Bes For You

Why Can Soda Dissolve a Rat?

2019-10-12T02:01:00.000+01:00

Why Can Soda Dissolve a Rat?

Over the years, there have been several claims of a mouse or rat being found in a can of soda. Disgusting, right?

Well, brace yourselves because it kind of gets worse. In 2012, a small lawsuit against PepsiCo for one of those incidents revealed something much more disturbing. In their denial that a mouse could be found in a can of Mountain Dew, a veterinary pathologist hired by the company claimed that it was impossible because the soda would have dissolved the mouse into a jelly-like substance by the time they opened the can.

They claimed that you wouldn’t find a mouse carcass, but rather mouse-goo.

But is that even possible? Can soda actually dissolve a small animal?

While soda may be able to dissolve certain parts of an animal, some aspects may survive. Mice and rats can be quite strong swimmers, but when they are fully submerged in any liquid, they will drown in just a few minutes., Since soda cans have a shelf life ranging from three to nine months,, there is plenty of time for the rodent to dissolve with the help of the common chemicals found in these drinks. The sharp, tangy flavor in soda is due to citric or phosphoric acid, which have pH’s

similar to that of the hydrochloric acid in your stomach. Scientists believe that these chemicals could eat away bones and teeth.

In a famous 2004 study, soaking human molars for just two weeks resulted in a 1 percent loss of tooth enamel volume in Coca Cola, a 6 percent loss in Mountain Dew, and an 8 percent loss in Diet Mountain Dew. However, even after months in soda, the collagen and soft tissue may still remain., In order to disintegrate the animal completely, other digestive enzymes may be needed.

But besides being able to partially digest a mouse, soda has other not so great qualities as well. A typical 12 ounce can of soda contains around 7 to 10 teaspoons of added sugar. That’s equal to 30 to 42 grams of sugar, or 110 to 150 calories without any nutrients. Sugary soft drinks like soda can increase your risk for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, gout, and obesity. One meta-analysis combining the results of 11 questionnaire-based studies found that people who drink one or more cans of soft drinks a day had a 26 percent greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely drank them.

Other studies have found a 20 to 40 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease, depending on how many soft drinks were consumed. So, it may be time to cut down on all the sugary drinks. If not for your health, at least to avoid finding a half-dissolved mouse carcass floating in your beverage.

What If You Only Drank Milk?

2019-10-10T02:00:00.000+01:00

I’m sure we all remember as kids being told to drink our milk so we can grow up big and strong. I think Triangle Bob took that advice a little too seriously! So if it’s so good for us, why not just drink a ton of milk a day? Or why not only drink milk?

Well, besides the fact that around 65% of the world’s population have a problem digesting lactose found in milk, it turns out that drinking large quantities of milk a day can be really, really bad for you.

Large amounts of calcium can cause numerous health issues. It can wreak havoc on your kidneys, resulting in kidney stones forming from calcium deposits or milk-alkali syndrome from an acid imbalance resulting in loss of kidney function. The American Cancer Society also puts high calcium consumption on the list of risk factors for prostate cancer. In addition, a study by researchers at Vanderbilt University found that high levels of calcium inhibit the absorption of magnesium, leading to an increased risk for colorectal cancer.

Milk also has a high fat and cholesterol content, which can cause heart disease.,, And overall, drinking large amounts of milk a day may lead to a higher mortality rate. In a 2014 study of more than 61,000 Swedish women and over 45,000 Swedish men, researchers found that women who drank three or more glasses of milk a day had a 44% increased risk of cancer mortality compared to those who drank less than one glass a day. And for each glass of milk drank, mortality risk from heart disease rose 15%. Men were less affected, having an overall mortality risk of just 10% for those who drank three or more glasses per day compared to those who drank less than one.

But there are people, mainly body builders, who have tried to only drink milk.

In fact, some even attempt to drink an entire gallon of milk a day! You know, for the gains.

