Health Myths Busted! :D

Hello there, readers. Thought I might provide you with a useful article this week. I provide this service so that you people that believe everything you hear will think again and be enlightened. =] I’ll go through some common health myths and reveal them to be common misconceptions… or not. Don’t ask me where they come from, cos hell if I know. :P Enjoy! 

Butter Vs Margarine Arguments: Constant updates on these two foodstuffs confuse the public, particularly because of the comments contradict what was said a few years before. Naturally, the more we investigate food, the more we know about them and the benefits/dangers of consuming them. This argument, however, is starting to drag. Allow me to make it easier for you to decide.

• Firstly, both of them are bad for you in excess. Both contain roughly the same amount of calories. Both contain fats, they’re just different types of fats in each. Butter contains dairy fat, whilst margarine contains vegetable fats. Reducing the amount consumed of both of these products is the healthiest option. =] 
• Butter is a natural product, only containing a few ingredients (ideally only milk and salt). The fats in butter are therefore completely natural, and not hydrogenated like some margarine is (see below for more on this). Some would argue that it tastes better, too. I wouldn’t know, I don’t touch either. 
• On the negative side, butter has higher cholesterol levels and high levels of saturated fats, which can raise low-density lipoproteins (LDL) cholesterol levels. 
• Margarine, however, is cholesterol free, and is lower in saturated fats than butter. It also contains low levels of mono- and polyunsaturated fats, which are healthier than saturated fats. 
• On the negative side, in order to make the product semi-solid at room temperature, the margarine goes though a process called hydrogenation, where hydrogen atoms are added to the molecules of the vegetable fats. This produced ‘trans-fats’, which the body treats as saturated fats. This makes margarine just as fatty as butter, really, and just as unhealthy. 
• Thankfully for margarine, some manufacturers make non-hydrogenated products, such as Flora.proactiv and Benecol, which not only have no trans-fats, but also contain stanols or sterols which block cholesterol absorption by the body. Olivio is made with olive oil, which contains essential fatty acids (good for you :D). 

To conclude, both are bad for you, and both are good for you. Eat them in small amounts, and you won’t die early of heart disease. I’m talking to you, the one that smothers their toast with butter or marg? Quit it. :P 

Re-using plastic water bottles causes cancer: I know exactly where this came from. It started with a student at the University of Idaho writing a Master’s Thesis. Yeah, this was a hypothesis, and now it’s all over the place. Didn’t even get peer-reviewed. Allow me to shed some light on the subject.

• The idea is that over time, a chemical found in plastic that they make plastic bottles from will break down and contaminate your water, causing cancer in the drinker’s body. This break-down is accelerated when it’s kept in a warm environment (e.g. in the car). 
• The plastic they make the bottles from (Polyethylene terephthalate or PET) doesn’t contain the supposed carcinogenic (cancer-causing) chemical (Diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). It is not used as a raw material in it’s production.
• Even if it were present, DEHA is not carcinogenic, and has been cleared by several health organisations.

One health concern with re-using plastic bottles is bacterial and fungal growth. Bottles should be washed out and cleaned thoroughly between uses. ;)

Boiling water in the microwave - Bad idea? Here’s the myth. Placing water in a container and popping it in the microwave to boil results in an eruption of superheated water when picked up, and scalding of the skin of the holder. Let’s look into this. 

• Water boils at 100C, which water can easily reach in a microwave. If the receptacle (container) the water is in has no scratches/imperfections to act as a nucleation point (an area that bubbles will be produced), the water will reach and pass the 100C mark without boiling, and is therefore “superheated”. This superheated water will, once disturbed or agitated, boil as it normally would, normally in an explosive manner. 
• As I have mentioned, this will only happen if there is nowhere for the bubbles to form (nucleation point). This means that if there are any imperfections in  the container, it won’t happen. If there are impurities in the water, this won’t happen. Basically, it will only happen with distilled/purified water in a non-scratched container. 

 So, to conclude, if you want to boil some distilled water you have lying around in a container with no imperfections or scratches on the inside, then I would advise against it. However, heating up gravy or milkshake or anything like that should be fine. 

That’s all for now, folks. I may well do more of these in time. Please comment or click on the “Your Two Cents” link at the top to ask for verification on other health myths. 

Good day to you all.

Dan - Sh1n0bi14 

Politics? Yeah, politics. =]

Okay, this post has been meaning to come out for a while. And I won't lie to you and say that it's not a rant. Because it is. Not just any old rant, oh no. A rant on far-right bullshit. >:D

I've been reviewing the situation (da da da da daa) on the seemingly-endless war between the EDL (English Defense League), the Muslim community, and the Anti-Fascism forces of the country. And I'm not pleased about how it's going. As some of you may know, I have supported the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) on a counter-demonstration they held in Cardiff to push off the EDL/WDL. It was fun, and I learned what a peaceful demonstration looks like. I've also been onto the English Defense League website and tried to look at it through their eyes. And I have, with this, drawn some conclusion. Let me share these conclusions with you. 

