When it comes down to looking at the way that words are used in marketing, the use of sugar is a prime candidate as an example. Have you heard of these terms? Unsweetened, no sugar added, sugar-free, naturally sweetened all seem to suggest a healthy drink or food but you had best examine the ingredient list carefully. What do these terms (and others) really mean? This is a situation where sometimes the literal meaning is usually the one that is "true" but most of us hear what we think it implies rather than what the word says.
Let's start with the word unsweetened. It is not used consistently even in the market. Sometimes it is used to mean "without sweetness" -- such as unsweetened tea or coffee. However, it is also used for situations where added ingredients include sugar but no separate refined sugar or sweetener is added. For example, tea with cream is a sweetened drink because cream includes various sugars (primarily lactose). Unsweetened cereal means no refined sugar was added to the mix but almost all grains include sugars (maltose, fructose, and sucrose).
I used to buy a slice of "no sugar added" apple pie at a local restaurant. I love to cook and bake (it's really an at-home chemical laboratory) and know that it is possible to make an apple pie without any added sugar (one does have to do something to "draw out" the moisture from the apples, however, or it will be quite dry) because the apples have enough sugar within. But, it turns out that, at this restaurant, they actually make use of Splenda (sucralose-based) which is an "artificial sugar substitute". So, their definition of "no sugar added" really means "no caloric natural sweeteners added". I guess that it doesn't have the same ring to it -- but it is a lot more direct.
"Sugar free" is one of my least favorite marketing phrases. Unlike "unsweetened" which, at least sometimes, means no sweeteners are added -- it almost always means artificially sweetened. I guess that "chemically sweetened" doesn't have the same marketing pizazz as "sugar free". I keep hunting for a real sugar-free drink but water seems to be the only one that can be really trusted.
Finally, there is the term "naturally sweetened". Generally, this does have a meaning -- no refined sugars are added and no artificial sweeteners are included. This does not often mean without considerable sweetness as it usually means that extracted fruit juices are used in combination with the "primary" flavors. For solid foods, it means the same but the added sweetness comes from the other ingredients (like the tea with cream) in the mix.
So, how do we determine what is actually in the drink or food. Like most foods, one has to learn to read the labels (in countries where nutritional labels are required). First, read the list of ingredients. Ingredients that end with "alose" (NOT "ose" which is at the end of most natural sugars) or "itol" are likely to be artificial sweeteners. Natural sugars end with "ose" or are described with everyday words (sugar (sucrose), corn syrup (maple syrup is the only other included syrup of which I am aware is used). Check the order and frequency. The highest percentage come first but if the list includes sugar AND corn syrup AND fructose then the total might very well be first or second highest amount -- another marketing trick to shift the order of ingredients and help you to think it has less sugar.
After checking the list of ingredients, one has to look at the nutritional label. In the "carbohydrates" section, it will be broken down into dietary fiber and sugar. The sugar should correspond to the natural sugars in the ingredient list. When you add up the amount of sugar and dietary fiber, it will usually be less than the total amount of carbohydrates. The difference between these two amounts indicates the amount of more "complex" carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates are a classification of food elements that combine carbon and Hydrogen-Oxygen (think "hydration" -- or water added -- although hydrates are not quite the same as adding water). As from the previous blog on sugars, dietary carbohydrates can also be grouped into saccharides. The simple monosaccharides and bisaccharides are given the name of "sugar" while the polysaccharides are sometimes called "starches". Starches require the body to break them down into simpler molecules before using (as sugars). At any rate, the difference between the total of sugars and dietary fiber and total carbohydrates indicates the amount of "starch". As you can read from my earlier blogs on nutrition, the healthiness of starch depends on the mixture -- the ratio of dietary fiber versus sugar and simple starches should be kept high.
So, let the "buyer beware" -- the names used (and with many other aspects of life) have multiple meanings and uses. Marketing terms are used to make the consumer interested in the product -- not to inform. I really will talk about differences between "natural" and "artificial" sweeteners in my next blog but I thought that the use of marketing terms and sugar was important to understand first.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
How Sweet it Is; sugars and the body
Our bodies, when we pay attention to them, include a group of tastes. These are usually referred to as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami. They work by the chemicals activating specific sets of nerves on the tongue. Bitter tastes are associated with poisons and sweet with high-energy foods. It is rare, in nature, for one taste to dominate and this causes a huge set of possibilities. Also, the "flavor" of foods is how the brain interprets the taste, smell, and texture of the food in combination.
Since sweet tastes are an indication of higher-energy (calorie) foods, our bodies tend to favor sweet foods. Sweet tastes also activate a swallowing reflex within the mouth. (If a person is dehydrated but has trouble swallowing, try adding a single teaspoon of sugar to a glass of water.)
In the past, a "taste" for sugar has not been a problem as, within most of history, getting enough food has been a much greater problem than eating too much. With modern food processing, concentrated sweetness is a cheap method of making food more appealing and, thus, has become a problem for many people.
Natural sugars are a group of carbohydrates called saccharides. These may be monosaccharides which include glucose (a "blood sugar"), fructose (a "fruit sugar"), and galactose. Disaccharides include sucrose ("table sugar"), maltose ("grain sugar"), and lactose (a "dairy sugar"). I put these common referents in quotes because, although associated with these types of foods, the sugars are not exclusively in these foods. Other substances can also activate the sweet sensors of the tongue. These include a group of chemicals called glycosides, some proteins and amino acids, and even some inorganic compounds.
All fruits and vegetables include sugar as it is a by-product of the process of photosynthesis (conversion of water and minerals into food using solar energy). Some vegetation is considered a primary sugar source because the concentration of sugar is sufficient to warrant extraction and can be used directly as a sweetening agent for foods during cooking. Three of these are sugarcane, sugar beets, and Stevia leaves (which includes a glycoside rather than a saccharide)
Historically, natural sugars have been used as sweeteners -- adding to food to make them more enjoyable to eat. It is possible, by the process of extraction, to increase the percentage of sugar by eliminating the fiber (pulp) and leaving a solution of sugar and water (still including other water soluble vitamins and mineral compounds). A final method of concentration reduces, or eliminates, the amount of water and non-sweet compounds until only relatively "pure" sugar remains.
From the body's point of view, the unprocessed sugars are what the body was designed to appreciate. Eating an orange, combined with the pulp, is healthy (in moderation). Orange juice,with the pulp extracted, is much less healthy -- and a tablespoon of sucrose is the least healthy. Our bodies were not designed to deal with "pure", refined, sugars and making use of such within a diet can cause various problems, including an overwhelming of the pancreas causing diabetes.
In order to combat problems associated with natural sugars -- including high calorie intake and tooth decay (the sticky sugar can remain on the teeth as food for bacteria) -- humans have created "sugar substitutes". Many of these substitutes activate the sweet sensors on the tongue to a higher degree than natural sugars. This means that a much smaller amount may be used for equivalent sweetness (increasing profits and decreasing any caloric intake that may still exist).
This sounds like a win-win for producers of food as well as consumers but, as we will cover in the next blog, fooling "mother nature" can cause the body to react in ways that are not easily foretold.
Since sweet tastes are an indication of higher-energy (calorie) foods, our bodies tend to favor sweet foods. Sweet tastes also activate a swallowing reflex within the mouth. (If a person is dehydrated but has trouble swallowing, try adding a single teaspoon of sugar to a glass of water.)
In the past, a "taste" for sugar has not been a problem as, within most of history, getting enough food has been a much greater problem than eating too much. With modern food processing, concentrated sweetness is a cheap method of making food more appealing and, thus, has become a problem for many people.
Natural sugars are a group of carbohydrates called saccharides. These may be monosaccharides which include glucose (a "blood sugar"), fructose (a "fruit sugar"), and galactose. Disaccharides include sucrose ("table sugar"), maltose ("grain sugar"), and lactose (a "dairy sugar"). I put these common referents in quotes because, although associated with these types of foods, the sugars are not exclusively in these foods. Other substances can also activate the sweet sensors of the tongue. These include a group of chemicals called glycosides, some proteins and amino acids, and even some inorganic compounds.
