Monthly Archives: March 2023

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.

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.

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.

Acrylic Nails: Are They Worth the Damage?

Among young adult and teen women, acrylic nails have become a popular trend. Despite the range of nail designs possible through acrylic nails, this beauty routine is hotly debated due to exposure to toxic chemicals.

What are acrylic nails?

Long and Complex nail designs can be achieved using acrylic nails (credit: Bvasilev1, Wikipedia Commons)

Acrylic nails are a form of nail extensions that use a liquid and powder formula to create a sturdy fake nail. The powder contains poly(methyl methacrylate), also known as acrylic glass. Acrylic glass is a type of synthetic plastic polymer. This polymer gets activated when in contact with the liquid monomer used in acrylic nail formation. This liquid contains ethyl methacrylate (EMA) and an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents immediate polymerization between the liquid and powder. The polymer powder is dipped into the monomer to create a malleable bead that is shaped to fit the client’s nail. Within minutes of application, the mixture cures, forming a solid layer.

The debate against acrylic nails

Many health experts argue against the use of acrylic nails due to the harsh chemicals used in their creation. EMA is particularly concerning. Particles of this highly reactive monomer are likely to remain unpolymerized after the nail has cured. This can cause redness, swelling, and pain in the customer’s nail bed. The reactivity and negative effects of monomers have been discussed at length. Prior to EMA, methyl methacrylate (MMA) liquid monomers were used. MMA has since been banned by the Food and Drug Administration due to severe damage to nails and allergic reactions.

Acrylic nails often use chemicals such as toluene, phthalates, methacrylic acid, and formaldehyde. These chemicals have been proven to cause asthma, allergic reactions, short-term memory loss, and irritate eyes, throat, and lungs.

The effects of these chemicals on clients’ nails and overall health have made acrylic nails a debated service. This argument also extends to nail technicians who are surrounded by these chemicals every day.

Acrylic nails can cause damage to the natural nail when not applied or removed by a professional (credit: Pickpik)

The pros of acrylic nails

Despite some backlash regarding the chemicals used in acrylic nails, many people continue to advocate for this practice due to its strength, cost, and appearance.

The hard layer formed by the polymer and monomer serves as protective over the nails. When applied by professionals, acrylic nails can be used to protect natural nails. This is especially helpful for customers with brittle or weak nails.

Acrylic nails also last for up to 21 days, decreasing the number of times customers must return to the nail salon. In the long run, acrylic nails can be a cost-effective way for customers to continue looking their best.

Lastly, acrylic nails provide unmatched customizations for their clients. Customers can choose from a range of lengths, shapes, colours, and designs.

As showcasing creativity via nail designs becomes more popular, customers stay aware of the potential health concerns that surround their beauty regimen.

-Carissa Chua

Nuclear Power: A Solution to the Australian Energy Crisis or a Risky Gamble?

Australia is currently in the midst of an energy crisis. Electricity prices have risen significantly as coal-fired power plants around the country are shutting down, lowering electricity supply in a time where demand is skyrocketing.

As Australia is exploring new ways to generate clean and efficient electricity, one possible, yet controversial alternative have been proposed: nuclear power.

Nuclear power generates electricity by splitting radioactive isotopes, such as uranium-238, in a process called nuclear fission. The heat produced from this process is then used to heat water, which turns into steam and spins turbines to generates electricity.

Nuclear power plant. Source

Proponents of nuclear power argue that nuclear power is a clean and efficient energy source. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates little to no greenhouse gases. This makes nuclear energy a viable option for combating climate change and can help lower carbon emissions in Australia, allowing the country to meet its emission goals.

Another advantage of nuclear power is its reliability. Nuclear power plants are reliable because they can provide a consistent and reliable source of electricity as nuclear power plants require less maintenance and are designed to operate for long periods before refueling. This is in contrast to renewable energy sources such as wind or solar, which are less reliable as they are dependent on fuel availability (wind and sunlight) and require large-scale storage.

Despite the benefits of nuclear power, there are opponents who raise concerns about its safety. One reason behind this opposition is the potential for accidents. Nuclear meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi have resulted in radioactive leaks and serious health risks for people living nearby. In fact, the areas surrounding these accidents sites have been left uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

Damage to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Source.

Another risk associated with nuclear power is the issue of nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years.

Radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants poses a risk of environmental contamination, causing harm to people, animals, and the ecosystem. This waste needs to be carefully stored and disposed of to prevent contaminating the environment.

The debate over nuclear power is likely to continue for many years to come. While there are certainly benefits to nuclear power, it is also clear that there are associated risks. As Australia faces the current energy crisis, it should consider nuclear power as a viable option for generating electricity to overcome this crisis.

