On the Crisis of Scientifically Studying Homosexuality

Crossposted, Original Link

Unless addressing HIV, AIDS, or sexual health, queer communities, at least in Lebanon, often disregard scientific interferences in our issues. Even though it is understandable, this hatred is still misleading, disturbing, and damaging to our movement. At the heart of my article is my scientific side trying to analyze and explain how scientists fucked up when they pointed their microscopes towards our identities.
If you bring up most scientific research talking about the genetic, psychological, or hormonal origin of our identities, you are most likely to get rolling eyes for a response. In some cases, you could harshly be reprimanded for being self-hating or naïve.
This scientophobia, if I may call it that, is a direct result of our bitter history with unethical or biased scientists trying to prevent us from accepting, or to heal us from, our identities.
In this article, we will not go over theories and studies that discuss biological and psychological origins of homosexuality. For those, you may find a well-referenced discussion about the subject on Wikipedia.
Scientific flaws permeate most of these research papers: The first being that they often study small groups of “homogenous” homosexuals. The studied homosexual is usually the stereotyped homosexual, white, cute, HIV+ and effeminate man.
There are rarely any mentions of other sub-communities, of lesbians, bisexuals, non-effeminate gay men, or transgender individuals. Perhaps, including everyone in one study would be too much of a hassle – I understand.
But here’s the catch: When you limit the scope of your study, you limit the scope of your conclusion. When you study a very specific population of homosexuals, you clarify the profile of that population.
After all, when science brags about finding an origin for homosexuality, and after looking at one sub-group in the queer community, random fucks, and their random assumptions about me, are legitimized, when in fact, science has barely ever studied people like me!
Of course, there are also issues of methodology that surface with some of the research. LeVay’s research* for example had a small sample of 7 homosexual men who died of AIDS. A sample of 7 is not enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever; the margin of error would remain too large. The differences observed could have resulted from sample artifacts, random population drifts, pure luck, etc.
Needless to say, these findings always fail the fundamental scientific test of replication. The laywoman may not know this, but for any scientific quantitative research to be acknowledged and for the scientist behind it to be accredited, it needs to be verified by another research team, while studying a different sample of the same population. If the conclusions fail to conform, then the theory is dropped.
The analysis of the results is also problematic. Scientists are allowed and encouraged to draw conclusions, as long as they, on one hand, keep their assumptions within the limits of reason, and on the other hand, they ought to clearly state they are speculating.
In addition, scientific research was always plagued with the overlap between causality and correlation, and that often led to numerous cruelties concealed behind the veil of science. As a biologist, there is nothing that shames me more. When we speak of causality, it means that A causes B, sticking a knife in someone’s skin causes a wound. Correlation on the other hand, means A is highly common when B is highly common in a specific population, for example, IQ results are often low in African American populations in the United States of America. Correlation may indicate causality, but scientists must be extremely careful when making a conclusion for a scientific research. Because s/he will steer the public opinion based on her/his research.
The African American IQ studies for example were disastrous and shameful for the scientists who performed them. Because of their racism and blunt bias, they frauded (they plea innocence on the basis of ignorance, but I personally refuse to let them off that easily) the results. Instead of drawing attention to some fundamental social problems affecting a minority’s ability to integrate the school system, such as language barriers, they chose to stigmatize the African American population and formulating correlation in the guise of causality.
Similarly, when scientists speak of homosexuality, they often speak of correlations with subtle phenomena such as unhealthy family dynamics, or a succession of older female siblings, and so on. They often fail to bring the social into the scene: After all, when parents notice that their son may be homosexual in a homophobic society, they often turn aggressive, if not violent.
You can also notice how some scientists, mainly genetic engineers, conduct certain “gay mice and homosexual flies” types of research and manipulation. It sounds interesting, that’s for sure, but when you think about it, what on earth do we have in common with mice? And flies? To top it off, the definition of a “homosexual fly” is one that just sticks its genital organ into another male. The same goes for mice. Such populations do not “choose partners” and have no preferential attitude towards anyone in the population. Give them a 100 mates and they will fuck 100 mates. I believe that the queer populations, throughout the different sub-communities, agree that what we define as sexuality is far more complicated.
Some argue that we look at animals in order to counter the normalcy argument. A comparison with insects and rodents is irrelevant for this purpose, because our social structures are fundamentally different from theirs: Drinking human blood is not rendered normal because mosquitoes ingest blood, is it?
If we need to better understand the evolutionary advantage our sexuality and identities present to society, then we can study animals that are socially closer to us, maybe primates. For such populations, non-heterosexual romance and sexual practice have been observed for as long as these animals have been observed.
For this, we also need to clarify, or maybe remember, that the concept of “normal” is void by definition, humans are normal, our non-conforming identities and orientations are by definition normal because a human being feels them, if these feelings were not “normal”, we wouldn’t be able to feel them. Psychological problems and illnesses are normal, they usually occur as a coping mechanism against stressful environments. Why do we treat them as illnesses? Because they pose a handicap to the individual’s life, hinder their ability to resolve the source(s) of stress, or causes danger to those around them. The same is not true for being queer. Rape, murder, violence, infanticide, pedophilia, necrophilia, and other unacceptable behavior have been observed and documented throughout history and across the ecosystems. This does not mean that we want to legalize them or defend pedophile rights, does it?
If we were to point out the patriarch of all scientific mistakes regarding homosexuality, it would be the desocialization of a deeply social matter. If you want to study homosexuality you need to know that you are stepping into an intricate field, where identity collides with a deeply heteronormative and homophobic society. You also need to understand that, whether or not you have a problem with homosexuals, and most modern societies have a problem with them, and that problem has a name, homophobia.
Unlike members of ethnic minorities, we are often born into heteronormative families, our persecution starts in our cradles. Such a struggle stains our whole life, it influences how and if we come out, it influences how we identify and how we interact with scientists, and other professionals. So the question cannot be what makes a man physically incapable of tolerating a pussy. The question is more complicated, I personally don’t know how to define it, and until you absolutely know what you are looking for, don’t venture into a world that you can’t even understand.
Just a friendly reminder, please stop mixing up gender identity, sexual orientation, and socially prescribed gender roles. A girl who likes to play football can be a person with an alternative gender identity or simply a child that likes to play football. She is not a homosexual, and the word “pre-homosexual” is one of the most disturbing and unscientific words I have ever come across.
And for all the queer folks out there, don’t fear science, dive headfirst and grab the beast with its horns. A PhD in neuroscience gives a white middle class man no advantage against you. Biology is a simple natural science, argue!

* LeVay, S., A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Science 253:1034-1037 (1991)

كاستر سيمينيا”… أو نكتة الجندر”

Original Link

بعض الأحداث الي سبقت وتلت مباشرة بطولة العالم في برلين قد انتهكت حقوقي، ليس فقط كرياضية، ولكن أيضاً حقوقي الأساسية منها والإنسانية، بما في ذلك حقّي بالكرامة والخصوصية.” كاستر سيمينيا

من حوالي السنة، ربحت كاستر سيمينيا سباق الـ٨٠٠ متر بالألعاب الأولمبية. سيمينيا عداءة جنوب أفريقية اخترقت الساحة العالمية من كذا باب عريض، إن برضاها ولّا غصباً عنّا، حسب الباب اللّي عم نحكي عنّو.

