Over the past fifty years, anomalies have occurred within Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. Some of these have caught the attention of scientists and environmentalists only, while others have produced media frenzies. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring identified the risks of bioaccumulation to egg-laying animals, especially raptors (1962); habitat destruction led to the near extinction of the snail darter (1977) and the Northern Spotted Owl (1980s); the fungal threat to the existence of the Cavendish banana (1992) brought attention to the Gros Michel banana crisis of the 1950s, both related to monocultural farming practices; a marked increase in malformed amphibians highlighted the issue of water pollution (1995); the decline of Monarch butterfly populations was linked to the rise of genetically modified crops (1999); and the global warming-induced extinction of polar bears, projected to occur within the next hundred years (2003), are all examples of canary-in-a-coal-mine scenarios. In each of these cases, the threat was rapidly identified, although systemic changes to neutralize them have not yet been enacted. The most recent threat to the environmental systems of the Earth, including those which support humanity, has claimed millions of lives in the last six months, yet its cause has not been identified. It is Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), and its primary victim is the Western honeybee.

Some scientists believe that bees and flowers evolved together (Stein Carter). An example of this coevolution is the snapdragon, a flower that will only open to reveal its nectar and pollen if a bee of the appropriate size and weight lands on its platform (Stein Carter). Of thousands of bee species, the Western honeybee is the one most commonly used for pollination. This bee has sacs on its legs specifically for storing pollen, which make it capable of collecting pollen from more flowers on each flight. They also carry a slight electromagnetic charge which holds pollen to their bodies. Unlike other bee species, Western honeybee hives remain viable over the winter. Ten to fifteen thousand bees may survive to help the hive reach its summer population of up to eighty thousand insects. Originally from Europe, Western honeybees were exported to Egypt thousands of years ago; hives on rafts cruised the river to pollinate the Nile Delta (“Honey-Egypt”). Early Greeks and Romans also kept bees. Western honeybees were brought to North America about four hundred years ago.

In the last sixty years, the honeybee has faced many new challenges. Imported bee pests, such as the varroa and tracheal mites, can devastate a colony. The rise of Asian apiaries, which produce honey less expensively, means fewer European and American beekeepers; Western beekeepers now make more money renting hives for pollination than they make from honey production. However, moving hives from crop to crop puts stress on the bees. Stressed bees are more susceptible to infections, especially the dysentery-producing nosema disease. Worker bees carry pesticides in the pollen to the colony, which can poison the brood and weaken adult bee immune systems. All of these threats are worrisome, but manageable.

Walter Haefeker, a member of the German Beekeepers Association, has been worried about the Western honeybee for many years. In a 2005 article, he quoted Albert Einstein: “If the bee disappeared off the face of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man” (Latsch). This winter, the bees started disappearing. Apiarists in the US and Germany have reported mysteriously empty hives. The Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group (CCDWG) describes a CCD hive as having capped brood (pupa) but a complete absence of adult bees or bee bodies, either in or near the hive (“Fall Dwindle Disease”). Also, hive pests or other bees, which would normally pillage an abandoned hive immediately, do not raid CCD hives for days or weeks. The CCDWG took samples from hives suspected of undergoing collapse and found multiple infections within each bee, including mites, fungus, and nosema disease. This indicates a failed immune system, leading some researchers to think of CCD as “bee AIDS” (Leventhal). Germany reportedly lost about twenty-five percent of its total bee population, and up to eighty percent in some regions (Latsch). The American Beekeeping Federation heard from apiarists across the country, including one who lost eleven thousand of thirteen thousand colonies. Even at winter estimates of ten thousand bees per colony, that’s over a hundred million bees! Some American apiarists, with migratory and non-migratory hives, claimed losses of ninety percent (CCD Working Group “CCD FAQ”).

Colony Collapse Disorder of the Western honeybee is the best canary we could have, for three main reasons. First, its destructive power is working at a much faster rate than previous environmental threats, thus requiring immediate action. Bioaccumulation, global warming, and habitat destruction take time. When the varroa mite arrived in North America twenty years ago, it was viewed as a death sentence for Western honeybees. The mite spreads rapidly, but an infected hive can function for up to four years, giving scientists time to test theories and find workable, if temporary, solutions (Reid). The honeybee’s genome was sequenced last year, in the hope that it “may someday lead to a solution to the bees’ problematic population decline” (Hughes). The quote does not refer to CCD, but to the twenty-year-old threat of varroa mites. If Einstein’s timeline is correct, NGOs and governments do not have time to overcome their ingenuity gap and save the honeybee through traditional scientific methods. The bee won’t wait, so neither can we.

Second, this could be the object lesson which verifies the interconnectedness of Earth’s systems, thus emphasizing the importance of multi-directional environmental protocols. The general public seems unwilling to embrace all environmental issues at the same time. People who campaign for the eagle and the polar bear may not care about bananas or butterflies, but bioaccumulation, global warming, monoculture farming and genetically modified crops may be the deadly combination causing the disappearance of the Western honeybee. These are complex and interrelated systems which require a holistic approach if environmental threats to our existence are to be neutralized.

Third, CCD is directly and inversely correlated to life as we know it. Not only are bees part of the canon of Western civilization (think ‘land of milk and honey,’ ‘the birds and the bees,’ and ‘busy as a bee’), but they are wholly or partially responsible for the pollination of thirty percent of crops and ninety percent of wild plants (McManus). The value of the Western honeybee has increased as other natural pollinators have disappeared (Canadian Honey Council). Many crops are wholly pollinated by bees, including apples, cranberries, pears and pumpkins. In 2006, B.C.’s apple exports alone topped ten million dollars (Statistics Canada). B.C.’s cranberry sales totalled over thirty million dollars (Investment Agriculture). The Canadian Honey Council estimated that, in 2005, bees as pollinators were worth over $1 billion. However, as much as CCD threatens our local crops, it is worse in the United States where pollinated crops are a $15 billion a year industry (Latsch). At these prices, the causes of CCD are worth investigating and long term changes to facilitate the operation of Earth’s natural systems are worth implementing.

Works Cited
American Beekeeping Federation. “Honey Bee Die-Off Alarms Beekeepers, Crop Growers, Researchers.” News. 13 February 2007. link (accessed 28 March
2007).

Canadian Honey Council. “Bee Facts.” Beekeeping. 2005. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

CCD Working Group. “Fall Dwindle Disease (Now renamed Colony Collapse Disorder) Preliminary Report.” Colony Collapse Disorder. Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium. Pennsylvania State University, 2007. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

“CCD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (3/2007).” Colony Collapse Disorder. Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium. Pennsylvania State University, 2007. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

“Honey – Egypt.” Health Benefits of Honey. Healthful Honey. 2005. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

Hughes, Virginia. “The Honeybee’s Genome could be its Savior.” Seedmagazine.com. October 25, 2006. link (accessed 28 March 2007).

Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia. “Cranberry Industry Thinking Strategically.” Growing Tomorrow. 6 no. 2 (September 2006) : 1-2. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

Latsch, Gunther. “Collapsing Colonies: Are GM Crops Killing Bees?” Speigel Online International, trans. Christopher Sultan, March 27, 2007 link (accessed 27 March 2007).

Leventhal, Rick. “Under the Weather Bees.” FoxNews.com. February 12, 2007. link (accessed 28 March 2007).

McManus, Michael. “Human/Insect Interactions: Bees.” CNN Student News. April 3, 2002. link (accessed 28 March 2007).

Reid, Brendan. “Introduced Species Summary Report: Varroa Mite (Varroa Destructor).”Introduced Species Summary Project. Columbia University, 2004. link (accessed 29 March 2007).

Statistics Canada. “Value(Cdn$) by Province.” Canada’s Apples (fresh) Exports to All Countries, HS CODE: 0808.10. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2006. link (accessed 27 March 2007).

Stein Carter, J. “Coevolution and Pollination.” Ecology. UC-Claremont Biology Department, 1999 (modified 29 March 2005). link (accessed 27 March 2007).

The issue of whether the toilet seat should be left up or down after use seemingly generates a lot of passion among the parties concerned, however, scientific inquiries into the matter are almost non-existent. Notable exceptions are Choi (2002) and Harter (2005). Choi (2002) argues that the rule of leaving the toilet seat down after use is inefficient in the sense that there is at least one other rule that outperform this rule. The unit of analysis in Choi (2002) is the household and the efficient rule is defined as one that minimizes the total cost of toilet seat operations per household. Choi (2002) does not model the issue as a situation of conflict, hence ignores the game theoretic aspects of the problem. Harter (2005) models the situation as a cooperative game and proposes a contract that splits the costs of toilet seat operations evenly among the parties. Both papers agree that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down in inefficient in the sense that it does not minimize the total cost of toilet seat operations per household. However, both papers fail to address an important concern: If a female finds the toilet seat in a wrong position then she will most probably yell at the male involved. This yelling inflicts a cost on the male. Based on this omission, women may argue that the analysis in these papers is suspect.

In this paper, we internalize the cost of yelling and model the conflict as a non-cooperative game between two species, males and females.We find that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down is inefficient. However, to our dismay, we also find that the social norm of always leaving the toilet seat down after use is not only a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies but is also trembling-hand perfect. So, we can complain all we like, but this norm is not likely to go away.

All hope is not lost though. An important issue regarding social norms is whether they are created to increase welfare. Are they society’s response to market failures? One such norm is tipping for service quality. Azar (2003) has shown that the norm of tipping increases social welfare. In this paper, we show conclusively that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down after use decreases welfare and by doing that we hope to convince the reader that social norms are not always welfare enhancing. Hence, there is a case for scientifically examining social norms and educating the masses about the fallacy of following social norms blindly.

The Structure of the Game
The basic ingredients of the game are the same as in Harter (2005). Where we differ from Harter (2005) is the explicit modeling of the costs of yelling.

Consequently, as will become clear shortly, our game is a non-cooperative game of conflict, whereas Harter (2005) models it as a cooperative game. There are two people, one is a representative of the male species, call him John and the other is a representative of the female species, call her Marsha. Initially, they live alone and separately. Each has access to a separate restroom with one toilet. They use this toilet for two operations; #1 and #2. Marsha performs both with the seat in the down position whereas John performs #1 with the seat in the up position and #2 with the seat in the down position. That means, he must change the seat position appropriately before performing the corresponding operation [1]. Assume that the inconvenience cost of changing the seat position is C. Further assume that the need for #1 arises with a probability p. Let’s look at the average costs to John and Marsha:

The average cost to John as a bachelor
Doing #1 this time when he did #2 last time + Doing #2 this time when he did #1 last time:

The average cost to Marsha as a bachelorette
Obviously 0 since she performs everything with the seat in the down position.

Now, consider the situation in which John and Marsha decide to cohabit and both use the same toilet. This situation is popularly known as marriage [2]. That changes things for the worse for both parties as far as the toilet operations are concerned. John argues ‘Why does it matter if the seat is up or down? Let’s leave the seat in the position used.” Let’s call that strategy J. Marsha fights back, “It must be down or else.” Or she says, “If you love me then you would leave the seat down.” Let’s call this strategy M. Assume that both John and Marsha use the toilet with the same frequency.

The average cost to husband John from strategy J
Doing #1 and the last user was Marsha + Doing #1, the last user was John and he did #2 + Doing #2, the last user was John and he did #1:

The average cost to wife Marsha from strategy J
The last user was John and he did #1:

The marginal costs under strategy J

The average cost to husband John from strategy M
Doing #1:

The average cost to wife Marsha from strategy M
Obviously 0.

The marginal costs under strategy M

We differ from Harter (2005) in the following:
From this point, Harter (2005) considers the situation as a cooperative game. We differ and consider the situation as a 2-player non-cooperative game with 2 strategies for each player. Suppose Marsha (following M) goes to the toilet and finds the seat in the up position, consequently she yells at John inflicting a cost of D on him. Assume that D >>C . Table 1 shows the payoff matrix.

Table 1

As can be seen from table 1, there are two Nash equilibria in pure strategies: (J,J) and (M,M).

Proposition 1: The equilibrium (J,J) is not trembling-hand perfect whereas the equilibrium (M,M) is trembling-hand perfect.

Proof: Let e be a very small probability that Marsha trembles to M. Since D >>C, it follows that the Nash equilibrium (J,J) does not survive the trembling hand. By a similar argument, the opposite conclusion is reached for the Nash equilibrium (M,M).

Proposition 2: The equilibrium (M,M) is inefficient compared to the equilibrium (J,J)

Proof: The total cost of strategy combination (J,J) is p² x C. The total cost of strategy combination (M,M) is higher: 2 x p² x C.

Discussion and conclusions
For “mankind”, the analysis in this paper has the following appeal: Once again, it has been found that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down is inefficient; hence, “mankind” may feel vindicated.

For “womankind”, the analysis in this paper is appealing for the following reason: It has been shown that the social norm of leaving the seat down is a trembling-hand perfect equilibrium. Hence, this norm is not likely to go away, at least in the near future.

