Teen Trauma - The horrors of no wifi

Always with phone in hand.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization released their recommendations for screen time for children under the age of 5. For the first year of life they recommend zero time, rarely any in the second year and no more than an hour a day for ages 2 to 4. Frankly, this seems entirely reasonable, although I might be in the minority here.

My two children didn't watch any television until they were at least 5 and computer time came much later. My 16-year-old son still doesn't have a cell phone (and doesn't want one). It may sound strange coming from two parents who worked in tech, but we weren't TV watching adults, so limiting screen time in the early years came extremely easily.

Fast forward to today and it's a much different story and I know here I'm not in the minority. While my 15 and 16-year-olds don't sit down and watch network television, they watch a lot of shows using Netflix and other entertainment on YouTube. My 15-year-old daughter got her own cell phone in 8th grade after much haranguing and, for her peer group, that's late. Oftentimes, she'll be on her laptop and cell phone at the same time. But, I think that's par for the course for most adults as well.

We've become a modern nation of connectivity with expectations that we have high speed, instantaneous access through our devices to the Internet. This drives most people all day long, every day. Teens and adults. You see them in elevators, in line at the store, waiting for the bus, all staring into their phones. Myself included - I have no pretense to suggest I'm any different.

The main difference is my ability to unplug and put away my devices. A common theme among my teenagers and other teens I know is that, if there isn't access to wifi or cell service, they aren't participating. Sadly, this has been a huge constraint for my family any time we take a trip somewhere. If there isn't high speed wireless Internet available, they aren't going. Which sounds really ridiculous when you put it in writing.

Of course, sometimes you don't have much of a choice - mountainous areas of Washington state just don't have decent coverage to support streaming video. It's not like there's no Internet or cell service, it's just that it's not good enough. Because, predominately, what teens are doing online isn't downloading text to read, articles, news, etc. It's video. And video demands bandwidth. And without that bandwidth, boredom ensues. And then the complaining that's there's nothing to do begins.

One skill that kids seemed to have lost with the advent of constant connectivity is the ability to context switch off the electronic teat, with its incumbent squirts of adrenaline. But, it does happen, with enough time away from their devices. It's just getting through that chunk of time until they realize that they have to come up with something else to do that can be very trying and is, understandably, why parents oftentimes give in.

What about your kids? Are they able to unplug without protest? Do you have issues with your teens refusing to go on vacation because the wifi isn't good enough?


Recommended Reading:
Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Highjacking our Kids
The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains
Digital Detox: The Ultimate Guide to Beating Technology Addiction

Warning! There are affiliate links in this post!

What is science up to?

It's all a giant scam! Scientists are merely out to get us.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

EnviroPig - an environmental blessing or disaster?

The EnviroPig, a kind of Yorkshire pig, is a genetically engineered "frankenswine" that has been created to be greener than your average piggy and his poop.

Since feedlot pigs have issues digesting the phosphorus they get from their feed, they end up excreting it in their poop and urine, resulting in that factory pig farm stench. This strange brew manure is then used as a fertilizer on the farms. Which means that, when it rains, all this phosphorus runs off into waterways and, in the case, of the Mississippi, out into the Gulf, creating a giant dead zone from the resulting algal blooms. This is an enormous problem for streams, rivers and lakes downstream from factory pig farms. In some cases, it's an environmental catastrophe.

Enter genetic engineering. Scientists have replaced one gene to help the pig break down the phosphorus. Creators of the EnviroPig achieved this by splicing a gene from the E. coli bacteria and a bit of mouse DNA into a normal pig embryo. This new and improved pig's poop contains 30 - 60% less phosphorous.

An environmental blessing? Well, this transgenic pig isn't quite ready to enter the food chain and end up on your plate just yet, but it could be soon enough. It is supposed to taste the same as a regular Yorkshire pig, even with its minor modifications. I'm not sure exactly how they're testing its safety for human consumption, but I can't say I'll be lining up to try it. Although with the lack of GMO labeling in this country, thousands of people could end up eating it without their knowledge.

While Canada has approved limited production of the EnviroPig, you won't be seeing it in the U.S. anytime soon. However, the FDA is being pretty coy about applications of the pigs being made, so I wouldn't be
surprised if that changed. Testing so far claims that it's equivalent in nutritional value (fats, proteins and the like) to unmodified pigs. But, is that testing enough?

We've seen similar modifications turn out badly, namely with allergic reactions to GMO corn. Indications from other GMO products point to previously unknown health impacts, particularly in feedlot animals. Like sterility and organ failure.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mind genetic selection to produce improved kinds of animals, vegetables and minerals, but when you start mixing and matching bacteria and multiple mammal DNA well, I get a little nervous about the outcome. But, mostly, I think we are just approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

Rather than modify the pig, why don't we modify the management of pig poop? And, while we are at it, maybe monitor factory pig farming a little bit better? And finally, there's the obvious aspect of maybe eating less meat altogether so we'd have less pig poop to dispose of.

