Sneezing: The Urban Legend

Dear Lowdown:

Is it true that it is impossible to sneeze with your eyes open?

- Ana Schcolnick (Chicago)




Dear Ana:

In short, Ana, it is true that you can’t sneeze with your eyes open in most cases. There are many more myths surrounding the mysterious reflexes of the sneeze, ranging from the crazy (will my eyes pop out if I hold my eyelids open mid-sneeze?) to the mundane (if you sneeze, you have company coming over) to the metaphysical (will a part of my soul fly out if I sneeze?). Humans have been fascinated by the sneezing process for quite some time. It is one of the body’s only outward displays of involuntary movement, an uncontrollable impulse rife with components to theorize about. Asking about the sneezing process shows how much this fascination about sneezing, and all uncontrollable bodily functions for that matter, has permeated human culture, even with the advent of modern science to explain and answer for inquisitive minds.

Sneezing is an automatic reflex, controlled by the so scientifically named “sneeze center” at the back of the brain in response to stimulation of the nasal tissues. It is the body’s natural reaction to a foreign particle entering the nasal cavity, caused by many different irritants. Small, airborne particles like dust, pepper, powders, and pollens cause most sneezes. Nerves in the nasal tissue send messages back to cranial nerves V and VII (located in the center of the brain), which then connect to the “sneeze center”. The “sneeze center” controls the epipharyngeal, intrinsic laryngeal and respiratory muscles, allowing it to signal a lightening fast sneeze response when the body senses an intruder. The brain also sends coordinated motor impulses to the muscles of the abdomen, chest, diaphragm, neck, face, eyelids and various sphincters, as well as the mucus glands and blood vessels of the nose. This process happens uncontrollably, eventually sending gusts out of your nose of at least 100 miles per hour.

Here is the part where it connects to your eyes. The cranial nerves that respond to nasal stimulation are the same ones that control eye movement, linked through a sensory network within the brain. That means that messages from one area cause another to respond, triggering the movement in the eyelids. Stimulation from the original particle travels up one nerve to the brain, then down another to the eyes, triggering a blink. A small percentage of the population can actually sneeze with their eyes open because their nerves are wired a little differently than the rest of us. They don’t face any serious health repercussions. Their eyes definitely stay put in their sockets, contrary to popular belief.

Different types of stimuli cause different types of sneezes, but the response stays the same. Viral infections like the common cold can cause nasal tissue to swell up the same way it does as in a regular sneeze, therefore eliciting the same reaction in the nervous system. Allergens, drug withdrawal, and corticosteroid inhalation (a fancy way of saying taking medicine up your nose) all activate the same irritating reaction and cause a sneeze. Your eyes stay closed through all of them. Even bright lights can trigger sneezes in some “lucky” people. Called photic sneezing, it is an autosomal dominant trait, meaning that one in three people inherit it from their parents. Again, the eyes stay closed.

The better question to ask is why do so many people wonder about sneezing in the first place? Ever since the dawn of humanity, people have tried to come up with creative solutions to problems they cannot explain, coming up with things as far fetched as religion and science. Today, we have urban legends. For every one that turns out to be true, like this one for example, there are a million more gleaned from half truths and pop science and your third cousin’s brother’s best friend’s uncle who this once happened to. Urban legends are important for societies like ours that have a hard time sorting fact from fiction. They help vulnerable young people like you sort out the mysteries of life in whatever way they find most logical, without regard for anything complicated, like, perhaps, the facts. If you started believing every urban legend you heard on the street, especially because this one turned out to be true, then Pop Rocks and Pepsi can most certainly explode your stomach and daddy long legs are definitely the most poisonous spiders out there, they just don’t have mouths big enough to bite humans. Pop science, urban legends, and general misinformation only play into the fear mongering capabilities of the media and the modern age. Manipulation and hysteria are not far behind. When you blindly believe in anything that can be told, seen, or read on the internet, that’s when you run into problems.

