So Hungry I Could Eat A Horse...

Some of the names
involved in the scandal

There has been quite the scandal in recent news with horsemeat being found in misleadingly named "beef" burgers. I won't Shergar coat it - people have been furious about it. So why the long faces? Well, many do not view this as a suitable mane course for a stable diet. Personally, I don't think they will be on sale furlong, as stores have been saddled with fridges full of burgers, although some say sales remain stable. Alright, that's enough horsing around. Unfortunately I can't promise there will be no more bad puns throughout this post... there's just neigh way I can resist.

So what actually happened? Well, in January, Irish food inspectors announced that they had found horsemeat in 'beef' burgers made by firms whose products were sold by UK supermarkets including Tesco, Aldi and Lidl. Since then companies such as Findus and Nestlé have recalled products after horse DNA was identified in beef labelled products.

One of the horsemeat products

So why commit such fraud? Well, because horsemeat is cheaper than other meats in some countries, so there was an opportunity for financial gain by selling horsemeat as 'beef'. The weird thing is, on the Continent the price of horsemeat is much higher, being popular in France and Italy, as well as being widely consumed in China. Yet in the UK there is generally a more negative attitude towards eating horsemeat. Do us Brits just not like then idea of munching on black beauty?

But the issue with eating horsemeat is more complex than a reluctance to nibble on Seabiscuit. Phenylbutazone, known as bute, is used as a painkiller for horses and has been found in meat in France. Bute is used by humans to treat ankylosing spondylitis, a severe form of arthritis which affects the back. The possible but rare side effect of bute is aplastic anaemia, a bone marrow disorder which affects one in 30,000 users. 

Phenylbutazone or 'bute'

However, health experts have emphasized that this whole horsemeat scandal is a matter of fraud more than safety, as the levels of bute detected are said to pose very little risk to human health. In fact, in order to get a single therapeutic dose of bute you'd need to eat over five hundred 250g horse burgers, in a day. That's a hell of a BBQ. There is also the small chance that other drugs given to horses may end up in our food chain, particularly coming from unregulated sources.

What's happening now? Well, since then the Food Standards Agency has carried out widespread tests on random samples of 'beef' products. The first set of results did not show any new products containing more than 1% horsemeat, and the rest of the results are on the way. The most recent update is that UK food retailers will update ministers on DNA testing every 3 months - this is obviously going to be thoroughly regulated from now on.

But on a positive note some good could come from all of this - more people are now buying their meats from independent shops, and you've got to stand up for the little guys in this economy. Furthermore, there has been a general decrease in the sales of processed meats, which have an association with an increased risk of cancer, which could mean a healthier future for some people. It's a small impact but hey, 'every little helps'.

Hungry enough to eat a horse?

My personal view - this is an issue of fraud, and it is quite frankly scary how people can be misled on such a wide scale. But I would not be concerned of any health affects, because a) the quantities that one must eat for any risk of effect are huge, b) this should be significantly more regulated in the future, and c) I'm vegetarian. Well, would you look at that, no more dodgy horse puns. Guess I managed to rein it in after all.

References

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21482127

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21495300

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21457188

King in the Car Park

Its been an exciting time for historians, particularly those in Leicester. The remains of Richard III (more recently known as the King in the car park) were missing for 500 years, before being dug up from under the car park of Leicester council in September 2012. Since then a whole bunch of cool analysis has been carried out, which has led to their confirmation that that's our Richard...the third.

One of the first things noticed when the bones were found was a very curved spine. This is scoiliosis, which fits the 'hunched' historical description. Scoiliosis is a condition that gives the spine an S or C shape bending to the left of right (not actually a hunched forward spine which is a different condition called kyphosis). With up to 70% of adults over 65 having some degree of scoilisis, and a significant number younger people being affected, there are most likely a huge number of people who can sympathise with Richard. And for 8 out of 10 cases of scoliosis the cause is unknown.

The next thing they noticed was that our Richard had wounds to the skull. His bones were put in a CT scan to study the trauma in detail. The images produced by a CT scan (called tomograms) are more detailed than standard X-rays. For living subjects, a CT scan can produce images of structures inside the body including the internal organs, blood vessels, bones and tumours. From this bone CT scan and a very clever trauma team, the wounds were matched to historical accounts and weapons of the time to describe his, quite frankly horrific death.