All fruits and vegetables include sugar as it is a by-product of the process of photosynthesis (conversion of water and minerals into food using solar energy). Some vegetation is considered a primary sugar source because the concentration of sugar is sufficient to warrant extraction and can be used directly as a sweetening agent for foods during cooking. Three of these are sugarcane, sugar beets, and Stevia leaves (which includes a glycoside rather than a saccharide)
Historically, natural sugars have been used as sweeteners -- adding to food to make them more enjoyable to eat. It is possible, by the process of extraction, to increase the percentage of sugar by eliminating the fiber (pulp) and leaving a solution of sugar and water (still including other water soluble vitamins and mineral compounds). A final method of concentration reduces, or eliminates, the amount of water and non-sweet compounds until only relatively "pure" sugar remains.
From the body's point of view, the unprocessed sugars are what the body was designed to appreciate. Eating an orange, combined with the pulp, is healthy (in moderation). Orange juice,with the pulp extracted, is much less healthy -- and a tablespoon of sucrose is the least healthy. Our bodies were not designed to deal with "pure", refined, sugars and making use of such within a diet can cause various problems, including an overwhelming of the pancreas causing diabetes.
In order to combat problems associated with natural sugars -- including high calorie intake and tooth decay (the sticky sugar can remain on the teeth as food for bacteria) -- humans have created "sugar substitutes". Many of these substitutes activate the sweet sensors on the tongue to a higher degree than natural sugars. This means that a much smaller amount may be used for equivalent sweetness (increasing profits and decreasing any caloric intake that may still exist).
This sounds like a win-win for producers of food as well as consumers but, as we will cover in the next blog, fooling "mother nature" can cause the body to react in ways that are not easily foretold.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Body Sensors -- What Your Body Tells You
Our bodies have the capacity to tell us a lot about our health and what we need to do to feel our best. Alas, we also have the ability to ignore these signs and an aspect of our modern society is to encourage us to do so.
When people think about "sensors" they usually think about electronic automation. There is a sensor to tell your thermostat whether to turn on the heater or air conditioner. There are sensors in ovens and toasters to indicate when proper temperature at appropriate times has been applied. There are sensors in our cars to indicate proper fuel intake and when to shift gears and even to apply brakes or throttle. We have similar things within our bodies. Much of robotics is concerned with getting machines to be able to do the same things we do every day.
The first sensors that come to mind for people is our " five senses". These are usually listed as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Some people add a "sixth sense" to indicate information we take in that are not easily linked to the five physical senses.
However, we also have a lot of internal sensors -- primarily associated with the way that our brains are able to interpret specific signals. We can tell, via pressure at specific points, whether we need to urinate or defecate. We can tell if our stomachs are adequately full. The sense of cold and heat can easily be fooled because it is associated with the way specific nerves under our skin react to temperature differences. Sometimes these interact with certain organs -- such as our inner ear -- to tell us whether we are level or spinning and help with the ability to move smoothly.
The third category of sensors is difficult to understand fully. Our brains have access to much information that requires a host of tests to determine externally. They have access to insulin levels, to endocrine levels, to the amount of oxygen being carried by our blood, and to the levels of neurotransmitters and other chemicals in our brains and bodies. Much of the time, our bodies work with this data automatically by use of the "brain stem". However, it is possible for people to access this information consciously and actively apply responses.
So, what does all of this information tell us? It tells us when we are hungry or full, whether we are hot or cold, and whether the food, drink, or other substance we might bring into our bodies is good for us or not. It tells us whether we need to use the restroom. It also tells us whether we are tired, sad, happy, stressed, excited, and just (all in all) how we feel.
Consider now the various items that often exist in our homes, or in the supermarket/pharmacy, or being advertised as services for us. Many of these exist because we do not pay attention to the information our bodies tell us. Why not? The pressures of a time-obsessed society cause us to eat quickly (not giving time for us to listen to body signals), and schedules tell us when we can eat/drink and do other bodily functions. The allure of a "quick fix" stops us from adopting a lifestyle where we get the proper exercise and sleep. Calorie-dense food is easily available and our bodies did not develop to allow for such. Plus, we often feel that it is a "reward" to do things that our bodies do not want or need -- that extra large dessert or an "extra large drink".
It isn't easy to change and our economic society does not encourage us to change. However, if we allow ourselves to listen to what our bodies tell us then we can be healthier and happier.
When people think about "sensors" they usually think about electronic automation. There is a sensor to tell your thermostat whether to turn on the heater or air conditioner. There are sensors in ovens and toasters to indicate when proper temperature at appropriate times has been applied. There are sensors in our cars to indicate proper fuel intake and when to shift gears and even to apply brakes or throttle. We have similar things within our bodies. Much of robotics is concerned with getting machines to be able to do the same things we do every day.
The first sensors that come to mind for people is our " five senses". These are usually listed as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Some people add a "sixth sense" to indicate information we take in that are not easily linked to the five physical senses.
However, we also have a lot of internal sensors -- primarily associated with the way that our brains are able to interpret specific signals. We can tell, via pressure at specific points, whether we need to urinate or defecate. We can tell if our stomachs are adequately full. The sense of cold and heat can easily be fooled because it is associated with the way specific nerves under our skin react to temperature differences. Sometimes these interact with certain organs -- such as our inner ear -- to tell us whether we are level or spinning and help with the ability to move smoothly.
The third category of sensors is difficult to understand fully. Our brains have access to much information that requires a host of tests to determine externally. They have access to insulin levels, to endocrine levels, to the amount of oxygen being carried by our blood, and to the levels of neurotransmitters and other chemicals in our brains and bodies. Much of the time, our bodies work with this data automatically by use of the "brain stem". However, it is possible for people to access this information consciously and actively apply responses.
So, what does all of this information tell us? It tells us when we are hungry or full, whether we are hot or cold, and whether the food, drink, or other substance we might bring into our bodies is good for us or not. It tells us whether we need to use the restroom. It also tells us whether we are tired, sad, happy, stressed, excited, and just (all in all) how we feel.
Consider now the various items that often exist in our homes, or in the supermarket/pharmacy, or being advertised as services for us. Many of these exist because we do not pay attention to the information our bodies tell us. Why not? The pressures of a time-obsessed society cause us to eat quickly (not giving time for us to listen to body signals), and schedules tell us when we can eat/drink and do other bodily functions. The allure of a "quick fix" stops us from adopting a lifestyle where we get the proper exercise and sleep. Calorie-dense food is easily available and our bodies did not develop to allow for such. Plus, we often feel that it is a "reward" to do things that our bodies do not want or need -- that extra large dessert or an "extra large drink".
It isn't easy to change and our economic society does not encourage us to change. However, if we allow ourselves to listen to what our bodies tell us then we can be healthier and happier.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
BIG data and data mining
In my household, big data is most directly related to the piles of LEGOs (or LEGO-system building components) that my boys have scattered around the house. Needles in haystacks are more often used as examples. My library of books around the house would be another example. In each case, big data basically means a lot of data.
A lot of anything, of course, is subjective. There are thousands of pieces of straw in a haystack. There are a few thousand books around my house. My boys have a couple of thousands of LEGOs. However, in the world of business (and surveillance) big data usually refers to hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of records -- each of which may have many minutes (audio) or many members (items sold in purchase records or words in emails, for example). Big data is just a way to describe lots of data.
Data mining is the process of finding that special yellow 2 by 2 LEGO in the pile, or finding the needle in the haystack, or finding a specific audio record that talks about things that are considered suspicious or dangerous.
Data mining has three basic components -- collection, storage, and analysis. These are not necessarily discrete stages but we'll discuss them separately (calling out exceptions).