References

Azar, Ofer H. (2005), “Who Do We Tip and Why? An Empirical Investigation,” Applied Economics, 37(16), 1871-1879

Choi, P. (2002), “Up or down? A male economist’s manifesto on the toilet seat etiquette.” Michigan State Working Paper

Harter, R., (2005), “A game theoretic approach to the toilet seat problem.” Science Creative Quarterly

As a real scientist, I have hated the “Ask Dr. Science” humorous newspaper column ever since I was a small child. I mean, this man, this “Dr. Science,” who writes the column is obviously deranged: a compulsive liar who seems to know almost nothing about science. In contrast, I was almost a child genius who graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics at age 17 (note to editor: please be careful not to delete the word “almost”). But, did anyone give me a nationally syndicated column called “Ask Dr. Science”? Need I answer that question?

The “Ask Dr. Science” column irritates me constantly. I admit I am dangerously obsessed with “Dr. Science” and his absurd, nonsensical answers to serious scientific questions. My psychiatrist suggested that I focus my mental energies more productively, so a few weeks ago, in an attempt to get on with my life and do the great things I was meant to do, I invited “Dr. Science” out for lunch, where I was going to teach him the errors of his ways and his abuses of that venerable word “science.” There was also a finite probability that I was going to wind up in jail for the rest of my life. It was to be an important lunch date.

To my surprise, “Dr. Science” accepted immediately. We live in cities only about 100 miles apart, so it didn’t take long to find a mutually agreeable day and place for our lunch date. What I did not expect, however, was to save the life of this man who had caused me so much personal pain.

After the waiter took our orders we exchanged a few normal niceties, but soon the conversation began to veer in a way I had both expected and dreaded. “Dr. Science” began to make several attempts to explain luncheon science to me.

“Do you know that if you hold your hand over your glass, that you can stop your ice from melting? It’s a pressure effect.” He was clearly trying to impress me.

“As with many of your columns,” I sighed, “you’ve taken a scientific fact, the fact that pressure does effect phase transitions, and you’ve made it completely incorrect and nonsensical.”

“Says you,” he countered. Our food arrived. He took this opportunity to explain to me that hot food violates the second law of thermodynamics.

“It does not,” I retorted to the retarded. “Can you even tell me what the second law of thermodynamics is?” I asked.

“Of course, it’s the law of the fit!” he blurted excitedly. “It the law of the land, and the slight of the hand!” He then flung a small piece of meat across the restaurant with his fork. I must admit that this bizarre behavior caught me so totally off guard that I partially discharged a soft-drink from my nose, to which he responded, “Ah, I see you’re losing cerebrospinal fluid. Perhaps you should use a professional grade sealant.”

After composing myself, I pointed out that it was this type of non sequitur discussion, passing itself off as serious science, that had caused me so much pain and obsessive thoughts of violence over the years. To which he replied, “That’s probably just the fluorescent lights talking.”

“What the Hell does that mean?” I shouted, attracting the worried glances of the waiter and a few of the other customers.

“Some people are highly sensitive to certain types of phonons,” he whispered across the table to me, “it nothing to be ashamed of, but it can make you act incommutably.”

“I think you mean ‘photons,’ not ‘phonons,’ and, and the rest of your statement doesn’t even make any sense, so I don’t know why I’m correcting you.”

“Ah yes, you are absolutely correct,” he said through a mouthful of food, “phonons are actually the molecules used in cell phone communication, you see I was testing you.” He then began gagging on something he was eating. Assuming this was yet another antic, I simply shook my head and tried to calm my nerves. It soon became apparent, however, that “Dr. Science” was actually choking on something. He began clutching at his neck and making a horrible noise that sounded like a cross between a retch and a squeak. He suddenly stood up and leaned over the table, knocking over his water glass and putting one hand directly onto his unfinished lunch plate.

I had a serious moral dilemma on my hands. There was a finite probability that I was the only person in the restaurant who knew the proper technique for the Heimlich maneuver. I pondered the possibilities for a few milliseconds, but for better or worse my altruistic side stepped in, and I swiftly and efficiently administered the life saving maneuver. In an odd quirk of fate, the morsel of meat that shot out of “Dr. Science’s” throat followed almost the same trajectory as the morsel he had previously flicked from his fork, and, in fact, landed on the same table as had the previous chunk of meat.

Ever since that fateful day, “Dr. Science” has been my good friend. At least as good a friend as an overcaffinated monkey would be. Since I saved his life in the restaurant, “Dr. Science” has decided to repay me by becoming my personal servant. I don’t know how long this will last, especially since the guy’s attention span is zero when rounded up to the nearest whole number. But for now, it’s great to have someone around the house to wash the dishes and clean the toilets.

What is evolution? Who was Darwin? What do the words Darwinism, natural selection, or survival of the fittest really mean? These words and phrases have been bandied around over the past century, used interchangeably, frequently in the news, and known very much as players of one of the most controversial topics in our society today. Basically, Darwin opened a pretty large can of worms when he wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, and the impact of “The Descent of Man” can still be felt today. In short, evolution is the process whereby species arise. Natural selection is a scientific mechanism for this process, which works by perpetuating traits that increase fitness and eliminating those that do not.

So what are the points of contention here? When “On the Origin of Species” was published, there was a huge outcry from the Church – his theory, many people felt, blurred the line between humans and beasts. Humans were removed from their pedestal, having descended from apes, and no longer were a superior species. Decades later, the controversy is still here: proponents of divine creation or intelligent design steadfastly disagree with the theory of evolution, and are striving to include these alternative theories in the school curriculum, much to the chagrin of the scientific community.

A study published in Science in August 2006 found that, of 33 countries surveyed, the U.S. and Turkey are the most un-accepting of evolution. One third of American adults believe that the theory of evolution is “absolutely false”, whereas the other 31 European countries, and Japan, were generally accepting of the theory. The authors of the study suggest that this disagreement in the U.S. is rooted in the Conservative tradition, since the mid 20th century, of adopting creationism as part of their political platform – quite in contrast to Europe, where no political party exists that opposes evolution in their platform. Indeed, today in America, seven Conservative states have tried to include creationism in the curriculum, with Kansas and Ohio recently making headlines

Among people who accept evolution, there are those who extend it beyond physiology, believing that it can explain human motivation and behaviour – a body of thought loosely referred to as social Darwinism. The opponents of this view argue that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection does not wholly explain why humans behave the way they do. In fewer words, all change is not evolutionary. In this paper, I will discuss the mistaken assumption that evolution has a purpose and that it progresses, providing examples of human behaviour that clearly do not increase fitness, and discuss the role that cultural evolution, in contrast to evolution by natural selection, plays in explaining human motivation and behaviour.

