Smithsonian.com

What happens when we send things down a drain? (image courtesy of flickr user mag3737)

If you put something down a drain you shouldn’t have and the drain gets blocked, it’s usually not much more than annoying. But for the people who manage the sewers, blockages in the pipes that go from our homes and businesses to treatment facilities cause bigger problems—sewage spills called “sanitary sewer overflows.” (Yuck!)

One of the major causes of sewer pipe blockages is the formation of hardened, insoluble deposits of fats, oils and grease (FOG); these formations look something like the stalactites in a cave, they have a grainy texture like sandstone, and they adhere strongly to a pipe wall. But little has been known about how they form or even what they are made of.

A group of scientists from North Carolina State University analyzed the contents of these deposits with a technique that uses infrared light to determine the molecular composition of a substance. They were fatty acids, of course, but also calcium. “We found that FOG deposits in sewage collection systems are created by chemical reactions that turn the fatty acids from FOG into, basically, a huge lump of soap,” said N.C. State engineering professor Joel Ducoste, a co-author on the paper, which will be published in Environmental Science & Technology.

The fat and grease break down into glycerol and free fatty acids that then chemically react with calcium present in the sewage system to form these hard deposits. The researchers hope to determine how quickly the deposits form and where the calcium is coming from so that they can then create a model to predict where the blockages might occur and prevent these messy sewer overflows.

Cambridge University Botanic Garden, Cambridge, England (photo by Sarah Zielinski)

I may have grown up in the countryside, but I am more than content with my life as a city girl. That said, I find myself drawn to green spaces; for example, my vacations more often than not include trips to botanic gardens. And I like to walk to work when the weather’s nice, taking advantage of Washington’s quiet, tree-lined streets, sometimes cutting through a couple of parks and a public garden.

I’m getting more than simple enjoyment (and great pictures) out of these parks and gardens—it turns out that they may convey whole array of benefits, as explained in “Parks and Other Green Environments: Essential Comp. of a Healthy Human Habitat” (pdf), a recent report from the National Recreation and Park Association. (And what better subject to talk about on Earth Day?) Some highlights:

* A study that compared census tracts in Los Angeles found that people who had more parks reported higher levels of trust and a greater willingness to help each other.

* In a Dutch study of more than 10,000 households in the Netherlands, the less green a person’s environment was, the more likely there were to be lonely or report a lack of social support.

* In low-income housing projects, residents who have views of only concrete and more buildings report more violence and aggression than residents who have a view of trees and grass. Thefts, burglaries and arson are all more common when vegetation is scarce.

* Japanese researchers found that just 15 minutes of walking in a forest environment resulted in less stress along with lower cortisol levels, pulse rate and blood pressure.

* Employees who have a view of trees from their desks report less job stress and more job satisfaction.

* Children who live in greener environments are more resilient and better able to cope with stressful life events, such as divorce.

* In another study, children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder had better concentration after a 20-minute walk in the park than if that walk had been taken through a neighborhood or downtown setting.

* Children in greener neighborhoods also weigh less and gain less weight than similar children in less green neighborhoods.

* A study of elderly people in Sweden found they had better concentration after an hour in the garden than if they had spent that hour in their favorite indoor room.

* A 1984 study of surgical patients in a Pennsylvania hospital found that those who had a view of trees and grass recovered faster, with fewer complications and able to rely on lower-strength pain medications.

* Several diseases are less prevalent in greener neighborhoods, including depression, asthma, stroke and migraines.

* In the places with the fewest green spaces, the poorest people die at twice the rate of the richest, but where green space is common, that is lowered to only 1.43 times the rate of the rich.

Study after study shows that greening our urban environment is important, that it can lead to less crime, less stress and better health. More than half the world’s people now lives in urban areas, and by 2030 nearly 70 percent will do so. But, worryingly, our urban spaces are becoming less green, not more. So what’s to be done? It’s easy: build more parks, plant more trees, don’t get rid of what we already have. And take advantage of what’s outside.

Modern medicine is getting more complex than ever (image courtesy of flickr user - POD -)

While working on this story from Smithsonian‘s May issue about oncologist Brian Druker and his discovery 10 years ago of a breakthrough drug for chronic myeloid leukemia, I was struck by the following passage:

Over the pub’s blaring music Mayfield said of his BCR-ABL gene, “I had the G250E mutation—have the G250E mutation—which is why I became resistant to Gleevec.”

His remark sounded like something out of a time machine programmed to years or decades from now, when people will nonchalantly talk about their deadly genetic mutations and the drugs that stymie them. It’s an image Druker often conjures. “In the not-too-distant future,” he wrote when accepting the Lasker-DeBakey Award, “clinicians will be able to thoroughly analyze individuals’ tumors for molecular defects and match each person with specific, effective therapies that will yield a durable response with minimal toxicity.”

Genes, genetic mutations, targeted drugs, toxicity, molecular defects, enzymes, stem cells, chromosomes, tyrosine kinases (and these are just examples for this one rare cancer)—modern medicine is getting more and more complex as we learn more about what makes us ill. That’s only going to get more complicated as time goes on, and doctors don’t always have the time for long explanations.

This is just one more reason why everyone needs a solid base in science, and one more reason to worry when reading stories about how science education is being neglected or actively undermined.

I don’t expect that high school science will keep someone prepared for when they are diagnosed with some disease 40 years later—grandchildren will still be explaining medical topics after their grandparents’ doctor visits for decades to come—but a good grounding in science brings a certain comfort level that lets a person quickly educate themselves when new topics arise.

