Laughing Gas – No Laughing Matter

Laughing gas (LG) and its associated health consequences can be unpredictable, especially in young people who abuse LG for recreational uses.

 

LG, commonly known as whippets, funky balloon, or hippy crack, is a colourless, odorless, sweet-tasting NO2. Dentists and medical professionals routinely use NO2 as an inhalational anaesthesia during minor medical procedures, childbirth, and ambulances for its anaesthetic properties, including pain-relieving effect and anti-anxiety effects. They are typically mixed with oxygen in a 2:1 or 1:1 oxygen:NO2 ratio to prevent oxygen starvation from high dosage or pure NO2 usage without supplemental oxygen, which is the case in recreational uses. The gas readily displaces air in the lung from reaching into the bloodstream, reducing the oxygen content in tissues and brain (hypoxia), causing suffocation (asphyxiation), heart attack, or unconsciousness that can lead to sudden death or severe brain damage. These risks increase drastically in people with a history of cardiac and respiratory diseases

 

For non-medical uses, NO2 typically comes in small, finger-length steel canisters that users can purchase separately at any local grocery store as a propellant for whipped cream bottles (Figure 1). Nightclubs will use industrial tanks (Figure 2) that can fill up about 200 balloons and sell each for $5-$10. A clubber who wished to keep his identity anonymous said his friends can easily spend anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 per night solely on NO2 balloon. One inhalation of NO2 can lead to lightheadedness, tingling in the arms and legs, drug-induced psychoactive effects, including brief euphoric high, temporary distortion of visual and sensory perceptions, and lack of coordination, all of which subsides after a few minutes of discontinuing.

Figure 1: A box of whippets with sealed ends that users can puncture to release gas. Source: Wikimedia

 

Figure 2: Industrial Tanks of Nitrous Oxide mixed Oxygen In Dentistry. Source: Wikimedia

The 2014 Global Drug Survey reported about 64% out of over 6800 NO2 users consumed five or less balloons per session. The majority of responders reported using less than 3 balloons per session, followed by 4-10 balloons, 11-50 balloons, and over 100 balloons (Figure 3). To maintain the short-lived rush of euphoric high, Garakani et al. reported a small number of abused NO users can go through 75 -125 whippets per session. 

Figure 3: Summary of responses on the number of balloons consumed per session from a survey of 6800 people.

Recreational users inhale NO2 by releasing the gas from a whippet into a balloon, and directly inhaling it through the mouth. Short-term NO2 exposure via balloons is still relatively safe, but several fatal cases reported in NO2 users who tried other methods. For example, inhaling the gas directly from the canister delivers the freezing NO2 gas directly to the internal tissue, causing frostbite to the mouth, lungs, or vocal cord. Excessive, continuous inhaling of NO2 while placing a plastic bag over their head, can lead to severe hypoxia and eventually asphyxial deaths. The short-lived euphoric high and easy access of whippets together contribute to the growing popularity in recreational NO2 misuse in many countries, most prominently in the UK

The Great Debate: Chemical Additives in Food – Are They Helping or Harming You?

Chemical additives in food safety and effectiveness is currently one of the most disputed issues in the field of science. Some argue that these additives are necessary to preserve food and enhance taste. Others are concerned about their potential health risks. This blog aims to explore both sides of the scientific discourse and offer insight into the reasoning behind each perspective.

One perspective of the debate supports the use of chemical additives in food. They argue that these additives are essential for preserving the freshness of food, preventing spoilage, and enhancing its taste and appearance. Additionally, they emphasize that numerous food additives have undergone rigorous safety evaluations and have been authorized by regulatory organizations such as the FDA.

Moreover, some argue that the amount of additives in food is relatively small and does not pose a significant health risk to the general population. They also argue that without these additives, food production would be less efficient and more costly, resulting in higher prices and less availability of food.

On the contrary, there are others who express worry about the safety and possible health hazards of chemical additives in food. They contend that certain additives may lead to adverse effects on human health, including but not limited to allergic reactions, hormone disruption, and an elevated risk of cancer.