كاستر خلقت سنة ١٩٩١، بجنوب أفريقيا، من عيلة سودا مؤمنة وفقيرة، وربيت بضيعة بقلب شمال البلد، سادس ولد بعيلة ٧ بنات وصبي. بحسب إمّها، كانت كاستر “بنت مهذّبة، لطيفة، شغّيلة، صبورة، وطموحها كان إنّو تلعب بالمنتخب الوطني لكرة القدم”. (مرجع)

أكيد الحياة ما هوّنت مسيرة سيمينيا، من عمر زغير فهمت إنّو النجاح مش سهل، وما في كتير طرقات بتوصّلها. سيمينيا اختارت الرياضة، التزمت بالتدريبات وحقّقت أرقام خيالية. بالشهور اللّي سبقت الفوز بالألعاب الأولمبية، كان أداءها عم يتحسّن بشكل ملحوظ.

كاستر كانت عم تحصد أتعابها، عيلتها رافعة راسا فيا وضيعتها مكيّفة.

الإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى ما عجبه الموضوع وفرض على سيمينيا الخضوع لفحص تأكيد الجندر، يعني فحص تيشوفوا إذا البنت بنت ولا صبي. من الأوّل أكد الإتحاد إنّو المشكلة مش إذا سيمينيا عم بتغش ولّا لأ، هنّي بس خايفين يكون عندا حالة طبية نادرة بتعطيا أفضلية غير عادلة ضد باقي المنافسات، لأنّو أكيد الذكورة أفضلية!

بأقل من شهر، الدنية كلّا عرفت عن الفحص، وبأقل من شهر الدنية كلّا سخّفت، حقّرت وتمسخرت على كاستر سيمينيا. الإعلام أخد قضية سيمينيا على إنّها نكتة. من الناس يلّي بلّشت تناقش بكل حرّية نظرتها لدرجة أنوثة (أو بالأحرى ذكورة) سيمينيا، عن حجم عضلاتها، عن تكوين كتافها، عن الشي اللّي بيشبه الشوارب، عن الشعر تحت باطا مرجع)، وحتّى عن شكل الشورت بين إجريا (في كتير ناس قالت إنّو سيمينيا عندا عضو ذكري). وصلت وقاحة البعض إنّن ينكتوا على إسم سيمينيا (“سائل منوي” بالإنكليزي: semen).

بهالفترة كانت الأوساط المتحوّلة والنسوية الغير بيضا عم بتراقب بحسرة بنت الـ١٨ عم تخضع وتنكسر بوجّ تهكّم مجتمع الشهرة القاسي بحشريته اللّي ما بيعرف حدوده. لمّا الناس بتنتهك خصوصية ناس متل ليندزي لوهان، أو لايدي غاغا، ما بمتعض، مش لأنّو بوافق عالحشرية المفرطة اللّي بيخضعولا، بس لمّا الناس بتبني حياتها وثروتها على الشهرة الإستعراضية، بعدين الشهرة الإستعراضيةرح تعضّن بطيزن. بس سيمينيا ما سعيت للشهرة الإستعراضية، هيّي عدّاءة من الطراز الأوّل.

بنفس الوقت بِقدر قول إنّو نحنا، ذوي/ات الهوية الجنسية والجندرية الغير تقليدية منعرف اللّي عم تقطع فيه سيمينيا. بالنهاية كل نزلة عالطريق، كل نزلة عدكّان، كل قعدة مع رفقا أو عيلة، هيّي معركة، وممكن بأي لحظة تتحوّل لدفاع مرّ عن الذات، عن الهوية، عن الكرامة. ما منعرف أمتين منضطر نقعد ونسمع الناس عم بتشرّح درجة أنوثتنا، أسباب بشاعتنا، أوقات منضطر نسمع أحاديث عن “هرموناتنا” والظروف المأساوية اللّي وصّلتنا لنصير “هيك”، وبتتحوّل لحظات قوّة وفخر من تاريخنا الشخصي لسبب مؤسف ومخزي لـ”عدم طبيعيّتنا”، متل وقتا بتبرّر إمّنا منظرنا بإنّو “حرام، اضطرّت تحمل مسؤولية عزغر”، كأنّو هلّق صار مفروض إندم على حس المسؤولية اللّي كتير بنات بتبرهنه.

وبذكر هوني وقت بلبنان تجرّئت مجموعة من النسويات إنّو تعترض على ذكورية الأغاني الـ”حديثة”، فكان رد أحد هالمغنّين، محمّد اسكندر، إنّو هاجم المنظّمات واتّهمهن بالبشاعة وقلّة الأنوثة، وإنّن لو لاقوا شباب يحبّوهن ما كانوا بيطلعوا هالقد معقّدين.

بس كل مرّة حدا بيقلّي “شكر”، أو “بنت بإير” عالطريق بتعزّى بفكرة إنّو أنا إلي ٥ سنين عم نمّي ثقتي بنفسي كمرا قوية، مش ربحانة جميلة أنوثتي ومش ناطرة إذن أولياء الذكورية تإنزل عالشارع. وأنا بطّلت بنت ١٨ قادرة لطشة تحطّمني… بس سيمينيا كانت بنت ١٨، وما بقي حدا بالعالم إلّا ونكّت وناقش اللّي بين إجريا وموقعها بالحياة.

أكيد طلعت بعض الأصوات النسوية والعابرة للجنادر اللّي حاولت تدافع عن حق سيمينيا بتقرير الهوية (مرجع) بس أكيد الصراع الكبير وإحتمال إنّو تنحرم من ميداليّتها وإنّها تنمنع بحياتها ترجع تلعب وفكرة إنّو قرطة رجال بيض يقرّروا هوّيتها الإجتماعية… كل هالعوامل كان إلها وقع كبير على كاستر، لحد ما انهارت أعصابها، اضطرّت تقفّي فحوصاتها والبعض حكي عن أفكار إنتحارية. (مرجع 1، مرجع 2)

واللّي زاد الطين بلّة إنّو أكتر الناس اللّي كان ممكن يدافعوا عن سيمينيا، زميلاتها بالركض اللّي بيعرفوا الضغط اللّي بتخضعله النسوة الألعاب الأولمبية، هاجموها وصاروا يركضوا تيأكّدوا اللتلتة الإعلامية وما طلع إلّا جيني ميدوز اللّي تجرّئت تنتقد الوكالة والأوساط الأولمبية للطريقة اللّي تعاملوا فيها مع سيمينيا والقصة كلّا سوا. (مرجع 1، مرجع 2)

بس كيف وصلنا لهون؟ ووين صار الغلط؟

بالمختصر المفيد، مشكلة سيمينيا مرتبطة بعدد من المشاكل الواضحة والمخفية. الجزء الواضح من القصة إنّو سيمينيا كانت عم تحقق نتائج هائلة، ومتل كتار من الرياضيّات، ما كانت القوالب التقليدية للأنوثة أولوية سيمينيا، فبطبيعة الحال، في كتير ناس برّرت نجاحها برجوليتها. وهون أوضح ارتباطات القضية بالسياسة. لحد سنة الـ١٩٩٢ كانت الوكالة بتفرض فحص لتأكيد الجندر  على كل المشتركات بالأولمبياد، لأنّو بفترة الحرب الباردة كان عدد الميداليات الأولمبية دلالة على كبر البلد، وبالتالي كانت كتير من الدول بتحقن نسوانا بالتيستوستيرون.

