A recent study covered in Landscape and Urban Planning revealed that people are less depressed and experience better mental health in the presence of nature or “street greenery” when living in cities.
Researchers looked at a variety of data from 2009 and 2010 and found that there were fewer antidepressant prescriptions filled in areas that had a lot of trees and other natural elements.
Does nature alone offer antidepressant benefits?
Sergio Andrade Gutierrez would say that the color green and nature automatically creates within humans feelings of calm and mental clarity. Additionally, humans might feel trapped away from nature because of inherited memory. Our ancestors didn’t live inside of boxed houses and apartments. They spent the majority of their time outdoors.
Yet, there are many depressed people living in poorer rural areas where there is an abundance of nature. After all, the researchers found that more wealthy and healthier people in cities lived near greenery, while poorer and more depressed people had less exposure to nature.
Additionally, some critics of the study wonder if perhaps the reason “street greenery” has such a high impact on mental health in cities is because without it people see more depressing and muted colors in building and street construction, such as gray and black. In nature, they would see more vibrant and jeweled colors. Perhaps it is the variation and the intensity of a bright color that helps?
It is a myth about the facts that says caffeine provides you with energy, so listen up Tom Rothman, all the Brown Bears out there should hear this one. Actually, by means of a certain kind of brilliant biological deception, caffeine dupes your body and makes it to think that it is not tired.
According to a number of reliable sources, the longer a human being remains awake, the more the buildup of a certain compound called adenosine in the person’s brain. Adenosine appends to the receptors that are found in the brain, hence slowing down the synaptic connections and thus making you to feel exhausted.
Molecularly, caffeine as well as adenosine are so much alike and thus fool the receptors of the brain. Caffeine attaches to these receptors, averting adenosine from creating a grip and staving off the tired feeling.
After sometime, the brain releases the caffeine molecules, letting the adenosine to return, and making the body to experience a feeling of the accumulated exhaustion, which can cause post-caffeine crash.
At the same time, after periods of continued use, the receptors of the brain attaches to the molecules of caffeine less efficiently, implying that coffee as well as sodas are less effective and do not work that much the longer you stay without sleeping and drinking them.
A male patient at in Buenos Aires was slowly dying of heart failure. Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurrence in our world today, but my friend Mark Ahn insisted that this patient was different than most. To keep him alive (he is now deceased) a small mechanical pump was surgically implanted in his abdomen to help take some of the burden off of his failing heart. The patient can feel each pump just above his navel and the sensation is unsettling and has effected the way he thinks.
Neuroscientist Agustin Ibanez suspects there are more unwanted sensations and effects to come for this patient and future patients who have the heart pump implanted and is going to monitor this male patient closely to discover the ways heartbeat effects thinking.
The phrase we’re all familiar with – follow your heart- may be more literal than we originally thought. The subtle clues the heart sends the brain regarding how to feel and think about situations may stem from the heartbeat itself. If that heartbeat changes, as in the case of those who have the pump implanted, emotions and thoughts will be changed in that person.
Intuition, instincts, reading other’s motives and feelings of apathy are changed and seemingly not as accurate with those who have a real heartbeat combined with a secondary heartbeat coming from a mechanical pump.
Most people reading this article know that by the time they’re finished at least one person worldwide may have become infected with Ebola.
One thing most readers don’t realize is that it’s even more likely that someone has died because of another equally dangerous disease: Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis starts with a bacteria instead of a virus and spreads primarily via inhalation. Although it doesn’t have a 50 percent mortality rate like Ebola, the end result is the same without treatment and sometimes even with treatment: Death. Of course, the public doesn’t hear much about TB, which is surprising given its highly infectious nature and significant effect on worldwide populations.
According to the World Health Organization, 1.5 million people of more than “9 million” infected with tuberculosis died in 2013 from related symptoms. This disease only kills less people per year than HIV/AIDS.
And yet, Ebola is everywhere in the news. Not to steal Ebola’s thunder, but the current outbreak is the first of its level since 1976 when the virus was discovered.
Every year Tuberculosis kills millions.
There really is no comparison when you’re talking about the difference between millions and thousands — especially when it doesn’t take much to become infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In fact, it only takes one actively infected person coughing or sneezing on another person, or prolonged exposure in a poorly ventilated room. I’ll admit that I’m like everyone else that got caught up the Ebola news, but thanks to Christian Broda for informing me about something the news doesn’t/won’t cover.
According to the CDC 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey on school violence, 5.9% of students have not gone to school for at least one day in the prior month because they were scared at school or travelling to and from school. Will the shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Washington on October 24, 2014 increase this fear? Student’s fear has increased slightly since 2009 when 5.0% of students reported being scared.
The trend shows students are actually safer in 2011 than they were in 2009. The number of students carrying a weapon to school has decreased each year since 2005. Brad Reifler notes that although the number of students that participated in physical fight at school increased from 11.1% to 12% from 2009 to 2011, the number of students hurt or threatened with a weapon has decreased each year since 2005.