Would you willingly eat an EnviroPig? More importantly, what do you feel about GMO labelling?

Shooting crap in the air to cool the planet

Well, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later. Field trials begin next month in the UK for experiments to engineer the climate. Using a balloon, researchers will hoist a 1 kilometer hose and attempt to pump water up and spray it into the atmosphere.

This first trial is essentially to prove that it can be done. Ultimately, the plan is to pump large quantities of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to create a "stratospheric sunshade". Sounds so cool and shady, doesn't it?

Well, the problem is that we don't exactly know long-term effects of this act of geoengineering. Aerosols could deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter visibility similar to a volcanic eruption. Other options are spraying sulfuric acid from aircraft.

Predictions of deploying such measures assume that, as the planet heats up, people will demand that the planet be cooled off. Unfortunately, according to Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most simulations of geoengineering are "naive" and cannot model all the possible side effects. He claims that "people are not doing the right kinds of experiments to assess these effects."

I can't wait for a miscalculated cloud of sulfuric acid to rain down on me. Who needs skin anyway? How about you? Do you think we'll get to a point where these kinds of measures are necessary?

For more information, please see the article in the New Scientist, Climate-cooling trials under way. Image courtesy of the New Scientist.

Billions and billions of people

According to my local NPR station, as of this month, we'll hit 7 billion people on planet Earth. Go team!

In the last century, we've made some pretty astounding increases in population and, while I believe this growth will slow due to limited resources, I do believe that when we hit 9 billion in the next 30 years we well nigh will have worn out our welcome.

So, on this occasion, what do you think? Are humans the greatest thing ever to evolve or are we parasitic and need some sort of control on population?

Evolution, intelligent design and creationism

In spite of oil spills, nuclear catastrophes and whatever else humans throw at it, I still feel that the Earth and animal life on it (not any specific animal life, mind you) would survive whatever we end up doing to it. Since one of my degrees is in human evolution, I am always curious about people's opinions on evolution.

Generally, I usually am surprised at the number of folks who still think that the tenets of creation or intelligent design are true, so I thought I'd devote today's post to getting an idea of what you all thought. It still is, 80 plus years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, a controversial subject and a taboo topic of conversation.

Ultimately, I'm curious whether or not people who are interested in environmental issues tend to agree with the principles of evolution, ID or the belief of creationism? Or does it really matter?

So, what do you think? Does your understanding of how life is formed and evolved affect your environmentalism? Also, do you think that America's wishy-washy approach to teaching evolutionary science in schools has made us lose our edge in the biological sciences?

Should women be punished for abortion?

The issue of abortion brings up many topics relative to environmentalism, human rights, women's rights, women's health, religion and a whole host of personal freedoms. Aside from the obvious issues pertaining to world population and the access to abortions, I wanted to bring up the problem with making abortions illegal.

Abortion is clearly an issue that divides this country with a good proportion of Americans believing that abortion should be illegal for a variety of personal, religious or ethical reasons. But, when asked, many anti-abortionists don't have a clear answer for how one should be punished for this crime.

In other words, let's say that abortion is made illegal, what should the penalty be for getting an abortion? Because history has shown that making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions from happening. It just makes them less safe for the woman. And they will continue.

At a Libertyville anti-abortion demonstration, these people were questioned about their opinion as to how women should be punished if they have an illegal abortion and many of them didn't have an answer. Most felt that the woman shouldn't be punished, but the question was rightfully put to them that, if it's illegal, shouldn't they be punished?

What other crime of this supposed magnitude (particularly one where it is analogous to murder), or really any magnitude, goes without punishment? They didn't seem to think about this next, obvious step in making abortions illegal, and many of them had been involved in the anti-abortion movement for several years.

What about you? If you feel that abortions should be illegal, should women serve jail time? If so, how long? Should it be treated as murder? Life sentence or the death penalty?

And, if there is no penalty for obtaining an illegal abortion, then what's the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment?

Agriculture, property, sex and women's inequality

I was listening to another interview the other day, this time with the author of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, and they were discussing something I thought was very interesting regarding human cultures and women's place in them.

In foraging and traditional hunter-gatherer societies, the community is very egalitarian. Since these groups are constantly on the move, there is no true property as everything is shared, and that includes sexual partners. The reason this came up in discussion of the book is that in these groups, women have as much say in decision making and defending themselves as the men. In other words, they can accept or refuse the sexual advances of others as they like without retribution.

It wasn't until the dawn of agriculture that the concept of ownership came into play and where the "agricultural revolution triggered radical social reconfigurations from which we're still reeling." Males became possessive of not just the land they worked, but everything else they came to acquire in order to supply that lifestyle. People no longer worked in groups for the greater good of all. At that time, women were thrown into the pot of what was possessed, right along with land, housing, slaves and other types of property. So, the author argues that women's status has changed considerably due to the advent of agriculture and are viewed not as equals, but as property and something to control.

