Fear of going to the dentist? Blame your parents!

Have you ever had that feeling of anxiety before going to the dentist? What do you think is the source of that feeling? A new study by scientists at the Rey Juan Carlos University of Madrid confirms that there is an emotional transmission of this fear of going to the dentist among family member, and especially the parents.

The study conducted by the scientists of this university has come to the conclusion that the higher the level of anxiety of one member of the family, the higher the level of fear of the rest of the family. Furthermore, the scientists were able to identify specific roles the family members play in the transmission of this fear. In fact, they discovered that even though the mother and the father play an important role in this matter, it is the father who influences the most in the transmission of the dentist fear. Children tend to pay attention on their parents’ response, but they focus mainly on the father and how he reacts to different situations that may happen at the dentist and how stressful they can be.

A possible solution for children to overcome this fear, according to the scientists, would be to make the parents—and especially the father—go under dentist fear prevention campaigns so that a positive emotional contagion is reinforced. This would help parents to avoid showing any signs of fear or anxiety in front of their children when going to the dentist.

Imagine you have children, what would you do to prevent the transmission of this fear of going to the dentist? Do you think it’s important for parents to show no signs of fear at all? Let me know what you think, I’m really interested in your thoughts.

More info here --> Fear of the dentist

Would you like to take a sit?

This is the second OP . In this case we have chosen to talk about a topic that has a great deal of importance in our western society. Taking a rest, sitting down, or simply watching the televition for a too long period of time may be very hazzarous for our health. 

This OP, deals with 2 different ways of viewing the problem. A sciencetific posture, which by the analysis of lots of data available concludes that sedentarism is not harfull but a key factor that promotes heart problems in the future. In the other hand, a broadsheet posture on the topic, that states a more generalistic idea of the topic, a bit careless in details but very informative at the same time. 

We have chosen  this topic mainly because we live in a very sedentary society, and we should be aware of the negative consecuences this illness can bring to our life. We hope youl all enjoy our presentation. 

Click on:

Re: Here is the corrected address
Second OP, Eduardo and Felipe

By: Eduardo Báez and Felipe Guerra

Do you want to try this delicious cherry pie? It may help you if you suffer from gout attack!

Several foods have been associated with treatment of harmful diseases or medical conditions, so the interest of scientists for their properties has widely increased during the last 50 years. A recent study has discovered a relation between cherry intake and the decrease of risk of gout attacks. In this presentation, we developed a meticulous analysis between a scientific publication and a newspaper article; regarding the methods, findings, and language used to describe this scientific breakthrough. 

Enjoy our presentation! :)

Why Do Songs Get Stuck In Our Head?

Most of us have been victims of catchy songs or melodies that get stuck in our heads and that are hard to get out. According to a study called “Songs That Cause the Brain to ‘Itch’: UC Professor Investigating Why Certain Tunes Get Stuck In Our Heads” by Carey Hoffman from the University of Cincinnati, some of the songs that get stuck in our heads more easily are “The Macarena” and “We Will Rock You”.

Dr. Williamson, a memory expert at Goldsmith's College in London, also found that scientists use many terms to describe this subject - stuck-song syndrome, sticky music, and cognitive itch, or most commonly "earworm".

Scientists suggests that there may be psychological reasons why some songs are more likely get stuck in our minds, including memory triggers, emotional states and stress.

According to Vicky Williamson, an American psychologist, these are some earworm causes: recent music exposure, repeated music exposure, word association, people association (when memories of a person are associated with a song), situation association (e.g. Christmas may cause you to remember carols), stress, surprise, dreams, and mind wandering.

Other experts say that some earworms causes are song repetition, musical simplicity and incongruity.

Williamson explains that earworms are an everyday phenomenon: “People always get a tune stuck in their head, it happens to at least 90 percent of people. It’s a very effortless form of memory, we're not even trying to remember, and this music comes into our head and repeats over and over again. Imagine if we could recall facts that we wanted as easily as we can bring new ones to mind without even trying."