Natural selection is but a scientific mechanism to explain how species evolved – and in order for that to occur, as Darwin postulated, we must have variation, the variation must be heritable, and there must be differential reproductive success. If we have these conditions, then it’s possible for some traits to persist and others, over time, to be eliminated. But there is no goal or endpoint for this process; it is random and occurs as a response to changes in the environment. Organisms are not getting better; we are only responding physiologically to different environmental conditions. In Richard Lewontin’s words, “the reason that there is no general progress is that the environments in which particular species lie are themselves changing, and, relative to the organisms, are usually getting worse – so most of natural selection is concerned with keeping up.”

Jared Diamond echoes this when he observed, based on his 33 years of working with New Guineans, that they were, on average, more intelligent, alert, responsive, and engaged than the average Westerner. The fact that Westerners are technologically advanced says nothing of their intelligence, as people from technologically primitive societies are capable of learning to use these technologies. Europeans have always lived in densely populated cities, thus being able to evolve resistance to deadly diseases. New Guineans, on the other hand, with their low population densities, have had to work a lot harder to survive. Diamond describes New Guinean youth as “smarter” than their North American or European counterparts, which is attributed in part to the constant interaction between adults and children in New Guinean society. The modern-day televisions and game consoles that are so pervasive in developed countries are hardly adequate at providing stimulus at the crucial time window needed for promoting mental development in children. Technological progress is not necessarily related with intelligence or fitness – at least, there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

After a lifetime of developing his theory, Darwin was still puzzled by something: the existence of altruism in human behaviour, or the unselfish concern for the needs or interests of others. If natural selection is indeed a main mechanism for the evolution of species, why are some people nicer than others? Shouldn’t natural selection favour individuals who never behave in a purely altruistic manner? This aspect of the Darwin debate has been well-studied for decades, resulting in many scientific studies and philosophers concluding that there is indeed an evolutionary basis for altruism. Richard Dawkins and his predecessor, William Hamilton, took a gene-centric view of evolution that describes how we can evolve altruism, as we have genes in common with our relatives. Edward O. Wilson even asserts that altruism does not exist – any helpful behaviour has some selfish roots, including the work of Mother Teresa.

But can altruism be explained only in terms of evolutionary change? Paul Ehrlich, a modern day ethicist, says “No”, pointing out that the 100 000 or so genes in our DNA cannot be solely responsible for determining the 100 trillion connections between neurons in our brains. Genes interact with the environment, resulting in varying human behaviour or outcomes. The behavioral effects of Down syndrome, which results from a major genetic defect (the presence of an extra chromosome), can be greatly influenced by providing the affected child with a stimulating environment.

Peter Singer, another modern-day ethicist agrees. He uses examples of parental care and the reverse of that: offspring caring for parents in their old age. In the case of parental care, it is clear how this behaviour is perpetuated throughout evolution – parents care for their offspring, and the result is increased fitness. But sometimes parents go beyond what is necessary to increase fitness – for example, in the many documented cases where parents, who are still able to reproduce, willingly give up their lives for their children. As for children caring for their aged parents, this clearly provides no fitness benefit, yet occurs everyday all over the world.

How does evolution by natural selection differ from cultural evolution, or, in Paul Ehrlich’s words, “changes in the vast body of non-genetic evolution that humanity stores in its brains, books, buildings, computers, films” and so on. It is true that human behaviour and motivation can be partly explained by evolution by natural selection – but that’s only part of the story. The evolution of our cultures is the other part. As Peter Singer describes, this occurs by an evolutionary process, whereby some cultural variations adopted by different societies survive, and others do not. But this change can happen very quickly and within a single generation. If a cultural variation that increases a group’s fitness is passed onto the next generation, that variation will persist. Another major difference is that cultural evolution is directed at progress, whereas genetic evolution is not.

Jared Diamond also makes this distinction in Guns, Germs and Steel. Evolution by natural selection does not explain why there are haves and have-nots in our world. We need only look at countries with the same environment but vast differences in wealth to see this. North and South Korea, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and the former East and West Germany are some examples of countries with huge differences in gross national product per capita despite the fact that they basically share the same environment and natural resources. The differences lie in the institutions in these countries, and, associated with these institutions, whether or not there are differences in the rule of law, levels of corruption, property rights, and so on. Public health, education and environmental integrity are also important variables in determining a country’s wealth. .

So why does this debate matter? It matters because there are serious implications for society when we adopt the view that it is natural to allow individuals to suffer since societies evolve in a progressive fashion. It matters because there are many who believe there can be no foundation for ethics if we accept that humans have evolutionary origins. It matters because the danger of perpetuating racism in our society unfortunately still exists. Human nature, as Rousseau wrote, is not fixed – and neither is it constrained by evolution. We should not think that, because we accept natural selection as a mechanism for evolution, all abhorrent human behaviour can be blamed on our genes, or, that we should leave the poor and weak to their own devices so that society can naturally progress.

In summary, human progress is not the result of genetic evolutionary progress, as natural selection is concerned with perpetuating individual fitness. In addition, although altruism can be explained by natural selection, human beings behave in ways that go beyond increasing their fitness. We are also spiritual, creative, and emotional beings. And finally, we behave as we do because of a complex mix of genes and our environment – or natural selection and cultural evolution. In Jared Diamond’s words, “History followed different courses for different peoples because of the differences among people’s environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.”

Metric: Celsius

Measures: Primarily the vibrational and rotational kinetic energy of atoms (you know, hotness).

Range:

-273.15^oC. This is known as absolute zero, a temperature at which nothing could be colder. Some Irishman named Kelvin came up with a scale that started 0 from this value, but basically had the same increments as the Celsius scale. He then substituted “degrees Celsius” with “Kelvins”.**

-40^oC. Where the Celsius scale intersects with the Fahrenheit temperature metric (i.e. -40^oC = -40^oF). This temperature is as frosty as Canada/U.S. relations.

-20^oC. Witch’s teat territory.

0^oC. On a day where the freezing mark is reached, people may experience a certain sense of ennui, a small hint that there’s a whole lot of nothing out there. Drunken frat-boys waking up on a park bench at this temperature will agree.

11^oC. If you’re from Vancouver and no rain is falling, this temperature means it’s time to take the top off the convertible. You’ll still be wearing your winter jacket (and so will your toy poodle), of course.

25^oC. It’s wheat beer time.

37^oC. The temperature of your head when you pull it out of your ass (I’m talking to you Ann Coulter.)

>40^oC. It’s getting hot in here! (Authors advise removal of apparel.)

233^oC. Good for burning books in a dystopian future that has creepy parallels with the present.

1,000,000 ^oC. Alleged temperature of nephew’s bath. Crazy brat.