As evidenced by the physical examples at the beginning of this blog, big data has always existed. Consider the stacks of paper birth certificates, or other historical documents that exist and which may need, from time to time, to be searched. The ability to effectively handle, and use, big data has gotten much easier since electronic formats have become standard.
A lot of anything, of course, is subjective. There are thousands of pieces of straw in a haystack. There are a few thousand books around my house. My boys have a couple of thousands of LEGOs. However, in the world of business (and surveillance) big data usually refers to hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of records -- each of which may have many minutes (audio) or many members (items sold in purchase records or words in emails, for example). Big data is just a way to describe lots of data.
Data mining is the process of finding that special yellow 2 by 2 LEGO in the pile, or finding the needle in the haystack, or finding a specific audio record that talks about things that are considered suspicious or dangerous.
Data mining has three basic components -- collection, storage, and analysis. These are not necessarily discrete stages but we'll discuss them separately (calling out exceptions).
As evidenced by the physical examples at the beginning of this blog, big data has always existed. Consider the stacks of paper birth certificates, or other historical documents that exist and which may need, from time to time, to be searched. The ability to effectively handle, and use, big data has gotten much easier since electronic formats have become standard.
- Collection. Collection usually occurs at the time of transmission (when the originated data is moved to a destination). This might be a phone call. It could be at a point-of-sale (POS) cash register after the order has been finalized. It might be the registration record for a class. Collection may either occur at the intended destination (the company invoice/purchase order database) or via interception. Interception is where collection occurs somewhere other than the intended destination -- "wire tapping", people looking over your shoulder when you enter your credit card security information, and so forth.
Collection can occur anonymously or personalized. Personalization basically means that the record is associated with a corporate or living entity. In the case of a sale at a grocery store, the data will be associated with that store (and, possibly, that cashier and cash register). If you use a credit/debit card or a store "club" card, then the data can (and probably will) be associated with the person in addition. Generally, anonymous collection is considered innocuous while personalized collection is not. This does not mean there are not "legitimate" (proper, honorable) reasons to collect personal data but it does mean that the person may have concerns as to the purpose and safety of the data. - Storage. This always occurs at some point. However, it may be transitory if the data are removed upon receipt and analysis. Consider a "normal" phone call. The audio message exists (and is stored) from the origination (talking) until the receiving person analyzes it. If the message is redirected (to voice mail, for example), intercepted, or copied, this may turn into a permanent record requiring long-term storage.
Transactions (purchases, registration, email correspondence) where the data needs to be used in the future are almost all "permanently" stored. Of course, they can still be deleted in the future -- but, without advance knowledge of when, or if, this will occur they must be considered permanent. - Analysis. This can occur during the process of collection or it may occur later (after storage). Anonymous data is often analyzed statistically. How many of product X were sold by store Y in city Z? How many of product X were sold in state B? How long is the average voice call within a state? Trends can be analyzed over time. Store Y in city X sold NN of product X at price B. They sold GG of product X at price C (can be used to determine overall profit using margin versus quantity sold). Product F sells very well during the time period D through G but not very well in period H through M (seasonal item to be stocked differently depending on time of year).
Analysis can also be personalized. Customer ABC buys a lot of product F. Product G is similar but there is a greater profit margin on G -- send Customer ABC coupons for product G to get them to start buying product G on a regular basis. Or Customer DEF only buys product F if the price is below $ZZ.ZZ. Customer BEF is now buying baby products -- notify baby supply companies of contact information.
Finally, analysis can be triggered. Surveillance can use trigger words, or sequences of words (either written or audio) to divert records to further analysis. If you start buying diabetic-related foods and medicines, the data CAN be forwarded to your insurance company (and yes -- if the data is associated with you, then they CAN find your insurance company).
Big data does not change the stages but it does change the methods. There will often be multiple layers of analysis so that each step reduces the number of records to be analyzed. Analysis upon collection will specifically affect the manner in which the data are sorted and stored. And so forth.
People usually don't object to anonymous statistical analysis. They may start feeling threatened with personalized statistical analysis although they may also benefit from the results.
They often will feel threatened with triggered analysis because their "private" data are being used without explicit permission and can be used to exploit the data in some way. In addition, triggers can lead to false conclusions quite easily (you were actually buying diabetes supplies for your great Aunt, you have been reading a book about bad thing XXX and were discussing it with a friend). Big data methods are particularly susceptible to false initial triggers (although, hopefully, further analysis will filter more appropriately).
Friday, June 14, 2013
The Minimum Maximum: what is a bottleneck?
When you have a system that is made of various parts, there will always be some part which limits the overall performance of the system. Within flow situations (water, gas, data, etc.) this is called a "bottleneck". However, this concept can be extended to many things that we encounter in life, so I am going to discuss a more general concept that I call the "Minimum Maximum".
For example, you see a really high-performance car on the road. However, the performance of this car is much worse than you know of its capability -- it takes several seconds to start after the light says to go, it cuts corners or moves across the dividing lines of the road, it's speed varies on a constant basis. The reality is that the performance of the car is based on the best ability of the car and the driver. If the car is great and the driver's ability is "poor to middlin" then the car will only be capable of being driven. The purchase of a car is based on capability to buy -- not capability to drive. So, the high-performance car is "wasted" with the not-so-good driver. The car can be called "overkill" because its features and performance cannot be used appropriately.
If a race-car driver is behind the wheel of a poor-performance car then she or he will only be able to drive that car to the best of its ability. It is optimum to "tune" the system. Good cars for good drivers and poor cars for poor drivers.
In the world of the Internet, this is more often called a bottleneck. Let's say that you have a broadband connection that can provide 30 Mega bits per second (Mbps). However, you have an older computer and it can only process data at a rate up to 10 Mbps. The ability to use data from the Internet will be limited to the 10 Mbps of the computer. Going the other direction, if you have a powerful comupter but your access to the Internet is limited to 128 kilobits per second (128 kpbs) then you might as well get a slower (and less expensive) connection.
This would also apply to general gaming (not multiplayer and not connected to the Internet. If your disk drive can access data at 5 Mbps and your processor can only display at a rate of 3 Mbps then your disk drive is faster than necessary.
The problem with many situations for optimizing (or tuning) is that it is done in a multipurpose way. In the first Internet case, replacing the computer (or upgrading it) would increase the overall performance The same holds true for the second example (upgrading the computer will raise overall performance.
I'm sure that you can think of many other instances. When my family goes off to Chuch, we often have to wait for the "slowest". -- that person is the Minimum Maximum.
Whenever two or more systems interact, the various parts will work at various speeds/capabilities. Similar to doing Least Common Denominator (LCD) problems in school, the "MinMax" is the way to dtermine what is slowing down YOUR system (and an indicator as to what might need to be upgraded first.
.
For example, you see a really high-performance car on the road. However, the performance of this car is much worse than you know of its capability -- it takes several seconds to start after the light says to go, it cuts corners or moves across the dividing lines of the road, it's speed varies on a constant basis. The reality is that the performance of the car is based on the best ability of the car and the driver. If the car is great and the driver's ability is "poor to middlin" then the car will only be capable of being driven. The purchase of a car is based on capability to buy -- not capability to drive. So, the high-performance car is "wasted" with the not-so-good driver. The car can be called "overkill" because its features and performance cannot be used appropriately.
If a race-car driver is behind the wheel of a poor-performance car then she or he will only be able to drive that car to the best of its ability. It is optimum to "tune" the system. Good cars for good drivers and poor cars for poor drivers.
In the world of the Internet, this is more often called a bottleneck. Let's say that you have a broadband connection that can provide 30 Mega bits per second (Mbps). However, you have an older computer and it can only process data at a rate up to 10 Mbps. The ability to use data from the Internet will be limited to the 10 Mbps of the computer. Going the other direction, if you have a powerful comupter but your access to the Internet is limited to 128 kilobits per second (128 kpbs) then you might as well get a slower (and less expensive) connection.