Thanks to people who are not complacent with just being told the answer, we still have questions that need complete answers and problems that need solving with more than just what meets the eye. Great questions can combat even the most common of urban legends, giving me faith that society still has the wherewithal to move in a time when not that many people seem to care what the real answer is. Because of your wonderful question, we have now substantiated that myth. We definitely would not have known otherwise. Think about this next time you sneeze Ana. Maybe you’re one of the select few that can sneeze with your eyes open. You never know!


Sincerely,

Allie Tallering





Works Cited
Dowshen, MD, Steven. "What Makes Me Sneeze?" KidsHealth - the Web's Most Visited Site about Children's Health. May 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. .

Hatfield, Heather. "Sneezing: Myths, Causes, and Surprising Facts." WebMD - Better Information. Better Health. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. .

Kennard, Jerry. "Sneezing." Men's Health - Health and Fitness Information for Men. 27 Apr. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. .

"Myth: Sneezing With Your Eyes Open : Discovery Channel." Discovery Channel : Science, History, Space, Tech, Sharks, News. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. .

"Sneeze Science." Science In Action. 12 Dec. 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. .

WAR AND PEACE

Dear Lowdown:

Do different religions/customs contribute to worldwide conflict? Where? Why? How?
Francisco Campos (Chicago)



Francisco,

You seem like you may have been dozing off during those long history lectures. Let’s start by listing a few key facts to describe planet earth, shall we? There are approximately 6.6 billion people inhabiting the world today, living on one of 195 countries, and practicing one of 19 major religions (Robinson). Let’s break it down this way: the world is filled with people who possess their own system of beliefs and values; thus, it is only natural for each of us to express individual thoughts and opinions, right? If we didn’t, we might as well have been made in a factory in London, programmed exclusively to function as robotically as the Betas and Alphas described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. But because Huxley’s novel is solely a work of fiction (or a remarkable revelation of the world to come), conflicting religious views and customs are two of the major reasons for existing conflicts throughout the world.

Since the Middle Ages, the lack of tolerance for religious groups different than ones has resulted into religious wars. The Crusades, for example, were religious expeditions launched against rival religions, primarily Islam. The expeditions were attempts to regain Christian control of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, recapturing this land from Muslim rule. “The first Crusade was launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire, requesting help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia” (Crusades). The motivation that fueled the launching of the Crusades appears to foreshadow the current conflict existing between Israel and Palestine. Coincidence? I think not.

Today, two of the major religious world conflicts exist between Israel and Palestine and Al Qaeda and the United States. According to Dennis Prager, nationally syndicated talk show host and best-selling author, the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is probably one of the hardest world conflicts to solve. In a nutshell, here’s a brief synopsis: Israel would like to exist and recognizes the right of the Palestinians to have a state. The Palestinians, however, and many other Muslims and Arabs, do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist. Many Palestinians want there to be no Jewish state of Israel, don’t believe that it should exist, or have any basis for being.

What engendered this world conflict? Beginning with the end of the First World War, Palestine was the only state belonging to the Ottoman Empire that was not granted independence. During this time, a Zionist movement in Palestine was resulting in a massive influx of Jews in what was known as a predominately Arab state. By the end of World War II, the Jewish population within the area continued to increase, alongside the growing intolerance of the two religions.

The two religions continued to disagree and soon the struggle escalated into acts of violence. As a result, the British government granted Israel their independence. On the other hand, the same independence was not granted to Palestine who had refused to recognize Israel as a state. The new Israeli state soon began creeping into Palestinian-owned land, almost leading to the invasion of Palestine by Israel. Inevitably, a number of wars have resulted within the region. Many people believe that the current Israeli-Palestinian situation is a religious war, as it appears to be the “most relentless onslaught raged by Western imperialism and culture against Islam since the time of the Crusades” (Eid).

On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda became a household name after performing one of the biggest terrorist attacks against the United States one of the regime’s major enemies. Out of the six major terrorist attacks performed by the regime, four of them were against America. Their justification? As Islamic fundamentalists, they believed they were obligated to fight holy wars against all enemies of their religion in order remove Western influences from Muslim area. Dedicating their acts of mayhem towards Christians, Jews, and other religions that do not conform to their ideology (Who Are Al-Qaeda?), Al Qaeda hoped that the attacks would make Western countries treat Muslims differently. To their surprise, their holy wars have yet to receive positive recognition.