In societies that are matrilineal - that is, the property is passed down from mother to daughter - men and women are more sexually free in that they have multiple partners. In patrilineal societies, in order for the males to ensure that their property actually goes to their children (and not someone else's) they tightly control the sexual relations of the women. However, in matrilineal societies, this doesn't matter and it's irrelevant how many sexual partners the female has. She will always know which offspring are hers.

One other thing the author pointed out that I thought was interesting, was that most animals only mate when the female is in heat. There are exceptions and those are humans, chimps, bonobos and dolphins. He speculates that those with higher intelligence are more apt to have sex not just for reproduction, but for social reasons as well. Very few other animals in the animal kingdom bother with non-reproductive sexual acts such as oral sex and the like.

This last bit is somewhat off topic, but something to think about over the weekend :)

Here's a fun quote from the author's website:

When it comes to sex, men may be trash-talking sprinters, but it’s the women who win all the marathons. Any marriage counselor will tell you the most common sex-related complaint women make about men is that they are too quick and too direct. Meanwhile, men’s most frequent sex-related gripe about women is that they take too damned long to get warmed up. After an orgasm, a woman may be anticipating a dozen more. A female body in motion tends to stay in motion. But men come and go. For them, the curtain falls quickly and the mind turns to unrelated matters.

This symmetry of dual disappointment illustrates the almost comical incompatibility between men’s and women’s sexual response in the context of monogamous mating. You have to wonder: if men and women evolved together in sexually monogamous couples for millions of years, how did we end up being so incompatible? It’s as if we’ve been sitting down to dinner together, millennium after millennium, but half of us can’t help wolfing everything down in a few frantic, sloppy minutes, while the other half are still setting the table and lighting candles.

When a female chimp or bonobo is in the mood, she’s likely to be the center of plenty of eager male attention. And the more attention she gets, the more she attracts, because as it turns out, our male primate cousins get turned on by the sight and sound of others of their species having sex. Imagine that.

So, after all that, do you think that human females are adapted to having multiple partners at the same time and, by that, I mean at literally the same time?

Furthermore, are humans meant to be monogamous or are we fighting a losing battle?

Evolution, intelligent design and creationism

I was at a huge family gathering last night and don't have a ton of time to come up with a post for today, so I thought I'd ask y'all a question. Especially since I watched the movie, Creation, last night.

In spite of oil spills, nuclear catastrophes and whatever else humans throw at it, I still feel that the Earth and animal life on it (not any specific animal life, mind you) would survive whatever we end up doing to it. Since one of my degrees is in human biological evolution, I am always curious about people's opinions on evolution.

Generally, I usually am surprised at the number of folks who still think that the tenets of creation or intelligent design are true, so I thought I'd devote today's post to getting an idea of what you all thought. It still is, 84 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, a controversial subject and a taboo topic of conversation.

Ultimately, I'm curious whether or not people who are interested in environmental issues tend to agree with the principles of evolution, ID or the belief of creationism? Or does it really matter?

So, what do you think? Does your understanding of how life is formed and evolved affect your environmentalism? Finally, do you think that America's wishy-washy approach to teaching evolutionary science in schools has made us lose our edge in the biological sciences?

As for the graphic, well, it was just too cute to pass up.

Human hibernation: going back to bed

It should come as no surprise to you that slowing down in the winter isn't a bad thing. It's dark, cold and totally conducive for hanging around in bed, cuddled up under a blanket with not much to do. Here in the Pacific NW where it gets dark by 4:00pm, there is a high incidence of seasonal affective disorder (SAD), where the early darkness is coupled with low, dark clouds that make the area even more dreary than, say, somewhere in Montana at the same latitude. Around here, going to bed and waking up with the sun means a good 16 hours sleep a night.

I ran across an article the other day describing the history of some human populations essentially false hibernating during the winter, mostly to conserve not only fuel energy, but human energy. People slept together most of the day, waking only briefly to eat a little hard bread, drink some water and carry out basic body functions.

In 19th century France:

Economists and bureaucrats who ventured out into the countryside after the Revolution were horrified to find that the work force disappeared between fall and spring. The fields were deserted from Flanders to Provence. Villages and even small towns were silent, with barely a column of smoke to reveal a human presence. As soon as the weather turned cold, people all over France shut themselves away and practiced the forgotten art of doing nothing at all for months on end.

In the mountains, the tradition of seasonal sloth was ancient and pervasive. "Seven months of winter, five months of hell," they said in the Alps. When the "hell" of unremitting toil was over, the human beings settled in with their cows and pigs. They lowered their metabolic rate to prevent hunger from exhausting supplies. If someone died during the seven months of winter, the corpse was stored on the roof under a blanket of snow until spring thawed the ground, allowing a grave to be dug and a priest to reach the village.