Carbon dating of the skeleton was carried out to give the time frame of 1450-1540 A.D. (with 95% probability), which matched to the time of Richards life. Carbon dating measures the amount of radioactive carbon-14 in an object, which decays over time. From knowing how much carbon-14 was originally in an object (or person) and measuring the amount of carbon-14 present at current day, the amount that has been lost can be used to produce a relatively reliable time frame.

Facial reconstruction was also carried out, which personally made me think how bloody amazing science and technology are. This technology is otherwise used for criminal investigations. From a skull, a whole facial structure could be made, and some very talented individuals were then able to make a life size model of his head. Clever eh.

Genetics of a living decendent, a nephew in the 17th generation who happened to be a cabinet maker from north London, were matched to DNA of the remains to give the final confirmation. Saying that, New Scientist pointed out the importance of scrutiny and the DNA analysis will come under peer review now it has been released to the press.

If you haven't watched the documentary, then do. Go to 4od now and watch a really good programme with a slightly nutty Richard III enthusiast who keeps crying. The programme questions the character of the King, whether he killed his nephews to reach the throne or not, whether he was the evil hunched figure described by Shakespeare, or a nice bloke unfairly portrayed by the Tudors. Whatever his character, this King, unlike any other, has been the King of a country... and a car park.

References

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21729033.500-open-richard-iii-dna-evidence-for-peer-review.html

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Scoliosis/Pages/Causes.aspx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/carbon_dating_01.shtml

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ct-scan/pages/introduction.aspx

*Note from the blogger: I just wanted to say thanks for reading, it has been a while since I posted anything as I'm now a busy lady balancing studying and working, but if you like my blog then please let me know by liking my facebook page www.facebook.com/HumanInterests and if you have any ideas for posts please get in touch! Cheers :)

Super Humans - is there a limit?

'Super Humans'

I have been amazed while watching the Paralympics to see what some of the athletes have overcome to be where they are, and how they have used a limit to drive them to achieve. The 2012 Summer Games will include about 1,100 athletes from 170 nations. They include athletes with spinal cord injuries, amputated limbs, blindness or other visual impairments, cerebral palsy, mental handicaps and other disabilities, including multiple sclerosis and dwarfism.

I recently visited the London Museum of Medicine at the Wellcome Collection in London. There was a whole exhibit questioning the morality of making super humans. The general concept was that we have imagined super humans for decades - marvel comics providing every kind of superhuman under the sun, and many love the idea of a super human with powers above and beyond others, to save the planet from evil and such. One artist made a fake (but scarily convincing) documentary, showing a group of ten Americans who agreed to let plastic surgeons give them a super-power, as voted by the general public. This was quite terrifying to watch, showing individuals who were excited to have extreme surgery and go through such pain to have a certain 'power' as voted by random strangers around the country. I wonder, would this ever be reality?

"Knight Warrior"

Unfortunately, just this week a lad has been in the news, who in my opinion is a super-eejit. Rob, aged 19, has claimed his super power is the ‘supernatural desire to make the world a better place’. Ok sunshine, how are you going to do this? Give to Charity? Volunteer? Oh no, of course, you’re going to run round Greater Manchester at night in a £200 custom-made Lycra costume on ‘patrol’. Alone. Now I don’t mean to slam this lad, he’s got good intentions. But encouraging teens to dress up and go out alone at night to fight crime? What he’s doing is so dangerous and foolish. Is dressing up at night and putting yourself in danger really being a super human?

Prosthetics better than legs?

Oscar Pistorius last month made history, being the first double-amputee to compete in the Olympics. Many have debated that his synthetic limbs may be better than actual legs - making it unfair for him to run with able bodied people. And experts say that with future improvements in prosthetics, this may be the case. Could the limited become the unlimited, the super humans? Could we one day have a world where people use stronger prosthetics to replace weaker human body parts? I think the museum at the Wellcome Collection made a strong point - the ability to make ourselves stronger is something which in the wrong hands could get carried away with and taken to extremes.

