Pyramid Science

This is for researching science-based articles and the contents are for personal use although a wider potential interest is possible and so they are left here to view. No medical advice is given and a qualified medical practitioner should be consulted if any concerns are raised. Comments have been disabled, but any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Mobile Phones And Microwaves

Microwave ovens heat food by a process involving molecular friction: water vibrates at a frequency of around 2.45GHz (2,450,000,000 times a second). Clearly, the choice of frequency is such that microwaves excite the water molecules and create (molecular friction) heat. This is heating food using the water contained within it and does not constitute cooking, but only heating. A microwave oven contains a magnetron. The origins of this tube goes back to 1921 and the development of the Cavity Magnetron onward from 1940 by Randall and Boot through WWII. It produces microwave radiation wavelengths of around 2.45GHz, also described as 2450MHz, which interacts with the molecules in food (water, fats and sugars).

Currently, mobile (cell) phones operate at up to 1900MHz so the obvious concern is the similarity of the mobile phone operating frequency and the frequency of the microwaves that heat water being held near to a fatty mass that contains a large amount of cerebrospinal fluid that contains glucose (a sugar). The brain contains a considerable amount (77-78%) of water.

Mobile Phone Use - A Sponsored Study? 
  • Comment Journal, November 2006
    Mobile phone radiation and health
    Cell phones and health concerns

    The implications and consequential potential for brain cancer should not be underestimated.

    Friday, July 09, 2010

    Statin Withdrawal


    Statins could possibly be used by those unable to exercise at an intensity sufficient to 'burn' fat as a fuel source. The blood flow rate is increased. The heart is a muscle, but health issues may compromise efforts to effect improvements. The arterial fat (cholesterol) may possibly only be reduced by drugs. However, when drugs have lowered any fat build up that may cause blockages to blood flow, exercise should (if possible) then take the place of the drugs (cholesterol sequesters). This is possibly not an option and medical supervision should be followed. Coming off statins, however, is not a simple affair and is possibly a reason that they can be potentially harmful in the longer term.

    • It is not uncommon for patients treated with steroids to gain (fat) weight. The dilemma is a reasonable level of health vs weight gain.
    Statins not only lower cholesterol, but also reduce C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of harmful inflammation in the arteries that can lead to blood clots.
    Dozens of studies have shown that CRP, like cholesterol, is an important, independent predictor of heart attack and stroke risk.

    Thursday, July 08, 2010

    Eccentricity, Ellipticity, Obliquity And Climate Change

    • Much has been discussed regarding the effects on climate caused by human activities. This may in part be (very loosely) based on fact, but a great deal of 'fact' is conveniently ignored. The emphasis is clearly on a justification for raised taxation. Not the science.
    The orbit of any body around another is rarely, if ever, a perfect circle. The theoretical extremes of the eccentricity are a circle and an ellipse and the change from one to another can be caused by several interacting effects. The relative position of a focus (Sun) may possibly not vary a great deal, but the distance of the orbiting object around that focus does change. The extremity of distance of an orbiting body from the focus will increase as circular morphs to elliptical. This will ensure that the orbital distance remains the same and is a prerequisite since the annual orbit is the same. The 'squashed circle'. The more 'squashed' this circle becomes, the closer the body is to the Sun. Hotter.

    It should be recognised that the Earth year is currently 365.25 days and many thousands (possibly millions) of years ago may have been less, possibly 360 days. The entire solar system is in motion and the relative (absolute) position in space will change enormously from one 'year' to the next. The appearance is one of stability, but this is the illusion. The effect of global warming and the associated potential for climate change are then (theoretically) very real.

    The effect may be the same, though
    the interpretation of cause does
    change considerably

    A more elliptical orbit will have an increased major axis distance from the focus compared to that of a more circular one, but since the circle is 'squashed' even though the distance from the focus increases, the overall orbital distance is not appreciably changed. The velocity between the extremes of the elliptical orbit: the closest to the Sun = perihelion (fastest and hottest) or furthest from the Sun (aphelion) as the (slowest and coldest) will be intermediate to that around the focus (long/short axis). The long axis is the distance from one extreme of the ellipse to the opposite side passing through the centre. The semi-major axis is one-half this value. The ellipticity is the ratio of the semi-major axis distance to that of the focus to the centre. The object could conceivably be oval in shape and other planetary (gravitational) influences will effect change. The relative orbital locations of the planets with respect to each other will continuously change since the 'yearly' revolution for each of the planets is different. Inter-planetary gravitational influence will be constantly different as the relative positions are all in continual variance.