Osama Bin Laden, the movements’ leader, was trained in the early 1980s by the United States to fight Russians, an act deemed necessary in order to stop the spread of communism. Bin Laden fought alongside Americans during the Soviet-Afghan War. During this time, Bin Laden began to develop a deep hatred for the way America used its “super-power” status to control aspects of the world economy. Now, it’s important to understand that the United States was not always the regime’s greatest enemy. In fact, it wasn’t until the collapse of the Iron Curtain that Bin Laden began to focus all of his hatred and anger towards the United States instead of the Soviet Union. In response, the United States retaliated by waging war in Afghanistan and its surrounding countries, an act the United States government deemed necessary in order to capture Al-Qaeda forces.

The aftermath of September 11 had a tremendous impact on the Muslim community. “Many Muslims living in the United States and other western countries endured personal insults and taunts during the many years since [the] 9/11 attacks” (How Did 9-11 Affect Muslims?). Because the men behind these attacks believed they performed acts in obedience to the Koran, individuals are now questioning if ordinary, everyday Muslims should have the agency to reinterpret their faith.

The attack also left a devastating blow on the global economy. Airlines were threatened with bankruptcy and tourism plummeted, resulting in massive layoffs. On the flipside, heightened security measures have been taken in airports in order to guarantee the utmost safety of the passengers.

Do different religions contribute to worldwide conflict? Yeah, I think it’s safe to say so. Be sure to stay awake the next time your history teacher is giving a lecture. Who knows, you may learn a few things.

Yours Truly,

Sylvia Montijo














Works Consulted/Cited
1. Robinson, B.A. "Religions of the World: Numbers of Adherents; Growth Rates." ReligiousTolerance. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm.
2. “Crusades." Wikipedia. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. .
3. Eid, Bassem. "The Role of Islam in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. .
4. “Who Are Al-Qaeda?" BBC News. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. .
5. "How Did 9-11 Affect Muslims?" Muslims and 911. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. .
6. "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in a Nutshell:." Middle East: MidEastWeb. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. .
7. "Crusades & Religious Violence: Muslims & Christians Killing Everyone." About. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. .
8. "The Great Divide." ThinkQuest. Oracle. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. .
9. Alden, Edward. "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security." Council on Foreign Relations. 07 Sept. 2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .

Help! I'm Suffering from O.P.S.!!!

Dear Lowdown:

Should parents shelter their children from unhappiness? And to what extent should adults nurture or let them be (let nature take its course)? Why?

- Alisa Amorntheerakul (Chicago)



Dear Alisa,

It sounds like you are asking about over protective parents and luckily, I'm just the girl to ask. I have suffered from O.P.S, overprotective parents syndrome, my whole life. Sometimes, well actually most of the time, it's horrible. However, having overprotective parents does have its benefits. I have recognized this and I am at peace with it. In order for you or someone who has over protective parents to be at peace with it, you first have to understand why your parents are overprotective.

In my previous experiences, I have often felt that my parents are being overprotective just so they can ruin my life. Now, you and I both know that isn't true (well, I hope it isn't), but we're teenagers and that's how we usually respond when we don't get what we want. However, once I'm done being the moody teenager that’s mad that they aren't getting their way, I realize that my parents are only being over protective because they are trying to protect me (duh!). They love me and they think that they are protecting me from danger. Whether or not I agree that what they are protecting me from is dangerous is another story, but I have realized that they are trying to do what they think is best for me.

There are times when their over protectiveness is a little absurd. Such as, not letting me go to the Taste of Chicago one afternoon because I could lose my purse or get mugged. We live in Chicago. That can happen any time of day, year round. Or not letting me go to the mall with my friends because something could happen to me (but they allow me to ride the red line by myself). These are situations when their over protectiveness is bittersweet.