But when people cannot understand their own medical issues, this illiteracy is just one more barrier to getting the care they need. Studies have found that these individuals are more likely to poorer health, less likely to use preventative care, as well as more likely to be hospitalized and have poor outcomes. One study even found higher rates of mortality among elderly people with low medical literacy.

The National Patient Safety Foundation estimated in 2007 that low health literacy costs the United States $106 billion to $236 billion every year. (And technology may not be as great a help as we would like.) With health care costs increasing every year, tackling this problem seems like a no-brainer.

Taking a nap can be good for workers (image courtesy of flickr user mira mira on the wall)

Disappear from your desk for a coffee run or a smoke break—that’s fine. Spend time on Facebook or Twitter—that’s OK, too. Fall asleep at your desk for five minutes—then the boss gets mad.

Napping is generally unacceptable in the workplace, and that’s sad because it’s the healthiest activity I’ve mentioned here and the only one that can actually make you a better worker.

Most modern humans push all of our sleep into one big chunk, usually at night, but our bodies still want to have a second bout of sleep in the afternoon. (That’s why you get sleepy right after lunch.) Add into the mix the fact that most Americans aren’t packing enough sleep into our nights and that napping is common in other societies, and a daily afternoon snooze starts looking quite natural.

Not only is napping natural, but it has numerous benefits. One study compared the effects of napping, caffeine and a placebo and showed that verbal and motor skills decreased after caffeine consumption but visual, verbal and motor skills were enhanced by napping. Another found that blood pressure decreased during an afternoon siesta. Healthy nappers may have lower death rates from from heart attacks and strokes. “Other studies have yielded similar findings for obesity and diabetes. Napping benefits the mind, too; naps enhance creative thinking, boost cognitive processing, improve memory recall and generally clear out the cobwebs,” James Maas and Rebecca Robbins, co-founders of Sleep for Success, wrote in the New York Times last year.

I’m familiar with Maas, a Cornell University psychology professor, from my undergrad years at that institution. Every freshman there learns from her Psych 101 class (or from her friends taking it) about the importance of “power naps,” those 10- to 20-minute cat naps intended to quickly give you a punch of energy. They’re quick enough to not interfere with your regular sleep pattern or make you feel groggy afterwards.

There’s also evidence that a longer nap might not be such a bad thing. One study found that a 30-minute nap could halt the irritation, frustration and poor performance (i.e., “burnout”) that occurs when learning a new task, and a hour-long nap got rid of burnout entirely. Naps of 90 to 120 minutes, which allow the brain to cycle through all the various stages of sleep, may help with memory recall, mood or just tackling a sleep deficit.

“Napping is a natural medicine; you don’t need special equipment or clothing to nap; there is no need to shower after napping; it doesn’t hurt your joints; no drugs are needed,” Boston University sleep expert William Anthony pointed out in the New York Times.

While dozing off at your desk might be adequate for these benefits, lying down is best, say the experts. So with all this in mind, perhaps every office should set aside a small nap room for their hardworking, sleep-deprived employees.

Richard Branson will bring 30 ring-tailed lemurs to Mosquito Island in a few weeks (image courtesy of flickr user Kabacchi)

When billionaire Richard Branson announced the construction of a luxury eco-resort in the British Virgin Islands, it sounded like a great idea. But his latest plan to populate one of those islands, Mosquito Island, with endangered lemurs, sounds more like a crazy-rich-man idea.

There are about 100 species of lemurs, a type of small primate native to the island of Madagascar. Most are classified as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered and are threatened by deforestation, hunting and the exotic pet trade. Those threats have only increased during the political unrest of the last two years.

But will importing lemurs to Mosquito Island help those species? Or could there be ecological heartbreak in store?

Branson will start by bringing 30 ring-tailed lemurs to the island from zoos in Canada, South Africa and Sweden in a few weeks. They’ll be kept in cages to acclimatize before being released into the forest. They’ll be inoculated against diseases, and veterinarians will be available to treat sick lemurs. Releases of red-ruffed lemurs and sifakas may follow, according to reports.

When I asked Erik Patel, who studies silky safakas, about the plans, he said that the ring-tailed lemurs at least stand a chance of surviving their introduction to the island. “They are quite flexible,” he says. But, “it would certainly be a grave mistake to bring sifakas there, since sifakas are known to be amongst the most sensitive lemurs, are difficult to rear in captivity, and seldom survive reintroductions.”

And then there’s the question of what will happen to all the plants and creatures that already live on that island. Conservation plans rarely begin with (or even include) the introduction of a non-native species. And though lemurs surely are adorable, they “could damage native flora and fauna on the island, particularly reptiles such as the stout iguana, turnip-tailed gecko, and dwarf gecko, as well as birds’ eggs,” Patel says.

Even if the introduction of lemurs to Mosquito Island is ultimately successful and does no harm to the local ecology, it’s difficult to see how this will help the lemurs of Madagascar. Branson has said that his lemurs might eventually be reintroduced to their homeland, but there are already established projects that do so.

Branson has a good reputation for supporting the environment, pledging $3 billion towards biofuel research, for example, sponsoring a prize for climate change research, and even funding sifaka conservation efforts in Madagascar. “I think he does care about these animals, and basically wants to help them,” Patel says. “However, in this case, the risks may outweigh the benefits. I hope we can continue to channel his energy and sincere goodwill into further conservation projects in Madagascar itself, which may be a bargain compared to the high cost of purchasing and transporting all these lemurs to Mosquito Island.”