In contrast to water, milk contains between 100 to 150 calories per cup, depending on the fat content. And more calories equals more weight gain. However, while most who tried this were happy with their added bulk, they noted that drinking only milk made them less hungry for other important foods with essential nutrients like fiber, folic acid, and iron which are not found in milk. These help lower cholesterol,

manage blood sugar, and transport oxygen to your cells and tissues.

So, unless you are or are advised by a registered dietician, stick to the recommended dietary guidelines set by the professionals. Limit your intake, stay away completely, but just don’t go overboard.

What if everyone went to sleep at the same time?

2019-10-09T01:58:00.000+01:00

What if everyone went to sleep at the same time?

Well, if everyone in the world decided to completely sync up their bedtimes, things

would get pretty weird.

To begin with, certain portions of the world would be sleeping during daylight hours. This would not only disrupt their natural circadian rhythm and sleep-wake cycle, but would force them to work at night, making outdoor jobs, like construction and agriculture, very difficult. This regimented sleep time would also affect energy production and carbon dioxide emissions.

While everyone is asleep, power grids would feel a sigh of relief and emissions would decline. But when everyone wakes up around the same time and starts using their lights and appliances, emissions would surge due to all the power stations firing up - something critics of Earth Hour have pointed out. And with people up and working at night, we would use more electricity for lighting than the 232 billion killowatthours the United States already consumes yearly for homes and

buildings.

Right now, this only accounts for 6% of the country’s total electrical use. Who knows how big this percentage would grow if the world adopted the same sleep time.

What If the Internet Stopped Working

2019-10-08T01:56:00.000+01:00

What if you woke up to an unexpected Internet breakdown? Would you be able to survive without checking facebook for new postings first thing in the morning? With no Google Maps to find your way in a strange city? with a credit card unable to pay for lunch? what if someone or something shut it down?

You could argue this kind of digital detox would be beneficial. We'd take our eyes off our screens and strike up real-life conversations with each other. We've discovered that our smartphones can actually make phone calls. We bring back fax machines and start making notes by hand. Well, maybe not fax machines and hey, we'd still have TV to entertain us the world would not fall apart. In fact with almost 4 billion people having no access to the Internet worldwide. Half of humanity wouldn't notice a difference in the short term. But not you mighty internet user you would notice right away.

If the internet suddenly flatlined, social media users would start calling each other on the phone. Overloading the working telecommunication systems. Unless cell phone towers and telephone lines were also shut down. Then you'd go back to writing letters and sending them via post. Forget about Wireless file transfers with no Wi-Fi. You'd have to use a physical cable to connect to computers or a CD.

Now think about the economy with financial data generally stored on a server, banking services largely depend on the Internet. Each transfers would be impossible. Your credit card and debit card would become a useless piece of plastic, and what about all those bitcoins? You worked so hard to mine? Well, you know the answer.

On top of that large companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon would go out of business, losing their combined revenue of almost four hundred and forty billion dollars. With Google itself having 80,000 full-time staff hundreds of thousands of people would be left unemployed. Even companies that only rely on the Internet as a means of advertising would be affected. Developed countries would lose entire industries and face economic crisis.

What about those countries with just a small internet presence?

They would be affected too as international trade is dependent on the internet. So is the world's transit? With no internet access between airports planes ships trains and commercial trucking we'd go back to tracking goods on paper. This would raise the market value on transported products as it would be more complicated to deliver goods to stores.

At least you could still travel. However, you won't have Instagram to share your travel selfies anymore.

Wonder if the internet shutdown is even possible. Well, not on a worldwide level.

Some countries have actually introduced a kill switch to intentionally shut down the internet and telephone communications. But killing the whole internet is harder than just cutting off a couple submarine cables. The Internet is a global network of many other computer networks. It doesn't depend on a single machine. Even if one part of it went offline others would remain functional. So don't worry. You'll still be able to order pizza for dinner tonight.

What If We Terraformed the Moon?

