In the last few years, Minneapolis set a record for itself when it became the 10th most congested city in the US. Compounded with the rising number of potholes and slim prospects of better road conditions, the outlook for driving in the metro is rather glum. Whining aside, I'd like to get the bottom of this puzzling situation.
Becoming a worse city to drive in is not that usual for Minneapolis. In 2005, Twin Cities gained national attention by using creative ways to get people out of their cars during the work commute. Since then Minneapolis became the #1 city in the US for bicycling, but that did not have a significant effect on automobile traffic.
One possible answer is that persons that were laid off during the economic downturn found new jobs and are now driving to work, causing the congestion. Department of Numbers reports a sharp employment increase in 2008-2009. Star Tribune claims that congestion lessened in 2008 because of unemployment. These numbers don't seem to completely correlate, however, since the unemployment rate picks up after a large congestion decrease. MnDOT states that a likely cause of traffic slowdowns was the construction of the new I-35W bridge, when traffic was routed to other highways.
University of Minnesota's Institute on Race and poverty offers a different view of the picture. Data from commuters was collected from several employment centers. People with low income drove alone most of the time (70%), giving rides to others 10% of the time, and riding a bike less than 2%. This could mean that either they needed a vehicle to do their job, or they preferred to drive instead of using other transit options.
Another finding of the institute is that the people living in either downtown and West Saint Paul were much less likely to have a car than other residents. You can view the map here.
According to the 2010 census, Minneapolis population did not change significantly over the past 10 years. However, the metro area grew by 0.8%, or 207,000 people. This growth is footed by the suburbs surrounding Minneapolis. In fact, the metro population will swell by an additional million of people by 2030. From this and the fact that people living in areas farther from downtown are likely to have a car, we can extrapolate that some of these new residents drive to work. If 70% of them drive, there are almost 150,000 new drivers in the metro since 2000. During these 10 years, many teenagers also started driving, so this is a conservative estimate.
It is likely that the new suburban drivers are the cause of the congestion on Twin Cities highways. However, a larger reason is the 'car culture' in the USA. We like to drive and we are not willing to bike or walk to work. We don't always move close to work, traveling longer distances and spending more time in traffic instead. Part of this is lack infrastructure, but the most practical solution is education and incentives for commuters to use other means of transportation.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Pinkie fingers and toes - why do we have them?
While freezing my face on my way home yesterday, I pondered the necessity of pinkie fingers for humans. It seems as if they just exist as relics of our primate past. They also don't seem needed for everyday tasks. However, it turns out that the pinkie finger is responsible for 50% of grip strength, with the ring finger picking the rest. The index and ring fingers are used for precision tasks, such as zipping up zippers, sewing, or holding a fork. For tightly gripping a hammer or a screwdriver, though, a pinkie is very important.
An NFL player's decision to have his pinkie amputated due to an illness sparked this conversations on ESPN.
Also, there is a page that says essentially the same thing, but with more info on pinkie shape linked to autism. If you don't mind the 1999-style web design, feel free to look.
So, that covers pinkie fingers. How about toes? Do we actually need all five?
A study by Janet Hughes in the Journal of Bone and Joint surgery shines light on this issue. The study examined how 160 participants put pressure on different points on their feet while walking or standing.
Apparently, about a third of us don't even use the 5th toe while standing. The pinkie, understandably, also doesn't play as large a role in walking as the rest of the toes. The large toe bears the brunt of the pressure when one takes a step, with the 2nd and 3rd toes proving a large part of the force needed for balance. Once again, the pinkie is slacking. On average, the study found that about 6% of support comes from the little toe. This shows that we do use our pinkie toe for balance, but if one were to lose the toe, one would adapt to the situation and still be able to stand up and walk, putting more pressure on other parts of the foot or other toes.
You can read the entire article here.
In a worst case scenario, given the choice between losing the pinkie finger, or toe, toe would have to go.
An NFL player's decision to have his pinkie amputated due to an illness sparked this conversations on ESPN.
Also, there is a page that says essentially the same thing, but with more info on pinkie shape linked to autism. If you don't mind the 1999-style web design, feel free to look.
