REACHING THE LIMITS

By Pam Eastlick

Welcome to The Deep science and technology column where we cover topics from the deep sea to deep space and beyond.

Greetings everyone. Well, I’m back on island after a marvelous two weeks on the mainland. I attended a Planetarium conference and had some time with my family on the mainland and now it’s back to work!

Since the Olympics are going on, I thought you might be interested in a study done by two South Korean researchers. They analyzed data from sports events over the last hundred years in an attempt to answer the following questions.

Running and swimming records are broken again and again at almost every international athletics event. But, can human performance continue to improve indefinitely? Will runners continue to accelerate off the starting blocks and reach the finish line in faster and faster times? Will swimmers always be able to dive into the record books with a quicker kick?

Yu Sang Chang and Seung Jin Baek of the KDI School of Public Policy and Management in Seoul used non-linear regression models to accurately extrapolate the data from 61 running and swimming events and they calculated we could reach the upper limits on elite human performance within a decade.

Their research has led them to conclude that the limit on the fastest times for many events will be reached somewhere in the next seven to ten years. Although records are still being broken at the 2012 Olympics in London and may be broken at the Rio Olympics in 2016; after that…who knows? The researchers believe their discovery of a “time to limit” has a number of policy implications for both local and national sport associations as well as for the international rule-setting federations.

Of course, US swimmer, Michael Phelps has famously proclaimed that, “You can’t put a limit on anything. The more you dream, the farther you get.” Phelps has set over 40 world records. Sprinter Usain Bolt of Jamaica, similarly shaved split seconds from his 100-meter time over the years. Bolt’s 9.58 second 100m time shattered the previous theoretical running speed limit of 9.60 seconds that was suggested 40 years ago. But Bolt’s time for the 100m in the London Olympics was 9.63, just a little slower than his record time.

“The limit of speed in sport events has been a popular topic for the public because watching athletes setting new records to win is exciting and stimulating for many sport fans,” Chang and Baek suggest. “In addition, setting new world records may even be inspiring to the public because the process of improving and winning the competition reminds them of what they can accomplish in their own life.”

Other researchers have criticized the use of linear regression to extrapolate to a limit. However, the present work uses the officially recognized world records on 61 sporting events during the period from 1900 to 2009 (29 running and 32 swimming events all at the Olympic level). Therefore this study may be the most comprehensive study undertaken so far.

The statistical analysis suggests that improvements in running and swimming are slowing down and will eventually reach a maximum in the decade time period they suggest. However, their analysis doesn’t take into account changes in the rules, measurements, and environmental conditions. If the governing federations move the starting blocks as it were, Phelps’ prediction that there are no limits may come true and athletes will continue to make a splash in the record books indefinitely.

And the current Olympics may prove them right. As I write this, eight world records have been broken in the London Olympics, a far cry from the 43 world records broken in the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

By Pam Eastlick

Welcome to The Deep science and technology column where we cover topics from the deep sea to deep space and beyond. Several interesting stories from the medical file today. Make sure you read the column title!

A group of scientists have recently published a paper based on their study of participants in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), which is tracking the long term health and well-being of around 14,000 children born in 1991 and 1992.

They’ve found that a diet high in fats, sugars, and processed foods in early childhood may lower IQ, while a diet packed full of vitamins and nutrients may do the opposite. Parents completed questionnaires, detailing the types and frequency of the food and drink their children consumed when they were 3, 4, 7 and 8.5 years old.

Three dietary patterns were identified: "processed" high in fats and sugar intake; "traditional" high in meat and vegetable intake; and "health conscious" high in salad, fruit and vegetables, rice and pasta. Scores were calculated for each pattern for each child.

The children’s IQ was measured using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children when they were 8.5 years old. In all, complete data were available for just under 4,000 children.

The results showed that eating a diet of predominantly processed food at the age of 3 was associated with a lower IQ at the age of 8.5, even if the diet improved after that age. Every 1 point increase in dietary pattern score was associated with a 1.67 point fall in IQ.

On the other hand, a healthy diet was associated with a higher IQ at the age of 8.5, with every 1 point increase in dietary pattern linked to a 1.2 point increase in IQ. Dietary patterns between the ages of 4 and 7 had no impact on IQ.