بس لمّا طلبت الوكالة من سيمينيا إنّا تخضع لفحص تأكيد الجندر ما كانوا شاكّين بإنّا عم تغش، كانوا شاكّين إنّو تكون ثنائية الجنس (إنترسكس). وبرأيُن إنّو ممكن المستوى العالي من التيستوستيرون يكون عم يعطيها أفضلية غير عادلة ضد باقي العدّاءات. بس الفكرة إنّو معظم النقاش تمحور حول مظهر سيمينيا ودرجة استحقاقها لعرش الأنوثة، وما تم ذكر نسبة التيستوستيرون إلّا من باب المسخرة على هـ”البنت المسترجلة”.

والقلال اللّي حكيوا عن تأثير مستوى الهرمونات على أداءها، كتار منّن شدّدوا على إنّو نسب التيستوستيرون المذكورة مش ممكن تأمّن لسيمينيا أفضلية ظالمة، وبدليل إنّو رجع الإتحاد سمحلها تتنافس مع النساء.

وما زالنا عن نحكي عن أفضليات غير عادلة، ليش ما منحكي عن أفضلية الجنسية. أنا بالزمانات كنت أركض وحتّى إنّو إطلع عندي ميدالية زغيرة، نسبة لإنّو ما صرلي إلا سنة وحدة تدريب، وإنّو ما كان عندي حذاء ركض، كنت إركض بصبّات بلاستيك. بس أكيد لمّا غيّرت مدرسة بعد سنة، وقّفت ركض لأنّو مدرستي الجديدة ما فيا نظام تدريب عالركض. فمع إنّي كنت مهووسة بالركض، ما كان ممكن بالنسبة لبنت لبنانية من الطبقة العاملة إنّو تتدرّب. لو كنت أنا بنت أوروبية أو أميركانية، كانت ممكن القصة تتغيّر، شو يعني؟ يعني إنّو الأوروبيي والأميركان عندن أفضلية غير عادلة مقارنة بأهل العالم التالت، فلمّا بدّن يحكوا عن الأفضليات، ليش ما بينظروا لأفضليّاتن؟

بس ما فينا نمنع النّاس تحكي، ولو فينا مش لازم يكون هدفنا. عتبنا فعلياً عالإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى، هنّي اللّي بموقع مسؤولية، بتوقع على عاتقهن مسؤولية حماية خصوصية سيمينيا. ما بعرف كيف تم تسريب المعلومات عن إجبارها للخضوع لفحص تأكيد الجندر؟ وما بعرف كيف معقول إنّو ما تم تحديد مين سرّب المعلومات للصحافة، أو إنّو ما تمّت محاكمة الإتحاد للضرر النفسي والمادّي لسبّبوه لسيمينيا. والأسوأ إنّو كمان لمّا طلعوا نتائج الفحوصات، كمان مرّة تسرّبت النتائج للإعلام.

وهون كمان ممكن نحكي عن جهل عنصري لواقع كاستر. بالنهاية بالوقت اللّي كانت قضية سيمينيا بنص معمعة تأكيد الجندر، كان غيرها عم بيخوض معركة قضائية أمَر، محاكمة قتلة سيميلاني، قائدة الفريق الجنوب أفريقي للفوتبول، يلّي قبل بسنة تم إختصابها بشكل جماعي وطعنها ٢٥ طعنة، ليش؟ إغتصاب تصحيحي، يعني لمّا بيشك البعض بإنّك سحاقية أو في شي غلط بدرجة أنوثتكِ، بيغتصبوكِ تيشفوكِ، لأنّو إنتِ أكيد مش ملاحظة روعة إنّو يجبرك رجّال إنّك تتلقي ثمرة جنسانيته (مرجع). بيشتهر الجزء الجنوبي من أفريقيا بهالممارسة الشنيعة، بس فعلياً هيّي منتشرة بكل العالم، اللّي حاضر فيلم “غود بويز دونت كراي” بيعرف عن شو عم بحكي.

هلّق سيمينيا خلّصت من هالخطر، بلدها استقبلها استقبال الأبطال مع عودة البعثة الأولمبية. بلدها بيفتخر فيها، وهون السؤال بيبقى، ليش نفس المجتمع اللّي قتل سيميلاني احتفل بسيمينيا كبطلة وطنية؟ يمكن لأنّو سيميلاني كانت مثلية رافعة راسها بإختلافها، بينما سيمينيا ما بحياتها جذبت الإنتباه لحياتها الشخصية. أو يمكن لأنّو المعتدي على سيمينيا كان أوروبي أبيض، بالوقت اللّي المعتدين على سيميلاني كانوا أفارقة سود.

ما حدا بيعرف، بس اللّي منعرفه إنّو سيمينيا طول عمرها كان عندا طموح، ولمّا كانت زغيرة كانوا أهلها يشجّعوها، بحسب بعض المصادر، بيّا هوّي الجندي المجهول بقصة سيمينيا، هوّي الرجّل اللّي وراء الإمرأة العظيمة. مع إنّو المجتمع كان دايماً يدل على سيمينيا ويمزح، ولا مرّة أهلا جبروها تغيّر شكلها، ودايماً كانوا يشجّعوها تتخطّى الحواجز الإجتماعية تتوصل مطرح ما بتحلم توصل.

ومن ناحية تانية، جزء كبير من الإنتقاد لـ”أنوثة” كاستر كان على أساس مظهرها، شي مرّة سامعين بفكرة إنّو كل الصّينيي بيشبهوا بعض؟ السبب هوّي الفوارق الإثنية/الثقافية. اللّبناني اللّي بيربى بالصين ما بيشوف كل الصّينيي متل بعضن. ولمّا الأوروبيي بيجبروا بنت أفريقية تخضع لفحص تحديد الجندر بناءً على إنّو شكلها ما عجبن ولأنّا أبهرت العالم بسرعتها… أكيد رح نشم ريحة عنصرية، لأ؟

وللأسف، ما كتير انطرحت الأسئلة اللّي مفروض هيك وضع يطرحها. متل مثلاً معضلة النظام الثنائي للجندر. بالنهاية فحوصات تأكيد جندر سيمينيا استغرقت حوالي السنة. مع إنّو الإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى كان مبدئياً عتلان هم إحتمال يكون مستوى التيستوستيرون عالي بشكل مش عادل، بس فعلياً اضطرّت كاستر تخضع لمجموعة واسعة من الفحوصات البدنية والنفسية لتحديد الجندر.

مع إنّو البعض كان عم بينكّت إنّو كاستر مش بنت، بس إذا كانوا مستويات التيستوستيرون عالية مش يعني إنّو سيمينيا صبي. بيقدروا جماعة الإتحاد الدولي يعملوا كل الفحوصات اللّي بدّن ياها، ويدّعيوا الإحتراف المطلق ولكن شاء من شاء وأبى من أبى، الطبيعة آخر همّا نظامنا الجندري الثنائي، وما في حد فاصل بين الرجال والمرا. وبالتالي الفصل على أساس الجندر هوّي فكرة غبية. بالألعاب الأولمبية بيفصلوا بين الرجال والنساء بشكل أساسي لأنّو المرا مش ممكن تنافس الرجال بالرياضة البدنية، بمعنى تاني، الألعاب الأولمبية مجهّزة للصبيان مش للبنات. الفكرة بحد ذاتها مزعجة ما هيك؟

بالنهاية، انسمح لسيمينيا ترجع تتنافس مع النساء ورجعت عودة العمالقة للمنافسة ورجعت تكسح الساحة بسهولة. للأسف، ومتل ما قالت جيني ميدوز، شبح تأكيد الجندر رح يضل يلاحق سيمينيا طيلة مسيرتها الرياضية، رح تضلّ الصبايا بدلّ عليا وتتمسخر. سيمينيا من أبطال التحرّر الجندري غصباً عنّا، بحياتها ما كان بدّا تكون مثال على ليونة الجندر.