This would also apply to general gaming (not multiplayer and not connected to the Internet. If your disk drive can access data at 5 Mbps and your processor can only display at a rate of 3 Mbps then your disk drive is faster than necessary.
The problem with many situations for optimizing (or tuning) is that it is done in a multipurpose way. In the first Internet case, replacing the computer (or upgrading it) would increase the overall performance The same holds true for the second example (upgrading the computer will raise overall performance.
I'm sure that you can think of many other instances. When my family goes off to Chuch, we often have to wait for the "slowest". -- that person is the Minimum Maximum.
Whenever two or more systems interact, the various parts will work at various speeds/capabilities. Similar to doing Least Common Denominator (LCD) problems in school, the "MinMax" is the way to dtermine what is slowing down YOUR system (and an indicator as to what might need to be upgraded first.
.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The REAL food pyramids: sustaining the foundation
Several organizations around the world have attempted to create graphical representations of what we should eat -- sometimes called "food pyramids" (current USDA version is a "food plate"). At first, it looks like this should work pretty well since food percentages are roughly 65/25/15 (carbohydrates/fats/proteins). Unfortunately, when this translates to actual food, most food is composed of a combination of nutritional elements. All fats are not considered to be of the same benefit and the effect of carbohydrates varies immensely depending on included fiber and other nutritional building blocks. Thus, it is difficult to use a pyramid to represent food needs. People still will often think of these food pyramids.
However, there are true food pyramids based on the needs and abundance of life on the planet. These are sometimes called trophic pyramids or energy pyramids. At the foundation level of these pyramids exists life that uses the energy from the sun (directly or indirectly) to manufacture food and body. On the land, these organisms are broadly called plants. In the sea, they are broadly called plankton -- although phytoplankton are the specific ones which are able to perform photosynthesis (creation from light).
These foundation foods (or primary producers) are eaten by the "higher layers" of the ecological food pyramids. It is possible for any organism to make use of them directly. For example, whales may feed on krill which are considered to be plankton (although they, in turn, make use of phytoplankton). In general, the lowest level are directly consumed by the next most abundant form of life. In a food pyramid, the next "level" can be determined by either number or function. Another way of putting it would be to think of a cartoon depiction of a very small fish being eaten by a small fish eaten by a medium fish eaten by a giant fish.
The organisms of the next level are called primary consumers. Primary consumers eat primary producers. So, herbivores are a general class of primary consumers. Although we usually think of mammals as herbivores, insects may be herbivores and worms might be considered to be herbivores.
The following level, sometimes called secondary consumers, may be either omnivores or carnivores. That is, they may eat a combination of producers (plants/phytoplankton) and primary consumers (or other secondary consumers) -- or they may be strictly carnivores that eat only other consumers. The "highest" level (in terms of the pyramid) eats only consumers.
These concepts are discussed in various ways -- food chains, food webs, ecological chains, and so forth. In whatever way they are approached, there are producers, primary consumers, secondary consumers, and tertiary consumers. The primary producers are always at the base.
The base determines the overall capacity of the entire pyramid. Thus, it is enormously important to protect that base. In the sea and on land, the largest threat is pollution although global climate change will certainly affect it in various ways. Note, however, that pollution can be either an aspect of waste ("garbage", runoff from managed land, etc.) or deliberate (even if accidental) contamination by oil and chemical spills and use of various chemicals within the food and non-food production chains.
As omnivores, humans have the capacity to shift their herbivore/carnivore balance -- they can be primarily meat eaters or primarily plant eaters. A shift towards the lower levels can allow more food to be available for all.
However, there are true food pyramids based on the needs and abundance of life on the planet. These are sometimes called trophic pyramids or energy pyramids. At the foundation level of these pyramids exists life that uses the energy from the sun (directly or indirectly) to manufacture food and body. On the land, these organisms are broadly called plants. In the sea, they are broadly called plankton -- although phytoplankton are the specific ones which are able to perform photosynthesis (creation from light).
These foundation foods (or primary producers) are eaten by the "higher layers" of the ecological food pyramids. It is possible for any organism to make use of them directly. For example, whales may feed on krill which are considered to be plankton (although they, in turn, make use of phytoplankton). In general, the lowest level are directly consumed by the next most abundant form of life. In a food pyramid, the next "level" can be determined by either number or function. Another way of putting it would be to think of a cartoon depiction of a very small fish being eaten by a small fish eaten by a medium fish eaten by a giant fish.
The organisms of the next level are called primary consumers. Primary consumers eat primary producers. So, herbivores are a general class of primary consumers. Although we usually think of mammals as herbivores, insects may be herbivores and worms might be considered to be herbivores.
The following level, sometimes called secondary consumers, may be either omnivores or carnivores. That is, they may eat a combination of producers (plants/phytoplankton) and primary consumers (or other secondary consumers) -- or they may be strictly carnivores that eat only other consumers. The "highest" level (in terms of the pyramid) eats only consumers.
These concepts are discussed in various ways -- food chains, food webs, ecological chains, and so forth. In whatever way they are approached, there are producers, primary consumers, secondary consumers, and tertiary consumers. The primary producers are always at the base.
The base determines the overall capacity of the entire pyramid. Thus, it is enormously important to protect that base. In the sea and on land, the largest threat is pollution although global climate change will certainly affect it in various ways. Note, however, that pollution can be either an aspect of waste ("garbage", runoff from managed land, etc.) or deliberate (even if accidental) contamination by oil and chemical spills and use of various chemicals within the food and non-food production chains.
As omnivores, humans have the capacity to shift their herbivore/carnivore balance -- they can be primarily meat eaters or primarily plant eaters. A shift towards the lower levels can allow more food to be available for all.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Simplified is not necessarily better -- the tyranny of the average
There is a strong tendency in our society to try to make things "simple". I don't know whether it is because we are so time rushed or because we have such an imbalanced system of education. Sometimes having it simplified works to a specific person's benefit -- sometimes it is quite unfavorable to a specific person.
Simplification is often linked closely with statistics. As Mark Twain is quoted as saying -- "there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians". Statistics are applied math so they should be accurate -- however, the actual use of the formulas and numbers are decided by people and people make decisions based on what they want to have be true (either consciously or subconsciously).
One example of this are the figures quoted by politicians during election time. "The average income tax went down during my administration". Hmmm. Well, this statement could be "true" if the average income also went down during the time. It could be "true" if the tax rates went down (this is the interpretation the politician probably hopes you will make). It could be "true" if tax rates went down for one segment of the people (usually the high-income group) but went up slightly for other segments (and this has been happening in the U.S. for the past 12 years or so).
Three different realities -- all "supported" by the same "facts".
One area that hits hard for me is the Body Mass Index (BMI) number. The BMI is a fast, easy, "simple" method to indicate whether a person is overweight. It is reasonably accurate (+/- 5% or so) for about eight out of ten people. Who are the other 20% of the population? They are people who are particularly tall (more than 15% above average) or short (20% or more less than average) or people who have large amounts of muscle tissue -- yes, the "fit" are most at risk from inaccuracies on the BMI.
All of this would be academic if it wasn't so easy to fit these simplistic numbers into other formulas -- such as actuarial tables used by insurance companies. So, if you happen to be a body builder then be prepared to pay more from private insurance companies (on life and health) for being "too fat". If you are very short, then you can be rather overweight and still have the insurance count in your favor. If you are very tall, however, then you need to be prepared to pay more once again. Oh -- and I forgot to add -- computerized dating systems tend to like to use BMI in their calculations so expect body builders to be matched up with others of ample dimensions.