Well, that certainly makes me worry about all the toddlers I see holding the bags of chips and sugared sodas. And the sugared sodas bring up another interesting point.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has very quietly removed saccharin, a common artificial sweetener, and its salts from the agency’s list of hazardous substances. Saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health.

Saccharin is a white crystalline powder found in diet soft drinks, chewing gum and juice. Saccharin was labeled a potentially cancer-causing substance in the 1980s. In the late 1990s, the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer re-evaluated the available scientific information on saccharin and its salts and concluded that it is not a potential human carcinogen. Because the scientific basis for remaining on EPA’s lists no longer applies, the agency has removed saccharin and its salts from its lists.

So, instead of buying your toddler that bag of cookies she’s whining for, why don’t you buy her an apple instead? Or a diet soft drink? She might be smart enough to thank you for it later!

PEERING INTO THE FUTURE

By Pam Eastlick

Welcome to The Deep science and technology column where we cover topics from the deep sea to deep space and beyond.

You’ve probably noticed that smoking and cigarettes are in the news lately. One of the biggest stories involves what’s going on in Australia. They’re revamping the packaging for cigarettes. Instead of the familiar brand-name logos, all the cigarette names will be in the same-sized small print on the front of the pack.

Of course, the real news is what else will be on the pack. Graphic pictures of cancerous lungs, a foot rotting away from gangrene, a child on a ventilator. But that’s not what triggered the lawsuit.

Phillip Morris is suing the Australian government not for the graphic images but because their familiar red Marlboro logo can’t be used. Sort of says something about big tobacco companies, doesn’t it? They don’t care about the graphic images, they’re afraid you won’t buy their brand anymore because all the packages look alike.

The images are pretty horrible, especially the rotting foot, but a recent paper published by British researchers in the British Journal of Health Psychology shows that you may not need to be that graphic. The scientists used state-of-the-art morphing technology to show a group of women what will happen to their faces if they continue to smoke. The technology showed the women how they will age if they continue to smoke and if they stop.

Professor Sarah Grogan, who is the project leader and a Professor of Health Psychology, said: “Using state-of-the-art age progression software we have been able to take a picture of women’s faces and show them how they will age if they smoked and if they stopped. We found that women were very concerned about the impact of ageing on their faces in general and in particular the additional impact of smoking on their skin. Many experienced a physical shock reaction, including reports of nausea, to seeing how they would age if they continued to smoke. The women in the study reported being highly motivated to quit smoking as a result of the intervention and many said that they would take active steps to quit having seen how they would look if they continued to smoke.”

The study looked at 47 women between 18 and 34 years old. The technique has been so successful that over two thirds of participants in the project said they will quit smoking as a direct consequence of seeing how their appearance will change.

The scientists plan to retest the research participants, six months after they took part in the intervention, to determine whether they continued to smoke. But from the success of initial feedback, it is hoped the technology can be used more widely.

Professor Grogan said: “This is the first research investigating age-progression morphing software in this country, and we’re hoping that eventually the findings can be implemented in stop smoking services across the UK.”

So . . . you can show people pictures of rotten feet and sick kids, but what really hits home is what can happen to them personally!

I was a ‘social smoker’ back in the day, but I quit when I developed asthma. My doctor told me I’d already lost 10% of my lung capacity and that I would never pick up another cigarette. I listened and I never did. But I also remember a very famous poster of an old old woman with half inch deep wrinkles and sunken mouth who had a cigarette dangling from her lips. It made an impression on me!

TOBACCO GOES BUGGY

By Pam Eastlick

Welcome to The Deep science and technology column where we cover topics from the deep sea to deep space and beyond.

Greetings everyone and welcome to another edition of The Deep. I got an interesting phone call over the weekend. It was a survey by our local public health office and a couple of the questions they asked me were “Have you ever smoked?” and “Do you smoke now?”.

I told the lady that I did smoke at one time but that I quit many years ago. After we hung up, I thought about the two factors that made me quit. One was that I was an asthmatic and the doctor told me that smoking would only make it worse and the other was my houseplants.

