Category Archives: Issues In Science

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

 

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

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?

File:Професионална Ноктопластика.JPG

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. 

Creating Acrygel Nails

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.