It's like there's a party in my mouth, and everyone's on fire

Here's something that I have 'learned' recently, which I feel I should share with you.

There's a theory, and I've yet to confirm it, about why we like eating spicy foods. Logically, we shouldn't. Spicy food works, generally, via capsaicins, chemicals which are part of the pain perception system (they cause the feeling of irritation and burning, unsurprisingly). So why when we eat it, do we (mostly) enjoy it? In spite of the fact that it often causes sensations akin to sucking on a magmasicle.

By magmasicle, I of course meant a lollipop (or the American 'popsicle', which is obviously what my term is derived from) made of magma, liquid rock. Putting magma in your mouth would obviously cause serious, horrific burns, far worse than any curry, and would probably kill you fairly quickly. But then I realised the term magmasicle is crap for various reasons. Firstly, I'm confused as to whether it should be magmasicle, as in popsicle, or magmacicle, as in icicle, from which the word popsicle is obviously derived. I've emailed an American about this, will post the official verdict when she gets back to me.

There are many other problems with this term, not just spelling. Magma is liquid rock, yes, but it is, as far as I'm aware, the term for liquid rock when it is underground. As soon as it's escaped from it's rocky confines, it becomes lava. So a lavasicle would have been more logical. Logically, you would have to extract it from the ground in order to make it into some form of

-sicle (or -cicle?). You could try making a lollipop from liquid rock while it's still underground, but how would you get to it? Still, magma sounds cooler than lava. Ironic, really, as magma is, logically, a lot hotter, as it hasn't been exposed to the air.

'Magmasicle' also implies that you could make liquid rock into some form of suckable ice treat. In order to truly deserve the description of -sicle, then, the liquid rock would have to be frozen and solidified, which, although safer for the soft flesh of the mouth, defeats the whole point of using as a simile given the context of the original paragraph where I used the term was regarding sensation of putting something extremely hot in your mouth, and as I just said, a magmasicle, even if it was possible to make such a thing (and logically, it isn't) would actually be cool and very hard. It wouldn't be 'just like sucking on a rock', it would actually BE sucking on a rock. This would no doubt pose serious potential hazards to the teeth, but that wasn't what I was going for.

I could have said 'gargling with magma', and avoided this whole rant. But that still wouldn't avoid the magma/lava quandary. Or I could have just deleted the whole thing, or at least kept this pointless train of thought in my head where it could fester quietly like everything else. I could just delete this whole section and start again.

I might still do that.

Anyway, super hot curries and spicy foods hurt. I've heard a theory that they're still enjoyable because they burn off the taste buds, and this releases endorphins, which we enjoy. There's a certain amount of logic to this, pain can cause the release of endorphins, which are, essentially, natural heroin. This seems fine, but if it was that straight forward, I'd be very surprised. Burning off sensory cells such as taste buds should be much more painful than that offered by simple sensation of heat. And why doesn't stepping on glass, or burning your hand, or getting your leg blown off prove similarly enjoyable? All result in the destruction of sensory cells, why don't we enjoy those?

It's ridiculous in a way, but I'm as guilty as anyone. I love spicy food. Not the sort that's so hot it causes all the fluids in your body to evacuate (a phenomenon I've not heard described medically but one which my father swears he witnessed after a guy in the pub ate a triple strength phall for a bet and all the water in his body started pouring out of every orifice, and he only survived because Dai the WWII veteran took it upon himself to empty to contents of twelve ice buckets on him, which sounds far fetched but he assures me he has many witnesses), but the sort that causes a noticeable eye/nose leakage at worst. But then I've had the best Indian cuisine in London (and therefore the World? In the 19th century that would have been a valid claim, but I'm glad it's not anymore). My Father-in-law is a member of an exclusive Indian club which happens to do the best Indian food in London, and has sneaked me in. We've never got past the starters, we just tend to order those until physics takes over and we can't eat any more.

The increasing pleasure people get from incredibly hot foods is clearly a real thing. The Scoville scale's very existence says so. And I advise you to look at that link, it's amazing. The Scoville scale measures food 'hotness'. And it's incredible how high it goes. I like spicy food, but I get the impression that's like me saying 'Yeah, I've taken a life' because I've swatted a fly, to a bunch of guys who regularly strangle bears with their bare (bare? Bear? HA HA!) hands.