The previously mentioned situations are the types of things you can try to negotiate with your parents. I say that these situations are bittersweet because on the downside, it takes a lot more effort to get what you want. However, because it takes so much effort, you become better at organizing main points and you become a better debater because of it. But, when doing so you must be careful with your approach. You don't want to start whining, or yelling. Those are big no nos. Try to have a civilized conversation with them. Communication is key. You want to approach them respectfully. Explain to them that you understand where they are coming from. This shows that you listened to them and understand why they said what they said. Next you should calmly explain why you should be able to do xyz. By following these steps, you would be showing your parents that you can be mature. If you act like an adult, they are more likely to treat you like an adult.

There are instances when the over protective parents are beneficial. Let’s say there is a party that you really want to go to but your parents tell you “no”. You are upset and at home the night of the party and the following school day, you find out that the cops showed up and everyone got arrested. Since you weren’t there, you weren’t arrested and you still have a squeaky clean record. Another time that your over protective parents could be beneficial is when you don’t want to do something. If a friend is begging you to go somewhere and you don’t want to go, you can simply say “Sorry, I can’t. You know my parents.” Your friend will believe you easily because your parents actually are over protective.

In some instances, there are decisions that your parents may make that are non-negotiable, such as not allowing you to go on a week long trip to Rome, Italy. If you have tried everything that was previously mentioned and the answer was still no, there really isn’t anything more you can do to change their mind. However, there are things you can do to make the situation better. For the big things you want but don’t get, there is a two day moping period. However, the condition of the moping is that it must be done in private. Doing it outwardly and obnoxiously makes you look less mature. This could ruin your credibility and future chances of getting what you want.
Another way to handle not getting the non- negotiable is to look on the bright-side. Think about the pros of not doing the thing you wanted to do. You don’t have to buy an expensive plane ticket. You can use the money from the plane ticket to buy that new camera you have been wanting for a while. Or you can go on a shopping spree. You can finish that art project you have working on for so long. By regaining that one week, the possibilities are endless.

So Alisa, to answer your question, we can't change who are parents or what they do. However, we can make what seems like and unfair, unbearable situation better. With the power of negotiation and positive thinking you can make having over protective parents manageable.

Sincerely,

Kutah Sillah

Atlantis: Reality or Mythology?

Dear Lowdown:

Is the lost city of Atlantis myth?

-Amadou Diallo (Chicago)



Dear Amadou:

Since the dawn of man, myths have captivated the imaginations, hopes, and dreams of all people.Urban legends, folklore, rumors; call them what you will; in the broadest sense, a myth is a traditional story that is not necessarily backed with facts (“The American Heritage Dictionary”).

With regards to the existence of Atlantis, you are certainly not the first to have this ever-so-puzzling inquiry. In fact,authors, historians, and the gullible alike have postulated the existence of Atlantis for centuries.Is Atlantis a myth? Technically yes,as it is stemmed from Greek mythology. But does it exist? Did it ever? Or was it just a myth that caught on over the centuries?And, maybe more importantly, why should we care?

The renowned Greek philosopher Plato first mentioned Atlantis in his works Timaeus and Critias, dating back to 360 BCE.Contrary to popular belief,Atlantis is actually said to have been an island, not a city(Critias).In Critias, the Hellenic gods of Mount Olympus divided up the lands of the Earth, and Poseidon (god of the seas, storms, and earthquakes) received the island of Atlantis(“Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece”).Critias depicts Atlantis as a mountainous and somewhat rectangular island. Poseidon carved a mountain on the island of Atlantis into a palace surrounded by three moats for his beloved wife,Cleito.He had the Atlanteans construct bridges and canals around the palace so that it would be avoided by sailorsand travelers en route to the major city. All entrances to the city were guarded by a series of towers and walls built from a variety of precious metals(Critias).

Plato portrayed the people of Atlantis asthe antithesis of Athenians.Athens represented anideal society,and after the Athenians tried and failed to invade Atlantis, the islandwas ultimatelysunk by an earthquake(Cameron).

To this day scholars argue whether or not this story was inspired by older Greco-Roman legends, such as the Trojan War (The city of Troy was thought to be fictional until it was unearthed in the late nineteenth century),and was therefore not entirely a factual work.Many believe Plato crafted the story to appeal to Greek nationalism, since the Atlanteans were unable to conquer the mighty city of Athens(Adams).