    • NB: the Earth system because of axial tilt ensures that in the northern hemisphere, summer is during aphelion and winter occurs during perihelion. The seasons are a consequence of this obliquity. The majority of land mass in the northern hemisphere and oceans in the south is a prime reason for a hospitable environment. Were this to be the other way around, the temperatures in the north during summer would be much greater and less in the south. The consequences for mammalian survival would be dire: axial precession foretells a grim scenario within the next 10 - 15,000 years or so...

    Mercury
    • 88 (Earth) days, 0.38AU
      Venus
      • 225 (Earth) days, 0.72AU
      Earth
      • 365.25 (Earth) days, 1.00AU
      Mars
      • 687 (Earth) days, 1.52AU
      Asteroid Belt
      • Either a failed accretion caused by the opposing Jupiter-Sun gravitational influence or a destroyed planet from collision*
      Jupiter
      • 4332.75 (Earth) days (11 years 315 days), 5.2AU
      Saturn
      • 10759.25 (Earth) days (29 years 167 days), 9.54AU
      Uranus
      • 30687 (Earth) days (84 years 6 days), 19.22AU
      Neptune
      • 60189 (Earth) days (164 years 288 days), 30.06AU
      * Two (or more) objects could have collided by virtue of sharing the same (or very similar) orbital distance from the Sun though with (slightly) different velocities. Such a collision may have been relatively slow, but sufficient for mutual destruction.

      The transit of one object around another continually changes. The square of the orbital circumference as measured by the transit time (Earth) days is proportional to the cube of the radial distance (AU), but only for the truly circular orbit. The velocity of a planet decreases with the radial distance: the further away, the slower its orbital speed according to Kepler's third law:

      Orbits are not perfect circles and so the constancy is only approximate, but the relationship appears to be valid.


      7744 (88 x 88) days/0.38AU x 0.38AU x 0.38AU =
      • 141128
      50625 (225 x 225) days/0.72AU x 0.72AU x 0.72AU =
      • 135634
      133407.6 (365.25 x 365.25) days/1AU x 1AU x 1AU =
      • 133408
      471969 (687 x 687) days/1.52AU x 1.52AU x 1.52AU =
      • 134395
      18772722.6 (4332.75 x 4332.75) days/5.2AU x 5.2AU x 5.2AU =
      • 133509
      115761460.6 (10759.25 x 10759.25) days/9.54AU x 9.54AU x 9.54AU =
      • 133327
      941691969 (30687 x 30687) days/19.22AU x 19.22AU x 19.22AU =
      • 132633
      3622715721 (60189 x 60189) days/30.06AU x 30.06AU x 30.06AU =
      • 133373
      The obliquity of the Earth is the change in its axial tilt and it is estimated to take around 41,000 years to move from 21.5deg to 24.5deg and back again. Currently it is about 23.5deg. The precession of this axial shift defines the 'wobble' of the Earth's motion at any specific tilt angle: 26,000 years. So the Earth precesses around its axis at a specific angle that itself changes over time. The orbit of this rotating object that precesses, changes between a flattened ellipse to a more circular shape over an estimated 100,000 years. What this means is that the Earth orbit from any one year to the next fluctuates, albeit by a very small amount, and the planet's position in space relative to the Sun will never be the same from one year to the next.
         Even Earth's Moon rotating once on its own axis for every single 'orbit' about the Earth has a gravitational interaction resulting in two Earth tides (each approximately 45 minutes later) every day. One 'orbit' takes about 30 days = a 12 deg positional eastward shift every day and 12/360 x 24hrs = 0.8hrs (48 mins).
         Tides are (on average) 48mins later every subsequent day.
         The heat radiated by the Sun and absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere will constantly increase/decrease over the thousands of years that these related movements occur. The climate of the planet changes because the distance of the Earth from the Sun is always changing. And the Sun is getting warmer.

      • As an observation, Jupiter's average 'year' is 11.86 Earth years (= 4332.71/365.25 Earth days) and sunspot activity appears to have maxima every 11 or so years, but it is not likely that Jupiter's orbital gravitational influence would affect the Sun's activity: the tiny Jovian speck having such an effect on the comparative enormity of the Sun just doesn't make a lot of sense. However, any gravitational changes of the Sun caused by the sunspots (relatively cooler areas on the Sun's surface or photosphere) could, however, affect the orbital transit of all celestial bodies within its sphere of influence. Sunspots involve magnetism and gravity and magnetism could be related.