2019-10-07T01:55:00.000+01:00

what if we humans could live somewhere outside of Earth say the moon?

Obviously we can't just pack our stuff and move there today but what if we terraformed it reshaped it into Earth's image how long would it take us to turn our natural satellite into a habitable place what would this Earth Moon look like, would this even be possible this is what if and here's what would happen if we terraform the moon.

Wondering why we choose the moon and not Mars with water ice buried beneath its surface the red planet seems to be the best candidate to serve as our second earth but with zero experience terraforming we should consider colonizing our natural satellite first, it gets twice as much sunlight as Mars and it's just a three-day trip from us, in short it would take us less time and money to construct a decent earth on our moon.

So how exactly do we engineer a habitable planet?

Just to be clear, we're not talking about building a permanent moon base, we'd go nuts and actually transform the moon into an earth, just a smaller one for starters we'd need to build an atmosphere and here's the fun part. To do that we'd need to bombard our moon with a hundred water ice comets "ice droids", we'd find them flying all around the earth. These comets would crash into the moon's surface, they fill the moon's Plains with water and disperse carbon dioxide along with water vapour and a little bit of ammonia and methane. All these gases would gather near the surface creating an atmosphere, the newly formed seas would reflect much more

sunlight making the moon appear five times brighter when seen from Earth, these ice droids would also give the moon a momentum they'd make our satellites spin close to an earth-like cycle, the more comets we batter into the moon, a faster it would rotate.

A lunar day would drop down from an incredible 28 earth days to just 60 hours. Since our satellite wouldn't rotate on its axis at the same rate it orbits the earth anymore it would no longer be tidally

locked to our planet, for earthers this would mean we'd be able to see the dark side of the moon. Although, it wouldn't be dark but how do we save the newly built lunar atmosphere from being stripped away by solar winds?

We'd have a couple of options, the first one is easy, moon's own rotation would generate a dynamo effect that dynamo could awaken the moon's once active magnetic field that would keep the atmosphere in place. If that doesn't work out, we'd have to place a gigantic shield in orbit that shield would work as an artificial bow shock making up for a missing magnetic field.

When that's all sorted we'd bring in genetically engineered plants suitable for growing on the moon's stony ground. We'd also drop some algae that would release oxygen into the air. That would be the start of life on the moon.

Finally, after many decades of hard and costly work we'd send the first human colony to settle down on the first man-made planet. The terraformed moon would get very warm from greenhouse effects, it would be mostly cloudy too and with tides as high as 20 meters. Surfers might want to make

the trip. Living on the moon would be just like living in Florida but with 1/6

of the Earth's gravity. The moon settlers would be able to jump as high as 3

meters off the ground, remaining in the air for 4 seconds and if they were

really fit and full of stamina they'd be able to run across the moon's lake, this is because running on the water requires less muscle power if you do them reduce gravity.

Would you move to the moon to experience all that?

What Will The Big Crunch Do To Earth?

2019-10-06T01:53:00.000+01:00

The Universe is pretty awesome. With our limited understanding of the Universe, it’s possible that it could keep going on forever, but it’s also possible that it could end in a final cataclysmic event. One such universe-ending theory is called the Big Crunch. You’ve heard of the Big Bang, right? Basically, the Big Crunch is like that, but in reverse.

It’s a hypothetical scenario where the Universe would eventually stop expanding like it currentlyis, and instead contract or collapse into itself, taking everything within the Universe with it… essentially consuming itself. Not only does that sound pretty heavy metal, but it would be, well, pretty much the end of life as we know it. However, within this theory, rather than the Big Crunch simply being a dark, bitter end to everything, it could also be a new beginning of sorts.

There’s this idea that it could lead to another Big Bang, starting the process all over again. You could have a virtually never-ending cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, leading to a type of cyclical universe model where, instead of switching everything off, somebody just keeps pushing the reset button. That’s somewhat uplifting I guess, though it does beg the whole “what’s the point?” question.