ويمكن اللّي لازم نتذّكروا هوّي إنّو نحنا كناس خارجات/ين عن أطر القوالب الإجتماعية والجنسية، إنّو سيمينيا مش منّا، هيّي مش من “الكوميونيتي”، ويمكن أسوأ شي ممكن نعمله بيكون إنّو نقعد نتحزّر إذا هيّي “بتحب البنات ولّا لأ”، قضيّتها بتتشارك مع قضيّتنا بالقمع الذكوري لمفهوم الأنوثة، لا أكتر ولا أقل.

وهون خلّينا كلنا نكرّر دعوة فليب فلوبينغ جوي (مرجع) لنضوّي شموع ونصلّي ونغنّي وإرسال كل ما عنّا من الحب لسيمينيا

Book review - The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

I've recently finished reading the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot. It'd be difficult to summarize this book into a simple tagcloud, my favorite tool to summarize a text, or textful object. Ah, the beauty of technology! How it helps me shroud my laziness and ignorance.

Anyway, regarding the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, it is supposed to be the story of a young black woman, diagnosed with cancer, then her cells were taken away from her without informed consent. The cells quickly turn into a biology legend. They were the first and most successful human cells ever cloned.

Crossposting - biodiversity at Bikya Masr

Original link: Biodiversity is life, biodiversity is our life

Under this slogan, the United Nations declared the year 2010 the year of biodiversity. The declaration comes as yet another attempt to salvage our deteriorating biodiversity. However, almost two months into the new decade, very few are aware of the declaration and even less are doing anything about it.

In this context, biodiversity is defined as the variations, or diversity, of life forms around the world. Though the topic may seem purely scientific, it is in fact multi-layered and different people care for different reasons.

Paleoanthropology in the Middle-East

One of the things that bother me the most when I am reading about paleoanthropolgy is the fact that there aren't many human remains that were found in the Middle-East (ME). It is not that ancient humans did not live in the ME, this area was, and remains, one of the most prosperous in the world. But it is just that we don't value our heritage enough.
Two Neandertalensis remains have been found in Israel for example, that's like one third of all the remains that were found throughout the region! I am sure that Israel was not more populated ten thousand years ago than Lebanon or Syria were.
One thing I remember from my childhood is a story about some human remains that were dated at approximately 10 000 years. They were said to be found in a cave in the region of Jbeil.
According to my dad, when the remains were found the entrepreneur realized that the Ministry of Tourism would force him to halt the work. So he ordered the whole cave to be destroyed during the night. When the Ministry's inspector arrived the next morning, they found nothing to examine. The remains were forgotten and that was that.
How true this story is, I can never know. It has been so long since it happened and no body cared enough to document it. But I wouldn't be surprised, it sounds very plausible.
Another example, that is far more tangible and documented is DownTown Beirut. Yes tourists are very pleased, especially those coming from other Middle Eastern countries, the nightlife is great and everything. But at closer inspection you'll notice that DownTown Beirut is built around the old remains.
Get even closer and you will see something like this:
Roman ruins downtown Beirut by Rinatuch

Yes, there are TREES growing amidst the Romain ruins, this picture doesn't exactly show it but there is also a disgusting amount of touristic garbage everywhere.
People here tend to see ancient ruins like great dumping spaces. Seeing this makes me understand a bit more why we still haven't found any stone age human forms in Lebanon for example. We just don't appreciate their value!

On the genuinity of hostorical book

Let's play a game:

1. Read this article: Judging a book by its genomes
2. Wait for like 1 or 2 years
3. Ana I bet that within two years they will notice the number of books that they are using as witnesses will turn out to be wrongfully dated, what do you think?

Yes of course I know that they had already dated the scripts that they will use on C isotopes and they never rely on the dates and facts provided by authors... But think about it, wouldn't it be cool :D.
Me Loves Scientific American

Google is heavenly

I am a big google fan, like a really really big google fan, google is my platonic lover, really! Now I know that the wight background in the google search engine kind of consumes energy, because ... well it's wight. But you can't come to me and say making 2 google searches produces as much carbon dioxide as boiling water :(. That's irrational! give me facts or figures, PLEASE.
You see, a lesson I have learned in my pseudo carrier in science and journalism is that, when it comes to writing, science is still science but scientists are the world's greatest drama queens and when it comes to media, BBC is the ultimate opportunistic Diva.
So...No! I refuse to believe.

Smelling cheating, the amazing world of pheromones

So I was reading this article on the National Geographic website: Ants Smell Cheaters and Assault Them. It's always fascinating to read such articles.
The idea is quite simple, we all know that in an ants' community only the queen reproduces and in our minds the ants just obey, some talk about the hormonal castration ability that the queen has over the workers. But in fact, workers can reproduce, not the full kind of reproduction but a different, less efficient one called parthenogenesis, which, in a nutshell, means that their eggs will reproduce clones of the mother. That is not good in general and therefore it is only restricted to the extreme case when the queen dies with no one next in line.
It is in the community's interest to just have a queen that produces the good eggs and the workers that... um... work. But even with ants there is always the I that sometimes prevails over the us, and some workers try to cheat and to lay eggs.
So what happens then? The others just smell it. The special smells that ants detect in these cases is called pheromones they are not normal smells, they are not identified as such. For as far as fellow workers are concerned, this worker is trying to cheat and we must stop her... A hate crime by all means because there is no proof to the treason of the ant except for the pheromone. And when the researchers inserted this pheromone in innocent ants the others will attack them.
Now if you read the article you would notice the author of the paper makes conclusions about the potential role of pheromones on humans. Because there are studies that say that we still have receptors to pheromones in our bodies(the previous link is only one of a million). But of course, out of objectivity concern, the authors of the article quote someone that was not part of the research saying that we cannot jump into conclusions when it comes to human pheromones... And it's true, I don't want to give anyone the excuse to go and kill someone saying: my pheromone receptors informed me that he planed to kill me! Science doesn't need anymore abusive manipulators.
But it's quite intriguing, I mean smelling fear, smelling desire, feeling the chemistry, feeling that the partner is hiding something, alarming first impressions... all of these details on which tomorrow always proves you right! It's scary I tell you and the most rational and scientific way to explain it would be a combination of:

1. Prejudice: We always like to judge people in order to make our lives much easier


2. Stubbornness: If you see someone that has left a bad first impression you would always try to prove that person is bad


3. Something biological (maybe pheromones, why not?): I mean sometimes it is just beyond you as rational as you may try to be, you always come to the conclusion that the people that left a bad first impression are not good for you, even if for a while you are totally convinced that your first impression was wrong and you try to build your relationship with that person in a perfectly friendly way.