The same mass dormancy was practiced in other chilly parts. In 1900, The British Medical Journal reported that peasants of the Pskov region in northwestern Russia "adopt the economical expedient" of spending one-half of the year in sleep: "At the first fall of snow the whole family gathers round the stove, lies down, ceases to wrestle with the problems of human existence, and quietly goes to sleep. Once a day every one wakes up to eat a piece of hard bread. ... The members of the family take it in turn to watch and keep the fire alight. After six months of this reposeful existence the family wakes up, shakes itself" and "goes out to see if the grass is growing."

Even in more temperate areas of France, the same behavior was seen:

In Burgundy, after the wine harvest, the workers burned the vine stocks, repaired their tools and left the land to the wolves. A civil servant who investigated the region’s economic activity in 1844 found that he was almost the only living presence in the landscape: "These vigorous men will now spend their days in bed, packing their bodies tightly together in order to stay warm and to eat less food. They weaken themselves deliberately."

After the Revolution, government officials complained that farmers were "abandoning themselves to dumb idleness," instead of undertaking "some peaceful and sedentary industry." Income acted only as a deterrent. The people of Beaucaire on the Rhône made enough money at their summer fair to spend the rest of the year "smoking, playing cards, hunting and sleeping."

Do humans have the capability to hibernate? Sadly, no:

It would appear that while humans have some of the tools for hibernation, we have not evolved them to be used for long periods of time because we have not been required to. Perhaps if we were at the mercy of the elements, we would have evolved to be able to hibernate, to be able to lower our body temperatures and severely reduce the amount of energy we use and where such energy comes from.

It seems, however, unlikely that we will ever have the need to hibernate in the future, considering our wealth of indoor heating systems and warehouses full of winter coats. For now we’ll have to settle for bundling up, hunkering down, and waiting out the winter fully conscious, and, sadly, awake.

So, what better way to spend the winter to save energy, but to get some well deserved (and probably needed) extra sleep? Do you find that you sleep a lot more during the winter? I know I definitely can easily squeeze in a short nap pretty much every afternoon if I have time for it.

Getting cozy with bull semen

This article, Genomics Hits The Farm, over on Forbes, is really sticking in my craw. In it, they describe how mapping the cow genome has made it much more effective in selecting bulls for raising cows that produce higher quantities of milk.

It's similar in theory to the method that we've been using for the last 50 years or so, just a whole lot more accurate. In the year and a half since this new technique was introduced, this genome testing has completely replaced the previous method, which was quite successful in its own right. Over the past three decades, the previous breeding methods had boosted the annual milk production of the Holstein cow (the predominant dairy cow) by 30 gallons, or 8%.

Farmers and genetics companies use testing to select the best bulls for breeding. And, because one selected bull with high-quality semen (producing offspring with higher milk rates) can have lots of offspring, it makes financial sense to breed from a small pool. The end result is that in the U.S. only 500 bulls are bred, using artificial insemination, with 9 million Holstein cows.

On one hand, it's pretty damn amazing that we are able to select for higher production rates, but at what detriment? Much like the chickens that are bred for faster meat production, turkeys that are bred for huge breasts and every other selective breeding that goes on, there are potential problems.

An interesting point that Abbie brought up when I posted this on Facebook was this gem: "According to my uncle, who is a cow endocrinologist, the pregnancy rate is only about 30% from insemination and you're much more likely to get a pregnancy from the natural way. Not to mention that cows have been bred for milk production, not pregnancy rate, so that's part of the problem."

Today, I wanted to bring up the issue of genetic diversity, because when you are working with a narrowing gene pool, problems can arise. I'm sure Greenpa can educate us all on this much better than I (and hopefully will in the comments of this post), but the basic takeaway lesson here is that the smaller gene pool you have, the bigger risk of disease there is, either genetic or acquired.

So, your population of critters (cows in this example) are at higher risk for not surviving or procreating or otherwise serving their purpose if inbreeding a disease comes along or a mutated pathogen infects the whole lot. You see this issue crop up more often in severely depleted populations (like in those species that are endangered), so it's rather tragic to artificially create the same problem in such large populations. The potential for huge die-off may not necessarily be high, but if it does happen, it would be catastrophic.

What do you think? Is it better to selectively breed for highly desired traits at the risk of smaller population diversity? Or is it just better to leave well enough alone and go back to more traditional method of breeding that results in a lower "yield", but leaves more genetic diversity? Or do you even care?

Forced background checks for IVF

Well, it appears that a new state law in Australia now requires a background check for couples wanting to undergo IVF treatment (aka in vitro fertilization - a treatment to help deal with infertility).

The requirements were included in the Reproductive Treatment Bill passed by State Parliament last December. This bill helped paved the way for single women and lesbians to have access to IVF. That, in and of itself, is an outrage showing the amazing discrimination being shown to these women.