All of this is purely hypothetical, of course, because there are still things that we don’t really know or completely understand about the Universe. One of these question marks is called dark energy, which is believed to be about 70% of the composition of the Universe. Little is known about dark energy other than that it’s some sort of seemingly-invisible space force that’s been thought to cause the acceleration of the Universe’s expansion. Dark energy has been mostly thought of as a cosmological constant, which doesn’t look good for the Big Crunch theory’s validity.

If dark energy is indeed a constant, then the Universe probably wouldn’t collapse

into itself, but rather keep on expanding. In fact, recent research that came out earlier this year may take us even further away from the Big Crunch theory.

Using a combination of X-ray and ultraviolet data, astronomers have found evidence that dark energy may be getting stronger with time.

By looking at and comparing the distances of quasars — distant, super-bright black holes—, the researchers found that the universe's expansion rate was faster than expected based on models where dark energy was kept as a constant.

So, if dark energy really is getting stronger, it’s way more likely that we would be looking at something called a Big Rip. F's in the chat please! The Big Rip theory says that the Universe could keep on expanding to the point where it rips itself apart.

We’re talking everything from planets, to people, to even atoms themselves getting torn apart by the Big Rip. This could be the case if dark energy gets stronger and wins the tug-of-war against gravity, which, based off of that recent research, seems more like a possibility.

What If You only Ate Fish?

2019-10-05T01:51:00.000+01:00

What would happen if you only ever ate fish and seafood?

Well, before we get there, let's talk about how eating seafood and fish can affect your health.

Generally, there are multiple benefits of regularly including seafood in your diet. Eating fish has been associated with things like boosted brain health, improved sleep quality, and even better eye health.

One study in particular had promising results for the effects of eating fish on the incidence rates of age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, in women. The researchers found that consuming one or more servings of fish per week was associated with a 42% lower risk of AMD compared to when eating fish less than once per month.

But what happens when you only eat fish?

Well, eating only fish, meat, or animal products in general can run you the risk of some deficiencies. That’s because these kinds of diets can lack certain nutrients and micronutrients, along with beneficial plant compounds. Leafy green plants are your main sources of Vitamin E and other nutrients, so you’ll be missing out there. You’re also going to miss out on fiber, so your bowels are probably going to be pretty mad at you and no carbs either.

The World Health Organization says that a healthy diet typically includes fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains, all foods that are good sources of carbohydrates, which you wouldn’t really be getting chomping on fish all day.

Fish are often seen as having healthier fats than land animal meats, so there’s at least that. There are also a few other key things that separate fish from other animal products. A lot of this comes down to two main factors: omega-3 levels and mercury levels. Fish generally have higher levels of both when compared to other foods. Higher omega-3 levels are typically seen as a good thing, associated with things like lower risks of heart failure and coronary disease, while higher mercury levels are something you want to avoid, because they have toxic effects on the nervous system, digestive system, and immune systems.

So how would this affect you in practice? Would the positives and negatives equal out?

While his diet didn’t go to the extreme of /only/ eating fish, a few years ago a journalist by the name of Paul Greenberg decided to eat seafood with every one of his meals for an entire year to see how it would affect his health.

So, what happened?

Well, the only real changes that he found were that both his omega-3 levels and mercury levels went up, which makes sense, but most of his general health markers didn’t really show much difference. Paul’s mercury levels did go down though after he lowered his seafood intake. While his findings don’t really provide any strong evidence one way or another on the health effects of eating such a seafood-heavy diet, his results do add to the idea that the mercury levels in seafood cause your own mercury levels to increase.

So, while regularly eating some fish is probably a good thing, you really should try

and get some more variety in your diet.

What Would Really Happen If You Cloned Yourself?

2019-10-05T01:50:00.000+01:00

What if you wanted to clone your best friend or even yourself? How would that even work?