Surely one can believe the tale of Atlantis to be entirely fabricated –according to Plato,the island sank nine millenniums before Plato’s time(Critias), thereby implying that the legend was passed down orally since the dawn of the Dinosaurs.Playing a game of telephone with a paltry ten people more often than not leads to miscommunication from one person to the next,making this theory highly doubtful.

However, you might find it surprising that many (or any)modern philosophers and historians have not challenged the authenticity of Plato’s anecdote, and have expanded on his theories.Francis Bacon of England published The New Atlantis in 1627,following the plot of Plato’s narratives and placing Atlantis in America.OlausRudbeck,a Swedish scholar,sought out to prove that Sweden was Atlantis and therefore the birth of civilization(Auroux).Even Isaac Newton included the empire in his work The Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended(Newton).

Chillingly,Nazi theorists were attracted to the idea of Atlantis.It is said that Heinrich Himmler, a leader of the Nazi party,organized a German fleet to search Tibet for origins of the master Aryan-Atlantean race in 1939 (Hale).This take on Plato’s theory may not quite have been what the philosopher intended,but to each his own wacky theory.

As far as the supposed location of Atlantis goes, that is just as much of a mystery.Some may be quick to say that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean.How original.Actually, Plato specifically stated that it was “in front of the Pillars of Hercules” at Gibraltar(Critias),though oceanographers have found no traces of such an island.The Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea are the two most popular hypotheses,yet proposed locations range from almost all continents and all large bodies of water(Adams).Basically, good luck finding it.

At this point, scientists have no evidence that it does or did exist. However, the charactersHermocratesand Critiasin Plato’s novels insist at multiple points during the stories that the events described truly occurred(Critias).Is Plato simply stating, “Just take my word for it” ?

Apparently, that is what people have done for centuries: just take his word for it. Often,early folklore provided answers to burning questions that cannot be backed up by science. That is how Greek mythology came to be: there was no explanation as to why thunder shook the earth and lighting fell from the sky, so Zeus was conjured up as “God of the sky and weather” (Smith).Greeks invented hundreds of gods and deities that justified all they could not comprehend in the world due to lack of technology and lack of answers.

The quest for answers is why children naively believe that a red-cloaked, white-bearded Santa delivers them presents simply because they have not been naughty. This does not mean that parents are cajoling their children in behaving all year to be approved by St. Nicholas because they themselves are too wise to buy into a theory with no scientific reasoning. If that were the case, why would they be celebrating Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ? The man who walked on water and healed the sick?

Religion, Karl Marx famously stated, “is the opium of the masses”. No concrete evidence, yet billions of people accept all sorts of different religions. This is what motivates belief in what can be considered to be illogical: validating the unexplainable.For the believers it is faith, not opium, that is the drug of choice.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Lawson












Works Cited
Adams, Cecil. “The Straight Dope: Is the lost city of Atlantis at the bottom of a lake in North Dakota?” 1997(Accessed November 15, 2010)

Auroux, Sylvain. History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of Language Sciences. GruylterPublishings, 2006.

Cameron, Alan.Greek Mythology in the Roman World.Oxford University Press, 2004.

“Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece”.2010 (Accessed November 17, 2010).

Hale, Christopher. Fortean Times. October 2003.

Newton, Isaac. The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. 1728.

Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Vol. 2. 1870.

Plato. Critias.360 BCE.

To Name or Not to Name

Dear Lowdown:

In a city, who is charge of naming the streets and what are they usually named after? In Chicago, we have an Indiana Street and California and Milwaukee Avenues. Why are our streets named for different cities and states? And what do I have to do to get my own honorary street sign? Even the Italian Village Restaurant has managed to procure a little brown street sign on the corner of Clark and Monroe.

~Tracy Lin (Chicago)


Dear Tracy:

Street names may seem random, but there are reasons behind them. In Chicago, we have streets named after states, lakes, and even people. Many more were named after historically (sometimes not even historically) significant objects and people. Now, how do we come up with streets names? Well, that is what I am here to explain.