The scale is amazing, the link also lists products/produce which correspond to the scale, from 0 (bell peppers) to pure Capsaicin (16,000,000). Any scale which goes from 0-16,000,000 must be approached with caution. The fact that the pepper spray used by he police, a WEAPON, scores just over 5,000,000, shows how strong things get. I looked it up, the top stuff, pure Capsaicin, a teaspoon of that stuff will only be diluted if added to an Olympic swimming pool full of water. Which begs the question, who makes Chili in those volumes? Even if it's curry, same logic applies. What is this stuff for?

Nothing, of course, it's purely a curiosity. I don't know why people enjoy spicy food, but it really is good.

Hurrah for pain inflicting foodstuffs, long may they continue!


P.S. It is 'popsicle', that's a brand name, so that sorts that out. It must be true, an American told me.

Celebrities and Science, and never the twain shall meet.

Celebrities are misleading about Science

Some people have been complaining that celebrities mislead people about science. It's true, they do, but I don't really see it as a big a problem as those concerned make out. Granted, I'm the person who's the first to say that public awareness of Science is seriously lacking, and I greatly resent all these pseudo-scientists who get millions for spewing fictitious gibberish in the public's faces (see earlier rants regarding McKeith and her ilk).
However, I'm not sure this issue is that big a deal. The article reports that Delia Smith has been stating that if people could cut down on sugar then we could cure the nations obesity. This confuses me a bit, I don't see it as anything more than a generalised statement. If you cut down on pretty much anything you eat excessively then it would help with obesity. Unless you're addicted to carrots or something, but eating too many carrots will kill you faster than obesity (vitamin A poisoning I believe, can break down your cell lysosomes which releases all the aggressive enzymes into the cells and they break down, you sort of fall apart really slowly and horribly, it's very unpleasant or at least it was in the sci-fi novel I read where it happened which was very well researched but probably not a 100% dependable source of information).
If I was a celebrity, that previous quote taken out of context could be used to claim that I stated that carrots are lethal. Luckily I'm not a celebrity.
I think Delia's problem was that she tried the classic bluff of dropping a bit of science in to enhance credibility:
"After six weeks [without sugar] everything will taste sweet... because you will have got your palate back to what nature created". OK, I'm not sure that's true. Granted, you'll desire sugar less if your blood's always full of it, but things will taste different? Taste is a sense, and admittedly sight and the corresponding brain areas can change depending on the stimulus they get, but does this work for taste? And is it even the same thing? If I stop looking at red things for a few weeks, will everything start to look more red to me? If I stop touching metal things, will everything else feel like metal? Granted, this doesn't take into account the metabolic role of sugar, but if I'm confused, surely Delia should be more so? And isn't it a bit rich for a celebrity chef to have a go at people for eating too much? And would we want everything to taste sweet anyway? I prefer savoury things, as do many others. Everyone would start putting excess salt on their food to counteract it, which would cause more health problems. THINK, Delia!

That's one issue. Someone else has criticised Mariah Carey for her maths skills. That's just awful. The criticising I mean, not the Mariah Carey maths skills.

"Carey's grasp of maths came under fire after she said her album E=MC2 stood for "emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two" - rather than squared... Mathematician Dr David Leslie said Carey had "misread the algebra" after adapting Einstein's famous equation for her album title. "The 'two' in the equation means C squared, not MC multiplied by two. "The correct reading of the equation is E=MCC, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been 'emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey'?"

Jesus Christ! Firstly, anyone who takes their mathematical learning from Mariah Carey is clearly beyond any hope. And secondly, what a dickhead! Not really doing much for the impression of Scientists there, and have you ever heard of poetic license? And I don't even like Mariah Carey, but come on.

Then they talk about Tom Cruise disputing the use of psychiatry. But lets bare one thing in mind; Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Anything he says, does, or even thinks, can be discounted for ever and ever amen. He says this because... Ah, but is he a Scientologist? Then he's wrong. Even if he told me Gravity pulled you down, I'd have to get a bag of apples and a high window just to check. Therefore, all his claims are nonsense. Nuff said.