I don't know, that's what I think

Anencephaly

Information taken from: Wikipedia Anencephaly Information

---

Anencephaly literately means the absence of a brain. It’s a very rare case of congenital malformation of the neural tube. The neural tube being the origin of the whole nervous system, it is a structure that develops early on and any defect on its level has dramatic repercussions.
Technically:
The neural tube is formed starting from the 3rd week of pregnancy. It’s formed from the thickening of a precise region of a tissue called Ectoderm, the rest of the ectoderm will form the skin and the neural plate will penetrate the embryo and later on form a closed tube (neural tube), the sensory cells scattered around in the skin. The neural tube will give the brain and the spinal cord.
Unfortunately, in some cases this is not how things happen, the neural tube fails to close in the cephalic region. The tube is no longer a tube in that region, and the skin can’t climb over it and close it. Instead some underdeveloped nervous cells pile up, in a more or less organized manor without any bones to protect them or even skin.
Not all kids affected die prematurely, 45% of them reach the term of their gestation, but none lives a lot longer than 6 days. They are born blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Never in their short life will they gain any consciousness and most of them actually die because their rudimentary brain cannot regulate properly essential body functions.
95% of parents, once informed with their child’s situation choose to terminate it. Though medical intervention (reparatory surgeries for other defects that may accompany anencephaly, antibiotics, assisted ventilation…) may increase the life of such a baby, but most of the times the child is allowed to die smoothly and with as much dignity as possible.
There is no cure for this defect, because by the time the case is diagnosed the development is already altered, and there is no way to fix it. The only weapon we have is folic acid which is known to reduce the prevalence of this defect, problem is that by the time a woman knows she is pregnant then it’d be too late!
When I read this I can’t help but to remember all the babies/kids/people that only get a partial chance of living, the ones that are born with severe defects, the ones that are born in severe poverty, in war, in abusive families. I can’t help but to think of Layal. In my mind I keep on thinking: which one had a better chance? Which life was better? Certainly Layal lived till teenage and sure she actually KNEW the world, these kids never had that chance. But on the other hand Layal only had the chance to know a world she REALISE she would be deprived off, a world that she KNEW she never belonged to, and a world she SAW how she will leave… She felt pain and she realized she will die… Soon!
Isn’t that much more cruel than leaving a world you never knew to care for?

Orca's: Out of your posterior

This is very interesting, at first sight hilarious but actually very important to know. It’s a surgeon’s experience (his nickname is Orac) with “odd objects” that he extracted over the years from people’s rectum. I often heard that people would stick weird objects in their “posteriors” but don’t take my word for it… Read about his experience: Pulling it out of your posterior
What struck me as odd is that it’s usually men that he has operated, I am sure that there were women, but maybe women don’t need to stick things up their asses so often. After all, if it is for sexual pleasure we can always get a guy or a dildo, men wouldn’t. But what about the psychological disorders… we have lots of that too!

Skulls Add to "Out of Africa" Theory of Human Origins

It has been puzzling the international scientific community for quite a while now, did the early humanities interbreed or not? If you think of it, we do know that we share with chimpanzees more than 95% of our genome, right? And the two groups (humans and chimpanzees) were separated definitely some 4.5 million years ago (if I am not mistaking with the number), right? So maybe just MAYBE early Homo sapiens and early Homo neandertalensis interbreed, or maybe Homo sapiens and other human forms, who knows.

The question is not only a poetic one, thinking about early romances across the borders of tribal wars and what ever some poets might imagine. No the question is deeper, or at least more troubling for some, more interesting for others. It's orbits mainly 2 points:

• A strictly scientific question:
  
  Let's remember the definition of species:
  
  1. Wordnet: taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
  
  
  2. Wikipedia: In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.
  
  
  You can search more definitions, you know the procedures type "define:species" and you'll get a myriad of definitions, however an important detail will certainly repeat itself in all definitions: Interbreed, Interbreeding. Fore this is an important detail about naming species, two ordinary individuals that are grouped in one species need to be able to interbreed in order to belong to the same species. However, some scientists tend to put the modern human and the Neandertal human in one species: Homo sapiens. In that perspective, the modern human would be Homo sapiens sapiens and the Neandertal human would be Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Could that be true?
  
  We certainly have no way to reach a sexually functional Neandertal in order to try and make it fuck a human and then see if they give a healthy, fertile offspring (keep in mind that many animals belonging to two different species may breed but their offspring is sterile there fore the process is scientifically a failure). But modern day scientists don't always refer to actual interbreeding to define species, they use molecular biology and genetic studies of the genome and so on. But even that is useless as the sample of Neandertals are rare (same as any ancient human remains) and when we do find some remains, it's usually bones, and even when we do find remains of soft tissues it's usually mineralized tissues and not mummified tissues... In other words we have no material to extract DNA from, some studies did find a few fragments of DNA but that hasn't been able to clear the question of whether neandertals and modern humans belong to the same species or not.
  
  But many scientists already speak of Homo sapiens neanderalensis... Which brings us to another point that is less scientific, but more philosophical and existential...
  




• What is a Human?
  
  Of course, if you do sink deep into Paleoanthropology and evolution in general, humanity will lose its spark and it will make Man the special creature of God... it will make him just another animal. I don't know whether it's insulting or relieving to acknowledge that but for most people it's simply disturbing! But so far we did preserve a small shred of superiority: We, the Homo sapiens, have ruled the world with our wit and intelligence.
  
  But what if We didn't rule it? What if other humans have ruled it with us? What if we were not pure Homo sapiens what if we were a mix of humans and that other humans rule the earth together with the combination of all our genes. Of course some might argue that we don't look like neandertals or like Homo ergaster or any other humans. But the truth is that Phenotypes (looks) are deceiving we can hold more DNA from Neandertals than we do from Homo sapiens and still look like the latter. Because different pieces of DNA fulfill different roles. If that is true then we would have nothing, and I mean, NOTHING, that sets us apart from other animals.
  
  I know many of those who follow my blog may not find this so shocking or so disturbing. But come on people we might not be the world's number 1 believers, but many people around the earth are strong believers and many of them believe that God created all animals in one day and MAN on a totally other day. Many people justify their right to kill animals because they are...animals... not Humans...not special enough.
  

I have been trying to follow the news of this subject for nearly 2 years now, reading every article about it. And finally I have found a study that claims to have some rational answer to that question. You can read it in the Scientific American Online edition.

The article focuses on the fact that humans did in fact expand to the world starting from Ethiopia (Africa), which is no longer seriously questioned by scientists. In proving their point they rely on the decline of variability in skull structure from the cradle of modern humanity (Ethiopia) to the farthest regions (Asia for example). However here's the piece that interests us:

As smaller bands broke off from larger settlements, they would have carried with them a less diverse subset of the bigger group's genes, which partly translate into anatomical features such as skull shape. So the farther early Homo sapiens trod from their homeland, the less variable their skulls should become. Unless, that is, they bred with previously established populations of Neandertal or other early humans, which would have injected new genes and boosted variability.

The researchers found no signs of interbreeding, they report online today in Nature. "What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos says. Prior studies had identified an identical trend in the diversity of simple genetic sequences or markers.

So maybe religious lunatics can sleep well tonight... We didn't interbreed with Neadertals. But that leaves an important question yet unanswered:

Was it biologically impossible for us to interbreed?