The regular street name, the ones on the green plaques, is the official names. Now I know you know this. The process in which the names are chosen is basic. The majority of names are a representation of history unique to the United States. For example, three of the boundary streets of the city are named after the most prominent men of the day, a past land survey showing that Washington street were the south boundary, Jefferson street the west, Kinzie street the north, and Dearborn street the east. Nowadays, these streets are no longer considered boundary streets.

Dearborn Street is named after the fort, which in turn is named after General Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War; Kinzie Street took its name from John Kinzie, the early white settler, while the others were named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Northward from Washington Street came Randolph, named after John Randolph of Roanoke; Lake, after Lake Michigan; Fulton, named after Robert Fulton, whose steamboat, the Claremont, made its first trip on the Hudson between New York and Albany just twenty three years before Chicago was mapped out; Carroll Street, after Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

Now that we know where the names come from, a new question comes up. Who chooses these names? Currently, no one names streets because Chicago no longer expands. In the past, the effort of naming streets went to Edward P. Brennan.

After much wrangling with the council, they in 1913 changed the names of 567 streets, of which Edward was said to have personally renamed 130. In general the idea is to eliminate duplication and make names of streets uniform throughout their length (instead of having one section named one name and another section of the same street be named a different name), but as inevitably happens in times of upheaval, some took the opportunity to pursue private agendas. Southport north of Argyle became Glenwood, and in a moment of craven toadyism Evanston Avenue became Broadway. (Don't blame Edward, but rather the north-side business association that plumped for the change.) Perhaps the only person in Chicago public life who didn't make out like a bandit, Edward, received a City Council testimonial for his efforts and later an honor that surely meant more to him than gold: the public way at 2300 east, from 95th to 98th, was named South Brennan Street.

As for the honorary street sign, to get one on your own is easy but time consuming. Currently, to install an honorary street sign, a community group or individual makes a proposal to their alderman. The alderman will review the suggestion and send an ordinance to the City Council. The Committee on Transportation reviews the ordinance, which if accepted goes to the full City Council for final approval. This seemingly transparent process, however, produces a particular set of markers and meanings for Chicago’s public spaces. Street names implicitly instruct residents about whose beliefs and behaviors should be honored and which political leaders we should be learning from. They also, by omission, suggest who are unworthy topics of such street lessons.

The process to get an honorary street sign isn’t at all egotistical but, the reasons for granting the street sign is entirely egotistical. In order to have permission granted, there must be a heroic or significant reason. It is close to arrogance since it implies that whoever gets the street sign has done something great. Many would get street signs for themselves, in honor of what they have done. The action of getting a street sign can be very egotistical.

Why must there be a process for the general public to name streets after themselves? By obtaining a street sign in one’s name, a person can never be forgotten. His/her name will always be there for generations to come! Although one’s personality is not known, their name will be remembered. This situation is similar to parents who name their children after themselves, especially male children because they carry on the family line. Parents want to continue the family line and pass on the family name.
By naming a child after one’s name, that parent will be preserved through the child. John Smith Jr. will evoke memories of John Smith Sr. once mentioned in a group of close friends and family.

Sincerely,

Sally Chan

Music to My Ears

Dear Lowdown:

Most headphones have an “L” and “R” piece, distinguishing which earpiece goes in the left and right ears. Why is this? How is it determined what sound plays in what ear?

Rebecca Lawson (Chicago)



Rebecca,

You raise a callow question far below the level of your intellect. And thus, I am forced to respond simplistically.Your question is the equivalent to asking, “why do we have right and left shoes.” Shoe companies assume that when you wear shoes incorrectly, you will switch the shoes onto different feet, raising your comfort level. Headphone companies assume the same, and go above and beyond to make sure you know which headphone is for your right and left ear because wearing them should be comfortable.

Your second question, however, has actual merit. It is an interesting topic and I’ve therefore decided to answer it becauseI am quite curious to know the result.

In simple terms, sound is the vibration of air molecules. Sound travels in waves like light and heat, and the initial vibration dictates the sound. Think of sound waves as ripples: you can either put a finger in calm water or throw a car into the water. When you watch the ripples, you will notice that each one has different characteristics.The different assortment of ripples represents the different types of sound.

Make sense? Good.