There's more about Demi Moore not understanding detox and other stuff, but I don't think they should be blamed for this. They're not scientists. Agreed, it's harmful when you figure the influence they have, but that's the unthinking minions who worship them who are responsible.

You may wonder why I'm being so lenient to misinformed stars? It's because these reports of their claims are filtered through the media, therefore I don't believe them. Why? Because it's happened to me. See here. It sounds like I agree with this 'most depressing day of the year' nonsense. I made it quite clear that I didn't and explained why in some detail, but in fairness to the South Wales Echo, that doesn't make for an easily readable story, does it? Still, makes me look like a dweeb.

So take every media claim of celebrity claim with a pinch of salt. All the better to take away that persistent sweet taste


P.S. The 'most depressing day of the year' occurs again a week today, and ITV Wales have asked to do an interview with me about why people should stay cheerful. Dejavu indeed. I shall do my best to ruin it if they try to dumb me down again. Watch this space for details.

Evolution is over, everyone go home.

Evolution of man may be over

I don't normally link to other blogs, but this is a subject I've actually discussed with others in the past, so seems like a convenient time to re-hash some old ground, like the typical narrow-minded friend who suddenly says 'and another thing...' two weeks after the original argument was settled by someone else when you weren't there to witness it, resulting in confusion for all. Hurrah!

Anyway, it's been proposed before in sci-fi books and what not, but given the effect of our intelligence on our overall development, is human evolution at an end? A fundamentalist would say no, seeing as it never happened in the first place, so that's the end of that now shut up and eat your Bible or something like that. But it's a valid concern, because pretty much all the things that drive evolution such as survival of the fittest, environmental pressures and genetic mutation can, to varying extents, be counteracted by our marvelous technology. Why would humans adapt to colder environments when we have central heating? Why would keen hunting skills be needed when Asda's has a Deli counter? And so on.

I personally think this analysis needs to be refined. It might well be the end of Natural evolution, but I don't think evolution can logically stop. Our society is more complex than ever, but still there are selection pressures. Look at Michael Phelps, the Olympic swimmer. 8 Gold medals, world fame, and if he wasn't involved already he most likely has women throwing themselves at him now. Apparently, he has the perfect build for swimming, naturally so, so any children he has will have similar traits, and anyone who wants to beat him ever will have to have an equal or better capacity for swimming. So we see a pressure here, albeit a small one, to produce the perfect swimmer. Don't mock it, as if it didn't exist, would Michael get the chance to pass on his genes? Uncertain, as he is clearly a hideous man. But because the Olympics exist, he and his type will now become sought after, rather than dismissed by potential mates on account of their resemblance to every Frankenstein's monster spoof combined with Plug, from the Bash street kids.

(Note: I have no issue with Michael Phelps, he's clearly a supreme being of some sort, and as a lifetime shunner of physical activity such people scare me, so I lash out in defence at the impressive yet ugly and probably mentally deficient demi-Gods)

Part of the original article cites the belief that humans are living longer, so evolution slows as a result. But isn't that an example of evolution? How long was the average lifespan 100 years ago? 6 months? And yes, many genetic diseases and illnesses which would normally kill off victims before they could grow to pass on their DNA are now manageable, so that doesn't happen, so the diseases stay around. But that doesn't take into account the general shallowness of 99.99% of breeding partners. I have no issue with people with Down syndrome, but I'll hold my hand up and say I'm not attracted to them and I'd genuinely worry about someone who was. That's an extreme example, obviously, but people do still seek out the most healthy and physically attractive partners, people with genetic defects need not die out they'll probably always be marginalised.