The reason the BMI is used is that it is easy and cheap -- take your weight (in kg) and divide it by your height (in meters) squared and you have a handy, dandy, all-purpose number. In order to really find out an accurate number, it is necessary to find real body fat percentage. There are formulas that measure different areas on one's body and then use those in conjunction with weight to get a number that works for 95%+ of the population. But it takes more time and more time means fewer patients seen and that means smaller profits. It is also possible to do a submersion test (where your body is submerged into a tank of water to accurately determine volume) that is the most accurate way to measure density (weight divided by volume equals density).
These are two methods where the average can hurt those who don't fit. There are many others. But do your best to understand the implications of statistical statements -- it may not mean what it seems.
Simplification is often linked closely with statistics. As Mark Twain is quoted as saying -- "there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians". Statistics are applied math so they should be accurate -- however, the actual use of the formulas and numbers are decided by people and people make decisions based on what they want to have be true (either consciously or subconsciously).
One example of this are the figures quoted by politicians during election time. "The average income tax went down during my administration". Hmmm. Well, this statement could be "true" if the average income also went down during the time. It could be "true" if the tax rates went down (this is the interpretation the politician probably hopes you will make). It could be "true" if tax rates went down for one segment of the people (usually the high-income group) but went up slightly for other segments (and this has been happening in the U.S. for the past 12 years or so).
Three different realities -- all "supported" by the same "facts".
One area that hits hard for me is the Body Mass Index (BMI) number. The BMI is a fast, easy, "simple" method to indicate whether a person is overweight. It is reasonably accurate (+/- 5% or so) for about eight out of ten people. Who are the other 20% of the population? They are people who are particularly tall (more than 15% above average) or short (20% or more less than average) or people who have large amounts of muscle tissue -- yes, the "fit" are most at risk from inaccuracies on the BMI.
All of this would be academic if it wasn't so easy to fit these simplistic numbers into other formulas -- such as actuarial tables used by insurance companies. So, if you happen to be a body builder then be prepared to pay more from private insurance companies (on life and health) for being "too fat". If you are very short, then you can be rather overweight and still have the insurance count in your favor. If you are very tall, however, then you need to be prepared to pay more once again. Oh -- and I forgot to add -- computerized dating systems tend to like to use BMI in their calculations so expect body builders to be matched up with others of ample dimensions.
The reason the BMI is used is that it is easy and cheap -- take your weight (in kg) and divide it by your height (in meters) squared and you have a handy, dandy, all-purpose number. In order to really find out an accurate number, it is necessary to find real body fat percentage. There are formulas that measure different areas on one's body and then use those in conjunction with weight to get a number that works for 95%+ of the population. But it takes more time and more time means fewer patients seen and that means smaller profits. It is also possible to do a submersion test (where your body is submerged into a tank of water to accurately determine volume) that is the most accurate way to measure density (weight divided by volume equals density).
These are two methods where the average can hurt those who don't fit. There are many others. But do your best to understand the implications of statistical statements -- it may not mean what it seems.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
What makes Blu-Ray (TM) Blue?
In the last blog, I talked about the difference between continuous (analog) data and discrete (digital) data. One of the most popular, "hands-on", types of data that people use each day are that for audio and video.
In the case of audio, analog data are often considered to be the most "faithful" to the sound. Digital adherents say that the sound stays crisp and clear. They are actually both correct. When analog recordings are made they are able to reproduce all of the "between" sounds that are dropped during analog recordings. While one can debate as to whether it can be heard by most people, it does exist and, therefore, there may be a substantial difference even if only noticed by the subconscious.
Analog recordings primarily fall into two categories -- an engraved reproduction of the sound waves or a magnetic version. Each has the capability of continuous data recording. However, the use of such recordings requires destructive mechanical mechanisms to be "read" after being recorded. For the "engraved" (vinyl, records, wax cylinders -- yes all have been used) version this means a sharp object following the path of the engraving which will eventually start cause eroding the engraving and a deterioration of the sound. For magnetic versions, the media (tape usually) wears while being pulled and the magnetic material on the tape also gets worn by friction with the reading "head".
Thus, as time goes on and the recording gets used, the recording will get worse -- while, in general, a digital recording will stay the same. So the audiophiles and the digital adherents are both "right".
CHALLENGE: It should be possible to create a commercially viable analog recording medium that can be read non-destructively. With all the bright people and companies employing bright people this should be possible. Make it so!
As discussed in the previous blog, digital media (for audio and video especially) requires decisions as to how much data will be omitted. This is precision and sampling rate. For human speech, it is considered acceptable to take a sample 8000 times per second and the data can be recorded with the use of 8 binary units ("bits"). This means that a digital recording of human speed will require 480,000 bytes (8 bits), or 480 KB per minute of recording. In the case of "high fidelity" digital recordings of music, the sampling rate can be increased and the precision may also be increased. This ends up with a greater amount of data.
Currently, a popular way to record this data is on optical disks. The digital data are marked on the optical media with very, very small pits. A pit can be considered to be a "1" and a land (non-pit) can be considered to be a "0". Note that this is actually very similar to analog engravings except for the nature of the data. Please also note that the exact encoding is actually more complicated than I am saying -- check other sources for more precise descriptions.
A larger difference form analog data, however, is how the data are read once recorded. An optical disk makes use of a laser which can tell whether there is a pit or a land by the timing of the reflection from the medium. This reading is non-destructive and, as long as the optical medium is not otherwise damaged, should retain data unchanged for a long time.
We now enter into the third area of data recordings which is storage space. An audio CD makes use of a near-infrared laser (wavelength of 780 nm). This wavelength determines how dense the data can be placed on the optical medium. For an audio CD, using 780 nm wavelength lasers, about 737 MB (megabytes) of data can be stored in a single layer (a disk CAN have multiple layers with the laser reading separately from the different layers of the disk). Since this amount of data is considered to be around 80 minutes of music, we can see that, for an audio CD, each minute takes about 10 MB of data so the precision and sampling rate are much higher than considered acceptable for human speech -- greater "fidelity".
The wavelength of the laser determines density -- how "packed" the data can be. This limits the total amount of data in a predetermined physical size. One method of increasing the density is by decreasing the wavelength of the laser.
A Blu-Ray disc uses a "blue" (blue is officially considered to be 475 nm) laser with a wavelength of 405 nm. A single layer Blu-Ray disk can store about 25 gigabyte (GB) of data. For audio, this would be about 100 hours using the same encoding as CDs. DVDs use a wavelength of about 650 nm ("true" red)..
In the case of audio, analog data are often considered to be the most "faithful" to the sound. Digital adherents say that the sound stays crisp and clear. They are actually both correct. When analog recordings are made they are able to reproduce all of the "between" sounds that are dropped during analog recordings. While one can debate as to whether it can be heard by most people, it does exist and, therefore, there may be a substantial difference even if only noticed by the subconscious.
Analog recordings primarily fall into two categories -- an engraved reproduction of the sound waves or a magnetic version. Each has the capability of continuous data recording. However, the use of such recordings requires destructive mechanical mechanisms to be "read" after being recorded. For the "engraved" (vinyl, records, wax cylinders -- yes all have been used) version this means a sharp object following the path of the engraving which will eventually start cause eroding the engraving and a deterioration of the sound. For magnetic versions, the media (tape usually) wears while being pulled and the magnetic material on the tape also gets worn by friction with the reading "head".
Thus, as time goes on and the recording gets used, the recording will get worse -- while, in general, a digital recording will stay the same. So the audiophiles and the digital adherents are both "right".
CHALLENGE: It should be possible to create a commercially viable analog recording medium that can be read non-destructively. With all the bright people and companies employing bright people this should be possible. Make it so!
As discussed in the previous blog, digital media (for audio and video especially) requires decisions as to how much data will be omitted. This is precision and sampling rate. For human speech, it is considered acceptable to take a sample 8000 times per second and the data can be recorded with the use of 8 binary units ("bits"). This means that a digital recording of human speed will require 480,000 bytes (8 bits), or 480 KB per minute of recording. In the case of "high fidelity" digital recordings of music, the sampling rate can be increased and the precision may also be increased. This ends up with a greater amount of data.
