technology and health - how might wii fit into the picture?

We are constantly looking for ways to incorporate healthy eating and activities into our ever-busy lifestyles. You might try a new diet here, or walk the extra distance to work or school there, or try to get some stretches done while watching your favourite television programmes. Things have changed, however, and now we can ask the following question: Why not get active and involved using technology that has been developed for home use?

The Nintendo Wii console was released in 2006 along with two other seventh-generation gaming platforms, Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's Playstation 3. However, the advantage that the Wii had over its competition is its wireless handheld point-and-click controller, making for a directly kinetic, interactive experience that doesn't simply involve pressing buttons and remaining rooted to one spot.

Each Wii console came with the game Wii Sports when purchased. Right when you get home with your Wii, you would be able to play the tennis court, enter a boxing ring, putt a few holes, hit a few fly balls, and hit the bowling lanes, either alone or with a friend. Experts believe that Wii Sports is a great way for a very wide audience (youth and children, especially, are an important target market) to get active and involved when they swing round a remote that simulates a tennis game.

And more recently, in order to promote more in-depth physical activity, Nintendo released the Wii Fit. Using the Wiimote and the Wii Balance Board, the user is able to follow yoga routines, muscle training, and other exercises, all with the help of the Wii Fit's virtual trainer. It is able to measure your body mass index (BMI) and uses it in order to help you place your health goals as you progress with training. The game also places focus on defining one's centre of gravity to help with the work-out, and improving posture and balance—as such, the game seeks to appeal to virtually anyone of any gender or age group.

The effects of the Wii haven't gone unnoticed. In fact, one man embarked on the 'Wii Sports Experiment', where he added 30 minutes of playing Wii Sports to his regular routine, every day for six weeks, and at the end of the experiment, he lost nine pounds! The full article can be found here.

Of course, the Wii is no substitute for going out on a run or getting to play an actual tennis game on the court. But in any case, the Wii is meant to be seen as an extension or companion to strenuous exercise. So long as one knows what they are doing, it's a great way to get motivated towards a healthier lifestyle. And what could be more appealing than starting with a useful gadget from the comfort of your own home? Being accessible and fun, not only has the Wii been developed for our ever-growing lifestyle demands, but it also promotes the act of taking the time to focus on our health.

References:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12744

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1584697,00.html

http://www.squidoo.com/Wii-Fit-

http://wii.ign.com/articles/869/869127p1.html

Blogs I commented on:

Gaming Consoles Reaching Out to Physical and Active Lifestyle Changes

What would we do without technology?

recycling sludge, or: how i learned to stop worrying and love biosolids

Say what? Sewage sludge—the unwanted material from our toilets, drains, and what have you—can be recycled to help our environment? Definitely!

Except we won't call it just 'sludge'. Biosolids are the byproduct of treated wastewater and sludge. The solids produced from wastewater treatment are heated in order to break down the organic matter, and to eliminate bacteria and other harmful organisms. This material becomes known as biosolids, and generally looks and feels very similar to regular soil. In Toronto alone, our city's wastewater system generates about 195 000 tons of biosolids per year.

Depending on their level of treatment, biosolids can be used in a variety of different ways. For instance, they can be applied as a natural fertiliser for farms. Biosolids contain nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as a number of nutrients in trace amounts, such as magnesium, iron, and calcium, which are beneficial for crops and plants. The application of biosolids has been a regulated task for over forty years.

While there are all these noteworthy benefits, biosolids are not without their disadvantages. There are concerns over high concentration of metals, chemicals, and other unknown organisms within the biosolids that could prove to be harmful. It's understandable—people don't want these unknown organisms to contaminate their crops, food, environment, and so forth. But at the same time, wastewater plants go through extensive treatment processes to ensure that metal contents are moderated and harmful organisms eliminated before distribution. Some people might also have an issue with the odour that biosolids give off, especially when spread over a large field, but this smell disappears after it has been mixed into the soil anyway.

In any case, making use of biosolids is a cost-effective method of recycling the nutrients and minerals that have gone down our drains. Think about it: it's a resource that is readily available and pretty much free! While biosolids come with their drawbacks, their benefits for the environment outweigh them. Disposing of biosolids would only increase the amount of waste in our dumping sites and landfills—we simply don't have enough room for that, so why not choose to perform the available alternative and recycle them for the good of our environment?

References:
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/forests/education/adventure/biosolids/making-biosolids/processing
http://www.ebmud.com/our-water/wastewater-treatment/wastewater-treatment-programs/biosolids-faq
http://www.toronto.ca/water/biosolids/index.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/water/biosolids/agriculture.htm

Blogs I commented on:
Biosolids
Human waste as Fertilizer!?

industrial agriculture vs. sustainable agriculture

In the midst of our fast-paced life, is the public in the know about how our food is grown?

Currently the more widespread form of agriculture is industrial agriculture. Here, the industrialised production of crops, livestock, etc. is looked at from a 'factory' viewpoint. Industrial agriculture focuses on generating high yield for very little money and space. In turn, the prices for food remain low for consumers; exports to foreign countries will be abundant; and feed for the animals also remains cheap. However, as you might have guessed, industrial agriculture relies heavily on growth hormones, chemicals and pesticides, which have been linked to elevated cancer risks¹. They rely on a monoculture system of crops and raise only a few specific animals, thus reducing biodiversity within these environments. In addition, the animals are raised in very overcrowded, compact spaces that are often extremely unclean. Because they live in such conditions, they are prone to contracting many diseases.