But, that's not all! This law apparently covers heterosexual couples as well. So, now these people can be discriminated against for being infertile. The new law will affect approximately 5,000 couples a year who will have to submit to police checks ensuring they are fit to be parents.

Briony and Lew Sanelle, who completed police checks three weeks ago so they could start trying to have their second child through IVF, said they were insulted by the discrimination.

"My friends trying to have babies don't have to have a police check and go and talk to their doctor before they are given the go-ahead to have a baby, so why should I?" Ms Sanelle said.

"People who have a shady past who they are trying to direct this at do not have to go through this to conceive naturally... this is discrimination."

So, this begs the question: if it's comprehensible to even pass such a law, what does that mean for the population at large? Should all individuals have to pass a background check before they are allowed to procreate?

Should couples/individuals have to pass a police background check before receiving IVF services?

Swine flu, breastfeeding and the vaccine

I was really intending on doing a book club post for today, but I keep reading some advice on how to handle dealing with swine flu on some natural living and green sites with some recommendations that I wanted to hopefully clarify in regards to the benefits of breastfeeding and swine flu protection in children.

One of the things that I wanted to touch on was the assertion that breastfeeding will help protect your baby from the swine flu and that it is a valid alternative to the swine flu vaccine. On Ecochildsplay, the author states that "there are ways you can protect even the littlest members of your family, without giving them a vaccine."

She then says that "although the CDC recommends that most seemingly healthy people receive the vaccine, there are other ways to protects [sic] your babies." The article supports this argument by mentioning that the CDC states: "Breastfeed early and often. Limit formula feeds if you can. This will help protect your baby from infection."

The article goes on to say:

Yep. The Centers for Disease Control suggests breastmilk over formula to help protect your little ones against swine flu. No, breastmilk is no cure. But it may help boost baby’s immune system and make any illness a mild one.

I believe the author is inferring way too much here from the CDC's statement. I can't concur with the assumption that breastmilk will help make swine flu a mild illness. I do want to make clear the fact that I wholeheartedly agree that breastfeeding helps the child's immunity, but that is assuming that the mother has immune cells or immunity to the disease you are protecting them from.

Since this is a novel flu, one that no one (under the age of 60) has immunity for, breastfeeding won't help protect them specifically from the swine flu. In other words, unless the mother has been exposed or has come down with the swine flu and is breastfeeding, the breastfeeding child will not have any immunity.

The concept that breastfeeding in general helps boost the child's immune system is definitely accurate, but unfortunately, the CDC states that "infants are thought to be at higher risk for severe illness from novel influenza A (H1N1) infection and very little is known about prevention of novel H1N1 flu infection in infants. If you are breastfeeding or giving your baby infant formula, a cautious approach would be to protect your baby from exposure to the flu virus."

Further the CDC recommends that in order to protect your baby, if you have the flu, you should have someone else feed your infant your expressed milk in order to reduce the possibility of infecting your child. If you do not have help, then you should wear a facemask.

Since this is a new virus, we don’t know yet about specific protection against it. Mothers pass on protective antibodies to their baby during breastfeeding. Antibodies are a type of protein made by the immune system in the body. Antibodies help fight off infection.

If you are sick with flu and are breastfeeding, someone who is not sick can give your baby your expressed milk.

And, if you are wondering if I'm advocating that healthy children get the swine flu vaccine, you bet I am (there are "mercury free" shots available if that makes your hiney twinge). The vaccine should be no more risky than seasonal flu shots. And since children under 5 are considered a high risk group, wishful thinking is, frankly, more dangerous than the potential side effects of a vaccine.

So, definitely, keep up the breastfeeding, just know that it is no magic silver bullet here. If your child gets sick, monitor their symptoms and seek appropriate treatment according to your doctor's recommendations.

Are you planning on getting yourself and/or your children vaccinated when it becomes available?

Assisted suicide and new laws

After winning over the populace last fall, the Death with Dignity Act became law yesterday in Washington state. The law now allows doctors to prescribe lethal medication to patients who qualify. It was modeled on Oregon's decade old law and I was surprised to learn that these are the only two states where this is legal. For some reason, I was under the assumption there were at least a handful, particularly given how much more acceptable the issue has become to the public (latest Gallup poll numbers from 2007).

Local hospitals are choosing sides already, to some extent. One-third of the state's hospitals have created a set of policies for employing the law while others are refusing to participate. Apparently, the law included an opt-out provision for hospitals, mostly for those hospitals with a religious affiliation, although several Seattle area hospitals are using the provision even though they have no such affiliation.

Not to sound too patrician, but I wasn't too surprised that many of the rural hospitals opted out, but I still can't believe that major medical centers such as Swedish Hospital and Virginia Mason are opting-out as well. At least now I know where to direct the ambulance in case I'm in an accident.