However, I would unquestionably argue that the good that technology has done for disabled people is truly amazing. At the museum I saw some of the first false legs used for children - wooden with painted red shoes for girls and brown for boys. They were shabby, looked awfully uncomfortable and were fixed in one position. Yet I did not see them as a creepy thing of the past, but as a first caring step towards helping children that otherwise could not walk. These constant developments have enabled many of the athletes on our TV screens, as well as members of the public, to live better lives.

Martine Wright - inspirational

To round things up, I think the best superpowers for any human are motivation and outlook. Although this is not as cool as being able to stop time (without ‘Bernard’s Watch’), fly, or write with our feet (come on, we’ve all tried it…), I think that having drive and motivation is the best way to achieve something ‘superhuman’. Some of the athletes shown on TV have the most inspiring stories – Martine Wright sat next to a suicide bomber in the 7/7 attacks and lost both legs. She then went on to be a Paralympian, saying “My motivation, one of my motivations, is I truly believe I was meant to do this journey” – she took what had happened and used it to go on and achieve great things she otherwise would not have. Inspiring eh?!

I am genuinely inspired by the Paralympic athletes, and I think that it is fantastic that humans round the world accept each other now irrespective of disabilities and such, which as we all know even a few decades ago, was not the case. Let’s celebrate humanity; we are all super humans, together… to the rescue!

References

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/31/paralympic-athlete-7-7-survivor?newsfeed=true

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/870771-caped-crusader-brings-peace-to-mean-streets-but-antics-worry-his-mum#ixzz259qQ21C5

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/summer-olympics-paralympics.html

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/technology/story/2012/08/28/sp-paralympics-outperform-pistorius.html

Vitamin Supplements - more harm than good?

Vitamin supplements
- good for your health?

We live in a world where we listen to Google more than our GP. And with this faith in the internet and the opinions of strangers, many of us take vitamins and supplements from our local health shop, which may not actually do us any good. Headlines often imply eating a special something 'stops cancer' - and for many, this is reason enough to head to a health shop and by a jar of concentrated daily supplements. Supplements, by definition, contain vitamins, minerals, herbs or plant material...but they may cause us more harm than good.

Now, in my opinion, supplements are generally a waste of money, with health shops stocking normal foods claiming them as special cures and doubling the price - I am not writing to debate this. These things may work for different people and really help some, sure, but the reason they are supplements and not given as medicines is because there is not enough evidence to show that they strongly have any impact - otherwise the government would fund us all to have a broccoli tablet, no one would have cancer and the NHS would be greatly relieved from its current pressures and strains.

Headline implying 
Vitamin B stops Alzheimer's

So why do we take vitamins and supplements? Well, some people get frustrated with NHS and doctors being unable to help them and so want to take control themselves and find their own cure. And hey, if I had a health problem doctors couldn't help, I would look down every road in search of a cure - who wouldn't? For others, vitamins offer increased security for a healthy longer life and offer to prevent problems before they start, and again if this cuts down people’s anxieties, then this is a good thing. On top of this, the placebo effect is a huge benefit - even if these supplements don’t help, if they make people feel better then so be it. Vitally some people do need vitamin supplements – pregnant women for example are told to take certain vitamin supplements throughout their pregnancy by doctors, and on doctors advice I have no concerns with supplements.

However, my question here is whether vitamin supplements may actually cause more harm than good for the average human.... something I personally would never have considered when taking an alternative medicine. An analysis of 68 clinical trials of vitamin supplements using almost 250,000 participants found that people taking vitamin A supplements were actually 16% more likely to die than those not taking any supplements during the trial. Vitamin E supplement takers had a 4% increased risk of death next to those taking nothing. Such a large study having strong results against taking vitamin supplements was soon argued against by, non-surprisingly, supplement manufacturers who argued that the study involved people who were already ill - but the study bit back stating that 70% of the studies participants were healthy.

Zinc -dangerous if taken incorrectly

Another study found that glucosamine and chondrotin sulphate, both used to fight arthritis and joint pain actually did not work any better than a placebo to slow the loss of knee cartilage in osteoarthritis, which aids the 'waste of money' argument, but at least does not result in worsened health. Zinc however, has on occasion done this to extremes. Zinc helps us make new cells, enzymes, and helps with the healing of wounds. You should be able to get all the zinc you need from your daily diet. Importantly, too much zinc reduces the amount of copper the body can absorb, leading to anemia and weakening of the bones. Therefore this is a supplement, which when used improperly, can actually have very dangerous side effects. Yet on TV adverts, zinc is branded as something we should all take to be healthier. 