Currently, a popular way to record this data is on optical disks. The digital data are marked on the optical media with very, very small pits. A pit can be considered to be a "1" and a land (non-pit) can be considered to be a "0". Note that this is actually very similar to analog engravings except for the nature of the data. Please also note that the exact encoding is actually more complicated than I am saying -- check other sources for more precise descriptions.
A larger difference form analog data, however, is how the data are read once recorded. An optical disk makes use of a laser which can tell whether there is a pit or a land by the timing of the reflection from the medium. This reading is non-destructive and, as long as the optical medium is not otherwise damaged, should retain data unchanged for a long time.
We now enter into the third area of data recordings which is storage space. An audio CD makes use of a near-infrared laser (wavelength of 780 nm). This wavelength determines how dense the data can be placed on the optical medium. For an audio CD, using 780 nm wavelength lasers, about 737 MB (megabytes) of data can be stored in a single layer (a disk CAN have multiple layers with the laser reading separately from the different layers of the disk). Since this amount of data is considered to be around 80 minutes of music, we can see that, for an audio CD, each minute takes about 10 MB of data so the precision and sampling rate are much higher than considered acceptable for human speech -- greater "fidelity".
The wavelength of the laser determines density -- how "packed" the data can be. This limits the total amount of data in a predetermined physical size. One method of increasing the density is by decreasing the wavelength of the laser.
A Blu-Ray disc uses a "blue" (blue is officially considered to be 475 nm) laser with a wavelength of 405 nm. A single layer Blu-Ray disk can store about 25 gigabyte (GB) of data. For audio, this would be about 100 hours using the same encoding as CDs. DVDs use a wavelength of about 650 nm ("true" red)..
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Analog and digital data
I thought that I would talk about digital media -- CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and so forth. But then I realized that I really needed to first talk about what digital media are -- and that, in turn, means that it is important to talk about analog.
Analog data are a reflection of events that occur on a continual basis. Such things include time, temperature, sound, moving images, water flowing, and so forth. An analog watch is known by its "face" -- where the "hands" are located to allow a person to interpret the data (information).
It would be completely possible for a watch to have a single hand. All the information is present in the hour hand. However, it is difficult to "read" (interpret) the value with a single hand and, therefore, analog watches and clocks normally have a minute hand and may even have a second hand.
In my old university, they had an analog computer. Set up correctly, it would be able to be used to calculate an exact value for Pi. But this brings up further the problems with analog data -- being able to actually make use of the data in a precise manner.An analog thermometer can give a precise value but can a person really read it that clearly? Is it saying 98.6 or saying 98.53?
Digital data can only create approximations of continual information. There are a lot of non-continual data in the world -- particularly in the area of finances. However, when it comes to continual data, you are involved with sampling rates and precision. The sampling rate is how often you "mark down" the information. You take a sample of sound at 1 hour, 20 minutes, 15 seconds, and 180 milliseconds. You then take a sample of the sound every 20 milliseconds -- but, whatever interval you choose, you are also choosing to ignore the data that exists when you are not taking a sample. You will never really know what happened within that 20 millisecond gap. You can guess what it might be -- that is called interpolation -- but you cannot know.
The second part of digital data is precision. For money (or other non-continual data), the precision is self-defined by what exists (although other units may exist for formulas -- like taxes). For continual data, the precision is a choice. Do you record 98.5, 98.54, 98.536, 98.5359, or what? Once again, you lose data/information and your choice CAN make a difference if the data are used in a repetitive fashion (such as calculating trajectories for a space ship).
So, analog data are accurate but very difficult to interpret precisely. Digital data are an approximation but have ease of interpretation as a built-in aspect of the choices that are made.
And this leads into the next blog "What makes Blu-Ray (TM) Blue?"
Analog data are a reflection of events that occur on a continual basis. Such things include time, temperature, sound, moving images, water flowing, and so forth. An analog watch is known by its "face" -- where the "hands" are located to allow a person to interpret the data (information).
It would be completely possible for a watch to have a single hand. All the information is present in the hour hand. However, it is difficult to "read" (interpret) the value with a single hand and, therefore, analog watches and clocks normally have a minute hand and may even have a second hand.
In my old university, they had an analog computer. Set up correctly, it would be able to be used to calculate an exact value for Pi. But this brings up further the problems with analog data -- being able to actually make use of the data in a precise manner.An analog thermometer can give a precise value but can a person really read it that clearly? Is it saying 98.6 or saying 98.53?
Digital data can only create approximations of continual information. There are a lot of non-continual data in the world -- particularly in the area of finances. However, when it comes to continual data, you are involved with sampling rates and precision. The sampling rate is how often you "mark down" the information. You take a sample of sound at 1 hour, 20 minutes, 15 seconds, and 180 milliseconds. You then take a sample of the sound every 20 milliseconds -- but, whatever interval you choose, you are also choosing to ignore the data that exists when you are not taking a sample. You will never really know what happened within that 20 millisecond gap. You can guess what it might be -- that is called interpolation -- but you cannot know.
The second part of digital data is precision. For money (or other non-continual data), the precision is self-defined by what exists (although other units may exist for formulas -- like taxes). For continual data, the precision is a choice. Do you record 98.5, 98.54, 98.536, 98.5359, or what? Once again, you lose data/information and your choice CAN make a difference if the data are used in a repetitive fashion (such as calculating trajectories for a space ship).
So, analog data are accurate but very difficult to interpret precisely. Digital data are an approximation but have ease of interpretation as a built-in aspect of the choices that are made.
And this leads into the next blog "What makes Blu-Ray (TM) Blue?"
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Metabolic balance: to lose or gain
People talk about metabolism when they talk about weight gain or loss. Metabolism is actually the entire process of conversion of food into energy and building blocks. What they are truly talking about is "metabolic rate". Someone who is considered to be a "fat burner" actually has a high metabolic rate. Most people know other people who seem to be able to eat just about anything (and everything) and stay thin.
The formula for weight loss (or gain) is "calories taken in - (calories * metabolic rate) = excess/deficit of calories to maintain weight). The body is very smart and it does NOT like to lose weight -- it considers it a "starvation" situation. Thus, when a deficit of calories is taken in, the body will reduce the metabolic rate in order to maintain weight. While it is possible to lose weight by "just" reducing calories, your body will fight it by lowering the metabolic rate and increasing the amount of hunger you feel. Since the body fights loss of weight, it will also respond to lack of calories by burning proteins in addition to fats which will also tend to reduce the metabolic rate.
As mentioned, the body is very "smart" -- it knows how much food is needed to maintain weight and it knows what building blocks (minerals, vitamins, proteins, However, in current society, we have deadened our abilities to listen to our bodies -- ignoring what it tells us. It is deadened by the pace of our lifestyles as well as the increased availability of calorie-dense foods which appeal to our hunger triggers.
There are things that CAN be done to return control over our ability to listen to our bodies AND take control over whether we are at the weight we desire.
The bottom line is to allow your body to tell you what it needs. This is very difficult in modern society with its fast pace and a heavily marketed variety of calorie-dense foods but, at the end, you have changed your lifestyle to enjoy the food you eat better and to regain control over your body.
The formula for weight loss (or gain) is "calories taken in - (calories * metabolic rate) = excess/deficit of calories to maintain weight). The body is very smart and it does NOT like to lose weight -- it considers it a "starvation" situation. Thus, when a deficit of calories is taken in, the body will reduce the metabolic rate in order to maintain weight. While it is possible to lose weight by "just" reducing calories, your body will fight it by lowering the metabolic rate and increasing the amount of hunger you feel. Since the body fights loss of weight, it will also respond to lack of calories by burning proteins in addition to fats which will also tend to reduce the metabolic rate.