History:

This metric was developed by Anders Celsius in 1791. Arbitrarily, the temperature at which water freezes was assigned to 100 while the temperature at which water boiled was assigned 0. After Celsius’s death however, Carolus Linnaeus reversed the scale, assigning 0 to freezing and 100 to boiling. This cleared up much confusion and facilitated adoption of this metric by all nations on Earth.

Well, almost.

Contrary to popular belief, this metric is not actually named for its creator; “Celsius” is in fact an anagram of “cuss” and “lie”, the central tenets of the “Linnean doctrine” which was outlined in the 1793 treatise “I’m fucking tall” (please note: Linnaeus was an angry runt of a man).

Related quote:

“I don’t give a good goddamn about ‘degrees Celsius’ – if the temperature says 35, I’m wearing a parka.” (American tourist in Greece)

Use of “Celsius” in a sentence:

Celsius is spelled C-E-L-S-I-U-S.

Note

** Inspired by Kelvin, the authors would like to propose the “wilsobuysian”. The height of mountains is typically measured in meters above sea level. We propose to measure them from the bottom of the Marianas Trench. 1 “wilsobuysians” (1 wb) is approximately equal to 1 meter (1 m). Mt. Everest is 19759 wb tall (8848 m above sea level).

Fig. 1. ‘‘Congratulations, you are now capable of writing technical, impersonal and boring papers like myself and the other gentlemen – Drawing by Sverre Stein Nielsen.

REFERENCE: How to write consistently boring scientific literature (page 1 pdf). (2007) Oikos 116: 723 – 727.

ABSTRACT:
Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.

Both scientific research and personal experiences are proving, without a doubt, that there is a connection between what we eat and how we think and act – hence the saying “you are what you eat”. This happy-food-to-happy-mood relationship is bridged by “happy” neurotransmitters in our bodies. Just think of “happy” neurotransmitters as the money-orders from your out of town parents that are speedily delivered on highway by FedEx to you. Receiving the money-orders solves your credit card overdue and that makes you really happy! Put it in the context of biology, neurotransmitters are messengers that relay sensations and actions along pathways to and from our brain. Imagine if you step on a sharp object like a pin. The pain sensor in your feet sends impulses (messages) between nerves (pathways) to reach the brain. Only when the message arrived at the brain will you realize the pain and acted correspondingly. The “action” neurotransmitters will relay messages from the brain to the feet muscles, so as to remove the feet from the pain-causing pin. Happy foods may contain precursors to “happy” neurotransmitters or triggers to release “happy” neurotransmitters, thus resulting in happiness!

Now, let me share the secret to my comfort breakfast – the almighty banana! Who would have thought! Banana is so readily available and cost effective that I had never thought of it being such a wonder food – a happy food! The reason why banana ranks as a top happy food is due to the great amount of tryptophan and tyrosine it contains. Both tryptophan and tyrosine are essential amino acids, i.e. we need acquire them from food intake because our body cannot produce it internally. They’re both precursors to “happy” neurotransmitters – serotonin and dopamine!

How are serotonin and dopamine made from tryptophan and tyrosine?

From the above diagram, you can tell that the making of serotonin and dopamine is basically identical! First, an enzyme called hydroxylase attaches an –OH (hydroxyl) group, high lighted in red, to the hexagonal rings of tryptophan and tyrosine. Then, another enzyme called decarboxylase comes in and removes the O=C-OH (carboxyl) group, high lighted in blue. Don’t you appreciate how your complex body operates on a relatively simple blueprint!

Let’s move on! And learn more about the “happy” molecules!

SEROTONIN, a.k.a. 5-hydoxytryptamine, is naturally produced in the pineal gland, which lies at the centre of our brain. It is actually more than just a “happy” neurotransmitter. It is essential to numerous body function including appetite control, sleep, memory and learning, temperature regulation, mood, behavior, cardiovascular function, muscle contraction, endocrine regulation and depression.

DOPAMINE, a.k.a. 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzene-1,2-idol, is produced in several areas of the brain including the substantia nigra. Like serotonin, dopamine also has other functions besides being a key element in providing feeling of pleasure. It is central to movement coordination, cognitive functions (by mediating signal transduction in the frontal lobe thus affecting memory, attention, and problem-solving in particular), latent inhibition and creative drive. But dopamine is actually most known in the reward system! Its release is stimulated by naturally rewarding experiences such as happy foods (bananas!), drugs, and sex.

Do you know? Dopamine is also synthesized in the process of banana riping/fermentation. Back in elementary school, I had a friend who was often high in the morning. I never really understand why until now… He told me once that he eats whole bananas, i.e. including the peel and skin, for breakfast! So, next time if you need a happy booster, just blend a “whole” ripe banana smoothie!

After understanding what serotonin and dopamine do, let us explore how they function as neurotransmitters. Keep in mind the definition of neurotransmitters – messengers within the brain which allow for the communication between nerve cells and effectors.

Image from Wikipedia (link)
As you can see from the above diagram, little packets of neurotransmitters (serotonin or dopamine) in vesicles are released from the end of the presynaptic neuron (yellow) into the synaptic cleft. The synaptic cleft is a nerve-nerve or nerve-muscle junction where a signal is released from one membrane and binds to a receptor in the second membrane. The neurotransmitters bind to receptor proteins on the postsynaptic cell (green). Sufficient interaction between neurotransmitters and receptors can excite the cell and/or passing along the message to the next neuron. Any excess neurotransmitter molecules are taken back up by the presynaptic cell and reprocessed (repackaged for future release).

Another structure of importance in this process is the Raphe Nuclei. The raphe nuclei are a cluster of nerve nuclei found in the brain stem, where serotonin is released into the brain. Serotonergic neurons (neurons that release serotonin) within the raphe nuclei have axons (nerve branches) which extend to many different parts of the brain, and this is the reason why serotonin affects many different behaviors.

Naturally human beings like to be in a state of bliss and happiness, and it can be concluded from research that serotonin and dopamine levels correlates with a person’s feeling of happiness and well being. Low levels of serotonin are believed to cause mood disorders and depression. Therefore, serotonin is the chemical that is targeted by the new wave of antidepressant drugs, such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc. The goal of these antidepressant drugs is to raise the levels of serotonin in the brain, and improve a person’s mood. Let’s take a look at how antidepressant drugs work, in raising the levels of serotonin in the brain. Since there are many different classes of antidepressants; we will focus on a newer class of antidepressant medication named Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).

Recall the process of how serotonin is synthesized in the brain. Messages are passed between two nerve cells through a synapse, a small gap between the cells. The cell that sends the information releases neurotransmitters (of which serotonin is one) into that gap. The neurotransmitters are then recognized by receptors on the surface of the recipient cell, and in turn, pass on the signal. Only about 10% of the neurotransmitters attaches to the recipient cell, the other 90% are taken up again by transporters, back into the sending cell. This process is called reuptake.