Cloning is the process of producing a genetically identical copy of a living organism. It can be done on many scales, from replicating basic DNA to a complete genetic copy of a living thing. Scientists have cloned a bunch of animals in the last 100 years, most notably, the infamous Dolly the Sheep in 1996. Now, we’ve got cloned cows, horses, cats, and dogs running around and just recently, two cloned monkeys joined the party.

This part smells really bad guys...if we could just clean some stuff up a bit? If we can clone primates just like monkeys, can we do it with humans? The most successful and well-known method of cloning full living things is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Scientists take an ovum from a female of the species they’re cloning and remove all the DNA from inside. Then, they take the nucleus of a somatic cell, like a skin cell, from the thing they want to clone and insert it into the egg. The egg is then implanted into a surrogate, who carries the egg until it’s born.

Now that scientists have cloned a non-human primate, we’re closer than we’ve ever been to cloning a person, but there’s still a ways to go. The success rate for these monkeys was super low, as it often is with cloning. The scientists started out with 127 eggs and only ended up with 2 monkeys, meaning their success rate was only 1.6%.

One of the biggest struggles with cloning primates has to do with spindle proteins. They’re crucial in cell division and development, and, in humans, they reside in the nucleus of an egg. So, when the nucleus is removed to make room for the new DNA, those spindle proteins are removed too, making embryonic development that much harder. Say we found solutions to biological issues like this, navigated our way through the complex ethical implications, and successfully cloned a human, would your clone be just like you?

If you’re 5’ 10” with brown hair and blue eyes, maybe your name is Steve, who knows? You’d expect your clone to look the same, right? Isn’t that what cloning is? Well you may be surprised to learn that your clone could look completely different! Your appearance is based on genes, yes, but it also depends on the fetal environment you grow in and which genes are turned off or on. Your clone could also be very unhealthy. Many cloned animals suffer from defected brains, hearts, and livers, and immune system problems. In lots of clones, the tips of their chromosomes shrink quicker, meaning cellular aging happens faster than normal too. So your clone could be really sick and die prematurely.

Plus, your clone could have a completely different personality than you do!

While your personality is based on some genetics, it’s also formed through experiences and upbringing. Just because Ronbus is super friendly, motivated, and likes puzzles, doesn’t mean your clone would. The Ronbus clone could be mean, dishonest, and hate puppies! So unless your clone had the exact same development and experiences you did, it really wouldn't be you.

With all this being said, would you wanna clone yourself still?

What Will Technology Look Like In 100 Years?

2019-10-04T01:48:00.000+01:00

Think back 100 years. Electricity had pretty much just been invented. Movies had no sound, and even carrier pigeons were even still being used! Things have come a long way since then, which has us wondering, what will technology look like in the next 100 years?

There are some pretty life-changing inventions predicted to come about in the next century. Flying cars, once thought to be a thing of just science fiction, are actually progressing at lightning speed. A lot of the technology already exists and some expect that flying cars will be availableto the public in just ten to fifteen years!

Regulations are still in the works, but it sounds like you’ll be whizzing around in your flying car well before 2120. Another future tech? Brain-linked VR. It doesn’t exist yet but it’s thought that this could run directly through your brain, bypassing biological sensory systems, creating artificial experiences of touch, smell, and maybe even taste. It could construct an alternate reality so realistic that you might mix up what’s real and what’s not.

The homes you live in will be pretty different too. People are expecting that we’ll be 3D printing incredible homes and even making them foldable and transportable! Imagine the places you’ll go!

The hope is that 3D printing in general will allow us to print literally anything we need. New hammer? No problem! Need a car part? You got it! New organ? Yeah, even that’s being developed.

And improvements to health care don’t stop with artificial body parts. Some researchers are hoping that by 2120, we’ll all have little nanobots circulating through our body that constantly search for threats like illness and disease, and then fix the problem from the inside out!