I had a houseplant that I was particularly fond of and it wasn’t doing well. I noticed there were little white bugs in the soil of the pot. I asked a friend what kind of insecticide to use and she said “You don’t need to buy insecticide, just take a cigarette and shred out the tobacco into your pot and water the plant.”

I laughed but did it anyway. Hmmmm. No more bugs. And I thought “If the tobacco from a single cigarette can do that to a pot full of bugs, what are cigarettes doing to me?” Which brings us to our latest scientific news.

According to a report published in the journal Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, tobacco which has been used on a small scale as a natural organic pesticide for hundreds of years, is getting new scientific attention as a potential mass-produced alternative to traditional commercial pesticides.

The researchers note that concerns about the health risks of tobacco have reduced demand and hurt tobacco farmers in some parts of the world. A pesticide industry based on tobacco could provide income for farmers, and provide a new eco-friendly pest-control agent, the scientists say.

They describe a promising way to convert tobacco leaves into pesticides with pyrolysis. That process involves heating tobacco leaves to about 900 degrees F. in a vacuum, to produce an unrefined substance called bio-oil. The scientists tested tobacco bio-oil against a wide variety of insect pests, including 11 different fungi, four bacteria, and the Colorado potato beetle, a major agricultural pest that is increasingly resistant to current insecticides. The oil killed all of the beetles and blocked the growth of two types of bacteria and one fungus.

Even after removal of the nicotine, the oil remained a very effective pesticide. Its ability of the oil to block some but not all of the microorganisms suggests that tobacco bio-oil may have additional value as a more selective pesticide than those currently in use, the report indicates.

Still interested in breathing in all that insecticide? If it kills bugs, what do you think it’s doing to you? I say let’s start growing the world’s tobacco for the bugs and NOT the people!

THE ODD DISCOVERY

By Pam Eastlick

Welcome to The Deep science and technology column where we cover topics from the deep sea to deep space and beyond.

I know we did a medical story last week but I wanted to share a discovery about the human body that has me and a lot of other people scratching our heads. I always tell the kids that one of the things I like about my field is that it changes all the time. What we thought last week may not be what we think tomorrow. This story definitely proves THAT scientific theory.

We all know about taste buds and the science behind how we enjoy that empanada, but there have been several interesting changes lately in our understanding of taste receptors. For one thing, the Japanese have discovered a new taste receptor in addition to sweet, sour, bitter and salty. They called it umami. And more recently, we’ve been told that the diagram we all saw in biology that isolated the different taste receptors to different parts of the tongue is wrong. Your taste buds for the different flavors are actually scattered all across the tongue.

But now, scientists have come up with a real shocker. You have bitter taste receptors in your lungs. And we still don’t know why. But what the researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore learned about the how these receptors work could give us a new and effective treatment for asthma and other lung diseases.

The finding was so unexpected, the doctors didn’t even believe it themselves when they first identified the taste receptors on the lung bronchi. The receptors were found by accident when the doctors were looking for muscle receptors that regulate the contraction and relaxation of the lung airways. In asthma, the smooth muscles of the airways contract, which diminishes the flow of air.

The taste receptors they found in the lungs are the same as those on the tongue. The tongue’s receptors are clustered in taste buds, which send signals to the brain. The researchers say the taste receptors in the lung are not clustered into buds and they don’t send signals to the brain, but they do respond to substances that have a bitter taste.

Since most plant poisons are bitter, the researchers figured that the lung airways would contract as a warning when a bitter substance was detected. Instead, much to their surprise, the bitter compounds worked in the exact opposite way. They caused the smooth muscle to relax and opened the airway better than any known drug used for asthma.

Quinine and chloroquine have been used to treat completely different diseases (such as malaria), but are also very bitter. Both of these compounds opened contracted airways profoundly in laboratory models. Even saccharin, which has a bitter aftertaste, caused the airways to relax.

The researchers think that it’s unlikely that eating bittermelon will help your asthma, but they do think that bitter compounds could be made into aerosols and then used in an inhaler.

So why do the lungs have bitter taste receptors? No one knows, but it’s the perfect example of the great advances in science being made when someone says “Hmmm . . . . .that’s odd . . . . . “

This is a slide of lung taste receptors through a microscope. Red bands are receptors, blue dots are nuclei. (Credit: University of Maryland School of Medicine)