Furthermore, some argue that the long-term effects of consuming these additives are not well understood, and that more research is needed to assess their safety. They also argue that the use of chemical additives in food is not necessary, and that natural preservatives and flavourings can be used instead.

In conclusion, the use of chemical additives in food is a controversial issue with valid arguments on both sides. While some argue that these additives are necessary for preserving food and enhancing its taste, others are concerned about their potential health risks. It is important for regulators, food producers, and consumers to carefully consider the evidence and arguments from both sides in order to make informed decisions about the safety and effectiveness of chemical additives in food.

The Toba catastrophe

If you trekked through the mountains of northern Sumatra you might see one very long, serene lake and a sizable oblong island in its middle. The whole thing looks very peaceful until you realize it came to be through a cataclysm of unimaginable proportions.

Around 74,000 years ago in those mountains, a supervolcano was brewing world changing fires that erupted suddenly and violently. 

Around 2800 km³ of material was released in an outpouring of hot gasses and volcanic ash that wreaked havoc on an area of approximately 20000 km² around the volcano. This means that an area the size of modern day Slovenia was vaporized, since the temperature of these initial volcanic ejections can reach upwards of a 1000 °C.  Ash deposits are found today as far away as the eastern parts of Africa.

Scientists say that a global winter ensued which devastated human populations around the

world, leaving only a few surviving groups in the denvse forests of Africa. Investigations of the human genome have revealed that modern humans within Africa possess much higher genetic diversity than do humans outside of Africa. Evidence from studies of mitochondrial DNA suggests that humans passed through what is known as a genetic bottleneck: a profound decrease in genetic diversity and a fall in the total human population to a few thousand breeding pairs. This is known as the Toba catastrophe theory.

In recent years, more evidence and more precise dating of the eruption timeline paints a different, more interesting picture. Some researchers posit that human beings didn’t just survive, but even thrived after the eruption. We have found ancient tools on African coastlines both above and below the layer of ash deposited by Toba. Interestingly, a greater number and diversity of tools seem to be found after the explosion. 

The climate data is complicated. Studies of ice cores reveal that the earth cooled drastically right after the eruption and there followed several years of lower precipitation. But other data suggest that certain species of plants recovered quickly after the event, and fossil evidence indicates that orangutang populations close to the area didn’t drop much either.

Scientists now believe that Toba didn’t release a huge amount of sulfuric acid aerosols as compared with other volcanoes, which contribute significantly to the cooling effect. The chemical composition of the magma might have been such that proceeding winter was substantially less intense, and it is theorized that a lot of water vapor might have been released which actually would have counteracted the cooling effect.

The mystery is far from solved. A recent 2021 study looked at the effect of the eruption on the ozone layer, and concluded that it would have made possible for a lot of dangerous UV light to reach the surface of the earth, killing off a lot of humans in the process. Then there is the glaring observation that Neanderthals went extinct only 30000 years ago, long after Toba. 

So, there are a lot of unknowns. The only thing we know for certain is that earth will see another Toba at some point in the future, and the fallout could be much, much worse.

Population growth: limited by pesticides?

The United Nations (UN) forecasts the world population to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. According to them, a 60% increase in food production will be required to sustain the population.

Solution: increasing pesticide use.

Unsplash Photo by @Arjun MJ (Ernakulam, Outdoors)

Unsplash Photo by @Arjun MJ (Ernakulam, Outdoors) Unsplash

Pesticides are chemicals that repel or kill weeds and organisms that affect plant growth. 

The United States first introduced pesticides in the 1930s (during the Great Depression when the population was 2 billion) because of their considerable increase in yields. Since then, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 1000 types of pesticides are used globally today.

Many people stand by organic products, which use minimal pesticides. There are several reasons why people opt out of consuming products grown with pesticides:

Many synthetic pesticides cannot be broken down by humans or animals. Because of this, they bioaccumulate (simply substances that become concentrated in living organisms) as body fat.

Pesticides also pose a huge threat to aquatic ecosystems. They contaminate ground and freshwater supplies used by wildlife, livestock, crops and people.