With tech of the future, you may be able to one day have an extra set of robot arms and realize your dreams of becoming a human spider! You’ve probably already heard of the powered exoskeletons being developed, but one of the more promising advancements in the field is having a mechanical “third arm” to help out with tasks. Currently being developed for the military, this third arm is lightweight, doesn’t need batteries, and can even distribute the load of a heavy weapon. A small pilot study in 2017 showed that it could reduce arm fatigue and muscle activation, as well as improve marksmanship for some soldiers. So it’s already on its way to beating Triangle Bob in an arm wrestling match! and his arm fell off.

Of course in order to create these kinds of tech, scientists, researchers, and corporations will need a lot of help from good ol’ trusty computers. Today’s computers have become a lot more powerful over the last 50 years, but advancements have started to slow down recently. Moore’s Law stated that the number of transistors per silicon computing chip would double every two years, which it did… until recently. Which sounds bad for speed and efficiency, but some experts aren’t too worried. Instead, they’re taking other steps to work around this, like reassessing the outdated structure of computers. Many CPUs still have features that date back to the 1940s! and until just a few years ago, tons of computers were still using code from the 1980s! Despite the work that needs to be done, coding is still advancing and powering every aspect of our digital world, including me! It allows humans to give computers and programs step-by-step instructions to do all kinds of things.

What If Earth Picked Up a Second Moon?

2019-10-04T01:47:00.000+01:00

We owe a lot to the Moon. Without it, our tides wouldn’t be as high, our seasons wouldn’t be as regular, and our days would be much shorter.

But you know what? What we call “the Moon” isn’t the only moon the Earth has ever had. Once in a while, our planet’s gravity captures a tiny, rocky body, forcing it to make a few orbits around us before it continues its jaunt around the Sun. Because they’re so small, these objects usually go undetected. But what if Earth managed to capture something a lot bigger? Something much closer in mass to our current Moon?

It might sound like a lot of fun, but once you look at the consequences, you might start to hope this never happens. Now, not all of the consequences would be catastrophic. For instance, if this second moon orbited close to Earth, we would generally have more moonlight. And while that would affect nocturnal animals and make it easier for some predators to hunt, it likely wouldn’t destroy the food web.

The light probably isn’t the thing we’d be most concerned about, though. We’d likely be thinking more about stuff like tides. If we picked up another moon, its gravity would cause Earth’s tides to reach both higher highs and lower lows over the course of a month. That means a lot of people would probably have to move away from coastal areas, shifting the population of our planet.

If the moons were orbiting at different distances from Earth, they’d also be traveling at different speeds. And that would further mess up our tidal system, where we currently have a nice, regular spacing between high and low tides. The time between those tides would speed up, causing more shoreline erosion. And that would threaten not just aquatic life, but human infrastructure, which would get pummeled by waves all the more often. This extra force wouldn’t just pull on Earth’s water, though: It would pull on everything on and underneath the Earth’s surface, too. This would increase Earth’s volcanic activity, and the frequency of other natural disasters, like earthquakes and tsunamis. Which are rarely good for life - or for humans.

On an even longer scale, this second moon would even affect how long our day is. Right now, our Moon is gradually slowing Earth’s rotation because it’s orbiting around us more slowly than we’re spinning. Its gravity is tugging on Earth and creating a sort of drag. But a second satellite — especially one close to the Moon’s size — would interfere with that process. Exactly how, though, would, of course, depend on its orbit, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s say it orbited in the same direction as our current Moon, and was located a bit closer to Earth. That satellite would help slow down our rotation, and our days would get longer. Which might sound kind of nice, because I could use a couple extra minutes a day, until you realize that satellite would also gradually creep outward because of some specific orbital mechanics.

Eventually, it would smash into the Moon, which would almost definitely bring about some kind of Armageddon as debris rained down upon the Earth.

Like I said… the moonlight probably isn’t the thing we should be most worried about. At the end of the day, of course the odds of the Earth acquiring another Moon-like satellite are very slim, but there is something to learn here. These kinds of scenarios remind you of how important the specific conditions around our planet are. Like, if our Moon had a different orbit or mass, our world could be much different.