Just because we didn't interbreed with them doesn't mean it would have been impossible. One thing is certain, we had all the chances to do so. The variation of weather over the last 100 000 years (modern Man's appearance is estimated to around 120 000 years) have defined many regions of crossing at least between modern man and Neadertals. The most important region being the Middle East in which I live. Unfortunately, studies in here are rare, the only place where serious scientific research takes place is Israel (the only place where an abundance of remains was found, though Lebanon for example contains many caves, thus must've had many remains).

On the other hand, knowing of how humans are xenophobic by nature (check out this article in National geographic news). You can't help but to think to yourself: Both groups must've forbidden such contact between different members, probably declaring it a sin or something and promoting the others' mass murder.

I strongly believe that

Week in photo

Now in terms of information, the Scientific American remains my site of choice, that is no secret, but there is a site with outstanding charm the National Geographic news!

A very interesting feature of this site is, as it is the case with the Nat Geo magazine, the great emphasis on pictures. Pictures are the neglected child of science, though the early scientists were naturalists, that simply loved to observe nature, the visual part simply faded and lost its initial role, we stoped enjoying pictures as scientists, we simply use them as a means of explanation, clarification. But pictures, can be a great pleasure, that might not help with transmitting knowledge directly (there fore can't be used in those BIG, sophisticated references) but they can play a great role in humanizing science.

Well maybe my opinion is biased in this, being the daughter of an amateur photographer makes me particularly vulnerable to lovely pictures.

But here's a funny use of pictures, in the week in photo category you'd find this week two interesting photos:


Source

Not bad for a dress made out of condoms! Don't you think? Actually I can say that this is one of the best colorful dresses I have every seen, but the design does seem a bit poor, the model looks like a tank in it. More fit for a children's fashion... But I guess that dressing kids with condoms won't be so socially and ethically acceptable now would it?


Second picture of the week: the tallest guy weds:

Source

I don't know what does this picture demonstrate exactly...

• Every beast will find a beauty that will love him?


• In most parts of the world, romance is still nonexistent? and marriages are ruled by money and social opression?

Well I get the feeling that both are incomplete, inaccurate and rather naive conclusions, but what is undeniable is that this picture demonstrates the persistence of our circus-like curiosity and infatuation with exoticism as a sign of our normality's superiority and not as a celebration of human diversity.

Look at this picture:

what do you think of it? What is wrong with it? Nothing? Come on there’s a terrible flaw in it! Look closer. Notice how Dr Jordan Tang holds the Micropipette, that’s not only unorthodox and against the protocol but it’s also impossible to achieve. Notice how this guy holds the micropipette:

You see the micropipette is not called micropipette for nothing it is an instrument used for minute quantities and accurate applications, and Dr Tang is obviously manipulating a cell culture preparation. How is he going to control the micropipette if he holds it like that? We should only hold it like that when we are sucking up substance from a recipient and no precision is required. You see that’s the cool thing about a micropipette, it’s automated it only takes the exact amount of substance, with remarkable precision.
This picture just frustrates me! Now of course Dr Tang knows how to hold a micropipette, but you see this is just Hollywood work, he wasn’t actually manipulating that stuff he was just posing for the camera. You see people like Dr Tang is a head of a research unit he probably never bothers to work on any real manipulation, he has small Indian/South American assistants to do all the hard labor while he works on the abstract aspect. By the way, his findings are pretty interesting, Human Trials Begin For Enzyme Inhibitor Alzheimer's Drug, no I won’t annoy you with the annoying details, but this advance has actually had some success among scientific literature lately… Anyway, back to the subject.

Now what I find most annoying about this is the lack of professionalism in the article that was posted, not that the site is unprofessional, no they give very interesting information, I am in fact pretty much addicted to it. But notice the picture they have posted, so lame! Just so that they would post a picture! They didn’t have to, they didn’t even label the picture well. Now I don’t the poor design of this site, it’s ok, it’s about the content not the looks, but what bothers me is the Bibliography in their articles:
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
Which news release? At which date? Which page? Tell us something, ANYTHING! But still I read this site everyday.

Nile v/s Amazon Duel the aftermath

Do you people remember when the BigPharaoh was whining about some pesky Brazilians claiming their Amazon is longer than BigPharaoh’s nile? Well just so you wouldn’t be so bothered about it, and just to help you sleep at night, don’t worry, that Brazilian-Peruvian team is almost wrong. You see there are two flaws in his analysis:

1. their study was performed during the rain season, it is not even certain if this river’s water flows all over the year, it might just be a seasonal river! They must wait till the September expedition confirms the continuous flow of this river before hailing victory.


2. And even if waters flow all over the year, that proves nothing! You see scientists choose the starting point of a river in a rather subjective way We take the longest, straightest tributary, explains Jennifer Runyon, a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS)… Oh yes! The Americans ran to salvage the Nile’s honor when Arab scientists, yet again, failed to do so. So what do we conclude? NOTHING! In fact both the Nile and the Amazon could be considered as THE longest river of the world depending on the subjective choice of the starting point.

Hey don’t look at me people, it’s not the objective scientists’ fault if nature doesn’t care. After all, nature couldn’t care less if the Amazon or the Nile is the longest river, what difference can that possibly make?! Both Egyptians and Brazilian/Peruvians are still dying of hunger and poverty, it’s just a damn title, that will just amuse the people who can afford to buy the Guinness book of records and annoys the children who are blessed enough to go to school.
Source: Olé! Amazon Longer Than the Nile—Or Is It? By David Biello , on June 22, 2007, in the Online edition of the Scientific American

3 question and a silly note

Ok call me a geek if you like (actually I take pride in being called a geek anyway!). But I want to share these two articles with you:

1. Some Blood Diseases May Stem from Cells' Environment

   
   By Nikhil Swaminathan
   
   As part of my mémoire this year I had to study a little about leukemia (since it’s one of the diseases associated with Trisomy 21 (or Down’s Syndrome). Now by definition, Leukemia is the “a cancer of the blood in which new and functionless cells form and replicate at an uncontrollable rate; leukemia originates in the bone marrow and quickly spreads elsewhere” [1] or “A slowly progressing cancer that starts in blood-forming cells of the bone marrow. Leukemias are the result of an abnormal development of leukocytes (white blood cells) and their precursors. Leukemia cells look different than normal cells and do not function properly.” [2]
   
   Now if you read a little about leukaemia you are most likely to stumble upon a statement like “The four types of leukemia each begin in a cell in the bone marrow. The cell undergoes a leukemic change and it multiplies into many cells. The leukemia cells grow and survive better than normal cells and, over time, they crowd out normal cells.”[3]. Now of course this is not the only site to make such statements, it’s a generally admitted fact that the problem with leukaemia is the cell itself. It’s probably the most logical thing to believe after all. That’s why many studies focus of finding genetic mutations of the lymphatic cells; this is also why we cure Leukaemia by killing these defective cells.
   