Anyway, before my Mom retired, she was a hospice nurse. Her job was to comfort the families and (medically) comfort/treat terminally ill patients. I frankly don't know how she did it, I don't think I'd have the strength to do what she did, but many of the patient's families loved her as they got to know her at the long-term care facility where she worked (which has since been closed by the hospital for financial reasons).

The oncologists, doctors, nurses and health care workers were huge proponents of providing a comfortable end of life for these patients, many of whom suffered immensely. It doesn't take much to make a patient "comfortable" enough that their desires for death are heeded. What I'm saying here is that medically assisted suicide goes on all the time, whether you want to know about it or not. I'm just glad that it's legal now in WA and that the patient has the right to choose and plan how they go.

Living with a potentially terminally ill spouse also brings this topic a little too close to the forefront for me. When he was first diagnosed, assisted suicide was illegal and I couldn't imagine having to force him to suffer any more than he wanted to for the sake of some antiquated ideals of life and death. I think the thought crosses the mind of anyone suffering greatly at the hands of a terrible disease that, if life were to continue in the same way, they would choose death over it.

For those with a moral aversion to medically assisted death, there is no question or quandary, but for those who do not hold the same beliefs, they end up feeling more at a loss, panicked and hopeless about their condition and their end of life and all it's accompanying worries. I know when it comes time for my Mom (or pretty much any of my loved ones) to pass on, they'll want to take advantage of this law to prevent an extended suffering, not just for themselves, but for their family and friends as well.

As usual, I'm always curious to hear other's opinions on these things. What are your feelings on assisted suicide? Have you experienced a loved one wishing for more help and not getting it because of the law? Is the right to control your own demise a human right, one of which is defined by their own free will? Or should governments and the law be able to take this right away from an individual?

[And, since I know Greenpa will bring this up, there is an environmental impact to keeping people alive either heavily medicated or on life support against their and their family's wishes. So, I don't know how this stacks up to your piles of foreskins analogy, but there you go.]

Pharm animals

Pharmaceutical companies have been experimenting with using genetically altered animals to produce their drugs for them. On one hand, I can't help but marvel at how completely amazing this scientific feat is yet I also can't help but wonder of the potential dangers inherent in the production of animals to produce substances, medications at that, which could (and will invariably) end up in natural populations, no matter how strict separation of the animal populations are.

What am I talking about? Well, let me give you a concrete example. One, which, is rather astounding. As covered in a recent NY Times article, F.D.A. Approves Drug From Gene-Altered Goats:

The drug, meant to prevent fatal blood clots in people with a rare condition, is a human protein extracted from the milk of genetically engineered goats. ...

Made by a company called GTC Biotherapeutics, the human anticlotting protein is produced by a herd of 200 bioengineered goats living under carefully controlled conditions on a farm in central Massachusetts.

Proponents say such “pharm animals” could become a means of producing biotechnology drugs at lower cost or in greater quantities than the existing methods — which include extracting proteins from donated human blood or growing them in large steel vats of genetically engineered cells.

The protein in the goat milk, antithrombin, is sometimes in short supply or unavailable for pharmaceutical use because of a shortage of human plasma donations. GTC Biotherapeutics said one of its goats can produce as much antithrombin in a year as can be derived from 90,000 blood donations. And if more drug is needed, the herd can be expanded.

One goat = 90,000 blood donations? That's rather miraculous as far as I'm concerned. But what are the risks?

Well, cross-breeding of the animals, albeit unlikely since these are highly controlled populations (not to mention worth a tremendous amount to the "manufacturer"), presents a risk. Concerns that the milk or meat might enter the food supply are generally unfounded given the controlled nature. But, all it takes is some mistake or nefarious employee looking to gain a few bucks to crack the system. I honestly don't think it is likely, but it does present a possibility.

As the NY Times reported, "this is the first drug from a herd of genetically engineered animals created specifically to serve as living pharmaceutical factories." So, what issues does this bring up for you in regards to animal rights, environmental or public health risk?

In other words, are you fine with this sort of animal "technology" or does it make you uneasy?

Cut the meat to curb global warming

What is, by far, the biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint? Stop driving your cars? Reduce your heating and cooling? Those are all generally touted as big tickets items to reducing your impact. But what about reducing or eliminating how much meat you eat? What affect does that have on the environment?

This has come up a number of times, not only in the comments of this blog, but also in the news. In a recent article in Scientific American, How Meat Contributes to Global Warming:

Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.

Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat. Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.

Basically, current production levels of meat contributes between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year [1]. That's a veritable shitload of gas. Beef is the biggest offender, followed by pork and chicken. In other words, producing the world's beef and pork intake creates more greenhouse gases than all of the planet's cars, planes and boats combined [2].