         The three cycles are operating simultaneously and since the relative periods are so diverse, synchronicity cannot happen (accepting that the time-periods are correct). A complete precession (26,000 years) cycle through 6degs (21.5degs -> 24.5degs -> 21.5degs) occurs roughly 4 times for every eccentricity cycle (100,000 years) where obliquity (41,000 years) happens only two and one-half times. The position in space at any moment and the changing gravitational influences caused by the constant motion of the planets ensures the radiation from the Sun is never constant either. The result:

      Climate Change

      Comment

      • Actual denials of climate change are rarely voiced, though the single reason for it being caused by human activity is vehemently challenged. It is clearly politically and financially motivated and crude attempts at ridicule are simply accusations of 'deniers of climate change'. This is the classic response of those who define fair and reasonable challenge as conspiracy theory and such accusers are nauseatingly hypocritical simply by ignoring mainline science and their own arrogance by attempting to shift understanding by prosyletising their beliefs. The patronising "holier-than-thou" attitude defines the stance of such people as no case is ever put that can be properly argued.

      It's as ridiculous as it is nauseating

      A true scientist knows the cosmological (or cosmogony) arguments. At the very least they should do. Before pontificating about their version of the truth based on untruth or incomplete (known) argument. Cherry-picking is like statistics. Any story can be told with massaging. Truth can never be 'massaged'.

      Monday, July 05, 2010

      Weight Loss: Physiology And Psychology


      The genetic make-up of the individual is unique and no two individuals can ever be alike. Only actual clones can do that where the genome is copied exactly. All 3 billion or so  'letters' (amino acids) in its code sequence from start to finish in exactly the same order. Identical twins are by definition apparently very similar and even if the appearance traits do not reveal differences, an entire 'lifetime' of experience of every moment for that lifetime could never be duplicated. Someone who is 5' 9" tall can never be 6' in height. It's a genetic and physiological impossibility. Body mass potential is genetic (bone size) and the consequence is that this potential can never be altered. A 'normal' 5' 9" individual may become a very well-built 5' 9", but never a well-built 6'.

      The body can and does store fat and its physical appearance can vary depending on diet, yet the original genetic potential still does not change. When excess fat is 'burnt off' be it by diet alone or diet and exercise the original appearance will be restored. 'Body-built' muscle mass, however it may have been acquired, will eventually be lost if the stress that caused it is terminated. This won't be immediate, though it is inevitable. Weight reduction is generally regarded as only involving the removal of adipose (fat) tissue, but any such 'weight loss' should be replaced by protein in order that body function is not itself 'lost'. It is not possible to selectively remove only 'fat' tissue.

      Removing the engine from a car may reduce
      the overall weight of the vehicle,
      but it just fails to function

      Weight control does not mean weight loss, but body constitution changes. Excess fatty tissue is removed, but by exercise and using carbohydrate to effect removal of fat by 'burning it off', overall weight can actually increase. Protein (muscle) is heavier than fat and if fat is replaced (not interchangeable) by protein then the body size may decrease though the weight could actually increase.

      The density of protein is greater than fat

      The weight of a mass of protein is greater than the equivalent volume of fat. Depending on starting weight, the overall weight may not decrease as much as expected. It may not decrease at all. As fat is replaced by protein (diet and/or exercise), body weight may actually increase, though physical size may go down.

      Protein and fat are not interchangeable:
      the one cannot become the other, but
      they can replace each other 

      This can appear to cause conflicting information if only the weight alone is monitored, but without consideration of the body appearance. The loss of fat weight can be replaced by the gain of protein-based weight. The former is just an energy source and the latter a structural modification.

      Hunger and eating habits are by definition psychological. To reduce an undesirable excess in body weight, the brain must be engaged: the intellect must be involved. The physiology and psychology of the individual complement each other and cannot be separated. Focusing on either one will still involve the other. An athlete must work on both the technique of the sport and nutrition. These techniques may be specific to the sport, but nutrition is a common factor regardless of the discipline. Good nutrition does not require an associated sport and can involve simply the health and well-being of the individual. An athlete's well-being depends on nutrition, but the effectiveness of the athlete depends absolutely on good nutrition.

      A runner, swimmer, weightlifter or gymnast must still use quality foodstuffs since they are all human even though they are individuals with their unique genetic make-up. Human physiology works in the same way for all humans. Sports specificity is unique to a sport, but whatever sport is adopted the human remains human. Any future genomic adaptation remains in the realms of science fiction and science fantasy (?).
      • Weight and mass are not the same thing
      • Moon has about 1/6th the gravity of Earth.
      The weight of a body depends on the gravity acting upon it. A 50kg mass will be considerably less 'heavy' on the Moon than here on Earth, yet it will not change in physical size.


      Saturday, July 03, 2010

      Weight Loss And Exercise


      Arguments regarding exercise and weight control are sometimes quite confused and often confusing. A great deal of this confusion surrounding diets is created by disinformation. It is commonly promoted to peddle a diet. Diet is often misunderstood by being interpreted as short-term only. In the more realistic longer-term, it represents an overall eating regime as a systematic (life-long) plan: a way of life. In moderation, no food type need be excluded, but simply consumed occasionally. There is then no denial of something that may still be desired. Damage can occur when poor food quality becomes incorporated as the staple diet.