SSRIs relieve symptoms of depression by blocking the reuptake of the neurotransmitter serotonin into the presynaptic (sending) cell. This leaves more serotonin available in the brain, which will increase neurotransmission – the sending of nerve impulses – and hence, improves mood. SSRIs are called selective because they affect only serotonin and not other neurotransmitters.

Antidepressant drugs (SSRIs) such as Prozac are known to relieve depression within a couple of weeks, however, just like all other drugs; antidepressants may have side effects, some of which are nausea, sexual dysfunction, headache, and weight gain to name a few.

My personal view is that getting “happy” mood boosters – serotonin and dopamine – in that matter, is better through natural elements than that of chemical drugs altering the normal functions of our bodies. To that end, below listed are some food sources which contain a high level of tryptophan and tyrosine, stimulating the production of neurotransmitters (happy molecules), serotonin and dopamine. I call them Happy Foods!

HAPPY FOODS: Bananas, milk, chicken, turkey, and leafy green vegetables.

So the next time you wake up to a cloudy gloomy morning, do what monkeys do best, and grab yourself nature’s happy pill, the almighty banana!

There are many laws in the physical sciences, most of which have mathematical equations that govern them. Widely know laws such as the laws of electricity and magnetism, have Maxwell’s equations. Fluid-flow is governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, and of course everyone is familiar with Einstein’s energy to mass relation, E=mc². Why then does an equally relevant and useful law, Murphy’s Law, have no such foundational equation? In what follows I present an equation to predict the outcome of Murphy’s Law.

The law, in its simplest form, states:

“If anything can possibly go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time”

After beginning work on this project, previous work was uncovered. The work is minimal, but there has been at least one other notable attempt1 at generating an equation for Murphy’s Law. This equation however does not fit recorded data very well, and is very complex. More careful analysis of the Law and recorded data, as well as personal experience, have led me to the following new equation (the derivation of which I have not included here), called Murphy’s Equation:

Here, P_M is the Murphy’s probability that something will go wrong. K_M is Murphy’s constant (equal to one) and F_M is Murphy’s factor, a very small number that can only be calculated on a 386-computer running Windows 3.1. Here we will approximate it by F_M ≈ 0.01. Similar to previous work, I, C, U and F are parameters on a scale of 1-10 describing the situation of interest. I is the importance of the result or outcome of the event, C is the complexity of the system, U is the urgency and F is the frequency. From these 4 parameters, virtually any event can be described. Plugging those numbers into the equation with the appropriate constants will then give the probability of at least one thing going wrong. To get an idea of how this works, lets look at some specific cases.

First, to start with a simple example, lets calculate the probability of the clutch on a 1989 Toyota Tercel ceasing to function 100km from home at night in the middle of a rainstorm. The importance of the clutch working in this situation is obviously high, but no one is dying, so lets estimate an 8. The system is fairly simple compared to other systems in the car, so C=5. It would be nice if the clutch worked soon, so the urgency U would also be around 8. Finally, the clutch only needs to work for one drive home, so the frequency is low, say F=1. Now, putting these parameters in Murphy’s Equation shows that P_M=1. Comparing to experimental data, this number matches exactly, as the clutch did indeed cease to function at this time. Repeating this calculation with I=7 also gives P_M=1, showing the robustness of this equation.

Moving to a more complicated example, lets examine the case where the clutch has failed in the above example, but calculate the probability that the flashlight needed to inspect the clutch doesn’t work, the front half of the hazard lights on the car don’t work and that the trunk where the few tools are kept has 3” of water in it (remember its raining). In this case, Importance is about the same, an 8 or so (its hard to justify higher than this without a life or death situation). Here, C=4, as the flashlight, hazard lights and trunk are all fairly simple systems. Because it is raining and the driver is now stranded, the urgency can be bumped up to a 9, while F=3 (three events need to occur). Putting these values into the equation gives a P_M of 1, which is indeed what did happen, showing that again this equation matches experimental data very well.

In summary, the equation presented here gives a new mathematical foundation to one of today’s most recognized physical laws, Murphy’s Law. Experimental data matches very nicely with the theory presented in this equation, and the author expects further testing will yield equally positive results, and hopefully the adoption of this equation as a metric for predicting how often things really do go wrong for no good reason.

References:

1) “The formula that proves that ‘Sod’s Law’ [Murphy’s Law] really does strike at the worst possible time” British Gas News, October 7, 2004.

Kahnawake is a Mohawk community of 7000 people, located 12 miles north of Montreal, Quebec, on the bank of the St. Lawrence River. Originally settled in 1680, the community traditionally relied on fishing and hunting for food, as well as gathering corn, beans and squash from the area. However, despite the healthy meat and vegetable based diet of the past, today over 800 people (12%), between the age of 45 & 64, live with diabetes (1). Sixty percent of these people are living with major complications, such as blindness and kidney failure; 48% have heart disease as a result of their diabetes. The average age of onset has decreased from 59 in 1985 to 49 in 1995, and more and more children are suffering from the disease. The dramatic rise in obesity and diabetes in this community is attributed the adoption of a Western diet, high in carbohydrates, and a decreased level of physical activity. Obesity related diabetes is an epidemic amongst the aboriginal populations in Canada, and although it presents as extreme within these communities, it is an accelerated model of what is occurring in the general North American population.

People with diabetes cannot regulate their blood sugar levels, and succumb to the devastating complications of the disease, such as heart disease and kidney failure. According to the World Health Organization, over 180 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes and this number is expected to double by 2030 (2). Current unhealthy lifestyle trends in Western society are attributed to the alarming increasing in obesity-related diabetes, and this spread is extending to countries adopting a Western lifestyle. Apart from the imminent health risks and consequences of obesity and diabetes, there are devastating impacts for all Canadians. With increasing childhood onset, as well as the increase in diagnoses amongst the ageing baby-boomers, Canada is at risk of an economic crisis, losing a large portion of its work force to diabetes and related disease. Canadians are also responsible for bearing the cost of this disease, and diabetic patients alone cost the health care system approximately two to three times more than an average patient, creating overwhelming costs. To prevent a Kahnawake-like disaster, Canadians must make major health and lifestyle changes, as well as understand how to rigorously prevent this health epidemic from repeating and spreading. The purpose of this review is to address how the Western lifestyle has blindly promoted obesity, what links exist between obesity and diabetes, and what long-term economic and health implications exist if current lifestyle trends are not addressed.

The Western Lifestyle:

Canada has been steadily growing and evolving into a multicultural mosaic, and provided a home for all different cultures to prosper. As a society, we have prevailed through economic hardship during the first half of the 20th century, and have celebrated our place amongst the leaders of the free, Western world. However, Canada has also evolved like other developed countries into a populace of massive consumers. This culture of consumption, in turn, accounts for factors such as sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition that has provided a basis for overweight and obese citizens.