Headphones are made of several different components: the stationary magnet, iron coil, skin conformed around a metal perimeter (like a drum). In order for sound to travel, an initial vibration must occur. The headphone bud makes an initial vibration that vibrates the air in your inner ear.

Let’s turn to an example.Now, imagine that you purchased a Kanye West cd. You take the cd from the case, and pop it into your Walkman and start listening to the jam. After a couple seconds, you hear the bass, the vocals, the guitar, and the drums. What happened? Your headphones carried the pre-recorded data from the cd and the headphones copied the motion. Inside the headphone is the wire, iron coil, magnet, and drum skin. First, the pre-recorded data was sent from the music player to the headphone by the wire via electric impulses. The wire carried the electrical impulses to the coil, causing the coil to become an electromagnet. The coil was either attracted or repelled by the stationary magnet and banged itself rapidly against the skin conformed around the metal perimeter. The vibration created sound by using the air inside of your ear canal and converged onto the auditory nerve.
My five-year-old cousin asked me a very interesting question while I was babysitting him: How do humans understand the sound waves and interpret them as music? I was amazed by the question and decided to integrate the answer in my response.
In headphones, sound travels through the outer ear canal. The vibration of the air molecules travels through the outer ear canal and causes the vibration of basilar membrane: a membrane lined with hair follicle cells. The movement of the hair follicles “triggers impulses in the adjacent nerve fibers”, and “converges into the auditory nerve” (Myers 78). When the brain enjoys a certain sound, it tends to want to hear it over again. Thus, we, humans, pick out sounds favorable to us.

Understand? If you didn’t, read the paragraph again.

Let’s get back to your second question. Many musicians use a number of instruments when creating music. Typically, musicians use a guitar, bass, drums, and, of course, the singer’s vocals. When recording the music, musicians typically record their music to be heard from a number of speakers. Speakers are manufactured for specific purposes; one speaker may be tuned towards treble sounds while one may be tuned towards bass sounding sounds. When manufacturers create headphones, they keep this information in mind; each headphone contains every type of sound, some are just more tuned than others.

(Forgive this interruption in thought, but it is necessary that I explain a rather annoying part of the brain. The coordination of movement on my RIGHT side, understanding of language, and memory is part of the LEFT hemisphere. The RIGHT hemisphere is stronger in performing tasks dealing with creativity, perceptual tasks, and movement on the LEFT side. When the two hemispheres need to speak to one another, information is sent across the Corpus Callosum, allowing the hemispheres to “communicate. This information is relevant to people with severed Corpus Callosum, and is another reason why headphones are labeled; it is more important to hear lyrics rather than an extremely loud drum.)

For example, my right headphone will be more tuned towards vocals rather than bass than my left headphone because my left hemisphere is the side that recognizes language. However, my left headphone will be more tuned toward bass, but less tuned towards vocals. For the average Joe, the information will reach the brain no matter what because the corpus callosum is constantly activated and the two hemispheres continually interchange information.

In reality, some headphone companies don’t label their headphones left and right because the company presumes the consumer would wear the headphones in a way that provides the most comfort. The actual writing of left and right is only for ear bud headphones, and is not really important for people who don’t have a severed corpus callosum. Personally, I wear headphones according to comfort; it just so happens that I follow the left and right headphone rule because that is the way ear buds are designed.

Listening to music is a relevant part of our daily lives because it allows individuals to find some personal preference in a massive industry. Your question is quite important to the music industry and I would like to thank you for allowing me to research the subject. You can conclude from this research thatheadphones and ear buds are an effective way to satisfy everyone’s personal taste; however, note that listening to music doesn’t require you to analyze your headphones. Just put them in your ears and turn up the volume.


Yours truly,

Matt Hayes












Works Cited:
"Apple - Sound and Hearing." Apple. Apple, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. .
Myers, David G.. Psychology . 8th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2007. Print.
Woodford, Chris. "How headphones work: A simple introduction from Explain that Stuff!."
Explain that stuff! Science and technology made simple. Cambridge Soundworks, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. .

That New Car Smell

Dear Lowdown:

Every car comes with that “new car smell”. I would like to know what causes that smell and if it is harmful to breathe it for too long.