On the video “Earworms, The Psycho-Science of Memorable Melodies” by A Viewpoints Media, the phenomenon of earworms is easily explained.

But what if you want to get rid of that annoying earworm? Experts say that going for a run or doing a crossword seems to help. Also, it is said that listening to other new songs may also work. 

Earworms show us how fragile−and at the same time strong− our memory is. Have you ever been victim of earworms? If so, how did you get rid of that song or melody stuck in your head? 

Cruelty and science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9AWYNVFm0


After watching a YouTube video about an American museum, where  thousands of unbelievable creepy human parts were kept, I started to wonder if those people who all themselves "animal rights defenders" had actually a point criticizing animal usage in scientific experiments.
How does this relate with animals? Well, first of all, let me give you the context of the video.
Dr. Thomas Mutter gained immortality donating his personal collection of medical samples to Philadelphia University, he also donate something more valuable to society, the awareness of the need of experimentation within medical science. He thought that medical students should experiment and practice with actual bodies, that a "cure" was reachable only throughout scientific investigation and not old folks tales. Because of his belief, he conducted experiments and made his students practice with actual bodies, most of them stolen from cemeteries. Is in this point of the story where I would like to focus: medical progress was obtained through unlawful means, due to Catholic's conceptions of death and human body. Now, a hundred and more years later, scientific progress is also susceptible to critics under the current conception of cruelty.
Therefore, we can infer that what is thought to be true during a period of time may not be right, also may damage scientific efforts to reach knowledge and can be an obstacle to human development.
So, after a long road of science opposing to current beliefs we stand in front of a big question: Is any effort (even those that are illegitimate) to reach knowledge valid?.
 Time has prove this to be right.

Nuclear Power in Chile: Good or Bad idea?

In the present time, electricity has become more than a first necessity. Given that the demand of electricity has grown alarmingly these past 50 years, the search for new sources have not stopped.   This search led to the use of nuclear fission to produce energy.  

The construction of a Nuclear Power Plant in Chile has been kicking around during the past three or four years; in fact, in 2011 the Chilean Government signed an agreement of collaboration for the investigation of nuclear energy with the US. There are different opinions about this matter.

On one hand, nuclear energy is said to be clean because of the lower emission of toxic gasses in comparison with oil or coat plants. Furthermore, considering nuclear reactors, the amount of energy produced is much larger; just one plant is needed to produce a vast quantity of energy.

On the other hand, the risks of a nuclear accident for Chile are much more than for other countries because it is located in the most seismic area of the world. Another problem is the generation of nuclear waste, which is potentially dangerous for people and the environment.

Even though this way of generating energy is said to be pretty secure, accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in Russia (1986) and the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan (2011), make us think about the possible risks attached to nuclear power.

In my opinion, Chile is not prepared yet considering that the costs are quite high; there’s an absence of an energetic policy; furthermore, there are not specialists enough as to deal with such a large-scale project.

Do you think that in the future,  Nuclear Energy would be a possibility?

I’m pregnant -Who is the father? - It's my brother!

Although it seems so, this is not a case of incest. This is the case of a woman who will give birth to twins whose mother is not able to carry them because she has no uterus. And the father is, indeed, her brother. Tiffany Burke accepted her brother and sister-in-law’s petition with no objection.

After considering pros and cons, the decision was taken. Tiffany became a surrogate mother. The word comes from “surrogacy” which refers to the action of carrying a baby for another person or couple.  

In this occasion, the surrogate mother was a relative and; therefore, she didn’t gain any money. However, there are surrogacy agencies in which women offer themselves to be surrogate for considerable amounts of money.

There are several issues around this matter. For instance, there are people who claim that women are free to decide what they do with their bodies, so surrogacy should be totally acceptable. On the other hand, some people claim that it devalues motherhood because surrogate mothers are seen as simple “baby deliverers”.