   But a recent study, reported in this article in the Scientific American’s website suggests that maybe just MAYBE we’re looking at the wrong direction. MAYBE the problem is not in the lymphocyte itself but in it’s environment. Maybe the problem is in the set of substances surrounding the Lymphocyte. Now the study points the finger at a large spectrum of diseases grouped under the title of myeloproliferative syndrome: Any of a group of conditions resulting from a disorder in the rate of formation of cells of the bone marrow and including chronic granulocytic leukemia, erythremia, myelofibrosis, panmyelosis, and erythroleukemia.[4]
   





2. The Magic Touch: When vision lets you down
   

   by Martina Mustroph

   
   Now this is even more interesting, but this one is actually so well described I won’t say much and let you enjoy a few excerpts of what Ms. Martina actually wrote herself:
   
   

   When you're typing, your senses of touch, hearing, and sight align. You feel, see, and hear your fingers touch the keyboard. Now imagine that you are outdoors and you feel a drop of water hit your hand. If you are like me, then it probably immediately occurs to you that it was a raindrop, so you stretch out your hand to see if more will come, and you look up at the sky for menacing clouds. Let's say the sky is blue and clear as far as you can see. Now your senses of touch and sight are at odds: your sense of touch just told you it was raining, but your sense of sight said it was not. In this case, you don't go running for cover; you choose to go with the information you get from your sense of vision and not the information you got from your sense of touch, probably because you only felt that one drop.
   But what if you don't get much more information from one sense than from the other? A team led by Jean-Pierre Bresciani showed people flashes on a screen. At the same time, a device tapped these people's right hand a certain number of times. The screen was set up so that it obscured people's right hand from their field of vision, and the flashes occurred where the right hand would be. People could only feel--but not see--their hand being touched. People were instructed to either count the number of flashes they saw on the screen or the number of taps they felt on their hand, but they were never told to pay attention to both simultaneously. The number of taps given differed from the number of flashes by plus or minus one.

   
   
   
   

   They were never told to pay attention to both flashes and taps, yet apparently, people do automatically pay attention to both. How do we know this? Even though they were told to focus just on the taps or just on the flashes, their accuracy of counting changed whenever the second number of events differed from the one they were focusing on (in other words, the added taps or added flashes messed them up). Take a look at this graph of the results:

   
   
   
   
   
   

   Did their counting variability also change? Yes!

   
   
   
   

   One final thing: At the start of the experiment, Bresciani and his team found that when people are only shown flashes or only given taps, their counting is very reliable. When people are shown both flashes and given taps at the same time, there is another interesting thing that happens. Even though you're paying attention to flashes, feeling a tap messes you up. It only sort of works the other way. The effect of touch on vision is more pronounced than the effect of vision on touch. When you're paying attention to taps, vision only rarely messes you up. Seems strange, right? Actually, that's explained by touch being the more reliable sense. We appear to give more weight to the more reliable sense. The fact that vision, the less reliable sense, still affects people's counting of touch, the more reliable sense, means that we automatically process both, but then treat each sense with a weight corresponding to its relative reliability. If we just blocked out the information we get from one sense, then when counting taps, people should not be less accurate when flashes are added, but their count is affected by them, meaning that they do process the flashes.
   

   
   
   
   Ok I don’t know, you’re probably snoring by now but this is, for me, fucking amazing! Do you know what this lady is telling us? Our Brain relies more on tactile stimulation than it does on visual one!






3. Massive Animal Herds Flourishing Despite Sudan War, Survey Reveals

   
   By Nick Wadhams in Nairobi, Kenya
   Nationnal Geographic
   
   And Finally let’s not forget to highlight the marvelous dissociation of scientific romance and real life shit, let’s highlight, yet again, the painful choice any self respecting ecophilic dreamer has to make: Environmental preservation or human preservation?
   
   But again, there is no choice to make here. People are not being killed for the sake of saving the antelopes! No, actually the truth is much darker than this, people are being killed, as if they were animals, for no reason what so ever. Somehow animals are having a prosperous life, and somehow that pleased the scientists working on that study. Well I guess it’s good to know that Sudanese wildlife is receiving the luxury many Sudanese human beings are deprived of: LIFE!





4. Ok let’s be silly:

   
   
   Compare my last entry to this one… Well what do you notice?
   
   I discovered how to format my text to: “justify” I found the grail!
   
   It’s actually very simple, the tag is < h1 align=justify> without the “space” after the “<”.

Body weight and global warming

Ok ok! Ecologists have spent decades trying to make raise awareness and revive the naturalistic nature of Man, unfortunately, they miserably failed, they warned us about global warming, the yelled Apocalypse!... Nothing worked.

But I believe I have found the ultimate way to address the public is a Humanly comprehensible manor:

*drum*

Global warming makes you FAT!

*undrum*

You see the principle is very simple, the body usually accommodates to heat stress by (among other methods of course) increasing transpiration (sweat). But there are certainly limits to how much a body can adapt (in this case sweat), so the body's water cannot drop for more than 0,5% maximum. Now, always keep in mind, sweat is an immediate reaction, a short term adaptation. Our bodies rely most of all on long term adaptation, so what happens is that our body needs to increase the amount of water it can dissipate by transpiration, the 0,5% being constant, the body will proceed by increasing its stock of water in the body hence increasing body weight.

Tell people that they will go fat if the climate continues to warm up and you'll see them doing everything to reduce the temperature. Now this approach is totally falsified and the increase of weight is insignificant but we don't need to tell them that much details, after all President Bush took the USA to war saying there are arms of mass destruction...

The main point is that people are hypocrites, there were a documentary a while back about medical tests for a disease very wide spread in Africa (wish I could remember which illness) but the project couldn't provide sufficient financial support to produce the substance as the disease is most spread in Africa and there fore the patients won't be able to pay money (it will be mostly donations and stuff) so there were not enough profit. The project was stopped. Then a few years later, this same substance was discovered to have beneficial effects on the skin, so it was incorporated into a cosmetic product... The project became profitable for pharmaceutical companies, so now the drug is being produced in parallel and dependently of the production of that cosmetic substance. Apparently, the beauty of rich women's skin is far more important than the lives of poor people. I wish I could scream against imperialism and the globalisation, but I can't because it isn't modernism that created this injustice, modernism just revealed it, and also revealed our impotence against it.

Joan of Arc Relics Are Actually Egypt Mummy Remains

National Geographic



Wow I’m impressed, this is the first time discovering that a relic is proven even older than expected but is still considered to have lost its value. Apparently some chemist or pharmacist in the middle of the 19th century thought it’d be really cool to burn a little some mummy and pretend its Jeanne d’arc’s remains… I mean imagine their faces when they notice it’s fake! Hahahaha

Well not only no one noticed it’s fake but even the Church itself took believed it and declared it as genuine! My god, this dude must’ve laughed his ass out, not to mention that he made lots of money.

But if this proves anything it proves how valueless the mummies were at that time, in fact there were so many of them and no one knew what to do with them. In fact what mattered to the people was the gold, the yucky mummies were just there to annoy them and scare the ladies. But of course the mystical magic of death soon caught there attention and they started crushing the mummies to make some medicinal cures for incurable illnesses. The bandages were used as fuel for trains (well much more human than using prisoners as fuel right?).

My dad's immortality

As a kid, one of the most vivid memories I had of my dad was the strong metallic smell, whenever he would hold me (yes I can still remember the time when I was so tiny that my dad could actually hold me). In fact, even now my dad still smells like metal coins, that's due to the nature of his work.

What's funny is that I remember my dad every time I use a key or a coin. And as my little brother put it when he was sleeping in my dad's bed: "I like sleeping here, it's like having part of my dad with me". And that's how I feel sometimes, I feel as if I have bits of my dad scattered everywhere... My dad's immortality written everywhere.