So even though we usually take it for granted, maybe we should appreciate our Moon a little bit more…

Why Our Brains Love Junk Food ?

2019-10-03T01:44:00.000+01:00

Carrots or french fries? How are you feeling about this choice?

And be honest really which would you rather eat? That's what I thought.

Humans love fat and carbohydrates. Why? Because they have a lot of energy in them and energy is what we need to do all of the stuff that we humans do. But we're omnivores, we can get our energy from meat, grains, vegetables, nuts, tubers, fruit. we are extremely versatile animal compared to like a cow which is pretty much stuck eating grass or a lion which has no business eating anything other than raw meat.

So we can get calories from a bunch of different kinds of foods. Why - at a very basic level do we really just wanna eat fat and carbs? Well, it has a lot to do apparently with our evolutionary history.

Let's start with a member of my extended family: Grandma Australopithecus\

This pretty lady was a direct ancester of the first member of the Genus Homo. She was different than us in a lot of ways: Her brain was 35% size of ours. Her stomach was a lot bigger and her teeth were larger, flatter and duller. All of these leads us to the conclusion that australopithecus ate mostly fruits, vegetables and tubers. The raw fruits and vegetables especially before the agricultural revolution weren't very high on calories. And if that's all you're eating it takes a big, patient digestive system to process that. So your body is working really hard all day to squeeze every last calorie out of your not very energy rich food, something's gotta give and for australopithecus it meant having you know, kind of a tiny brain cause brains require lots of calories.

It wasn't until australopithecus' direct decendant Homo Habilus came along, 2 milions years ago (About the time australopithecus went extinct actually) that we're starting seeing smaller more, efficient guts smaller teeth and a brain about 50% bigger than australopithecus'.

These clues coupled with the fact that this is around when Habilus began to control fire, suggests that they were able to cook. And that means they were suddenly able to eat meat without worrying about dying of nasty, festering meat disease and they were suddenly able to unlock all sorts of hidden, delicious energy from the vegetables that are pretty stingy when they're raw.

So since then every species in the Genus Homo from Habilus to Homo Sapiens have had larger and larger brains, thanks in part to increasingly high energy diets. These huge brains of ours are expensive, and we've needed a bunch of fat and calories for them to evolve, not to mention just to maintain them.

So because our brains are not stupid, they've evolved love the living crap out of high energy food. And now look at us! We can eat a doughnut hamburger whenever we want to because we're the kings of the fricking earth! And our brains, they're like: YEAH!

In fact some studies have revealed that eating high fat food not only activates our brain's pleasure centres, it also activates the touch centres. So our brains respond to eating fatty, high calorie foods the same way we respond to hugs from our moms! Literally comfort food!

But even though our brains are totally prump the grocery stores are now packed full of sweet, sweet Snicker bars, the rest of our bodies are like: "I'm so tired of dealing with all of this nougat. HELP US!!". Which is why, even though a carrot doesn't look as good, you should eat it! Your body...will thank you!

What Will Happen If You Eat Radioactive Food?

2019-10-03T01:41:00.000+01:00

We’ve all heard the stories of what happened in places like Chernobyl and the dangers of nuclear fallout. But what if you weren’t just in a place like that, but actually ate something that was radioactive?

Well, this may sound a bit surprising, but you probably already have… at least to some extent. That’s because many of the foods that you eat are actually radioactive. This can happen in a bunch of different ways -- radioactive materials in the soil can get into your crops, and fish and shellfish can pick it up from the water they’re swimming in or the seafloor.

Radioactive materials can even get into your water. Radiation can also sometimes show up in your food after you humans perform nuclear tests and discharge radioactive materials into the environment. And you can find some of the more radioactive foods as you're strolling around your local grocery store. These may include bananas, which can contain a radioactive isotope called potassium-40, and brazil nuts, which can have radium levels over 1000 times what you might see in other foods. And it’s not just food and water. Some amounts of radiation can be found all around you. It can even be in the air that you breathe.

