What difference do I make?

The poorest half of the world produces 7% of global carbon emissions. The richest 7% produces half the carbon emissions. – The Economist

An article in the Economist that argued that attempts at curbing population growth isn’t an answer to scarce resources caught my attention because of the two sentences above.

Even without looking at the figures that have been quoted to define the ‘poorest half’ or the ‘richest 7%’, I can safely assume, given that I am a poor graduate student in the UK, that I fall under neither of two categories of the world population. What does that say about my carbon emissions? Not much.

But I know that working in a synthetic chemistry lab that is air-conditioned, living in a house that has central heating and flying back home to India once a year probably means that my carbon emissions lie on the higher end of the spectrum. I do not take pride in this, but the choices that I made with the best intentions for my career have put me in this situation. I am well aware of my situation and I try my best to do something about it:

  • I chose to become a pescetarian.
  • I campaigned for a meatless day a week.
  • I don’t shy away from asking difficult questions.
  • I ensure lights are off when they are not needed.
  • I turn off taps if the water isn’t being used.
  • I turn off the heater in my room when I’m not there.
  • I use a bicycle to go anywhere <10 miles.

I do this despite all the wasteful habits that people around me have. I have housemates who have no qualms leaving lights turned on. I have lab-mates who never think twice before mixing chlorinated waste with non-chlorinated waste. I have friends who won’t mind having a hot water bath everyday. I watch students in college halls everyday pile up food in their plates and then throw heaps of it in the bins because they’re ‘so full’. Every time I watch this happening, a little bunny dies inside me.

If I start calculating how much emissions I cut by following the things I listed above, the number will probably be small. Small enough to make me wonder, especially looking at those around me, what difference do I make?

But then I think that I do what I do not just for the absolute contribution that I make to cut emissions, but also because I care about the environment. I believe that it is important to be as morally responsible to your future generations as possible. I know that beliefs that I build today are going to affect my decisions to tomorrow. These decisions may well have large consequences then.

I’ve had a discussion about these little things that I do with many people. Some of them have wondered whether the effort I put in to doing them is worth the impact they make. Of course I believe the effort is worth it, especially if you take into account the effect of one’s belief systems. But actually, the effort put into doing them is much smaller than most people imagine it to be. Most of the little things I do have become a habit. I don’t have to consciously think that I should turn off the lights or turn off the heater, I just do it.

The other argument that I’ve come across is this: the fact that I do little things I give myself the pleasure of believing that I make some difference. In effect, I am more liable to not worry about the larger problem because in my own little world I am doing plenty. Actually, this argument has got the logic all wrong. If I do the little things, I am only more likely to do bigger things (like giving up meat or campaigning). As I said before, doing these little things has become a habit for me and I don’t derive ‘pleasure believing that I make some difference’ every time I turn off the light in an unoccupied room. So it’s definitely not offsetting me from the larger goal.

What difference do I make? May be very little today but over a life time plenty.

The truth about antioxidants and its coverage in Indian newspapers

Times of India (TOI) published an article today which claimed that guava is the healthiest fruit and pineapple is the least! 

The claim is based on a study that evaluated ‘the amount of natural antioxidants level of [sic] 14 fresh fruits commonly consumed in India’. The article cited the study that was published in Food Research International, an Elsevier journal. But surprisingly when I looked up the paper it appeared that the results of the study were published in May 2010!

Antioxidants have been featured as a healthy choice for a long time. An article in Slate mentions that the story began in the 1940s when Denham Harman proposed that ‘the same free radicals that were cutting into petroleum industry profits could also simply and completely explain the phenomenon of aging. Better yet, he said, their effects could be ameliorated by something called antioxidants’.

As tempting as the theory seems, unfortunately as the same article points out, there is no evidence of antioxidants inducing any health benefits. Instead, a meta-analysis of studies that assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality showed that ‘treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality needs further study.’

Having previously read the article in Slate, when I came across the article in TOI it struck me as odd that a 18-month old research paper suddenly seemed to surfaces in not only Indian newspapers but also in a British and a Malaysian newspaper within 24 hours. I got in touch with the lead researcher on the paper, Dr. Sreeramulu, congratulating him and expressing my surprise. He responded quickly and said, “Yesterday they contacted me about the work (and) today (the) article appeared in Times of India. (In the) morning my friend informed me about this.” I also, asked him who funded his research, to which he said, “I am a regular staff member of NIN (National Institute of Nutrition), Hyderabad. Our Institute funded the work as (an) intramural project.”