You might feel tempted to inform me that, in fact, it's not "my dad's smell spread all over the world" but the smell of the 33 years of hard labor in metals... Well, you're wrong. It is my dad's smell and, if our sensory system was more efficient, you could have distinguished my dad's smell out of the other billions. Since, according to this article in S&V # 1071 and this article in the ScienceDaily, metals have no smell unless they enter in contact with the human skin. Only then do they react with lipids of the skin and they produce substances, such as 1-octen-3-one.

which has a mushroom-metallic smell and very low odor threshold, meaning that humans can smell it in extremely minute concentrations

And in fact there's absolutely no metal element in these substances, so maybe the metals play a catalyst's role in all this.

Now, what’s shocking when you think about it (if you think about it in the first place) is the fact that the smell is so strong and penetrating to the point where one can’t really stand it. Such sensitivity to a certain stimulus is a direct indication that this smell was important, as simple as that. So what is so important in smelling {skin+metal}?

Very simple, the same reactions would take place if a sample

because the same 'metallic' odor is produced if you rub blood on skin

Which means that prehistoric individuals might have used their strong sensitivity for such smells might have had a better chance in tracking wounded prays, friends or enemies.

So my dad’s smell isn’t so shallow after all, and he’s as immortal as the human kind... Evolution rocks!

Scientific tip of the week:

According to this small article in Science & Vie>November>2006:



An Australopithecus baby (around 3 years) was found in 2000, right next to the famous Lucy. What’s the interesting is the analysis that showed that this kid was able to walk on 2 feet and live on trees.

Do you remember how they used to portray evolution? They show us an animal on 4 members that gradually stands on his feet and becomes human! Well this shows that humans and humanoids might have evolved from animals living in trees.

Of course this is no shock, last year in college we studied this subject, scientists have long noticed the resemblance between the bone structure of apes that live in trees and the human bone structure…

But in fact this discovery actually proves that Australopithecus are probably our cousins and not our ancestors.

Am I the only one to find this interesting?

So… What about fellatio:

Once upon a time, there were a meticulous, careful and very professional scientist that I enjoy calling myself. Myself made an interesting entry a couple of weeks ago about the health effects of cunnilingus… Or at least one of its effects. And over the last few weeks myself has tried to investigate the cunnilingus’ closest cousin… Fellatio (or fellation).

The first lesson I learnt was actually a spelling lesson: it is written with an “F” and not a “PH” as I have always thought (it’s kind of funny that I have never searched it).

The second lesson I learnt was… linguistic: The word fellatio derives from the latin: fellare meaning: to suck. I wonder if there’s any connection? Haha.

Anyway, to the serious part:

Unlike cunnilingus, fellatio can include two radically different factors. The strict fellare act and the contact with any potential secretions. Of course in the case of cunnilingus this division is meaningless since vaginal secretions and microflora are constantly in contact with the partner, while in the case of fellatio the partner might choose to exclude any potential fluid from the contact.


Fellare
I was sadly disappointed to notice that there can be little (if any at all) benefit for the partner. Even though I couldn’t find any clear information about it, I can say that the man’s penis is an external organ. It’s covered with an external epithelium, naturally more hostile to microflora. Of course, microbes are everywhere, but the penis has a microbal population very similar to the rest of the body (notably the skin) so the woman might as well lick her own body! A woman’s genitals are different, the vagina is more or less hidden from the rest of the body, there are many folds that isolate the internal part and block fluid (more or less). In addition, a vagina is constantly wet (in variable degrees). All these factors create a unique environment that differs from the rest of the body. That’s sadly not the case with men.

But men are resourceful and therefore have another arsenal of substances.



The Semen

Yes, I know many ladies (and gentlemen) don’t like to think about that possibility and would certainly prefer avoiding talking about its nutritional value. But let’s face it, it’s produced in the honor of the partner, shouldn’t that make anyone feel special?

Semen is a very complex and interesting substance as you will notice:

1. Some substances are really gross and not appetizing such as Urea and Uric acid. Yuck! But don’t worry it’s in a small percentage, since the body makes sure to evacuate the urethra before the actual ejaculation (I wouldn’t recommend in this case any ingestion of precum, because that’s the body’s Urethra-cleaner). The body needs to clean the Urethra to preserve the health of the man’s body.
2. Water, well that’s not a surprise. But don’t try to use it for dehydration cases. Consider it like a coke, it might contain water but it’s not good against thirst.
3. Bicarbonate buffers. This is very interesting. The buffers maintain a stable pH in its environment, which is essential for surviving. When a person suffers from some stroke or anything temporarily blocking the breathing process, the acidity of the blood (resulting from accumulation of CO2) is reduced to a more neutral level by the blood’s buffers. Buffers are also used in the digestive system and play a major role in preventing parasitic infection. Unfortunately, the stomach’s pH is not neutral (=7) it’s significantly lower therefore the stomach is acidic. If I am not mistaking the stomach’s buffer is Nitric acid. Bicarbonate is an alkalizing buffer, it keeps the pH above 7. Introducing this substance to the stomach will actually get it closer to neutrality, thus facilitating viral infections ( <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
4. Cholesterol and other lipids have a bad reputation but in fact they are essential for the body… swallowing is not recommended for people with high cholesterol levels.
5. Fructose. When I read this I was kind of surprised. Even though I knew that simple sugars are abundant in semen (the little wiggly things need energy) but usually the body uses glucose and not fructose.
   
   Anyway, fructose is good news, and if you calculate the calorific value of semen than it is estimated as slightly less than one calorie. Which doesn’t seem much but an ejaculation is only between 2 and 5 ml, so in fact it’s VERY energetic.
   
   Swallowing is not recommended for people with diabetes.
6. Zinc, Calcium and Phosphate are extremely useful for the body, even in small proportions. Especially Calcium (why am I starting to feel I am talking about milk?) and Phosphate (I know it’s good for gardening but in fact the body needs it as well).
7. Ascorbic acid and Vitamin B12. Oh come on ladies, now you have to reason to complain. We pay money for multivitamin pills and then refuse an offer that would provide it for free!
   
   Did I mention that ascorbic acid is the scientific name for the vitamin C?
8. Citric acid. In spite of the impression one might take, semen is alkaline. It might contain acids but that’s overshadowed by the presence of spermine and spermidine, but most of all with the presence of bicarbonate buffers.
9. Proteins and enzymes Certainly, you don’t need to be clever to guess that the semen would contain proteins, but don’t try to commercialize it as a meat substitute! It’s mainly hormones, but not testosterone, so don’t you ladies worry about facial hair or something.
   The main enzymes in this case are: spermine and spermidine (Duh!). These are powerful bactericides… wow guys, all you need is some pesticide in there and you’ll be perfect for gardening.

Shlemazl, you mentioned the stimulation of immunity. I think that’s more about the copulation act, due to many factors such as the alkalinity of the semen (a vagina is acid) and the presence of bactericides (vaginas rely on microbes and bacteriae) and probably other factors. This would stimulate the genitals in a healthy way but I am not certain on the effect on the digestive system.

To sum it up, I admit that, putting my personal experience aside, I have no magic answer about this. After all sex is all about the fun, I know most people find sperm totally disgusting, but to be objective and scientific… It isn’t so bad, is it?

When I was writing this, I couldn’t help wondering about the exact constitution of the vaginal secretions… Maybe some other time!