But before you get all worried and start walking around in a Hazmat suit, this isn’t as bad as it sounds. The radiation we’re talking about here isn’t on the same level of what comes along with atomic bombs and nuclear fallout.

So then what if you were to take a bite of food that was way more radioactive?

Something with more dangerous levels than what we just talked about. Maybe some food that was affected by nuclear fallout. While it can be hard to tell for certain what it would do to you, we can get an idea of what might happen by looking at the effects that consuming radioactive material like that has on other animals.

Let’s look at a 2014 study done on the biological impacts of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan. In this study, researchers wanted to know what would happen if larvae of the pale blue grass butterfly consumed leaves that were tainted by radioactive materials, in this case radioactive cesium, that they collected from the polluted localities. When the larvae were fed the leaves, mortality and abnormality rates sharply went up at low doses in response to the cesium that they were ingesting.

So basically, it wasn’t good. The researchers also concluded that, at least for the pale blue grass butterfly, it was realistic for them to have a polluted diet after something like a nuclear power plant accident, and that the same could likely be said for other organisms living in the polluted area.

Again, not that great of news.

So like these butterflies, your mortality and abnormality rates could go up after eating highly radioactive food. And according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, one way radium can enter your body is if it is swallowed. If this happens, some of it can enter the blood stream and be carried to other parts of your body, like your bones!

And if you are exposed to high levels of radium over a long period of time, it can result in things like anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth, or even cancer.

So all in all, you’re probably fine to keep munching on those brazil nuts and bananas Or if you're like Triangle Bob I guess eat a giant thing of radioactive waste? Don't do that.

How Food Commercials Are Made ?!

2019-10-02T00:50:00.000+01:00

Ever wonder how food commercials look so mouthwatering and perfect? These food shoots can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, all so you'll buy more of these.

Visual engineer, Steve Giralt, shoots photos and videos for food and product-based commercials in New York City and around the world. He said: "I bring technology and kind of traditional image-making processes together in what I call visual engineering".

One piece of that technology: robots. Or, as they call them, motion controls. Steve's long list of clients include big brands, like Hershey's, Budweiser, Pepsi, and Starbucks.

Of course making food look so good comes with a price. A single-day TV shoot can cost between $50,000 to $100,000. Steve: "In these food shoots that we create, we have a lot of moving parts. Basically, you'll have, let's say, one item that's moving, something else that's flashing and running into it, something else that it's gonna land on. We have to use a lot of different technologies and synchronizing software to basically allow those things all to happen at the exact moment we need them to happen".

It also takes a symphony of people to make the products look the best they can be. Various stylists, engineers, and operators work together to create the perfect shot. Michelle Gatton: "My name is Michelle Gatton, and I am a food stylist. When I get recipes, I read over the recipe so I know what I'm gonna be doing. So, in the back of my head, I start thinking about how I'd like to do it. It could change once we get on set with the different props, what the art director wants could change, but I start trying to create the recipe in my head, 'cause I'm only makin' it pretty much the first time on set. I made these brownies yesterday, just so we're not waiting on me making brownies. And, to make them look like I just made them, I just warmed up the chocolate with a heat gun, and I'm adding a little bit of melted chocolate

to the cut side".

Steve: "So here we've got our motorized slider, which is moving a pump that's gonna have caramel on it that'll be pumping down onto our brownies. So, in the end, we'll have this shot of this beautiful ribbon of caramel kind of draping and curling on top of the brownie.

There's a lot of trial and error. Every precise moment captured is nailed down to the millisecond. This is the benefit to using robots. Human hands are also used on commercials when timing is not a crucial factor.

Steve: "We put a lot of effort into these visuals. It's really cool to see your vision

kinda come to life and be spread with the world. I think you have to have a really great understanding of what is appetizing. Everybody speaks the language of food".