotic personality traits, study finds

Having an unusual personality structure could be the secret to making other people laugh, scientists said on Thursday after research showed that comedians have high levels of psychotic personality traits.

In a study in the British Journal of Psychiatry, researchers analyzed comedians from Australia, Britain and the United States and found they scored significantly higher on four types of psychotic characteristics compared to a control group of people who had non-creative jobs.

The traits included a tendency towards impulsive or anti-social behavior, and a tendency to avoid intimacy.

"The creative elements needed to produce humor are strikingly similar to those characterizing the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder," said Gordon Claridge of the University of Oxford's department of experimental psychology, who led the study.

Although the traits in question are known as "psychotic", Claridge said, they can also represent healthy equivalents of features such as moodiness, social introversion and the tendency to lateral thinking.

"Although schizophrenic psychosis itself can be detrimental to humor, in its lesser form it can increase people's ability to associate odd or unusual things or to think 'outside the box'," he said.

"Equally, manic thinking - which is common in people with bipolar disorder - may help people combine ideas to form new, original and humorous connections."

The researchers recruited 523 comedians - 404 men and 119 women - and asked them to complete an online questionnaire designed to measure psychotic traits in healthy people.

The traits scored were "unusual experiences", such as belief in telepathy and paranormal events, "cognitive disorganization" such as difficulty in focusing thoughts, "introvertive anhedonia" - reduced ability to feel social and physical pleasure, and "impulsive non-conformity", or tendency towards impulsive, antisocial behavior.

The same questionnaire was also completed by 364 actors - who are also used to performing in front of an audience - as a control group, and the comedians' and actors' results were compared to each other as well as a general group of 831 people who had non-creative jobs.

The researchers found that comedians scored significantly higher on all four types of psychotic personality traits compared to the general group. Most striking were their high scores for impulsive non-conformity and introverted personality traits, the researchers said.

The actors scored higher than the general group on three types - but did not display high levels of introverted personality traits.

Source

10 facts you thought were false but are actually true

Hand shake vs. fist bump: Which is safer?

Dr. Richard Besser set out to find out which is a safer interaction during the flu season, the fist bump or the hand shake.

Of course the hand shake and the fist bump aren’t equal greetings. He wouldn’t recommend you first bump at a job interview or when you meet your girlfriend’s parents for the first time.

But there are times when you have a choice, and Dr. Besser wants you to know which is safest.

The palm of the hand comes in contact with more surfaces like keyboards and doorknobs but you never know who’s wiping their nose with the back of their hand, so Dr. Besser went to a food safety lab to find out once and for all, which is safer.

For the experiment, a lab technician coated Dr. Besser’s hands in a type of e. coli that is not dangerous. Then the lab created a line of volunteers who’s hands were cleaned with alcohol wipes. Dr. Besser shook the hand of the first person, who shook the hand of the person next to them, all the way down the line. Then they did the same thing with the fist.

The Results? If you’re worried about catching something, it’s safer to do a fist bump. But if you’re worried about getting the job or your girlfriend’s dad’s approval, shake hands and make sure you wash them before you eat popcorn.

Source

How to stay warm this winter

Thinkstock

Wondering how to keep warm in frigid, soul-shattering temperatures? You're not alone. According to the National Weather Service, the "polar vortex" — scare quotes necessary — slamming into the U.S. might make for the coldest day in almost 20 years. It's so cold, in fact, that in Wisconsin, one meteorologist decided to throw boiling water into the air.

Since the warm carcass of a tauntaun probably isn't the most pragmatic look for office-going folks, trekking even briefly through single-digit and sub-zero temperatures can get to be pretty darn uncomfortable.

Don't worry though, friends. With plenty of unmerciful winter still ahead of us, here are a few practical, science-based tips for keeping warm:

1. Stay dry
In an interview with the Calgary Herald, globe-trotting adventurer Sharon Wood revealed her golden rule for keeping warm (and therefore alive) in less-than-kind wintry climates: "Don't get cold in the first place."

That's obvious, you say. But is it? The cold can sneak up on you, especially if you're tromping through icy puddles or sweating in that big parka. So stay dry, especially by dressing in layers. Backpacker recommends layering with a "synthetic, wicking base layer to pull the moisture off your skin." Then on top of that, you'll need a layer that insulates. Uniqlo's "Heat tech" base layers — tights, leggings, form-fitting undershirts, etc. — are lightweight, easy to throw on underneath your normal work clothes, and most importantly, keep you toasty with minimal discomfort. Try not to let cotton (which can absorb sweat) touch your skin, if you can help it.

2. Protect your core
The average human core temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit; hypothermia occurs when body temp dips below 95 degrees. Obviously, keeping your torso insulated is the best thing you can do to keep the rest of you warm and humming along, especially if you pack on a few extra winter pounds.

For example, when people lose fingers, toes, and other extremities to frostbite, at work is one of the body's natural self-preservation systems: It simply stops sending blood out in order to protect the vital organs. So, as counterintuitive as it sounds, keeping your torso warm is the number one way to keep your hands and feet feeling warm, too. (More on that in a bit.)

3. The "winter hat" might be a myth
Good news for people with great hair: The assumption that 70 percent of a person's body heat escapes through their head is patently false. University of Michigan professor Andrew Maynard debunks the popular "dancing naked with a winter hat" myth, and explains that body-heat loss relates to "how much skin is exposed, not which part of the body you're exposing." That said, wearing a warm hat can and definitely will help you keep warm. (The more skin you cover up the better.) But a hat shouldn't be depended on in lieu of down coat or jacket with good insulation.

4. Mittens keep your hands warmer than gloves
Protecting your core should be your number one priority. But you need to cover your skin to keep it from getting frostbitten. Remember: The less skin you have exposed the better. If you don't mind having less mobility in the cold, mittens may be preferable to gloves, since clustering the fingers together helps to produce more insulating body heat.

5. Drink water
Summit-trekking adventurers agree: Water is actually "amazing" for retaining body heat. Simply put, the more you have in your system, the easier it is to keep warm. Stay hydrated — especially before you dash out into the frozen slush every morning.

Source

Terrifying true facts about doctors