      Carbohydrate intake should be restricted more than a small excess of fat unless the exercise level demands higher levels. High intensity, especially if for long periods, requires sugars to enable it. Unused sugar (carbohydrate) converts to fat in the body for storage and sugar storage capacity (as glycogen) is limited in the liver and muscle. Adequate blood flow can mobilise carbohydrate from an underused muscle (activity dependent). When used up, carbohydrate stores must be replenished or further work will be severely curtailed. A lower intensity aerobic rate then allows fat to be used as the energy source.

      Low (aerobic) intensity for long periods enables fat combustion
      A high intensity (anaerobic) level burns carbohydrate and not fat

      The distinction between a sprint and a 'jog'. A sprint is very short and a jog can be very lengthy. A slow walk for several miles will consume fat almost exclusively. The rate of fat loss is also slow. Fat is a very efficient storage medium for large amounts of work. A lot more low intensity (sustained) work can be performed.

      One extreme is the failure to eat: food denial and potentially anorexia. Such a starvation approach will eventually result in a general weight loss, but is also highly dangerous. Depending on the food type consumed, the mix of protein, carbohydrate and fat will vary. Protein repairs tissue and builds muscle that has undergone the stress necessary for hypertrophy (growth). The myth that low impact muscle building will lead to large and ugly muscles (especially for the woman who simply wishes to reduce body weight) is just that: a myth. But, without stressing muscle at all, it will not adapt to deal with any future demands. The more stress and subsequent growth, the more capable and efficient it will become. Women desire to lose weight usually for appearance. A well-toned physique (not necessarily muscular) can be extremely attractive (to males!).

      Effective weight loss is more likely to happen if sugar (carbohydrate) is excluded from the diet rather than fat. Individuals who exclude as many sources of fat as is practicably possible and undergo insufficient exercise, will probably still put on fat weight. The diet almost certainly contains sugary food groups. In the absence of correct aerobic exercise, where the intensity reaches a minimum of around 60%, the body will convert the sugar to fat for storage in adipose tissue cells (adipocyte). The result is weight gain of fatty tissue without consuming fat. The diet must be ruthlessly investigated to remove all sources of excess sugar rather than focusing on fatty foods. The possibility of obesity and diabetes type-2 must be considered as a gain in (fat) weight from a sugary diet indicates a large excess of sugar.

      Carbohydrate is required to undergo the energetic activities that raise the intensity level to burn off fat. The human body lacks an enzyme to reverse the process by converting fat into carbohydrate. There is a limited capacity in muscle and the liver to store carbohydrate (as glycogen) and any excess carbohydrate is converted into fat. If a certain level of intensity is not reached, fat stores will not be appreciably reduced. Carbohydrate (sugar) must be consumed to provide the energy capability required to burn fat. Body fat will not be touched unless a minimum start-point of activity intensity is attained. Exercise regimes must be gradually 'ramped-up' to achieve this starting point. Maintenance of this level for at least 30 minutes daily will consume some fat, but a continued quality diet is essential to achieve permanent weight control. It's important to appreciate that fat is just the method of storing a potential energy source. Fat is a requirement for some biological and very important body processes. Many vitamins are fat soluble and without it the chemistry cannot operate.

      Fat can be used by the body for energy, but energy is a requirement to produce it. This will originate from the utilisation of carbohydrate.The exercise regime and a good nutrient (diet) intake should satisfy any realistic goals. Carbohydrate is an essential for weight control and failure to consume carbohydrate will not enable a sufficient exercise intensity to burn fat. Foods with a high glycemic index will produce rushes of blood sugar and if used in conjunction with exercise can be useful. Caution, however, must be exercised especially if diabetic. Failure to eat properly will not achieve healthy weight control. Eat yourself thin is absolutely true, but if this is not done properly then weight loss may be the result: ill-health will surely follow.

      Be aware that food intake adjustments are much more likely to return benefits than simply increasing the exercise level. Ideally the combination of diet and exercise regime should be considered. The efficiency of fat as a (body) storage medium makes it more difficult to remove just by exercise alone. Food intake reduction should precede an exercise regime that should be 'ramped up' gently. Potentially, serious self-harm could result if general fitness levels are low. The body consumes energy (basal metabolic rate) 24 hours of every day to remain functionally active. Reducing the intake of new food will make considerable and relatively rapid changes. Exercise then supplements weight loss plans and does not by itself produce weight loss.