science – Page 2 – The Daily Opinion

Do Children Who Snore Equal the Signs of a Little Bastard?

Why are some children just bad? This is a question which has followed society for hundreds and hundreds of years. And, despite the advances in science and technology, we still have no idea why some children who come from seemingly good homes have to act out on a consistent basis.

But a study which was published in the scientific journal Pediatrics believes there may be some visible signs involved. The study claims to have found a link between behavioural issues in children and sleep-disordered breathing; sleep-disordered breathing is defined as apnoea in this case.

The study was carried out at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and followed over 13,000 children from infancy through their early childhood.

The study originally found that 45% of this group remained free of any sleep-disordered breathing. 8% of children fell into a worst-case group, which involved children who had breathing problems which persisted after the ages of two and three; a group dubbed by the researchers involved in the project.

By age seven, the research team discovered that those with so-called sleep-disordered breathing were more likely to develop some form of behavioural or emotional disorder by age seven. These disorders included anything from ADHD disorder to anxiety and depression. This link was discovered because 13.5% of children had these kinds of symptoms, as opposed to only 8% of children who had no sleep-disordered breathing problems.

But here’s where the problems with this study arrive. The researchers admitted that they weren’t sure about whether any of these children actually had these disorders out rightly or not because the results are based off of questionnaires given to parents. Now isn’t that a reliable way to gain results? Obviously, it’s not which already leads to much scrutiny.

Ok, so they claimed that they accounted this link by using variables such as parental income, education, race, birth weight, and whether parents smoked. This is all well and good, but did it take into account how much a parent smoked or exactly how much the parent weighed? Of course it didn’t. So, these figures are already looking very sketchy already. And this is before we get into the fact that people who smoke already underestimate exactly how much they smoke.

Continuing on, the researchers went on to say that even with these variables they discovered that sleep-disordered breathing was the biggest factor involved as the researchers plucked out a figure which said that there was a 72% chance of behavioural or emotional symptoms in children at age seven.

Now, this seems like they just pulled this figure out of nothing because if 45% of children didn’t have any breathing problems whilst sleeping then that means 55% did. If 55% did and only 13.5% of these children had any of these behavioural or emotional issues by age seven then where is the 72% figure coming from? Luck?

And let’s look at the figures they gained from sleep-disordered children versus children who had no issues when it comes to any symptoms and issues when they got older. 13.5% and 8% are incredibly close to each other as a 4.5% difference in a study of 13,000 is marginal, to say the least. If another 13,000 study was conducted then would these figures necessarily be the same? I think not, but if they are then I would be surprised.

For now, this writer will be blaming bad parenting and poor discipline when a child decides that it would be funny to throw a brick at another child’s head.

Last Ice Age Didn’t Wipe Out All Vegetation After All?

In the last Ice Age it was thought that all of the existing vegetation at the time of the massive ice sheets had been wiped out by the freezing temperatures and excessive pressure caused by the sheets themselves. But scientists have shown that some vegetation did survive in Scandinavia, which challenges this long-held scientific “truth”.

Originally, modern Scandinavian trees were thought to have arrived when some of the southern species of tree migrated north after the ice age, which was about 9,000 years ago. However, research published in the Science Mag science journal has shown that some conifers survived the ice age by existing on large peaks above the ice or on islands and on the coast.

Professor Eske Willerslev of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen reported that the species survived in small pockets which the ice couldn’t touch, before spreading outwards after the ice melted. But how did they survive in the ice, how did they find the room and shelter needed to stay alive amongst the fraught surroundings?

The answer is nunataks. Nunataks are common in glacial regions and pop out of the ice like a tiny island. They don’t have any ice or snow within its structure, or on the edges of it, which makes them the perfect place for a plant to grow and survive.

To find these results, the researchers used the DNA of two types of modern plant and the composition of the plants in the sediments of lake-core samples; yes, this is incredibly complicated. But to explain it in English, they compared the DNA of the old and the DNA of the new to see how much they matched up. If they were the same, or incredibly similar, then that means they are probably the same species.

However, the only issue with this theory is that modern nunataks in Greenland don’t have any plants growing on them, so how could this have happened in the age of ice? Of course, this doesn’t attack the fact that they have discovered that certain species around today may have existed before the Ice Age, but it does attack their theory as to why.

On a side note, this is why we have to love science because something which has stood as fact for so long has now been challenged. It sure as hell beats other fields of study where most things tend to stay the same all the time.

What do you think about these new findings, and how do you think these plants survived the Ice Age?

Save the Spotted Owl! With Mr. Chainsaw and Mrs. Shotgun…

Yes, you did read the title correctly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have now turned their attentions to the plight of the Northern spotted owl, which resides in the woods and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Current proposals include shooting competing owls and chopping down trees with cuddly old Mr. Chainsaw.