In 2020, Boedeker et al in the BMC Public Health Journal, estimated about 385 million people annually get pesticide poisoning.

These are only three reasons why people don’t like pesticides, but there are many more.

With that said, pesticides were first introduced to solve an issue in 1930 – an issue that will soon present itself again: food shortage. 

There’s an interesting theory called the Malthusian Trap, which describes how increased agricultural production as a result of advanced agricultural techniques increases the population. But with a greater population, there’s a greater need for consumption, and that strains the food supplies. 

Based on a 2017 study of European farming systems, if pesticides were removed from agricultural practice, there could be a 78% loss in fruit production, a 54% decrease in vegetable harvest and a 32% loss in grain yields.

Pesticides provide greater food output, increase farmers’ earnings, improve practice, prevent diseases, and allow cultivation in areas that would otherwise be uncultivable. 

Simply, they allow farmers to grow more food on less land, raising yield. 

According to a 2005 study by CropLife Foundation, without fungicides in the US, fruit and vegetable yields would decrease by 50-90%. For perspective, 40.3% of Canada’s fruit is imported from the US. This is similarly the case in Mexico, South Korea, and Japan, all countries with high populations. Without pesticides, these countries would experience significant food shortages due to their reliance on the US and their pesticides. 

 

The Killer That Could Save Your Life: Snake Venom

Snakes are a root of fear for many people due to the dangerous venom they produce. Around 5.4 million people are bitten by snakes each year, 2.7 million of which are envenomings. Of these, up to 180 thousand cause death, and three times as many result in amputations or permanent disabilities. However, snake venom may also save your life. Snake venom has been used to treat a variety of conditions since the 1930s, including cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and strokes.

Snake venom contains a variety of compounds, including a variety of powerful enzymatic and non-enzymatic peptides. Enzymes are biological catalysts used to promote the reaction of chemical compounds. Enzymes found in snake venom have a variety of applications, from antiviral and antibacterial properties. Further, several non-enzymatic peptides, such as 3FTxs and disintegrin, found in snake venom have been used as therapeutic agents for HIV, muscular dystrophy, cancer, and a variety of other ailments.

Tertiary structure of 3FTx non-enzymatic protein. Source

 

 

3FTxs, or Three-Finger Toxins, are a large group of non-enzymatic peptides found in venom that have been widely studied. Their identifiable structure appears due to the presence of several disulfide bonds in the molecule. The wide variety of these neurotoxins and the breadth of their family allow them to have a wide variety of uses, and their prevalence in venom among several snake species made them very researchable. 3FTxs have been used to treat drug-resistant HIV strains, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and other debilitating conditions.

 

 

However, snake venom comes at a cost, and an expensive one. Snake venom samples can cost anywhere from 250-4000$ per gram. These prices are in great part due to the immense difficulty in extracting snake venom. Snake venom extraction is done through a process called milking, a dangerous and tedious job, during which milkers run the risk of being bitten. Further to maintain the snake’s health, only small quantities of venom can be extracted at a time, with milkings occurring about every 30-60 days. This maintains the high price, making many therapeutics inaccessible to the general public.

Snake milking venom extraction. Source

 

Not only is venom extraction dangerous, but it also comes at a cost to the animal. Often snakes are kept in plastic bins stacked in rows in facilities, kept for extraction of venom. Groups have argued against the ethics of this, as the snake’s lifetime is significantly decreased by this treatment. Synthetic production of snake venom is an evolving field in recent years but has yet to be a more affordable and energy-efficient alternative to snake venom usage.

 

The importance of snake venom in the production of therapeutic agents cannot be underestimated, however, the mal-treatment of the animals, even if they frighten us, is an important consideration in the development of these life-saving products, particularly if those products are only accessible to people with enough money to cover the cost.

 

~Tristan Ruigrok

 

The Politics of Renaming

Named discoveries are everywhere in chemistry. From Planck’s constant to Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions, these names represent the legacy of the scientists who contributed greatly to our study. However, great scientists are not always great people.