Alternatively, sustainable agriculture is focused on understanding nature as a functioning ecosystem. In other words, sustainable agriculture looks at ecosystems as a natural aspect of life that must be preserved. The welfare of the animals is one of the top priorities: a wide variety of plants and livestock are raised within these sustainable environments, and they are treated fairly and humanely. While food grown on sustainable farms may cost a little more, it is worth considering that everything is grown naturally, with no hormones, pesticides or chemicals to speed up the process. The animals are allowed to feed, graze, etc., as they please. It is also worth mentioning that since the animals live in a healthy environment, so do the workers—they work in a much safer environment than within industrial agriculture. Food grown in these sustainable environments is much healthier and better for you in every way.

The way I see it, while sustainable agriculture aims to imitate natural ecosystems, the processes that function within the industrial agricultural environment are a result of human intervention and control.
As such, it's easy to wonder why industrialising agriculture is the more common method of growing our food. Our growing population is a factor—of course as the nation grows, so does the demand for food and produce. But considering the repercussions that come from industrial agriculture, are we really willing to risk reducing biodiversity? Do we really want to further compromise the animals'—and our own—health and welfare, just so we can save a few dollars the next time we head to the shops? I say we should look into sustaining agriculture as opposed to industrialising it. The costs of the produce that come from sustainable farms may even be lowered as we invest more and more into it in the future. It's an available alternative that is well worth getting involved in, to ensure our earth's longevity and welfare.

References:
1.)How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/industrial-agriculture-features.html
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/13900/
http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/comparison

Blogs I commented on:
Industrial or Sustainable Agriculture - Which is the way to go?
Industrial Agriculture & Sustainable Agriculture

designer babies - some kind of future

Do you want a baby with blue eyes, blond hair? Female over male? Proficiency at musical instruments? Athletic prowess? It seems that at some point in the near future, choosing all this and more will be possible: welcome to the world of designer babies.

'Designer babies' refers to the selection of certain favourable traits for your future child. However, this term was coined by the media and is usually used negatively or humorously; the actual name for this process is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. PGD is a technique used to screen genetic complications or defects in embryo. PGD is used in conjunction with in vitro fertilisation, or IVF, wherein the egg is fertilised outside of the woman's body. Embryo that are free of complications will be fertilised and then passed on to the mother. The method allows parents from passing on deadly genetic disorders to their children.


Recently however, the next step the science world seems to be willing to make is the selection of your baby's physical traits. While gender selection through PGD is already prohibited in Canada, it is still popular in countries like the United States. The Fertility Institutes clinic in Los Angeles not only offers '100% gender selection' to their clients; recently they offered the selection of certain traits, such as hair and eye colour. After public outrage broke out, they decided to close down the operation.

Opinion-wise, the public remains on the fence about this. Some argue that being able to choose your child's physical features is pro-choice and therefore acceptable; others believe that it should not be allowed at all. Some are concerned about the costs—in Canada, PGD adds an average of 3550$ to the costs of in vitro procedure, which alone can range from 7750$ - 12250$. As such, only those with money can pay for the 'perfect' designer baby. Some believe that the process should only be performed for medical reasons, such as for getting rid of genetic complications, as mentioned above.


Personally, I am against the selection of a child's aesthetic traits. Just because the technology is feasible and possible does not mean that we should be falling all over ourselves to use it for our own children. There's a fine line in terms of what we can do through PGD technology. It is one thing to have a healthy baby free of disease, but it is another to choose your baby's appearance. It is almost like saying that, as a parent, I'm treating my child as a commodity with features that can be manipulated and customised, like shopping for a new car. I think it is wrong for humans to think that they should be able to control their babies' features so that they are in accordance to their desires. How would the child feel, knowing that their parents could never accept their appearance from even before when it was an embryo and felt that they had to change it? PGD screening should only be used for medical reasons that save the child's life.


For now humans will have to be careful about how much they look into this technology in the coming future. One day it's hair and eye colour, and the next thing you know, the wealthy will be breeding super-babies who excel at everything, while the rest of the world who cannot afford this technology cannot catch up. One thing is for sure: it will be some kind of future we have in store.


Works cited:


Naik, Gautam. "A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic'. The Wall Street Journal. Feb. 12 2009. Web. May 19 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html>.

"The Cost of Treatment". Gender and Health. July 29 2008. Web. May 19 2011. <http://www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/poverty/poverty-reproduction-infertility-02.jsp>.

Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired Science. Mar. 9 2009. Web. May 19 2011. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/>.

Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing. June 13 2002. Web. May 19 2011. <http://www.preimplantationgenetictesting.com/Faq.htm>.

"Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)". Genesis Fertility Center. Web. May 19 2011. <http://www.genesis-fertility.com/diagnostics-and-testing/genetic-factors>.

"Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis". Medscape. Sept. 14 2010. Web. May 19 2011. <http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/273415-overview>.


Blogs I commented on:

Designer Babies: Ethical and Social Implications
Designer Babies