Of course, the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) animals are going to have a much bigger impact than those raised in a more environmentally friendly way, so if you have to eat meat, choose pasture raised, pasture rotated, sustainably raised and local animals. All of the above, if possible. Just think: more chicken, less beef. Use less quantities of meat per meal and think of it as being a "seasoning" over the main part of a meal. This will save not only money, but greenhouse gases as well.

But, all this begs the question: do you have to eat meat? No, not in modern society [3]. There are a number of alternatives to eating meat where you can have a very healthy, and tasty, diet.

So, if you ate a vegetarian diet, your reduction in greenhouse gases is along the lines of 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year [4]. Switching to a hybrid vehicle won't even gain you that much of a decrease.

What do you think of the meat issue? Are you willing to reduce or eliminate meat to reduce your carbon output? If you aren't and the statistics are correct, how do you defend your meat-eating?

Evolution, intelligent design and creationism

Both my kids are home sick with fevers and I don't have a ton of time or energy to come up with a post for today, so I thought I'd ask y'all a question.

I mentioned earlier this week how I felt that the Earth would survive whatever humans end up doing to it. Since one of my degrees is in human biological evolution, I am always curious about people's opinions on evolution.

Generally, I usually am surprised at the number of folks who still believe in creation or intelligent design, so I thought I'd devote today's Science Friday post to getting an idea of what you all thought. It still, 83 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, is a controversial subject and a taboo topic of conversation.

Ultimately, I'm curious whether or not people who are interested in environmental issues tend to believe more in evolution, ID or creationism? Or does it really matter?

So, what do you believe in? Does your belief affect your environmentalism? Finally, do you think that America's wishy-washy approach to teaching evolutionary science in schools has made us lose our edge in the biological sciences?

The penalty for abortion

The issue of abortion brings up many topics relative to environmentalism, human rights, women's rights, women's health, religion and a whole host of personal freedoms. Aside from the obvious issues pertaining to world population and the access to abortions, I wanted to bring up the problem with making abortions illegal.

Abortion is clearly an issue that divides this country with a good proportion of Americans believing that abortion should be illegal for a variety of personal, religious or ethical reasons. But, when asked, many anti-abortionists don't have a clear answer for how one should be punished for this crime.

In other words, let's say that abortion is made illegal, what should the penalty be for getting an abortion? Because history has shown that making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions from happening. It just makes them less safe for the woman. And they will continue.

At a Libertyville anti-abortion demonstration, these people were questioned about their opinion as to how women should be punished if they have an illegal abortion and many of them didn't have an answer. Most felt that the woman shouldn't be punished, but the question was rightfully put to them that, if it's illegal, shouldn't they be punished?

What other crime of this supposed magnitude (particularly one where it is analogous to murder), or really any magnitude, goes without punishment? They didn't seem to think about this next, obvious step in making abortions illegal, and many of them had been involved in the anti-abortion movement for several years.

What about you? If you feel that abortions should be illegal, should women serve jail time? If so, how long? Should it be treated as murder? Life sentence or the death penalty?

And, if there is no penalty for obtaining an illegal abortion, then what's the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment?

Autism and environmental factors

When I was pregnant with my first child, I had read some of the literature on vaccinations and autism and how many parents believed there was a link between getting the MMR vaccination and their children "contracting" autism as a result.

So, needless to say, I was a bit circumspect when it was time for my son's MMR shot. The press about it certainly didn't prevent me from having him get it, since the benefits far outweigh any risk, but it did stay in my mind. So, we discussed the risks with his physician and, given the fact there is little if any scientifically proven link between autism and vaccines, we chose to vaccinate both our children.

Now, I know there are still many parents out there that believe that vaccines have played some contributing factor in their child's autism, but the scientific data just isn't there to either prove it or even suggest it. The main problem has been, what I believe to be, the confusion between cause and correlation and a fundamental distrust or misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Autism does not often become apparent until around the time when children receive their first MMR vaccination. So, to a parent, it may seem clear that their children regressed around the same time as they got their MMR vaccination, and that the vaccine must be the cause of their regression. When, in fact, it could be merely a correlation.

Obviously, this is still a heated debate, but not within the scientific community. I think that mainstream media has done a huge disservice to parents by essentially advertising alternative treatments or even "cures" by those profiting off of them. Once again, the media has sensationalized the misfortune of others, creating controversy where there really isn't any.

The acting surgeon general, Dr. Steven K. Galson, has issued a statement saying that "childhood immunizations are one of the greatest achievements of all time" and that "scientific evidence clearly shows that vaccines do not contribute to autism". In fact, for all the media coverage given the anti-vaccine crowd, his office said he had not been questioned by journalists about vaccines and autism. So much for equal coverage.

The other confounding issue with autism is that is can abruptly appear as well as improve. Parents will oftentimes see an improvement in their child that they will attribute to whatever alternative forms of therapy they are doing with their child. Again, this is a confusion between causation and correlation as there is no scientific evidence at this point showing any benefit to these therapies. Any evidence out there is all anecdotal at best.