So how do companies get away with this misleading marketing? Some supplements go through loop holes to be considered a food - this means that it is subject to food safety laws, which are not as strict as those for medicines. Supplements are not allowed to make claims that can treat or cure conditions without clinical evidence, however, they can and do make claims their product maintains a function - e.g. maintains bone function. Sneaky eh? We as humans need 13 vitamins to maintain health, but only in minute amounts. And the best way to get them? A balanced healthy diet (apart from Vitamin D, the one exception which we get from sun exposure).Yet we are sold vitamins by the tub-full for extortionate prices, which are branded as good for us.

Would you take them?

It seems that the original good intentions of early day vitamin supplements have been exploited by big companies wanting bigger profits. So, next time the headlines scare you about rates of a disease increasing, and then tell you the following week that "scientists have found product x STOPS the disease" think twice before heading to the health store to buy random supplements - the NHS choices website has some general advice on who should take what, as listed below. But in my opinion, unless I’m told by my GP, I won’t be taking supplements for the sake of it.

References

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1122.aspx?categoryid=51&subcategoryid=168 - who should take what?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Documents/BtH_supplements.pdf -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325934.000-can-vitamin-supplements-do-more-harm-than-good.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14842-arthritis-supplements-no-better-than-placebo.html
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins-minerals/Pages/Other-vitamins-minerals.aspx

Human Olympians

The 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games have shown some truly amazing athletes. World records have been broken, which leads me to question - are we becoming ever stronger? These athletes are pushing themselves over the limitations of their own bodies to achieve great fitness, and are breaking records in the process. So, how do these athletes become Olympic medalists, world champions and record breakers? I personally think this is not simply a matter of fitness - its training, dedication and state of mind.

Amazing athlete
 Jessica Ennis

To firstly focus on the human body, I ask how athletes have the ability to run, jump and swim better than any other? The simplest answer: training. Effects of exercise include your heart getting physically larger, bones becoming denser and the vital capacity of your breath deepening. So let’s go one step further - what does it mean to build up muscles? When a muscle cell is activated by a nerve cell, the interaction of contractile muscle proteins called actin and myosin generates a force. Exercise increases the concentration of these proteins within the muscle, allowing the muscle to exhibit greater strength and force. By doing resistance exercises which force muscles to contract as hard as they can, the number of contractile filaments in the muscle cells increase, causing muscle cells to enlarge and consequently your muscles become bigger. Also, by exercising more, the number of capillaries (blood vessels) in muscles increases - this allows an increased supply of oxygenated blood, helping the muscles go for longer and improving endurance.

And who is to say these athletes are beyond limits? Our human bodies have evolved through hunter/gatherer times, but now modern lifestyles have evolved faster than our bodies – we now live in a world where we sit at a desk all day, sit in our cars as we drive home only to sit in front of the TV set with our dinner. Our bodies evolved with the requirements to hunt and gather – for example, we have evolved opposable thumbs, which were useful for using tools required to catch our dinner. However, it is our intellect itself which has vastly increased through time, leading to our modern lifestyle vs. old-design bodies. So perhaps these athletes are using their bodies the way they are intended to be, which is a view that makes me for one feel terribly unfit!

Now, remember to
think positive...

But as I say, being an athlete is not as simple as training. It is also the state of mind which plays a huge role. I was surprised to hear of sports psychologists commenting on Olympic athletes, for example, I heard a BBC commentary saying that Tom Daley would use his father’s memory to spur him on in the second round. I initially thought little of this, but in fact sports psychologists are of huge importance to some athletes, helping to reduce stress, anxiety and improve overall performance. Olympic athletes have a different mental state which allows them to achieve better – they have competitiveness, dedication and passion for their sports. Have you ever heard of a gold medalist who wasn’t overly interested in their sport and didn’t care about winning? The mind is as important as the muscles in my opinion.