So, that covers pinkie fingers. How about toes? Do we actually need all five?
A study by Janet Hughes in the Journal of Bone and Joint surgery shines light on this issue. The study examined how 160 participants put pressure on different points on their feet while walking or standing.
Apparently, about a third of us don't even use the 5th toe while standing. The pinkie, understandably, also doesn't play as large a role in walking as the rest of the toes. The large toe bears the brunt of the pressure when one takes a step, with the 2nd and 3rd toes proving a large part of the force needed for balance. Once again, the pinkie is slacking. On average, the study found that about 6% of support comes from the little toe. This shows that we do use our pinkie toe for balance, but if one were to lose the toe, one would adapt to the situation and still be able to stand up and walk, putting more pressure on other parts of the foot or other toes.
You can read the entire article here.
In a worst case scenario, given the choice between losing the pinkie finger, or toe, toe would have to go.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Drug War: Reaching Far
In the US drug trade, Mexico serves as "transport ground" for cocaine, as well as the source for marijuana and heroin. The cartels control the drug trade, and there is evidence that they also have infiltrated the government. The federal government has tried to put a stop to this.
Since 2006, the Mexican government declared its own war on drugs, and president Felipe Calderón sent 6500 troops to shut down cartel violence in Michoacán. Clearly, that action bred more violence from the cartels. The victims of this "surge" in the Mexican Drug war are mostly the Mexican citizens. The number of deaths as a result of violence between cartels and the army has increased steadily each year. The total is estimated to be at 26,000 people. Twenty-six thousand people, of which about 11,000 were killed in 2010, after yet another US-backed escalation - US provided 1.6 billion dollars to the Mexican government to fight the war over several years (465 million in 2008).
Although this Drug War has decreased the amount of cocaine smuggled in the US (measured by declining purity and rising price) because of higher numbers of seizures, safety of the Mexican people has dropped significantly. Not only are they caught in battles between the army and the cartels in the streets, but the cartels themselves can be extremely brutal to the people. They have executed people in the streets, thrown grenades into a crowded plaza, and gunned down US consulates. The cartels also recruit Mexican citizens, promising better salary than the police and the army. CNN reports that the situation is getting worse still. If that isn't bad news enough, the most brutal cartel may have been trained by US.
Did the US knowingly train a future drug cartel or did they not have an ulterior motive? Considering the CIA's previous actions, the former seems more likely.
Mexico is not the only country plagues by this type of war. Boston.com has stunning pictures of the drug war in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that will remind you of City of God.
Of course, there is more to learn still. The following documentaries do for an excellent evening viewing:
The documentary The Last White Hope tells the story of the US War on Drugs and the CIA's involvement in the LA cocaine trade. This documentary includes famous "Highway" Ricky Ross, the biggest crack distributor in Los Angeles in the 1980's. It also shows who can gain the most from the drug war, why the sentences are kept so high for non-violent offenders, and what tactics the police use to catch these offenders.
The Union: Business Behind Getting High is another very well done documentary that examines the money flow of the marijuana trade. It shows the profitability of "Grow ops" and why, despite such stringent laws, people undertake such operations. The documentary also examines the path the drugs take once they enter the US, south to the coast and back to Canada.
Since 2006, the Mexican government declared its own war on drugs, and president Felipe Calderón sent 6500 troops to shut down cartel violence in Michoacán. Clearly, that action bred more violence from the cartels. The victims of this "surge" in the Mexican Drug war are mostly the Mexican citizens. The number of deaths as a result of violence between cartels and the army has increased steadily each year. The total is estimated to be at 26,000 people. Twenty-six thousand people, of which about 11,000 were killed in 2010, after yet another US-backed escalation - US provided 1.6 billion dollars to the Mexican government to fight the war over several years (465 million in 2008).
Although this Drug War has decreased the amount of cocaine smuggled in the US (measured by declining purity and rising price) because of higher numbers of seizures, safety of the Mexican people has dropped significantly. Not only are they caught in battles between the army and the cartels in the streets, but the cartels themselves can be extremely brutal to the people. They have executed people in the streets, thrown grenades into a crowded plaza, and gunned down US consulates. The cartels also recruit Mexican citizens, promising better salary than the police and the army. CNN reports that the situation is getting worse still. If that isn't bad news enough, the most brutal cartel may have been trained by US.