I asked him about the funding of the project given that the antioxidant market worldwide is pretty big. According to a report it has been growing at ~4% annually with reported sales of $3.7 billion in 2007 (the slate article calls it a $23 billion industry but I couldn’t find the source for that). Having not got any satisfactory answer to the reason why TOI showed sudden interest, I thought it might be worth looking at what the coverage of antioxidants in top Indian newspapers.

Here are the search results for ‘antioxidants’ on TOIHindustan Times & The Hindu websites.

Sure enough I got plenty of articles mentioning the many studies that show antioxidants do wonderful things and many that reported the extraordinary antioxidant content in some foods. But amongst all that noise I found only three articles that mentioned studies showing adverse effects or no effects (here,here & here).

The lack of coverage of the studies showing adverse effects or no effects can be attributed to the fact that may be fewer such studies are reported but that would be a mistake. That alone cannot account for the dismal numbers. The answer then may be lies in the fact that the media has a bias towards publishing ‘feel-good’ stories, especially in the health section. But it might also be equally due to some media houses doing favours for big supplements manufacturers.

I wouldn’t lament about all this much if only next time when an article about antioxidants is written they give the reader a balanced view. A simple sentence such as, ‘conventional wisdom claims the positive effects of antioxidants but many studies have shown no-effect and in some cases, harmful effects in the use of antioxidants’ can be included to that effect.

Alas! I cannot expect such things from Indian newspapers, can I? And, of course, the mystery of why world media suddenly showed in the story also remains unsolved.

Confessions of a Wikipedia addict

I bet this has happened to you – you Google something and the top hit comes up as a wikipedia article. You smile (FTW!) and quickly click on it. Now depending on how familiar you are with what you are searching, you either read the first few lines that briefly introduce the subject to you or if you know that already then you quickly press CTRL + F and search for the specific term you were looking for. While reading or searching for the exact piece of information you come across a term which you aren’t quite familiar with. You want to know more. Then you realise that it is hyperlinked and you think, “Sweet! Another wikipedia page! FTW!” and without thinking twice, you click on it. You are on a new wikipedia page again, you read the introduction and then you click on a relevant link in the contents. You start filling up the gap that pointed you to this wikipedia page when you find another unfamiliar term which is hyperlinked too (FTW!). And the cycle begins.

If it has not happened to you, doesn’t matter. It has happened to me. Many times a day. I will readily confess to be a wikipedia addict. If I don’t snort some knowledge everyday, I suffer from withdrawal symptoms. There is the tingling in my fingers reaching to type ‘W’, ‘I’, ‘K’, ‘I’ in the address bar of my Google Chrome window. My anxiety levels go up (FFS, how can I not check if wikipedia has some information on this?). I get irritable, quite a bit. If at the time some unfortunate bloke makes the grave mistake of asking me a question, I turn in slow motion (like in the movies when an action seen is about to play) and stare back at him with wildly angry eyes. In my head I am shouting ‘Wikipedia-it you douche bag!!’. Well sometimes that happens not quite in my head alone.

If I am kept away from wikipedia for any more than a few hours, I develop another very common withdrawal symptom – mental confusion. In those few hours, I seem to lose track of all the information processing that my brain usually does so well with the aid of well-hyperlinked wikipedia pages. I don’t know whether the aorta was found before the Greek Parthenon or the Axis of Evil was indeed involved in the Atlantic tsunami. At this point, I sincerely hope that I am given back access to wikipedia. Not to the offline version because there might have been 100,000+ edits since that offline version of yours, I ain’t interested in that. I like to snort the fresh stuff.

Anymore time away from wikipedia and things take turn for the worst. This has happened to me only once in my life before. A whole day (yes, 24 hours!) without wikipedia. I don’t remember very much, I only have hazy images in my head. People who saw me in that state have said that I did not respond to being called by name. Instead, I was jolly happy (sic) staring at the blank wall. I suspect so many questions may have come to me that they probably stopped the flow of blood to my brain. I don’t remember how I returned to normalcy but I have a clear memory of staring at this map.

The doc who attended to me at the time said that when I was finally given access to wikipedia again, I opened a new wikipedia page every five seconds. Of course. No wonder it took me some time to return to my normal speed (three seconds/page). I am not sure he knew enough about my addiction. FFS, the English Wikipedia has 3.7 million articles, how could he not search for my condition on wikipedia??