Some people see it differently, I've heard numerous people who believe in 'traditional values' (can generally be interpreted as 'Bigoted Wankers') complaining about all these hideous, pregnant teenagers and 'chavs'. Society is 'going to the dogs' blah blah blah. I don't think 'Chavs' (inverted commas will persist because I don't like the word, but can't think of an equally concise acceptable alternative) are any more or less smart than anyone else. They're a product of their upbringing and environment as much as anyone else. And people complain that they're always on their mobiles, well I find that impressive. Most modern mobiles confuse the hell out of me, and I'm 26 and can do Brain surgery. My little brother has mastered Sim City 3000 on the PC and he's only 8. Compare this to only a few generations ago, when your average child was amazed for weeks on end by the concept of the Hula-Hoop, which is, let's be blunt, a circle. Circles have been around for a loooong time, but they still fascinate us, don't they!

No, they don't. Circles are being phased out, what with downloading and MP3 players, CDs and that are just a storage medium* now. Even machines evolve.

I can't see how we've stopped evolving, but now I think we're more in control of how we evolve. Obviously with genetic engineering this is going to be literally true. People these days are afraid of it, like GM food, it's 'not natural'. Neither is sustained single crop agriculture, crop rotation, industrial fertilisers or taking produce and making it extra shiny before putting it in a shop in a display alongside identical sized and coloured produce of the same genus before throwing it in the bin because nobody buys Veg when there's Snickers to be had.
A lot of people balk at the idea of human genetic manipulation, for themselves or for their children. But not everyone will. I state this with 100% certainty, seeing as there are millions of people who willingly slice their guts or faces open and inject them with all manner of crazy chemicals just to look slightly better. And when one bunch starts GMing themselves, we'll all have to join in to keep up. There's your selection pressure again. And back to the start. And who knows what challenges lie ahead? I imagine there'll be a distinct advantage for humans who can breathe CO2, but not for literally tens of years.

There appears to be a fear of the human race stagnating, and some other race usurping us in the distant future, a la Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Unlikely, as if we wouldn't notice the slow development of another species technical infrastructure that could rival our own. And given our current progress, we'll have wiped out all other higher life forms before they even get started. You don't normally hear of the upsides of our ecological vandalism do you? But damn it if there aren't a few.

So yeah. Evolution, it would be arrogant to think we've beat it, we're just working with it. In my opinion. The good thing about evolution is, whether you believe in it or not, it just keep happening.

(*CDs have always been just a storage medium, that's what they're for, but the point I was making was nonsensical and I couldn't really back it up, so I just thought I'd say it. I'm very sorry)