As mentioned, the body is very "smart" -- it knows how much food is needed to maintain weight and it knows what building blocks (minerals, vitamins, proteins, However, in current society, we have deadened our abilities to listen to our bodies -- ignoring what it tells us. It is deadened by the pace of our lifestyles as well as the increased availability of calorie-dense foods which appeal to our hunger triggers.
There are things that CAN be done to return control over our ability to listen to our bodies AND take control over whether we are at the weight we desire.
- Exercise. This is probably the number one thing that we can do -- both aerobic (body moving, heart rate increased) and non-aerobic (weights, muscles working hard) exercise are of use. Aerobic exercise on a regular, prolonged, basis help to increase the metabolic rate directly. Anaerobic exercise increases muscle mass which requires more calories to maintain and, thus, effectively increases the metabolic rate. Contrary to popular belief, exercise does not increase appetite although it does help us to listen to our bodies more carefully -- so, if we are hungry, we will feel hungry. Try to drink non-sweetened liquids first, followed by bulkier foods such as celery or carrots.
- Meditative exercise. While some aerobic or non-aerobic exercise may take place at the same time, the primary benefit is allowing us to get in touch with the needs of our bodies. Activities such as yoga or meditation, in general, fall into this class.
- Slow down eating. Take smaller bites and eat slower. This allows the time needed for the body to say "I'm no longer hungry". In order to avoid the lag between eating and satiation (lack of hunger) it is good to stop when one is just a little bit hungry.
- Drink non-sweetened liquid. Water is good. Teas and Coffees and flavored waters also work. Artificially sweetened liquids (and foods) do not work well as they tend to actually increase hunger. Filling the stomach with non-sweetened liquids helps to reach satiation quicker.
- Spicy food. The capsaicin found in spicy peppers has been shown to increase metabolic rate a little. While this is not highly significant, spicy peppers tend to be mixed in with other vegetables and other non-calorie-dense foods.
- Limit calorie-dense foods. We talked about the various components of a healthy diet over a series of blogs. However, calorie-dense foods (high fat, high sugar) are easy to eat "too much" of very quickly. Eat them in small quantities and savor them (eat slowly while enjoying the flavor).
- Increase bulky foods. Vegetables, high-fiber complex carbohydrates (oatmeal), and such will satiate with lower calorie foods.
The bottom line is to allow your body to tell you what it needs. This is very difficult in modern society with its fast pace and a heavily marketed variety of calorie-dense foods but, at the end, you have changed your lifestyle to enjoy the food you eat better and to regain control over your body.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
They DON'T make them like they used to.
People sometimes say "they don't make them like they used to" -- usually referring to something that has broken down and has to be recycled, discarded, or replaced. This is a truth that has entered into a special category of use.
The reality is that the way things are made is always changing. Sometimes they are made faster, with new techniques. Sometimes they are made with new features and new technologies. Sometimes they are made, deliberately, to not last as long.
There are three general categories of change in how/why things are made. These can be called "marketing", "manufacturing", and "labor".
So, they DON'T make them like they used to and we probably don't want them to do so. What we do want is to have the items last as long as WE want them to rather than as the manufacturer has determined. Often, choices are available but we don't know what those choices include -- expected durability is not something that is advertised on the packing of products. We rely on consumer groups and other people's ratings to make choices. And, I guess, that is the best we'll do for a while.
The reality is that the way things are made is always changing. Sometimes they are made faster, with new techniques. Sometimes they are made with new features and new technologies. Sometimes they are made, deliberately, to not last as long.
There are three general categories of change in how/why things are made. These can be called "marketing", "manufacturing", and "labor".
- Marketing. This is the active art of consumerism. This is what makes people want to buy something. The global economy is presently structured around consumerism. The rationale falls into what I would call the "three Fs" -- fashion, features, and failure.
Fashion is a desire for something "new" for the sake of having something new. Change in styles are presented as being "better" than what currently exists. "Orange is the new Purple" (Purple having been the previous preferred color). "Chrome is in". Skirt lengths go up -- or down. Teak is the preferred wood. So, out with the old and in with the new (although, if you keep it long enough, the cycle will come back someday).
Features. New programs require faster computers or more memory. Faster speed requires new connectors and those old connectors won't work anymore. This hat has a higher SPF (Sun Protection Factor). The new game has more versatile character sets and better graphics. There is "improvement" but marketing works to move it from the "want" to "need" category.
Failure. I don't think that many manufactures REALLY design their products to fail (they rely on fashion and features more to entice you to get something new). However, they do have a desired lifetime for the product when they create it. Too short and you won't buy their products again. Too long and you won't need to buy their products again if fashion or features don't draw you away. And, within that designed product lifetime, it causes choices to be made in manufacturing. Given a choice between a less expensive part that lasts "lifetime + a little more" and a more expensive part that lasts "three lifetimes" -- they will make it with the less expensive part. So, manufacturing (next section) is designed with the projected lifetime in mind. - Manufacturing. As mentioned in a previous blog, technology and manufacturing rely on a pyramid of tools and less complicated parts. Manufacturing a DVR requires laser technology, semiconductor technology, power technology, and so forth. What this means to the consumer is that the end product is made up of more complicated, but fewer, separate ("discrete") parts.
It may be faster, smaller, and less energy consuming ("green") but it will also be more complex. Most technology is now manufactured largely by "robotic" technology with humans doing the specialized work that doesn't justify building a more-specific "robot". This is even true for things like clothing where the fibers are made, or spun, or extruded by factory processes and then machined/loomed/created by machines that may only need humans to replace spools or to adjust things that have gone slightly askew.
In summary for manufacturing -- fewer, more complex parts that avoid human interaction in creation. - Labor. This area directly goes "hand in hand" with manufacturing. In countries where labor costs are "high", it may cost more to repair something than to replace it. In countries where labor costs are "low", you can find items repaired in extremely ingenious ways (they weren't designed to be repaired) because the cost of repairing is less than replacement.
So, they DON'T make them like they used to and we probably don't want them to do so. What we do want is to have the items last as long as WE want them to rather than as the manufacturer has determined. Often, choices are available but we don't know what those choices include -- expected durability is not something that is advertised on the packing of products. We rely on consumer groups and other people's ratings to make choices. And, I guess, that is the best we'll do for a while.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Smoke Gets in Your Lungs
In the present day, there's a lot of controversy about smoking. Old substances (tobacco) are in decline and are often under public disdain. "New" ones (marijuana) are in ascendance and are becoming more acceptable and may even cross the line back into legality (it's not really new and has a long history of various stages of legality -- see the Wikipedia entry Legal History of Cannabis).
However, because of its controversial legality and use, the health aspects of marijuana smoking have not been pursued as it has been for tobacco. There are also other substances that are sometimes smoked -- heated and inhaled or brought into the mouth. So, let's take a step back and just look into the smoke.
Smoke occurs when substances are burned. Many firefighter (and people trapped in fire areas) injuries are associated with smoke inhalation. There are good (but highly technical) sources such as Wikipedia for articles on the various possibilities depending on factors such as heat, presence of other substances, humidity, and so forth. In this blog, we will concentrate on the tobacco and marijuana smoke voluntarily inhaled in relatively limited amounts by "smokers" and "tokers".
Smoke has four major aspects: carbon monoxide, tars and particulates, active ingredients, and additives.
Inhaling or not inhaling? As a water-soluble drug, the effects of nicotine are dependent upon the surface area times the duration of exposure. This is also true for other additive burn by-products. Thus, inhaling would be worse if holding it in the mouth was done for the same amount of time. However, this is not actually the case as cigar and pipe smokers tend to allow the smoke to remain in their mouths longer. Thus, there may be close to the same exposure for nicotine and additives. However, there would still be greatly reduced effects from the carbon monoxide and particulates. With THC, it varies upon the general environment. It is not considered to be water-soluble but it IS lipid (fats) and alcohol-soluble so, if taken with food or drink, it is probably absorbed as readily (or more readily) than bringing into the lungs.