So, hopefully that’s explained and explored some of the reasons why and how Olympians are the best of their field. I think, from a more philosophical view, that we should use the Olympics and our athletes as inspiration - we have united as British - community spirit is in the air, and we see what hard work and dedication can achieve. I for one feel like going out and doing something sporty, and although I know I will never be a serious athlete, to have a passion for your sport is a great thing, to belong and be part of such an activity is a privilege many more of us should enjoy.

References

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/exercise/2_exercise_effectsoftraining_rev1.shtml

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-exercise-make-yo http://www.sportspsychologist.com/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463712d.html

The NHS - A reason to moan or celebrate?

The celebration of the NHS at the 
Olympics opening ceremony

With the Olympics opening ceremony last night, many of us were feeling proud to be British. And what I found delightfully refreshing was our celebration of the National Health Service, the NHS. These three little letters that have come under a huge amount of abuse over the years. The NHS is inefficient, unorganised and is a waste of time are the commonly heard spiels from the daily mail. But I really want to question this. Is the NHS actually as bad as the media makes out? 


I personally would argue that the NHS is at its best in treating emergencies and accidents. If you chop your arm off, you will be rushed to hospital, treated, and your life will be saved. I would argue that it is the GP side of healthcare which causes the NHS frustration - and often not at the fault of the GPs. The GP is the port of call to assess your health and if necessary refer you on to the right people for the right treatment - e.g. specialist assessments, MRI scans and so on. These referrals can take many weeks, and if you have a health grumble, this is time that you are not at your best and this can be an agonizing wait for many.


Then again, how can we slate a free system that will save our life in an emergency with efficiency and offer us the services and skills of hard working, frankly, amazing people... because we have to wait 6 weeks for a referral? I think this may also be down to perspective - if you expect the NHS to deliver a guaranteed solution to your health problem in a short time, you will be let down. Do we just have unrealistic expectations of the NHS?

The celebration of the NHS at the
Olympics opening ceremony

Then there is the private sector - having experience working in this area myself, I feel there is a strong vibe that those in a position of wealth who are able to afford private services are increasingly taking it up, often due to frustration with the NHS. People in the middle earnings who would perhaps before have used the NHS are sacrificing a larger proportion of their income than before for their health. And the thing is, I cannot fault private clinics - they eliminate a proportion of the population from using the NHS, which in turn saves the NHS time and resources leaving more for the majority of us who would not afford private healthcare.

Plus, the private sector is undoubtedly more efficient - I would personally advise people to save some money away in case a time arises when you need a treatment or referral done quickly and efficiently as the private sector is much faster than the NHS and if I were to ever need masses of medical treatment I know I would prefer to go private - who wouldn’t? But the private sector is just that - private. It is no different from HSBC or Tesco in terms of business. Private clinics generally offer health assessments - no symptoms needed, but a full health check for a large sum of money. Now, in some cases, things are picked up and lives potentially saved - but for others, hypochondrias causes people to spend their hard earned money on such assessments to be told they are completely fine, which again although reassures, may not be the best way to spend your dosh.

The media are a huge culprit in our lack of faith in the NHS. I know I am like a broken record with my general dislike for the media but the papers never report on 'middle aged man had a heart attack, he was efficiently taken to hospital, taken straight to theatre, had an operation which saved his life, in recovery where he is being attended to by friendly and helpful staff' No. All we see is - 'The GP missed it even though I told them it was cancer' 'Old woman had to wait 10 weeks for a referral' 'GP thought meningitis was the flu'. I think even the most efficient systems have incompetency’s from time to time, so looking at the NHS which is on such a large scale there will be such inefficiencies. And by reporting the worst cases to the world and victimizing doctors and healthcare professionals who make a slip up, the media does not only shake our faith in the NHS, but also encourages the idea that people are wronged by bad service and have the right to sue doctors. This in turn causes doctors to treat people with one eye over their shoulder - extra precautions are taken which can save lives, but can also waste NHS time and money.

Are the government the problem, not the NHS?

A further point is the government - the picture to the right here shows the governments actions have the potential to 'destroy' the NHS - so perhaps it is the government who we should blame, not the NHS. Is it the people working in the NHS who are responsible for the flaws, faults and inefficiencies, or is it the few at the top of the pyramid who oversee things on a larger scale, and set often unrealistic and detrimental targets? GPs, for example, have targets for the amount of referrals they make - and if they keep their referral numbers below this target they receive a financial bonus - so the government tries to discourage GPs referring with cash incentives? Therefore people with borderline problems may not be referred, indirectly due to the government not only rewarding targets, but by putting immense pressure on surgeries and hospitals to meet them.