Physical activity and proper nutrition form a balance between energy input and output that keeps our bodies healthy and satiated. Physical activity is required for maintaining a healthy lifestyle but it also requires time. Due to our suburban lifestyle, many Canadians commute daily, adding hours to an already long workday. Thus, more and more Canadians are spending their free time sweating in transit than on a treadmill. Vehicle availability to the majority of Canadians also promotes sedentary lifestyle as fewer of us resort to public transport or using manpower, such as walking or cycling to commute to work. Children are also suffering from shortened physical activity due to cuts in physical education programs and the huge popularity of computer games. As a result, more and more children spend time in front of the television, increasing the likelihood of obesity by 10-61% (3). A contributing factor is the loss of green space for parks and recreation, as well as the increasing numbers of children living in complex homes (apartments, condominiums) with little outdoor space. Canadians who participate in sport at a young age have an increased likelihood of maintaining a strong level of physical activity into their adult life (4), and by promoting a healthy lifestyle at an early age, healthy habits are formed. Part of forming healthy habits, however, also includes nutrition and food choice, which is crucial to maintaining a healthy weight.

Energy input is equally as important as energy output. According to Bill Walinsk, Cornell University professor and author of “Mindless Eating”, the average person makes 250 food decisions a day. Whether to eat breakfast, snag another handful of chips or have a midnight snack, we are consciously and sub-consciously balancing energy input versus output. Yet, despite this seemingly trivial task, 47% of Canadians have tipped the scales and constantly eat more than they require (5). Food choices have become increasingly dominated by the “quick-and-easy”. Because of our busy lifestyles, Canadians often reach for pre-made, processed meals or opt for eating out. In addition to being easy, instant meals and fast food restaurants are also cheap alternatives to fresh produce, particularly organic. Fruit based snacks sold at coffee shops or at McDonalds rank amongst the highest priced items, making them even less desirable compared to a muffin or a burger. There is a strong correlation between fast food outlets and lower income suburbs, as well as popular commuting routes, making fast food the cheap and convenient choice for most. As a result of ignoring nutritious choices, our caloric intake has increased 18% since 1991, and our fat intake has increased by 22% (6). Processed foods and refined, baked goods are notorious for only temporarily satiating our hunger, encouraging us to eat more; this is due to their high glycemic index. Glycemic index (GI) is a measure of how fast and how much blood sugar rises after consuming carbohydrates (6). Low GI foods (brown rice, whole grains) cause a slow rise in blood sugar whereas high GI foods (refined flour, white rice, instant oatmeal) stimulate a sudden spike in blood sugar. Constant consumption of high GI foods increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes, whereas low GI foods are shown to help regulate blood glucose in diabetics (6). Living in Canada, we are never short of healthy options, and we must make it a habit to avoid the quick and easy, and think of the long-term.

Obesity:

Sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition and increased food intake has all lead to a serious misbalance in our metabolism. We have tipped the scales so that we are consuming far more than what we need and as a result, too many Canadians are overweight or obese. Obesity is defined as increased body weight due to the excessive accumulation of fat (7). When we consume more than we need, the body acts quickly to store extra calories as fat. When we consume carbohydrates such as bread and rice, they are broken down into single units of glucose through various steps in the digestive pathway (Figure 1). Glucose is then absorbed by intestinal cells and transported to the rest of the body through the blood stream. When a muscle cell, for example, takes up glucose, it is further broken down to acetyl-coenzyme A (Acetyl-CoA) in a cycle called glycolysis and energy is created in a currency form, adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) that powers cell function. The pathways of fat and protein catabolism also converge at Acetyl-CoA, and this molecule can proceed to the citric acid cycle to create more ATP molecules as energy for the cell. However, when the cell does not need more energy, extra Acetyl-CoA is converted to fatty acids and stored in adipocytes (fat cells) as tri-glycerides. Thus, in order to lose excess fat, one has to create an input energy deficit so the body can only burn what is stored.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of catabolism. Proteins, fats and carbohydrates are digested into their respective subunits or monomers and are then processed by the cell to produce energy, converging at Acetyl-CoA. However, when the cell no longer needs energy, it is stored from Acetyl-CoA as fatty acids. Fatty acids then combine to form tri-glycerides and are stored in adipose tissue.

Increasing dietary intake of fat saturates adipocytes and creates a condition of high circulating lipids in the blood leading to a high risk of atherosclerosis. Fat resides primarily underneath the skin and in between organs, and distributes differently amongst individuals. However, some cultures are more susceptible to abdominal fat, such as Aboriginals and African descendants, and as a result have an elevated level of inflammation and are at a greater risk for metabolic syndrome, diabetes and heart disease (8). Excess fat is also associated with an increase in cancer, especially breast and colon (8).

The World Health Organization defines obesity using the body mass index (BMI), a measure of a person’s body weight-to-height ratio (2). A healthy BMI is between 20-25, overweight individuals have a BMI between 25-30, and those with a BMI over 30 are diagnosed as clinically obese. Although BMI does not account for muscular tone, it is a fair estimation factor for one’s risk to developing metabolic syndrome, a precursor to heart disease and diabetes, with symptoms such as high blood pressure and elevated blood glucose and fat levels (8). High BMI levels in children are a strong indicator of probable disease in adulthood and decreasing it can diminish many risk factors. Obesity is associated with an array of health risks, however, for the purposes of this review, diabetes will remain the focus.

Diabetes: Type 1 and Type 2

Because of increased dietary intake and adipose tissue in overweight people, the body struggles to maintain proper blood glucose and lipid balance, resulting in chronically high circulating levels of sugar and free fatty acids. Insulin and glucagon are the two hormones responsible for promoting glucose uptake by the tissues, and glucose release into the blood, respectively. Diabetes mellitus occurs because there is a lack of insulin, characterized by high blood glucose levels, and leaving peripheral tissues starved of energy. Type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes, is classified as the autoimmune rejection of insulin-producing cells called beta-cells, whereas type 2 diabetes is classified as an insensitivity to insulin and impaired insulin secretion. Type 2 diabetes is highly prevalent in overweight and obese individuals because insulin-producing beta-cells cannot produce and secrete enough insulin to lower the excess amount of circulating sugar in the blood. Over time, these beta-cells become exhausted, and insulin processing and secretion becomes permanently impaired. This insulin insensitivity and impaired processing accounts for 90% of all diabetes diagnoses worldwide (2), yet remains to be highly preventable. Type 1 diabetics treat their disease by constantly testing their blood sugars and supplementing with insulin for proper control. Type 2 diabetes can be controlled primarily with exercise and diet control, as well as the use of pharmaceutical agents to increase insulin sensitivity (5). In severe, long-term cases, some patients require injected insulin to decrease blood sugar levels, however the most effective treatment for type 2 diabetes is diet and exercise. Type 2 is a gradual onset and can be left undiagnosed for many years, often left until the late stages. Aboriginal populations are especially susceptible to living with diabetes without a diagnosis due to remote communities and health care services (9). This alludes to the importance of preventative diet choices, and the incorporation of low GI foods to control blood sugar levels. By making lifestyle changes early, type 2 diabetes can be controlled, decreasing the risk of developing major complications.