However, because of its controversial legality and use, the health aspects of marijuana smoking have not been pursued as it has been for tobacco. There are also other substances that are sometimes smoked -- heated and inhaled or brought into the mouth. So, let's take a step back and just look into the smoke.
Smoke occurs when substances are burned. Many firefighter (and people trapped in fire areas) injuries are associated with smoke inhalation. There are good (but highly technical) sources such as Wikipedia for articles on the various possibilities depending on factors such as heat, presence of other substances, humidity, and so forth. In this blog, we will concentrate on the tobacco and marijuana smoke voluntarily inhaled in relatively limited amounts by "smokers" and "tokers".
Smoke has four major aspects: carbon monoxide, tars and particulates, active ingredients, and additives.
- Carbon Monoxide. This gas is created by incomplete burning of the material. It is primarily a danger to those "inhaling" as it is more lung-related. It is present in all smoke in varying degrees and is considered to be a poison as the body will absorb it and it decreases general function and may cause death. It is absorbed into the blood cells and decreases the ability to absorb oxygen and, thus, reduces stamina and general ability to perform at optimum levels. There is little difference in the effects between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
- Tars and Particulates. These are the visible parts of smoke -- if you can see it, they are present. They are what cause the darkened areas of X-rays of lungs. "Tars" are resinous substances -- usually quite sticky and they cause the staining of teeth (and lungs) and can act as a kind of glue in the lungs, reducing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen. The particulates can vary in size depending on the temperature of the burning material and the size of the parts being burned and can act as an irritant causing more mucous production which is a major cause of "smoker's cough". It takes about five years for the lungs to fully repair from the damage caused by these substances and is considered to be a major trigger of lung cancer. This area could use more study but it is likely that there is little difference between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
- Active Ingredients. These are the substances that interact with other parts of the body to cause the effects anticipated by smokers and tokers. In tobacco, this substance is nicotine which has many effects but primarily acts as a stimulant. It also has a mile diuretic (body water removing) effect which may cause weight loss for beginning smokers (and cause some temporary weight gain after quitting). It is water-soluble and, thus, is ideally administered via smoking. Anecdotally, nicotine is considered to help general focus and mental activity but there are no controlled studies verifying this. Nicotine also tends to paralyze the cilia in the trachea (windpipe) and, thus, may increase mucous retention and coughing. There are a few minor medical purposes for nicotine but it is highly physically addictive
The primary active ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (usually referred to, for obvious reasons, as THC). Its effects vary from individual to individual and is considered primarily a "psychoactive" (acting primarily on the central nervous system) drug. Common effects include increased appetite, decreased nausea and pain, and a reduced sperm production in men. It is not considered to be highly physically addictive although a varying amount of emotional or psychological addiction is possible for both marijuana and tobacco. - Additives. Since tobacco has been legal for many years and is a highly competitive industry, each company does what it can to both distinguish and "enhance" its brand of tobacco. Glycerin is normally added to increase shelf life and prevent the tobacco from drying out. Formaldehyde (think of frogs in jars in biology class) is added to make absorption and crossover to the brain more rapid. This increases the risk of physical addiction. Many other additives are also present -- from spices such as cinnamon and cloves to liquids such as menthol and other oils. Formaldehyde is known as a carcinogen and the burning by-products of the other additives have not been extensively tested. However, this is an area that is highly likely to contribute to act as cancerous triggers (especially for non-lung-related cancers). Tobacco is much worse in this area than marijuana.
Inhaling or not inhaling? As a water-soluble drug, the effects of nicotine are dependent upon the surface area times the duration of exposure. This is also true for other additive burn by-products. Thus, inhaling would be worse if holding it in the mouth was done for the same amount of time. However, this is not actually the case as cigar and pipe smokers tend to allow the smoke to remain in their mouths longer. Thus, there may be close to the same exposure for nicotine and additives. However, there would still be greatly reduced effects from the carbon monoxide and particulates. With THC, it varies upon the general environment. It is not considered to be water-soluble but it IS lipid (fats) and alcohol-soluble so, if taken with food or drink, it is probably absorbed as readily (or more readily) than bringing into the lungs.
Monday, February 18, 2013
What's the fuss about GMOs?
There has been a lot of flurry about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the press and Internet. What is a GMO and what are the concerns about it? GMOs are actually the tail end of a sequence of food modifications -- the process is the least "natural" and the most uncertain as to long-term consequences. The series begins with natural hybridization, leads through human hybridization, and continues to GMOs.
GMOs are not inherently bad. They are inherently a change and changes take a while to determine benefits or risks. GMOs already are in wide use within human food. Some countries require GMOs to be labeled as such, feeling like the public should be aware they are part of a long-term study of effects. However, due to the widespread use of GMOs, food producers often fight against this notification. Specifically, corn is often a GMO plant and, in the U.S., corn syrup is used in many food products. Most food (including sweetened carbonated beverages) would need GMO labeling because the product includes GMOs.
- Natural hybridization. Plants and animals change over time. Through a process of "natural selection" and "spontaneous mutation", life changes to adapt to best survive in a particular environment. Sometimes this combination of processes is called "evolution". A "spontaneous mutation" isn't anything menacing or bad -- it just means that the "child" is significantly different from the "parent". If the change brings advantages then the "child" is more likely to survive. If the change brings disadvantages then the "child is less likely to survive. This is "natural selection" and it applies to all plants and animals.
- Human-directed hybridization. Plants and animals are naturally diverse. They have slightly different characteristics from each other. By choosing life that has attributes that are "desirable" to propagate to the next generation -- mixing and choosing -- new combinations of attributes will emerge within the offspring.
The difference between this and natural hybridization is that the new attributes are not normally chosen based on the plant surviving without human intervention. In fact, the opposite is often true. Human hybridized life often requires ongoing human intervention. This may include more water than is naturally available within the region. It may require special weeding and chemical support. If left alone, without human support, it will often "revert" back to the varieties that best survive.
- A GMO takes this choice one (considerable) step further. The actual seeds, or eggs, are manipulated to add or remove genetic material from one form of life and integrated together. The goal is to make the genetic change inheritable from one generation to the next. One can look at it as "non-spontaneous" mutation. Desired attributes may include "better" flavor, easier transportation, longer lasting after harvest ("shelf life"), faster or greater growth, or greater production (more fruit or milk produced, for example).
There is nothing specifically bad about this -- it is just hurrying nature along. However, many of these changes are highly unlikely to ever occur spontaneously. Some genetic material from animals may be added to plants or vice versa.
The primary warning, or fear, from GMOs is that, by introducing life that would probably never occur naturally, there is little knowledge of what the long term interactions within the ecosystem, or between producers and consumers, will be. There may be little difference between the genetics of a nutritious plant and that of a slow-acting poison. Studies of new organisms rarely are long-term, checking effects through the generations.
Another problem is that GMOs may be patented. The courts sometimes take a contrary view of this by applying existing patent logic. Existing patent logic is based on the idea that patented ideas/materials can spread only by being "taken" or specifically reproduced. Thus, plants that contain the patented genes have "stolen" the new material. While this follows existing patent logic it does not apply properly to living material that can naturally spread. It should be treated as "invasive" or an "infection" where the GMO is actually "attacking" the non-modified life. Patent law needs to be updated to existing realities.
GMOs are not inherently bad. They are inherently a change and changes take a while to determine benefits or risks. GMOs already are in wide use within human food. Some countries require GMOs to be labeled as such, feeling like the public should be aware they are part of a long-term study of effects. However, due to the widespread use of GMOs, food producers often fight against this notification. Specifically, corn is often a GMO plant and, in the U.S., corn syrup is used in many food products. Most food (including sweetened carbonated beverages) would need GMO labeling because the product includes GMOs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)