For all the moaning about the NHS, I would say this is not constructive. The NHS will never meet our expectations - with the whole population to please this simply will never happen. We will look to neighbor countries and say why we aren’t like that, like the jealous child wanting better than what they have. I am by no means staying the NHS is perfect, believe me I’m not, the media may twist things but they do not fabricate stories from nowhere - people are dying while they wait on a list, and others are treated terribly. And I do understand the personal frustration if one has a medical problem and feels they have not been treated as they should. But what I am saying is that so many lives are saved by so many people who go into work day in and day out and really make a difference to the people they help. The NHS isn’t perfect, but it’s the system we have. We should celebrate the success, not dwell on the flaws.

But what do you think? Tweet me @Human_Interests or visit facebook.com/humaninterests.

Interesting reads
http://nhslocal.nhs.uk/blogs/jessica-arrowsmith/2011/03/why-nhs-one-best-healthcare-systems-world

One small step for Robot, one giant leap for Humankind

Technology...where would we be without it? Many of us live in a world where a smart phone is a vital organ and internet access is our oxygen. With the Paralympics fast approaching, we are seeing many athletes on our screens with prosthetic limbs that allow them to hop, skip and jump like any other. And the good news is that the technology is constantly developing to help people with otherwise limiting disabilities live like any other. This got me thinking about the impact of technology on our lives and the potential areas in which it can influence us as humans. So after a bit of research, I'm going to share with you three recent interesting advances in the general area where robot meets human.

1. Making the limited human unlimited

This is the robot which was
controlled by the mind of a student

Just this week,  researchers made the first successful thought-controlled robot avatar...pretty awesome.  So how did it work? Well, the team used fMRI to scan the brain of a university student as he imagined moving different parts of his body - the scanner measured changes in blood flow to the brains primary motor cortex, which the team used to distinguished between each thought of movement. The long term aim is to create an avatar that would allow people who are unable to move but fully concious (known as locked in) to interact with the world using this surrogate body. Although this is still said to be a long way off, this advance is still amazing. The student was able to control the robot with his thoughts, while a camera on the robots head allowed him to see from the robots view. He could imagine moving his legs to make the robot walk forward and could also turn 30 degrees to the left or right. 

2. Increasing our understanding of the human body

The robot legs

Again, just this week US scientists developed the most biologically accurate 'robot legs' yet. These legs arn't intended to be used by humans, but were made to help improve our understanding of the mechanisms of walking, which could impact on people with spinal damage that has limited or inhibited their ability to walk. These legs have a replicated nerve cell network in the lumbar region of the spinal cord to generate muscle signals. Previous robotic models mimic human movement, where as this one actually mimics the human control mechanisms (ie nerves) that drive the movement by stimulating muscles. This could provide a new way to understand the link between problems with control of the nervous system and problems with walking. 

3. A robotic impact on the human arts

Believe it or not this is
Geminoid-F, a robot actor.

In what I feel could be the most interesting development, robot personalities are evolving. Robot actors and comedians have been created in different parts of the world, which questions the impact robots could have in the area of the arts -  laughter, emotion and entertainment. Realistic human models have been made and combined with robotics to form realistic human-appearing actors - this works well as the robots can deliver exact lines at exact times/when prompted. However, this has been taken even one step further. A robot comedian has been made which tells particular jokes, measures the laughter response of the audience and tells more jokes based on the type of humour the audience enjoys - clever huh? This raises the question of the potentials for robots in arts, entertainment and even providing emotional support for humans.

So there you go. Three interesting technological advances making life better for the human. But there is always debate around technology - is too much of it a good thing? Will technological advances lead to a lazy world where human health will deteriorate whilst sitting in front of a 3D television, or will it provide us with advances like those above which could actually improve our health and well being? Personally, I air on the side that technological advances do more good than they do harm, with the benefits outweighing the negative effects. But what do you think?

References

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528725.900-robot-avatar-body-controlled-by-thought-alone.html?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18724114

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827920.400-robot-robot-wherefore-art-thou-robot.html