Did the US knowingly train a future drug cartel or did they not have an ulterior motive? Considering the CIA's previous actions, the former seems more likely.
Mexico is not the only country plagues by this type of war. Boston.com has stunning pictures of the drug war in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that will remind you of City of God.
Of course, there is more to learn still. The following documentaries do for an excellent evening viewing:
The documentary The Last White Hope tells the story of the US War on Drugs and the CIA's involvement in the LA cocaine trade. This documentary includes famous "Highway" Ricky Ross, the biggest crack distributor in Los Angeles in the 1980's. It also shows who can gain the most from the drug war, why the sentences are kept so high for non-violent offenders, and what tactics the police use to catch these offenders.
The Union: Business Behind Getting High is another very well done documentary that examines the money flow of the marijuana trade. It shows the profitability of "Grow ops" and why, despite such stringent laws, people undertake such operations. The documentary also examines the path the drugs take once they enter the US, south to the coast and back to Canada.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Vaccinate your kids: The MMR-autism fraud and anti-vaccine activists' reasons not to
An investigative journalism article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) tells how one doctor fixed the data to suggest that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The original article, published in 1998, connected the vaccine to irritable bowel syndrome and regressive autism. The article stated that the symptoms of autism appeared within a week of vaccination, while the children's medical records show dates either months before or after the vaccine. Most of the children also did not have signs of irritable bowel syndrome. This paper was cited as evidence by anti-vaccination group, and though refuted many times, has supporters to this day. The Lancet has pulled the paper in 2010, but in the meantime, it gave way to several outbreaks.
The most recent measles outbreak in California speaks for itself. An estimated 839 people were put at risk, including 2 babies too young to be immunized, all because of an ignorant decision by the parents of a 7-year-old boy. Measles can be fatal, and prior to introduction of the vaccine, over 500 children died each year of the disease. Numerous outbreaks of mumps and rubella have been recorded in the US, UK and throughout Europe.
With so much positive evidence for vaccine, there are still those calling it "a hoax", like the editor of Natural News. I'll present and refute his claims here.
Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children? This is simply wrong. Vaccines do not increase your risk of disease. There are more vaccinated children than unvaccinated children. The article claims that 77 percent of people that caught mumps were vaccinated. The goal for vaccination is 95%, but the number is steady around 90%. If "catching" the disease (and reporting to the doctor to be counted) was decided by chance, then 90% of those that had mumps during the outbreak would be vaccinated. So why is the number only 77 percent? For a case to be reported, those stricken with disease have to go to the doctor for diagnosis. Since mumps doesn't select its victims based on vaccination, we can conclude that the symptoms the other 23% vaccinated had were too mild for them to seek medical help. So the vaccine does work, decreasing the severity of disease.
Children should have chicken pox/mumps/measles so they don't get sick later. Yes, that does make your immune system stronger because it now knows specific antibodies to make for the specific disease. The vaccine teaches the body the same thing, but skips the part where the kid has to be sick. Getting the same disease as an adult, however, is more dangerous, especially during pregnancy.
You can still get the disease, so the vaccine doesn't "protect" you. The vaccine is not meant to "protect" you from actually being exposed to the bacteria causing the disease. It's not going to put a plastic shield or a film of slime around you. The vaccine teaches your body to recognize the specific intruder and quickly make antibodies to fight it. You can still get the disease, you will just recover much more quickly than someone without the shots.
Toothpaste for dinner has put it in layman's terms:
The most recent measles outbreak in California speaks for itself. An estimated 839 people were put at risk, including 2 babies too young to be immunized, all because of an ignorant decision by the parents of a 7-year-old boy. Measles can be fatal, and prior to introduction of the vaccine, over 500 children died each year of the disease. Numerous outbreaks of mumps and rubella have been recorded in the US, UK and throughout Europe.
With so much positive evidence for vaccine, there are still those calling it "a hoax", like the editor of Natural News. I'll present and refute his claims here.
Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children? This is simply wrong. Vaccines do not increase your risk of disease. There are more vaccinated children than unvaccinated children. The article claims that 77 percent of people that caught mumps were vaccinated. The goal for vaccination is 95%, but the number is steady around 90%. If "catching" the disease (and reporting to the doctor to be counted) was decided by chance, then 90% of those that had mumps during the outbreak would be vaccinated. So why is the number only 77 percent? For a case to be reported, those stricken with disease have to go to the doctor for diagnosis. Since mumps doesn't select its victims based on vaccination, we can conclude that the symptoms the other 23% vaccinated had were too mild for them to seek medical help. So the vaccine does work, decreasing the severity of disease.
Children should have chicken pox/mumps/measles so they don't get sick later. Yes, that does make your immune system stronger because it now knows specific antibodies to make for the specific disease. The vaccine teaches the body the same thing, but skips the part where the kid has to be sick. Getting the same disease as an adult, however, is more dangerous, especially during pregnancy.
You can still get the disease, so the vaccine doesn't "protect" you. The vaccine is not meant to "protect" you from actually being exposed to the bacteria causing the disease. It's not going to put a plastic shield or a film of slime around you. The vaccine teaches your body to recognize the specific intruder and quickly make antibodies to fight it. You can still get the disease, you will just recover much more quickly than someone without the shots.
Toothpaste for dinner has put it in layman's terms:
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Yay, a compilation!
Today's slackering led me to explore some of the science blog postings on the internet. So, this is a few of the interesting things to be learned from them.
Firstly, this article states that mice are less likely to administer cocaine if they get aerobic exercise. I guess New Jack City rehab works.
Some gender differences in cocaine taking habits have been explored and presented recently. Rats don't have societal pressure on females to cultivate a negative body image, but the females still choose cocaine over sweets. The reason for this is not yet known, but if these findings extend to humans, there might be a genetic reason why women check into rehab more often and relapse sooner than men.
More good news for addicts considering rehab: scientists have tested a vaccine on mice that would prevent the user from feeling the high, helping them kick the habit. The vaccine is a cold virus "infused" with cocaine molecules. When injected into a mouse it taught the immune system to recognize cocaine as an intruder and attack, destroying the molecules before the mouse could feel high.
To actually go to rehab, though, one must be addicted first. In the US or Europe, you'd have to ask your friends or find a shadier neighborhood, but there is a solution south of the border.
Some people can ditch the street corners and shady car deals to visit a bar and get their fix straight from the source, at a cocaine bar in Bolivia. The bar serves regular (cut) and strong (more pure) cocaine. Although illegal, it still operates for stretches of time. Location changes as locals get more distressed about its existence and drive out the dealers. The local authorities are bought off to keep the bar open, with a nightclub close by for foreigners to spend their high in a familiar, high-energy environment. You can read the full story here.
Firstly, this article states that mice are less likely to administer cocaine if they get aerobic exercise. I guess New Jack City rehab works.
Some gender differences in cocaine taking habits have been explored and presented recently. Rats don't have societal pressure on females to cultivate a negative body image, but the females still choose cocaine over sweets. The reason for this is not yet known, but if these findings extend to humans, there might be a genetic reason why women check into rehab more often and relapse sooner than men.
More good news for addicts considering rehab: scientists have tested a vaccine on mice that would prevent the user from feeling the high, helping them kick the habit. The vaccine is a cold virus "infused" with cocaine molecules. When injected into a mouse it taught the immune system to recognize cocaine as an intruder and attack, destroying the molecules before the mouse could feel high.
To actually go to rehab, though, one must be addicted first. In the US or Europe, you'd have to ask your friends or find a shadier neighborhood, but there is a solution south of the border.
Some people can ditch the street corners and shady car deals to visit a bar and get their fix straight from the source, at a cocaine bar in Bolivia. The bar serves regular (cut) and strong (more pure) cocaine. Although illegal, it still operates for stretches of time. Location changes as locals get more distressed about its existence and drive out the dealers. The local authorities are bought off to keep the bar open, with a nightclub close by for foreigners to spend their high in a familiar, high-energy environment. You can read the full story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)