Shaun Duke

How many of you know what happens to the human body when it’s subjected to the weightlessness of high Earth orbit? Well, to put it simply, the body actually starts to whither. It’s not a quick process, and certainly not one that would prevent us from shipping people long distances in the solar system, but there is a noticeable effect on the immune system when astronauts return to Earth after a considerable stint in space. It’s similar to AIDS. Your body has cells called T-cells, which have these little receptors whose job it is to basically tell other cells there is an infection in that particular cell. When someone is infected with AIDS, those receptors stop working. This is permanent in AIDS, obviously. So, when the body gets a cold, the cells don’t know how to fight it because it seems to be replicating itself at such an alarming rate, which is true. Your body is no longer fighting the infection, basically.Now, being in space is much the same, except that the effects don’t remain when someone returns to normal gravity–as far as we know at least, considering we haven’t exactly stuck someone up there for fifteen years to see what happens. So, your immune system weakens, those little T-cells and their receptors shut off, and your body becomes a happy breeding ground for all the little bacterium and microbes that float around in our air and make homes in our bodies.This is where a new report from Universe Today comes in. Apparently bacteria–such as salmonella, which was used in this experiment–actually become more dangerous after spending considerable time in space. Astronauts took with them a group of salmonella filled containers with nutrients for the bacteria. What they discovered upon return to the ground was that the bacteria had changed expression in 167 of its genes and become three times more likely to infect. That’s surprising when you think about it. Imagine having that floating freely in a space ship with a group of people who are immuno-depressed!Scientists think it isn’t directly related to the zero-gravity, not like it is in us humans, but it is indirectly related to it. They believe it has more to do with the movement of fluids, which on Earth is very low, but in space is probably considerably more active. Now that’s some interesting news, eh? Edit: I changed the phrase “altered 167 of its genes” because it was brought to my attention that that phrase may be confused with mutation, when that was not the meaning I was intending.

I was using StumbleUpon’s lovely ‘stumble’ feature again, and came across something that got me really thinking not only about our preconceived notions of the world as it sits today, but also about what the world might become in the future. The link is here. Don’t watch it yet. Read on first. I want to do a little test at the end of the post.The ending was especially interesting, showing all the countries as they popped up on the chart as the use of the Internet spread from place to place. So, according to statistical data we are all somewhat misguided in what we think about the third world. It’s apparently not as bad as it’s made out to be. Obviously that doesn’t refer to places like Africa where AIDS is wreaking havoc, and this shows in the data, but a lot of countries that I thought were exceedingly poor and unhealthy are actually somewhat the opposite. What does this say about the way our media or even our educational system teaches us about the rest of the world? Are we really all that better off than a lot of places? The data suggests that we’re not. Yes, of course we have a lot more things that most countries, but on average we’re not that far off from a lot of countries that I and apparently a lot of Swedish undergrad students once thought were near the bottom of the barrel.What does this say for the state of the world in the future? There seems to be a trend in countries moving up the ladder. Families get smaller, people live longer, income increases, and the gap between the rich and the poor adjusts significantly. In the future a lot of countries that we see as somewhat below us on an economic and health scale, may in fact match us in their productivity and survival rates. Many countries already have, according to the data. Obviously the U.S. brings in a lot more income than most nations, but it’s not looking at how much the nation brings in as a whole, but at how that income branches out to the people.So, let’s do a little test here.Which countries do you think have the highest infant mortality rate? Don’t look it up. Just guess three and post it in a comment, along with the other answers.Which countries do you think today have a shorter lifespan and large families?Which countries are the opposite?Which countries do you think currently match, or are at least near enough to us, economically (by percentage, not gross income) and medically? Post your answers or write them down and then watch the video. Maybe you’ll be surprised! Tell me what you thought on there. I’d like to know what choices you made!