~ Raymond Tang

Step In The Chamber: The Benefits and Risks of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

Oxygen is crucial to aerobic respiration, a process in the human body that turns sugars and fats into energy. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) is a medical treatment that provides patients with pure oxygen, rather than the 21% oxygen in the air. Canada currently follows the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, which identified HBOT as an effective treatment for 14 select medical conditions in 2011. These include conditions such as carbon monoxide poisoning and anemia.

During the operation, patients enter a chamber that delivers oxygen at a raised atmospheric pressure. The chamber increases the oxygen concentration in the blood, as well as decreases any air bubbles that are present. HBOT follows the basis that a greater oxygen supply to the bloodstream and tissues will promote an accelerated recovery.

A Patient Undergoing Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Source: Travis AFB

There are some risks associated with HBOT that patients should be aware of. Excess oxygen levels are toxic to humans, creating reactive species that can hurt the body. Additionally, the pressurized chamber can trigger claustrophobia, the fear of confined spaces, in certain patients. The chamber can also lead to cases of barotrauma, where the pressure inside damages a patient’s ears and sinuses.

However, several factors can reduce the risks that accompany HBOT treatment. Health Canada has to evaluate the safety and efficacy of all medical chambers, issuing licenses to the ones qualified for use. Installation of these devices must then follow strict safety protocols. In regards to the patients, it’s important they verify their medical history to ensure they don’t aggravate conditions sensitive to HBOT. They also need to be attentive to instructions, occasionally taking breaks from the continuous oxygen supply.

While HBOT appears to be an effective form of treatment, Health Canada limits its range of use to a few medical conditions. Monitoring whether its benefits outweigh the drawback will determine if the methodology continues moving forward.

The Controversy Behind Neem Oil

Since 2012, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada has banned neem oil for its use as a pesticide, despite many benefits it brings in the agricultural field. Nonetheless, neem oil has been been the subject of intensive synthetic research for its impressive biological activity.

Neem oil is commonly known as a pesticide. (source)

What is neem oil?

Neem oil, or margosa oil, is an extracted vegetable oil from the neem tree’s seeds. The seeds are the richest source containing the naturally occurring pesticide called Azadirachtin.

Structure of Azadirachtin (source)

Benefits of neem oil

Azadirachtin is found to be an effective systemic pesticide and to have growth-disrupting effects against more than 200 insect species.

In an urban settings, neem oil is a great solution to a pest infestation. A bottle of neem oil will come in handy when your garden is infested by either mealybugs, thrips, aphids, fungus gnats, spidermites and more. Neem oil effectively eliminates every stage of the pest’s lifecycle, including eggs, larvae, pupas, and adults.

Mealybugs infestation (source)

Ladybugs, earthworms, and other beneficial insects are generally not affected by neem oil.

One other known benefit of neem oil is boosting the process of wound-healing and skin regeneration. Neem oil is also found to help calm eczema and psoriasis. These health benefits are due to neem oil’s components of fatty acids, limonoid, and vitamin E.

Why banned neem oil?

Despite the proven advantages neem oil has, Health Canada said neem oil has not been certified and registered as a pest control product. The government hasn’t had sufficient evaluation to determine whether neem oil is safe to be used as a pesticide, nor the environmental risk it brings.

There are several case reports of neem oil poisoning in children and elderly caused by neem oil ingestion. These cases report symptoms of nausea, vomiting, seizures, kidney failure, restriction in blood supply to the brain. The long term effect of neem oil is also not clear.

MSG: A Story of how Bad Science Led to a Bad Reputation

Many North Americans believe that MSG causes headache, nausea, drowsiness, obesity and even heart disease.

In a recent poll MSG was found to rank highly among ingredients that American consumers avoid for health reasons.

Data from the International Food Information Council (2018). Figure adapted from (source).

So, what is MSG? and why are people afraid of it?

Crystalline MSG (source).

MSG is short for monosodium glutamate. It is one of the most widely used flavour enhancers. When added to food it provides a delicious umami flavour.

Glutamate is one of the most naturally abundant proteinogenic amino acids. It is naturally found in protein containing food. MSG is simply the sodium salt of glutamate.

MSG was isolated by Japanese biochemist Kikunae Ikeda from seaweed in 1908. Since then, it has been a flavouring additive is common in many foods.

Some are biased to assuming that MSG is only common in Asian cuisines. However, one should note MSG is far more versatile. Added to most bagged potato chips, fast foods, taco seasonings, and soups.

The negative view came from a 1968 study which dubbed MSG the cause of “Chinese restaurant Syndrome”. A condition said to cause headaches, sweat, and abdominal pain.