A photo of Nobel Prize-winning physicist and known eugenics advocate William Schockley. The naming of the “Schockley-Queisser limit” after him is controversial. Photo by Chuck Painter / Stanford News Service

For example, William Shockley was a physicist whose work on semiconductors earned him a third of a Nobel Prize in 1956. He had several discoveries named after him, including the Shockley-Queisser Limit which is a theoretical limit commonly discussed in solar cell research. He was also a known racist and eugenics advocate. Among other things, he proposed that women with low IQs should be paid to be sterilized. Thus, it is somewhat unsurprising that Ehrler et al. proposed that the Schockley-Queisser Limit be renamed as to not celebrate such a character. The authors also called into question the naming of the Haber process and the unit of Debye based on transgressions of the scientists they are named after. This discussion caused much controversy.

In her essay “The Peril of Politicizing Science”, chemist Anna Krylov warns against the idea of renaming discoveries named after problematic figures. She argues that “cancel culture” is a slippery slope towards censorship and ideologically controlled science, which hinders scientific progress in the long run. Krylov also writes that the act of renaming erases the complexities of the intersection between science and ethics, and that teaching and studying the history of science would be more productive and instructive for future scientists.

In an essay titled “Science Is Political, and We Must Deal with It”, science writer Philip Ball responds to Krylov’s protests. Ball argues that removing the names do not stop textbooks from discussing the ethics of science and the people who made the important discoveries. He also writes that naming discoveries after people perpetuates the idea that science is propelled by individual genius and not a long series of collaborative efforts.

Both sides of the argument agree that there is a lot of nuances in these circumstances, but fail to agree on one important idea: Ehrler et al. and Ball believe that celebrating people with moral failings suggests that their behaviour is acceptable as long as the science they produce is of high quality; Krylov believes that we should evaluate a scientist’s contribution solely on the merit of the science and not on their individual beliefs.

There is no clear way to answer whether we should rename these familiar terms such as the Haber process or the Schockley-Queisser limit, and I hope productive discourse within the scientific community will lead to a satisfying solution.

~ Ying Cai

Coloured Contact Lenses: Do They Bring More Harm than Good?

Are you thinking about wearing coloured contact lenses to change the colour of your eyes? While it may appear to be a simple and risk-free way to enhance your natural eye colour or make a fashion statement, it is critical to consider the chemical composition as well as the potential risks associated with these lenses. Let’s look at the chemistry of coloured contact lenses and weigh the upsides and downsides.

Better Vision different colour contact lenses. Source.

Reasons Against Coloured Contact Lenses:

  • They Increase the Risk of Eye Infections: Contact lenses are made of hydrophilic polymers, which attract and retain water. This makes them an ideal surface for microorganisms to grow on, increasing the risk of eye infections. If you do not clean and disinfect your coloured contact lenses properly, you may increase your risk.

    Common monomers and polymers used in contact lens production. PMMA—poly methyl methacrylate, PVA—poly vinyl alcohol, PEG—poly ethylene glycol, DMA—dimethyl methacrylate, HEMA—hydroxy ethyl methacrylate, NVP—N-vinyl pyrrolidone, EGDMA—ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, PDMS—poly dimethyl siloxane, TRIS—3-[tris(trimethylsiloxy)silyl]propyl methacrylate. Source

  • Manufacturers Might Not Follow Strict Safety Standards: Coloured contact lenses are frequently regarded as cosmetic devices and are therefore not subject to the same regulations as medical devices. Some manufacturers may fail to adhere to strict safety standards, resulting in poorly made lenses that harm your eyes. It is critical to select a reputable brand and avoid purchasing lenses from untrustworthy sources.
  • Sharing Coloured Contact Lenses is a Big No-No: Sharing coloured contact lenses or wearing them for an extended period of time can increase the risk of eye infection. This is because the lenses can harbour bacteria, which can cause long-term damage to your eyes. It is critical to carefully follow the instructions and avoid sharing your lenses with anyone.

Reasons in Favour of Coloured Contact Lenses:

Different coloured contact lenses in the same individual. Source.