The proposals come in response to the figures showing that since the owl was made an endangered species in 1990 spotted owl numbers have decreased by an average of 3% each year. Ok, now this is something which clearly needs to be looked at, especially since the rival barred owls invaded its ancestral territories.

These proposals have emerged from a report the FWS conducted into the plight of the owl in the summer of 2011. In this case, the FWS have submitted some sensible proposals like the idea to increase the owl’s protected habitat by around 2.2 million hectares.

However, what has caused some controversy is the battle over deforestation as FWS director Daniel Ashe suggested that fire-prone forests should be logged to protect the landscape. The problem with this is that exactly how fire-prone does a forest have to be to be logged? Most forests are technically prone to fire, but if we have a forest which has stood for a generation without any problems then should we be logging that? Of course we shouldn’t.

Overall, the idea of logging fire-prone forests in the vain hope that it will help encourage the growth of the spotted owl is a slippery slope as taking the decision to cut down trees which take years and years to grow should not be taken lightly.

Also, let’s take a look at a pertinent point made by Ecologist Dominick DellaSala, director of the Geos Institute in Ashland, Oregon, who made the interesting point that this proposal by the FWS is untested. This proposal has never had any studies conducted, large or small, so are we just going to chop down the trees and pray it works? That’s not science, that’s idiocy.

The other proposal was to simply remove the barred owls from the territories. This would be a sensible decision if the owls are having a negative impact on the spotted owls, but are they really? Even Daniel Ashe of the FWS conceded that it would be at least a decade into the experiment before this could be discovered at all, and this is what makes you wonder whether it’s really a good idea at all.

So they want to either shoot or relocate the barred owls to boost the spotted owl population, despite the fact that they don’t know if this will help at all? Essentially, they are saying let’s give another species of owl a good kicking as an experiment to see if it will help. That’s not right at all. Relocate them, maybe, but don’t shoot them.

The question they should also be asking is why are the Barred owls there? Why have they moved out of their own territories? If the answer is overpopulation due to the fact that they have grown too much then, yes, the population may need to be culled. But if the population has been reduced because you destroyed their homes, then that’s your fault and you should be removing the logging companies and creating an area where they can flourish without having to damage other species.

The public do have 90 days to submit their comments, but what do you think should be done when an endangered species’ territory has been invaded by another species which has become displaced somehow?

Iron-Spiked Bacteriophages

It’s been known by scientists and university students alike that a type of virus called a bacteriophage attacks bacteria by drilling through the outer membrane of the bacterium. The virus then runs wild and multiplies until the unfortunate little bacterium explodes in a spectacular cellular fireworks display. But what scientists have never been able to discover is just how they get inside bacteria to begin with – until now.

Bacteriophage

Petr Leiman, a biophysicist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland who led the team of scientists, and who will publish his findings in Structure said that they had already anticipated that a special kind of protein was making the initial opening. However, the problem was that they couldn’t see the end of the tip to determine what it was.

The team of scientists, at their Swiss base, decided to reverse engineer the tips to try and find out what they were made of. Their test subjects were the bacteriophages P2 and Φ92; for those people who don’t know the book off by heart, they typically attack the e-coli bacteria and the bacteria which cause salmonella. The P2 gene for its bacterium puncturing capabilities was already well-known to scientists, and after some searching the gene for Φ92 was also found.

The proteins in these genes were then grown and isolated, before been turned into crystals. This allowed scientists to use the x-ray crystallography technique to bombard the crystals with x-rays in order to bring up an image of the structure. This went well, but one problem still remained. The end of the structure, the part they were looking for, didn’t show up.

Undeterred, though, the genes were reengineered to only produce the invisible part of the structure. After carrying this out, it was then found that the end of the spike was a single iron atom connected by six amino acids.

Originally, it was thought that bacteriophages had help from elsewhere to puncture the outer membranes of the bacterium, but clearly they don’t need any help at all as they have a super-mini iron spike instead.

But what’s the point of all this? Well, the answer to this is that if scientists can use the viruses to find weaknesses in bacteria then it could lead to a number of new ultra-powerful medicines. However, let’s be honest, even if the scientists do create the medicines, we won’t see any of these new medicines in Britain anytime soon as this country has a history of withholding a number of these new medicines due to the fact that it would cost more money.

Scientists Look to Create an Artificial Hamburger. Yum Yum?

We have now reached a new plane of science as the Dutch have managed to begin creating an artificial hamburger.