Having an autistic child can be devastating. When my son was an infant he exhibited classic characteristics of someone on the spectrum. I fully believed he had Aspergers and it wasn't until he was formally diagnosed with a different neurological impairment at age 5 that I thought otherwise. Spectral disabilities are extremely difficult to diagnose and kids on the spectrum improve in some ways while regressing in others. We've personally seen that rather dramatically over the last few years.

We also have had our experience with trying alternatives such as the gluten-free/casein-free diet as well as other supplements and we still get advice from other well-meaning individuals who suggest we try different supplements or dietary restrictions or different courses of alternative treatments that worked for their child. I really don't think that any of these treatments have much merit and, generally, the only people who benefit are those who sell the "antidotes". But, one thing I cannot fathom is why millions of parents are taking the anecdotal advice of celebrities over the advice of their doctors and denying their children vaccinations.

Dr. Offit, author of Autism's False Prophets, makes the argument that "opponents of vaccines have taken the autism story hostage. They don’t speak for all parents of autistic kids, they use fringe scientists and celebrities, they’ve set up cottage industries of false hope, and they’re hurting kids. Parents pay out of their pockets for dangerous treatments, they take out second mortgages to buy hyperbaric oxygen chambers. It’s just unconscionable."

There is a huge biological element to autism. How the environment fits into how it is expressed is definitely a complicated one. My main concern with this incessant focus on vaccines is that it is leading us down a never-ending rabbit hole that is precluding research from focusing on something else in the environment that may be a bigger contributing factor. It's a scientific sleight of hand because money that would go into autism research is being spent on something that has been proven for the last ten years to be a non-issue, whether the focus is on thimerosal or proteins in the vaccines.

At risk are thousands of children who are not getting vaccinated for truly deadly diseases because of a fear that is relatively unfounded. Also at risk are the millions of Americans who depend on the basics of universal vaccination to prevent and keep diseases at bay, without which it makes all of us (even those of us vaccinated) susceptible to these diseases since we lose some immunity over time.

All that said, what's your opinion on the vaccine debate? For those of you still on the fence (or not), I urge you to read the excerpt from the book mentioned above.

Related reading:
Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade (from the NY Times)
Book Excerpt: Autism's False Prophets
Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure
The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child (by Dr. Sears)

Scents of smell

This is a really off-topic sort of conversation, but it is something that has intrigued me ever since I had kids. No, I'm not referring to the heightened sense of smell you have when you are pregnant, although there is certainly something interesting in that from a biological adaptation standpoint. What I'm talking about is the baby and child's ability to identify their mother by smell.

This totally makes sense to me, particularly if you are breastfeeding. Your newborn, with its fuzzy vision, is able to identify you by your smell and I always assumed it was mostly based on compounds from lactation. But, I'm pretty sure it goes beyond that to actual personal body scent.

I know this sounds really strange, but my kids, who are nowhere near newborn age and I'm nowhere near lactating, are always identifying my objects (clothes, pillow, blankets, etc.) with a declaration of "smells like Mom". And it's always said with a real fondness and joy in their voices that makes me believe it doesn't smell like Mom in a bad way.

Last night, as I was cuddled on the couch reading to my son, he buried his nose in my chest and declared the "smells like Mom" thing again and then dove in for a more pronounced sniff, like he was breathing in a rose. It was a little strange, but mostly funny and I just couldn't get past this whole idea of scent recognition. His reaction was one of comfort and happiness as if my pits were some sort of calming elixir.

So, I started thinking about how individuals have their own smell. Yet, I can't really identify anyone from their body odor, except my Mom, even to this day. Now, we must either be stinky people or I am experiencing a throwback to something that had a real and biological purpose somewhere in our mammalian ancestry.

One article that I read last month in the New Scientist describes the secret signals in human sweat, which contains more than 2000 different compounds.

Pheromones are something of a sensitive subject in human biology. Though they are found across the animal world from insects to mammals, research into human pheromones has been dogged by flaky experimental designs and dubious commercial endorsements, with the result that the entire field has a whiff of the disreputable about it. "It's not so much that the jury is out, but that the jury has been dismissed before the trial has begun," says Mike Meredith, a neuroscientist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who studies animal pheromones.

In recent years, though, this has begun to change. Evidence that animal pheromones don't always work in they way we thought, backed up by a growing number of brain-imaging studies in humans, is convincing some researchers that we really do make and respond to pheromones. As a result some think it's time to stop asking if human pheromones exist and start investigating exactly how they affect our behaviour.

The research into how we can smell fear in sweat is really fascinating and some have even commented on its ability to be used as a weapon, joking whether the military was planning to use pheromones to send people "stampeding like spooked cattle".

But while the scientists are still trying to figure out what role pheromones play in human scent communication, do you have any experience with identifying people by scent? If you have kids, do they sniff you out too?