Nils Clausen (Chicago)



Mr. Clausen:

Well you came up a bit short on your effort to ask a question, but I will still attempt to answer your statement, for I too would like to know what causes the “new car smell”. Ordinarily, those most concerned about the new car smell are those who can afford new cars, but I still must commend your curiosity in this matter. As it turns out, there is much uncertainty and even some controversy about the issue of the new car smell.

Some believe that the new car smell is intentionally added to vehicles to entice potential buyers. This is, in fact, not the case. The new car smell is not purposefully added, rather it is simply a byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process of certain leathers and most plastics. It turns out that the smell that many find so delightful is actually the combined effect of millions of molecules known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These VOCs emanate off of the produced surfaces in the interior of new cars at levels as much as thirty five times the legal health limit for building interiors. These extreme levels usually only last several months, but in extreme heat, the VOC levels can return to dangerous levels even after as long as three years. In general, studies show no short term consequences of exposure to these substances, but with a name as scary as Volatile Organic Compounds, there has to be some risk. Analysis of the air in new cars has revealed the presence of several known toxins whose names I recommend you not even try to pronounce. Highly processed leathers and plastics in new cars give off toxins with scary names like ethyl benzene, xylene, and formaldehyde.

Overall, there does not appear to be any short term fatally toxic effects of the new car smell, though it has been proven to aggravate an immune response associated with allergies, potentially causing headaches and nausea, among other symptoms. People with allergies may experience some discomfort during and after prolonged exposure to new car smell, but outside of that, there does not appear to be any short term effects worth worrying about. Studies done by the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to show any short term risks of exposure outside of the discomfort associated with allergic immune responses. There is little to no risk of immediate death from the chemicals present in the inside air of a new car, but different levels of sensitivity could yield differing personal results.

Several of the VOCs in new car smell have been identified as known carcinogens, but it is unknown whether the concentration is high enough to have a long-term effect on humans. No published research exists on the long-term effect on humans of the new car smell, though there may have been unpublished research suppressed by automobile manufacturers before it could get out to the public. It would make sense for car manufacturers to keep negative findings under wraps because resulting legislation restricting the amount of VOCs that are acceptable in a new vehicle would inevitably cost all of the companies a significant amount of money. Finances may have once again taken priority over human wellbeing. If this possibility does not satisfy you, I challenge you to take the initiative to facilitate your own long term study and publish your results.

Though most automobile producing corporations refuse to comment on new car smell issues, at least one has taken steps to reduce the amount of volatile organic compounds in the interior air of their vehicles. Toyota has managed to decrease the concentration of volatile organic compounds to near-normal levels, though safety is still not Toyota’s strong point given the recent acceleration and braking malfunctions. If you are comparing Toyota to another automobile manufacturer, it is a matter of what is least appealing to you: dying from cancer many years down the road, or being unable to stop your vehicle at any given moment.

With enough money, there are other ways to get away from the small risk of VOCs altogether. With enough money, they become a nonissue. Maserati interiors contain no plastics or cheaply produced leathers, only natural leathers and exotic woods. With these premium materials, there are much fewer Volatile Organic Compounds released. The only catch is that the starting price for a Maserati is more than one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. Another expensive way out of the new car smell dilemma is to buy a convertible, which also have few concerns about interior air quality (though in many urban areas, exterior air is just as much a concern). In the end you will have to make your own decision based on your own sensitivity and situation.

Automobile manufacturers say that VOCs are harmless and not likely to cause any damage, though for all we know, they could potentially cause cancer. If you cannot handle this uncertainty, then go buy a Maserati. If you cannot afford a Maserati maybe you should just ride a bike. If you cannot ride a bike, then you may have more certain health concerns than this uncertain matter of the new car smell.

Sincerely,

Alex Rinholm






Works Cited

Choi, Charles Q. "That New-Car Smell? Not Toxic, Study Finds | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. .

"EPA - Human Health." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. .

Richard, Michael Graham, Ottawa, and Canada. "Beware: That New Car Smell is Toxic! : TreeHugger." TreeHugger. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. .