  • They Allow Personal Expression: Coloured contact lenses are a fun and versatile way to express yourself and your sense of style. You can switch up your look as often as you like because there are so many different colours and designs to choose from. This is especially appealing to those who do not want to commit to long-term solutions such as cosmetic surgery or tattoos.
  • They Are Made of Safe Materials: Coloured contact lenses are made of eye-safe materials such as silicone hydrogels or methacrylate-based polymers. These materials are designed to be biocompatible, which means they will not harm or irritate your eyes.
  • They Can Be Customized to Your Needs: Coloured contact lenses are available in prescription and non-prescription forms, allowing you to tailor them to your specific requirements. This is especially beneficial for people who need vision correction but want to experiment with different eye colours.

Finally, while coloured contact lenses can be a fun and exciting way to experiment with your personal style, it is critical to prioritize your eye health and safety. You can reduce your risk of eye infections and enjoy the benefits of coloured contacts by selecting a reputable brand, following proper cleaning procedures, and avoiding sharing your lenses. Whether you’re looking to enhance your natural eye colour or completely change your look, remember to prioritize your eye health and enjoy your new look with confidence!

~ Vivian Hou

Melatonin: A Sleep Aid That Keeps Doctor’s Up At Night

Melatonin is a common over-the-counter drug in many Canadian homes. Available as a pill, gummy, or vape. Currently, this hormone is a staple of many nighttime routines. However, many medical professionals do not support melatonin’s gain of popularity.

Our brain releases melatonin when it is dark. This hormone naturally signals our circadian rhythm. Melatonin supplements function as a sleep aid.

File:Melatonin.svg

Chemical structure of melatonin.

Melatonin is an over-the-counter natural health product in Canada. While in many other countries, it is a prescription drug.

With many forms of melatonin commercially available in Canada, use has increased dramatically from 2000-2018. The marketing of this hormone has led to uses against medical advice gaining popularity. Many use melatonin to control sleep schedule abnormalities caused by sleep disorders, anxiety, and restlessness. 

Users have even incorporated melatonin into their daily routines. Claiming it is the key component allowing them to maintain a healthy sleep schedule.

However, many doctors do not recommend long-term dosing of melatonin. Doctors strictly recommend melatonin for short-term usage.

Doctors generally only support using melatonin to recover from jet lag and other short-term sleep schedule interruptions.

The use of melatonin to treat the common sleep disorder delayed sleep-wake phase disorder has been controversial. Sleep specialists prefer to treat it with bright light therapy or chronotherapy.

There is also a lack of scientific evidence supporting that melatonin use can improve the sleep quality of people with insomnia.

File:Depiction of a person suffering from Insomnia (sleeplessness).png

Insomnia is a common sleep disorder. People with insomnia may turn to melatonin for relief.

There is also evidence that long-term use may lead to your body stopping the natural production of melatonin, leaving you dependent on the hormone. 

So, consult your doctor before taking melatonin. For every positive testimonial from someone who freely doses themselves, a medical professional is frowning on that decision.

The end is in sight…or maybe not.

Go into the UBC chemical storeroom, and you will find a range of chemicals. But what you won’t find at UBC, or anywhere else, is the element unquadseptium. And that’s because unquadseptium, with an atomic number of 147, has yet to be proven to exist and, according to some chemists, will never exist.

Since Dimitri Mendeleev developed the periodic table in 1875, chemists have added 55 elements to its rows and periods. While most of the 118 elements we are familiar with today exist naturally, some exist briefly and only after the collision of high-speed particles. These “synthetic” elements include einsteinium (atomic number 99) through organessan (atomic number 118).

Dimitri Mendeleev’s prototype for the periodic table. Source

Creating new elements is an ongoing area of research. The question that divides chemists is whether a limit exists for nuclear mass and, therefore, the number of elements that may exist. Multiple chemists have used Einstein’s theory of relativity to try and determine the limit to the mass of an atom’s nucleus.

The nucleus of an atom exerts a gravitational and magnetic pull on the orbiting electrons. As the mass of the nucleus grows, so does its pull on the electrons, and as modeled by the Bohr equation, orbiting electrons must travel faster to prevent falling inwards. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, mass increases exponentially with speed. A result of this relationship is that the speed of light presents a universal speed limit for matter.