Moreover, in some occasions the surrogate mother refuses to deliver the baby to the people who arranged the agreement, since in many places surrogacy is illegal.

Here's the complete piece of news about the case of Tiffany Burke.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/07/health/surrogate-sisters/index.html 

If you couldn’t have children, would you request a surrogate mother? Furthermore, would you propose it to someone from your family e.g. your sister? Does it really devalue motherhood?

Congratulations, it's a Boy!

Amniocentesis

During pregnancy it is important to check for chromosome abnormalities and genetic diseases that the baby could be developing. Finding these abnormalities in the baby’s DNA before birth may be really helpful. Amniocentesis is the name of the technique doctors use to conduct these prenatal diagnoses. Amniocentesis consists of capturing fetal cells from fluid in the womb or tissue from the placenta in order to get the baby’s DNA.  Although both procedures are quite safe and represent only a minimum option of a miscarriage, this minor percentage has encouraged doctors to consider alternatives.

After years of investigation, some remarkable discoveries have been made. During pregnancy the mother shares his uterus, body and time with her baby –and the baby shares his DNA as compensation! It has been proven that about 10% of the mother’s DNA comes from the fetus being that some cells remain in her body after delivery. Researchers are now using this DNA to test for genetic diseases. This method is a 100% safe for the mother as well as the baby.

And the good news keep coming

Hand in hand with these positive findings comes an unexpected discovery. Bearing boys can modify a women’s mind. As the fetus’ cells settle down on the mother’s DNA, a biological link among mother and son carries unknown consequences. Some studies have suggested that the risk of Alzheimer disease decreases when the Y chromosome is present in a woman’s body.  It appears that pregnancy does bring good luck to the house, doesn’t it?

Organic Foods vs. Genetically Modified Foods: Which option is the best one?

For most of people, the answer to this question may be the first option with eyes closed; nevertheless, a recent research on this controversy could change several minds.

After analyzing approximately 200 studies on the differences of organic and conventional food regarding nutritional content, a group of scientists from the Stanford University have concluded that there is not enough evidence to prove that organic foods are healthier than conventional foods. In fact, both types of foods proved to have almost the same amount of nutrients such as vitamins, proteins, etc. 

Even though the studies were conducted on humans, they didn’t last more than two years. That means that there is no evidence to analyze the long-term impact. Since it is claimed that genetically modified foods (GM foods) could have long-term consequences, it is not possible to say whether they are completely healthy, or completely dangerous.

Concerning organic foods, they may be additive and pesticide free; however, their price is more elevated and the production is slower than GM foods, considering that the demand is greater than the supply.

Even if GM foods are widely criticized because of the impacts of their production, or the possible consequences for the consumers, they’re being widely spread throughout the world. 

In the world we’re living nowadays, the phrase “the faster the better” has become part of our lives. Should we deal with it by accepting GM foods? Or should we try to respect the normal pace of nature by preferring organic foods?

Should testing on rats be banned?

In the recent time people from all over the world have claim that animal testing should be banned, however only few of them appeal for the rats, the real victims of science.

Lab rats are locked inside a cage with nothing but food and water holders, they are used for humans to professedly "cure" the world, and I haven't seen any demonstration on this topic.
It seems that people have forgotten about rats, and the only thing they care about is big animals such as cows, pigs or endangered animals. 

Rats have always been the scientists' favourite to taste their products on because their organism is the most similar to humans. Scientists claim on their favour that these trials are needed to save human lives, especially nowadays that more and more diseases are appearing. 

Even though what scientists claim may be truth, it does not give them the right to conduct an experiment with rats, why? They are unable to give their consent. We don't have to damage, hurt and kill innocent animals in name of science, we are not neanderthals anymore, so this practice should stop. 

If we know rats are suffering, shouldn't we do something about it?  Sure, but if we do that, we will have to come up with a solution to the dilemma: "It's either animal research or quit trying to find cures for diseases".