Disordered eating

Pregnancy, nuts and asthma

The guy who wrote the story above must have had a confusing time of it. Three health hot topics, Nut allergies, the effects of mothers diet on the foetus, and childhood asthma. Although admittedly, Asthma seems to have something of an 80's feel these days, it's a bit simplistic in these days of ADHD and MMR-Autism hysteria. It's a well understood disease that affects the lungs, and lungs are boring, right? Everyone knows about them, mental disorders are where it's at in the new millennium. I imagine a modern mother would be embarrassed if her child had asthma, sneaking them out of the playground after school, as all the other trendy mums laugh and scoff at her offspring with the outdated illness, as their own children stare into space in a Ritailin induced semi-coma.
(Ritailin is the most commonly perscribed drug for treating ADHD, it curbs the main symptoms such as lack of attention and impulsivity, and if you up the dose it can even get rid of some of those annoying habits children have like curiosity, playfulness and free will, and it can't do any harm surely as it's all medicine, medicine is good for you, right? And you can leave the child staring at the wall while you go off and get your nails done and do some shopping, and all those other things you can do now that you don't have to waste all that time doing actual parenting!)
You may have guessed, I'm not a big fan of medicating children with powerful stimulants, particularly as their brains are still developing. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions when it has to be done, but it's surely a last resort, not a first one, and I can't abide it when a parent says 'my child is out of control' when they actually mean 'my child has an illness that cramps my lifestyle, can't we tranquilize him or something?' You people know who you are!
Where was I?
Ah, right. Asthma, nut allergies and pregnancy. Three health concerns rolled into one. Apparently, if pregnant women eat nuts they risk giving their children asthma. I'm not sure how that works, but it's probably a very convoluted process. But do you remember when peanut allergies were weird? I remember hearing about it for the first time as a child, and it sounded very odd. Now they're everywhere, I know several people who suffer from serious nut allergies. Has it always been like this? Were there always many peanut sufferers who were too afraid to come forward? If so, why? Or is there an increase in allergies as time goes on.
Western living is, apparently, largely to blame. You don't get many peanut allergies in Africa, and they eat copious amounts. It's because their immune systems have more important things to do. (An allergic reaction is caused by the immune system responding rather overenthusiastically to an essentially harmless substance, by the way, in case that didn't make any sense). People in Africa have, on average, a much lower standard of living and their immune systems have to fight of germs and disease all the time. We in the west have a habit of sterilizing everything. My own mother did it, when I was born she went hygiene crazy, even sterilizing the phones, although who she expected to be calling a 2 week old baby I never established. So our immune systems get bored and twitchy, and allergies occur. Peanuts seem to be especially prone to causing a bad reaction.
I remember reading an article in New Scientist about this, where a woman died after eating peanuts at a party. Her husband said she must have eaten a peanut that "was hiding in a bowl of mixed nuts". It's a terrible tragedy and my sympathies go out to the guy, but if someone said to me 'find me a peanut', a bowl of mixed nuts would be the 2nd place I'd look. The 1st would be a bowl of peanuts. Why was she eating nuts if she had an allergy? Was this 'Russian roulette: The Christmas party edition'? Maybe she didn't know she had an allergy, but in that case, why blame the peanut? It could have been any other nut*, they were mixed. I've always been wary of Walnuts. All crumpled up like that, what are they hiding?
But this sort of story gets lost in the tide of articles and programmes about 'Food is bad for you!' There's nothing we can eat any more without some self-confessed expert lecturing us like idiot children or sifting through our bowel movements for some undisclosed reason. Jamie Oliver was practically Knighted for trying to stop kids eating 'junk', Gillian McKeith is a millionaire thanks to the nonsensical guff she spouts about nutrition, all because people are so paranoid about what they eat, and everyone seems hell bent on making it worse!
A lot of people don't trust GM food. Why? As if all other produce hasn't been cultivated and designed for maximum output over decades/centuries. But no, speed the process up in a lab and you can't trust it. 'Organic only' sections in Supermarkets annoy me, if they're going to have those, they should have 'GM only' as well. Discriminating against something because of its genes is otherwise known as racism, and I want no part of it!
There seems to be some sort of bandwagon, and everyone wants to jump on. Apparently, Janet Street Porter has recently been criticising smoothies and fruit drinks because of all the natural sugar they contain. never mind the vitamins and all that, it's the sugar that's important apprently. That just makes me want to consume smoothies until the stuff starts dripping from my ears, if Janet Street-porter is against it, I'm all for it. She's just massively infuriating.
But think about it. Red Meat = Very bad for your heart. Chicken = Probably Chemically enhanced, and they make Hugh cry. Fish = Heavy metal poisoning. Carrots = Possible vitamin A overdose. Citrus fruits = Too much sugar and acid damages your teeth. Other fruits = Sugar again, and don't forget pesticides and germs etc. Potatoes = too many carbs. Rice = Not enough carbs. Pasta = Too many carbs. Broccoli = High in carcinogens. Nuts = Fattening, too many oils. Mushrooms = Fungus? Eeeurgh. Sausages = Do you know what they putin that stuff? Eyes and anus and stuff! Curry = too many colourings. Smoothies = Janet say NO! Salad = Is it fresh? negative calories you know, if you eat it too often you might die. Coffee= Do you know what's in that? Tea = And that! Pizza = They spit in it you know, my mate saw them do it. Chinese food = All that MSG damages your eyes, you could go blind.
It goes on. There's literally nothing we can eat any more which doesn't maim or kill us in some way. Just be responsible, don't overindulge but don't starve to death either. Everything you do damages you in some way, that's life. For some people, a perfect world would be one where everyone just stays indoors hooked up to an IV drip and staring at the wall. If we're lucky, maybe they'll add some garlic to it, because there's nothing wrong with that. Yet.

* I am aware that a peanut is a legume. To anyone who was compelled to write to me to point that out, I'd advise you to go outside and talk to someone. Anyone, as you clearly need to.