This universal limit led Richard Feynman and other chemists to propose element 137 as the limit to the periodic table. Feynman argued that beyond element 137, electrons would have to travel faster than the speed of light to remain in orbit and could not exist according to the laws of physics.

Pekka Pyykkö’s proposed 172-element periodic table. Source

However, many chemists argue that the limit for nuclear mass should be much higher. Notably, Pekka Pyykkö from the University of Helsinki published a paper in 2011 that theorized the existence of elements up to atomic number 172. His paper built upon the work of physicists Berndt Muller and Johann Rafelski. The two physicists used the Dirac equation, which considers effects ignored by the Bohr equation, to find the maximum limit for nuclear mass. According to the Dirac equation, orbiting electrons reach the speed of light when the atomic number equals 173 and not 137.

Pushing the limits of the periodic table further still, some chemists and physicists believe that nuclear mass is unlimited. They propose that new quantum behavior of electrons, unknown to present science, allows the orbit of “superheavy” nuclei. Physicist Walter Greiner believes that after element 172, electrons enter a never-ending continuum of negative energy. Greigner believes that the periodic table “will never end!”

In the coming years, chemists and physicists will discover new elements as we develop stronger particle accelerators and detectors with greater sensitivity. However, it remains unknown what the limit to these discoveries will be; only time will tell whether future chemists will see the likes of unquadseptium in their labs.

Is Hair Dyeing Harmful?

Hair coloring (HC) is a beauty practice that changes one’s natural hair colour using chemicals to remove pigments in the hair shaft, melanin, by oxidizing the pigments, and replacing them with other pigments of choice. HC comes in different types, depending on how long a person wants the colour to last by changing the concentration of hydrogen peroxide (HP), ammonia, and paraphenylenediamine (PPD). Ammonia causes the swelling of the hair shaft, opening hair cuticles so HC pigments can penetrate into hair. HP oxidizes melanin in the hair strand, removing its  natural colour to create a canvas. Finally, PPD complexes with HP to form a colourful complex, which then binds to our hair to give it a new colour. 

 

Health concerns relating to hair colouring practice.

It is undeniable that HC improves the appearance drastically if you choose the right colour, but the harm of “forcing” hair to change color to health is extremely harmful that not many people are aware of. Several studies reported a possible correlation between certain chemicals in many oxidative-type HC products to a few sub-categories of cancer. Ames et. al. founded that the oxidation reaction between HP and each of the three main chemicals in oxidative-type hair colouring products – PPD, 2,5-diaminotuluene (TDA), and 2,5-diaminoanisole – yield a mutagen Bandrowski’s base. They conducted a facial absorption test on rats and found that this compound is a carcinogen to rats. Some HC users reported experiencing allergic reactions after using an at-home HC product or obtaining HC services from salons. Several hairdressers experienced frequent incidents of hand dermatitis from long-term exposure to HC products. This is because PPD, TDA, and other chemical compounds in many HC products are strong and extreme sensitizing compounds that lead to contact dermatitis (Figure 1) in many people who directly come in contact with the chemicals. 

Figure 1: Contact dermatitis occurs when skin comes into contact with a substance that causes our body to elicit one or several allergic reactions. Source: Wikimedia

 

Why do people still choose to dye their hair? 

Despite health concerns surrounding chemical compounds in HC products, HC remains a popular beauty practice these days among all ages, either to change their natural hair colours or to cover up grey hairs. For many people, HC not only improves their appearance and boosts their self-confidence if they choose a colour that matches their complexion but also a way to express their personality. To avoid the harmful effects that come from strong concentrations of HP and other compounds in HC products, experts from the US Food and Drug Administration recommend people to opt for temporary or semi-permanent HC, which contains the same chemical formula in permanent HC products, but at lower concentration. In addition, hairdressers always wear gloves, and some would wear masks to avoid inhaling the fume, while handling HC products. However, HC users and hairdressers should consult dermatologists or health experts if they experience any reactions or health concerns after using HC products to avoid the risk of having cancer.