Dutch scientists are producing strips of muscle tissue using stem cells, as we speak, in order to create the first hamburger grown in a lab. The estimated end to this project is later this year, but don’t be expecting them in shops soon as the cost of this project is a gigantic £200,000.

But why are they wasting their time trying to create a hamburger? No, it’s not to challenge the global fastcrap shack that is McDonald’s, but it’s to help with the problem of an increasingly large and hungry population. And you never know, it may even prove to be an alternative to killing animals.

Professor Mark Post, while at a major science meeting in Canada. touted the possibility of introducing synthetic meat into wider society by saying that the concept could eventually decrease the footprint of meat on the environment by an incredible 60%.

Professor Post, who is running the experiment with his group at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, is carrying out the experiment by growing pieces of off-white muscle which are 1cm in width, 1mm thick, and roughly 2cm long in small bowls.

Artificial Hamburger — Is this the future of meat?

It’s expected that the strips will then be soaked with fat, which has also been artificially grown, and blood to grow a hamburger. The hamburger is expected to be completed by autumn of 2012.

The professor also commented that he was attempting to get Heston Blumenthal, the celebrity chef, to cook it for him. But he did say that the burger will taste quite bland as flavour is not really the priority at the moment.

Despite the high price, Professor Post did claim that he was confident that as production lines are sorted out the cost would come down. So it’s possible that synthetic meat could become a resource of the future. And this is incredibly timely as estimates say that the world’s food production will need to double within the next half-century in order to keep up with demand.

Professor Sean Smukler of the University of British Columbia also stressed the importance of this experiment as he claims that farmers will find it particularly difficult to keep up with demand as the amount of farmable land on the planet has been reduced dramatically.

At the moment the future looks bright when it comes to synthetic meat, as Professor Post confidently asserts that it will become more efficient than meat produced in a natural way. Currently there is an efficiency rate of 15% when it comes to producing natural meat, and synthetic meat is aiming for 50%.

The President of Earthsave Canada, David Steele, wasn’t so enthusiastic about the project, though. He claimed that instead of creating synthetic meat, which could be unhealthy due to the number of chemicals required to stop it from rotting, people could just eat less meat.

Now, while this would be a viable option in an ideal world, we have to remember one thing: most people couldn’t care less about the problems of the world unless it’s having a direct effect on them. It’s harsh, but people are generally unwilling to compromise on their own quality and luxury unless the problem is shoved directly in their faces.

And all of this means that the Dutch could be on to a winner here. The Germans may have had the Hamburger named after one of their cities, but it looks like their cultural archrivals have revolutionised it.

Switzerland Takes a Break from Making Watches to Clean Up Space

Finally the Swiss have put down their watches and they are now entering the field of science once again. Currently space researchers within the small European state are seeking funds to build a spacecraft which can grab pieces of space garbage and drag them down into the atmosphere so it automatically burns up in a colossal ball of fire.

So far the researchers at the Swiss Space Centre of École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne have been working on their master plan for three years, according to the director Volker Gass. They have the technology, they are seeking the funds, and they have their first possible target of a picosatellite named ‘SwissCube’ which was launched back in 2009.

The only problem is that to build the spacecraft, which has been prematurely named as ‘CleanSpaceOne’, will require a whopping $11 million to create and then another three to five years until launch. Clearly there is no austerity in Switzerland then!

Even though it sounds crazy, something does have to be done as space rubbish is becoming a large problem for humanity as more and more fragments of our junk is now heading back towards earth or coming into contact with some of our existing space structures. At the moment NASA is tracking 16,000 objects which are larger than 10cm, and that’s not forgetting the numerous smaller objects which could easily kill someone if they didn’t burn up whilst re-entering our atmosphere.

The new spacecraft will be used to remove larger pieces of space debris which are causing problems for astronauts. The Swiss space module will use a semi-automatic probe and a highly-technical guidance system to latch on to targets which could be travelling at speeds of up to 28,000 km/h, before its ion microthrusters will bring the craft alongside it. And that’s when the Swiss gripper will cuddle the object like a murderous Swiss octopus before the object’s final fiery destruction.

This all sounds pretty simple when it’s written down in front of you, however there are other problems which Gass outlines. The main problems, according to Gass, is that once the piece of debris has been snagged the combination of debris and craft will then have a different centre of gravity which could cause it to spin out of control. In order to survive, the probe will have to be able to stabilise itself so it can guide itself back on to the atmosphere’s curve.

The final result, Gass hopes, is that there will be a number of these craft which can act as a battalion of space maids, however at the rate we release garbage it’s doubtful that they would be able to keep up. If we can’t clean our own planet then how are we going to clean space? But, hey, maybe we can send it on to someone else instead in the true human spirit?