Economic Burden of Obesity and Diabetes:

With early onset of diabetes in children due to obesity, and an increasing number of diabetes cases in the older, baby-boomer generation, we are facing a health epidemic that could debilitate our economy. Diabetic patients cost our health cares system two to three times more than those without, and this does not account for costs associated with maintaining diabetes, such as medication and supplies (5). Diabetes, and the associated complications, is estimated to cost our health care system $13.2 billion annually, and this number is expected to rise to $19.2 billion by 2020 (5). Other Western countries are not far behind: New Zealand spends 2.5% of all health care expenditures on treating obesity, Australia and France spend 2.0 %, and the United States spends 5.5-6.8% (divided amongst men and women) (3). With massive cuts to our work force, Canada is at risk of a substantial decrease in national productivity due to health, and this forecasts an economic crisis. According to the WHO, China is on course to lose $558 billion in national income due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes. The power economies of the world must prepare for a potential economic crash, and immediate changes must be made to prevent a depleted workforce.

Future Outlook:

Our future is bleak if current trends remain unchanged. The rate of diabetes in Canada is growing faster than our bellies, and statistics like those in Kahnawake will apply to more and more communities across Canada and around the world. Diabetes is a global killer amongst Western societies, and our lifestyles must change in order to prevent a health and economic crisis. However, despite the dreary forecast, even the smallest changes to diet and lifestyle can make a large impact. By incorporating an extra 30 minutes of exercise a day, be it walking to then next bus stop or a brisk walk at lunch, risk factors for diabetes drastically decrease (2,5). Healthy choices can help lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar and improve energy levels, as well as preventing heart disease. Society is slowly grasping what needs to change, but more pressure must be put on the fast-food industry to stop the spread of processed, convenience foods, and our lifestyles must change to incorporate more physical exercise. An exercise program at the work place is an example of what our employers can do proactively to improve our lifestyles. Many companies are starting to compensate their workers for hours of sitting by supplying compensation for gym memberships, or providing an exercise facility. Providing the opportunity for Canadians to exercise and make healthy choices is the start to a lifestyle change, and society must pressure our governments and employers to support these changes. The food industry is taking major steps to inform us about what we are eating by using nutritional information and healthy choice labels. Even junk food manufacturers are taking steps to make their food less harmful by removing trans-fatty acids (6). All of these changes are collectively improving our health, but the as consumers, we must control our energy balance and take responsibility for this health epidemic. Healthy habits start with the individual, and if we all take steps to think about our health, Canada as a whole will benefit, setting an example for the rest of the world.

References:

1. Macaulay AC, G Paradis, L Potvin, EJ Cross, C Saad-Haddad, A McComber, S Desrosiers, R Kirby, LT Montour, DL Lamping, N Leduc, M Rivard. The Kahawake schools diabetes prevention project: intervention, evaluation, and baseline results of a diabetes primar prevention program with a native community in Canada. Preventative Medicine. 1997 26:779-790

2. WHO: Diabetes. link

3. Birmingham CL, JL Muller, A Palepu, JJ Spinelli AH Anis. The cost of obesity in Canada. CMAJ. 1999 160:483-8

4. “Keeping Kids Active”. link

5. Canadian Diabetes Association. link

6. Peng Y. Canadian trends in obesity and food consumption. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Government of Alberta. February 2004

7. Wikipedia: Obesity. link

8. Goran MI, BA Gower. Relation between visceral fat and disease risk in children and adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 70(Supp):149S-56S

9. Young TK, J Reading, B Elias, JD O’Neil. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada’s first nations: status of an epidemic. CMAJ. 2000 163(5):561-5

Read the first installment here

Today, I encountered a surgeon at Starbucks. His scrubs and lab coat weren’t surprising and neither was his flashy that’s-right-I’m-a-funky-surgeon bandana. In this neighbourhood (I work and live by Vancouver General Hospital), I guess we all become somewhat inured to this practice. What did make this particular instance surprising was the fact that yon scrubber was also wearing blue surgical booties over top of his shoes. Small twigs and grit sullied their bottoms. The heels were looking frayed. It had rained yesterday, so they were even a bit soggy.

Was the surgeon simply trying to coordinate his footwear with the rest of his outfit? Was he protecting his Ferragamo loafers from undue wear and tear?

The first thing I realized as I was staring at his feet was that there was no way he had donned new booties as he made his way out of the hospital to grab coffee. Then I realized that this meant Doc Scrubs went from a situation where he needed to have this protective gear on his feet (e.g. surgery) to standing in line for coffee ahead of me. And then I realized that if his protective foot gear hadn’t been changed since leaving that setting, the same thing was probably true about the rest of his pale blue get up.

Hmm…

- – -

Here are some visuals:

- A queue of SWAT team members – replete in Kevlar, helmets, and jackboot finery – are waiting to buy a hot dog from a street-side vender. Perhaps they have come directly from “neutralizing” a threat in a hostage situation. There are celebratory high fives.

- A gaggle of HAZMAT workers are jostling for condiments at Taco Del Mar, the rustling of their jumpsuits drowning out the crappy radio station. This could be a post clean-up celebration feast. Additional high fives are thrown.

- A crew of farmers in stained gumboots crowds around a table enjoying dim sum. Maybe they have just completed delivery on some discount manure they were really hoping to unload. High fives all around.

- – -

I’ll allow that the vast majority of scrubbers and lab coaters are wearing unspoiled gear. Maybe they weren’t even at work that day – perhaps a costume party or Career Day presentation is in the offing. But the bottom line is that some of these people are coming directly from the bedside or bench. This goes beyond nasty and moves into potentially unhealthy. And I don’t know where to draw the line on acceptable incidence when it comes to reckless behaviour. One in ten? One in fifty? I don’t have an answer.

My suggestion: buy a tracksuit to change into when it’s time to grab a snack. If your time is unbelievably precious, be sure to select one with tear-away pants.

Oh, and realize that a paternalistic “don’t worry – it’s clean” is not a comfort.