The name alone is targeting Chinese food without warrant to do so. The use of and naturally occurrence of MSG is far more widespread.
It has been understood more recently that this study and belief carry racist biases against Asian cuisine. As the poor choice of name may suggest this study was not carried out in a scientifically rigorous manner.

The study lacked proper controls, people in the study were aware of what sample they were ingesting and were asked to describe their symptoms.

Studies that have continued in this path of villainizing MSG suffer the similar issues. Poor sample size, doses significantly higher than regular consumption, and biased participants.

But, in blind studies the vast majority of people, even those who claim to be sensitive do not negatively react to MSG. Not one study has found a verified mechanism of MSG causing harm.

But, as mentioned in the poll a 4/10 Americans hold some of these beliefs and avoid MSG.

In spite of science, prejudice can be hard to overcome. If you catch someone saying they avoid MSG, I encourage you to see if they can explain why.

Buccal Fat Removal: Recommended or Regretted?

The public, gossip columnists, and surgeons are voicing various opinions on the newest plastic surgery trend: buccal fat removal.

Buccal fat is located between the jawbones and cheekbones. Cosmetic surgeons remove the fat to contour the face; the surgery hollows the cheeks and sharpens the jawline.

Before (left) and after (right) buccal fat removal. The patient’s cheekbones and jawline are more prominent. (Source: primera1035 on Flickr)

Patients typically have fuller cheeks that negatively impact their self-esteem. A doctor can remove this insecurity in an hour, and a patient recovers in only 7 to 10 days. The surgeon removes the fat with an incision in the inner cheek, so no scar is externally visible.

In 2021, Chrissy Teigen, a well-known model, expressed improved self-confidence after her own surgery.

Some popular procedures, like Botox, require routine touch-ups and payments to the surgeon’s office. In contrast, buccal fat removal is a one-time, permanent change. Supporters see its irreversibility as a positive, but others see it as a significant negative to the procedure.

Think about any older person in your life. As seen daily and shown through scientific studies, the middle of the face naturally loses fat as people age. Buccal fat removal speeds up this aging process. As said by Dr. Sherrell Aston, “you can make a 25-year-old look 45 with a 15-minute procedure”. Again, the process is irreversible, so surgeons cannot plump the cheeks back up with fillers or fat transfers.

Further, as with any surgery, there are associated risks. A study showed that there is a 26.3% chance of injury to facial nerves. Damage to the buccal branch can result in metallic-tasting food and numbness in the face or neck.

Buccal fat surgery can immediately boost a patient’s self-confidence, but the long-term effects must be considered. In the end, it is the individual’s decision, with consultation from a cosmetic surgeon, to alter their face forever.

– Julia Sawitsky

Gun Control: Saving Lives or Infringing on Rights? The Contentious Debate Continues…

Figure 1: A Gun with Box Ammunition Bullets

The contentious issue of gun control has sparked much debate within society. Some contend that gun control is vital for ensuring the safety and protection of individuals. Others argue that it infringes on the fundamental right to live and can actually increase the number of firearm-related deaths. This article aims to explore both perspectives and shed light on the underlying reasoning behind each.

Proponents of gun control argue that it is necessary for reducing the number of gun-related deaths and injuries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were approximately 43,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020 alone. They argue regulating the availability and ownership of firearms can reduce these numbers. They suggest measures such as background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms. This would ensure only responsible and law-abiding citizens have access to them. They also state that not having gun control violates the most fundamental human right, the right to live!

Opponents of gun control, however, argue that it violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. They view the right to own firearms as a fundamental aspect of individual liberty and personal freedom. Some view the regulation of firearms as a potential threat to individual liberties and fear that it could lead to a loss of autonomy and control over one’s own safety. Carrying a firearm can serve as a means of self-defense, they argue. They suggest that gun control measures will not effectively reduce gun-related deaths and injuries since criminals will still find ways to obtain firearms regardless of regulations.

Figure 2: A Soldier Holding A Gun

Another argument against gun control is that it may be used by the government to oppress and disarm its citizens. This would make it easier for the government to maintain control over the population.On the other hand, advocates of gun control argue that the safety and protection of individuals outweighs the individual right to bear arms. They suggest that by implementing stricter gun control measures, society as a whole can be made safer. They also argue that the Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms were far less dangerous and sophisticated than they are today. Their interpretation should evolve along with modern technology.

In conclusion, the issue of gun control is complex and multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While proponents of gun control argue that it is necessary for the safety and protection of individuals, opponents view it as a violation of human rights. Ultimately, the solution to this issue may lie in finding a middle ground where individuals’ rights are protected, while measures are taken to ensure the safety and security of society as a whole.