1) Peaceful demos will not exist when both of these groups are near each other: I have seen first hand that the UAF groups can hold a peaceful demo. And I'm sure that, if they put their minds to it, the EDL could too (although I am yet to hear of one). But sparks fly when these two groups have their "Demo Battles"; two opposing groups both holding demonstrations/marches against each other in the same town/city. Even if it started peaceful, anger would soon build up. Face it, one side is chanting something the other side doesn't want to hear. It's gonna happen. And once it does, BOTH SIDES can boil over and forget the peaceful aspect. Then it's just a street-war that our police have to control, at the cost of the taxpayer. 

2) The EDL doesn't know what it's like: As previously mentioned, I have read through the EDL mission statement and other information. They outrightly say that they are not non-Muslim, they are simply against Muslim extremists. And they are all for peaceful protest, and yet they can't keep their chants clean or bottles in their hands. The English Defense League is, when read on paper, a reasonable idea. Who likes Muslim extremism? No one does. Who likes any type of extremism? But they NEVER limit themselves to just attacking the extremist ideas. They harass anyone they think may be Muslim, as if they think that anyone that quite likes the idea of Islam will be trying to take over the government, or building bombs in their basement. Unless they can cool it, and limit their hooliganism, they will always be perceived as the bad guys. 

3) The streets are not the place: Not only does it scare the public when groups of angry people shout slogans of race hate on the roads like it's their new Third Reich or something, but it also solves nothing. What are the EDL demonstrations trying to prove? Sometimes I do wonder...

Actually, now I mention the Third Reich, it does sound awfully familiar, does it not? Ya know, "One People" and all that. I mean, much like the Muslim extremists, we must not judge the many by the acts of the few. But what if there are Neo-Nazis in the EDL, hiding beneath the banner of "we're not a racist group"? Scary thought, but one that should be looked into. 

I dunno, I guess I'm just scared. Scared that the actions of Muslim extremists has shattered the chances of having a society where multiculturalism is embraced, and where there is no discrimination or mistrust against our brothers and sisters of a different race or religion. The hate, mistrust, discrimination and fear that these groups spread are all that is stopping that, in my eyes. 

Review: 'Gnomeo and Juliet' and 'Tangled'.

Okay, so it's not like I'm five years old, or anything. I just thought I'd take a break from serious films, and go all light-hearted and kiddy for a while. So, when I wasn't grounded by my mum or playing with Lego, I decided to see a film or two with the girlfriend (ewwww... girls). These films ended up being 'Gnomeo and Juliet' and 'Tangled', both animated productions. After watching them, I thought I might tell you all what I thought about them. Now read on, or I'll give you a dead leg. ;) First off, it's Gnomeo and Juliet.

'Gnomeo and Juliet'


This film, directed by Kelly Asbury, is based on good ol' Bill Shakespeare's classic tragedy 'Romeo and Juliet', as the name suggests. Replace the cast with gnomes, and cut out the really nasty bits, and there you have it. But if I must give a rough synopsis, here it is: Two households (of gnomes), both alike in dignity, in fair Verona (Drive) where we lay our scene. We have the Montague gnomes (The Blues) and the Capulet gnomes (The Reds). As you expect, there's some ancient grudge going on between the two families, not only involving the gnome residents, but also involving the feuding inhabitants of the houses themselves, Miss Julie-Walters Montague and Mr Richard-Wilson Capulet. Gnomeo finds Juliet when wondering about doing nothing in particular, they fall in love, and try their best to stay in love when their corresponding family members want to kill each other. The plot tries to stick to the Shakespearean story line as much as possible without making it really sad and emotionally deep, including the kerfuffel between Benvolio, RoGnomeo and Tybalt, and the truce between the two houses at the end. It's a story of love, vengence, hatred and forgiveness, and all ends in a eyebrow-raisingly happy finale. 


Right, now for the good bit.


I wouldn't say I hated it, because in all honesty I did not. It was nice to watch it, and it makes you feel happier than you were before you watched it. But it's not good enough to make you think "God, I'm really glad I watched that". In fact, instead of watching the film, just go out for a night out to the pub or to dinner or something. That way, you won't be left feeling like you could have used the money/time more wisely. My first issue with this film is the idea of it's birth. I want to know which came first, the idea for the movie, or the movie's name? Because I would bet a limb that the name came before any plot ideas. And that is backwards. Allow me to explain what I mean. I think a guy was trying to come up with an idea for a movie with gnomes in it (after all, Disney have thought of every other outcome, using people and creatures, I guess inanimate objects are next on the list). After a while, he had a 'Eureka' moment. BAM! Gnomeo and Juliet. Job done. Kettle on. Then he just dished out the roles of the characters from the play to his army of clay comrades and the job was a guddun. Although, surely the idea is to spend ages coming up with a really nice story and then eventually deciding on a name after your months/years of writing the story have ended. Or am I just old fashioned? ;:)


Secondly, there's the comedy. Tell me, my beloved readers, have you seen the trailer to this film? If the answer is no, then I suggest you do so. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_5nEAM7yw. If the answer is yes, then you have seen all the decent comedy. All the good stuff is in the trailer, which leaves the rest of the film for interval time between the funny bits. Now THAT'S a movie I wanna see. ¬__¬ Or not. Without a notable funny element to it, it runs a tad dry, especially with all the stiff competition out there (we seem to be in an animated movie Renaissance at the moment). So on this aspect, it falls short.


The plot is not even worth mentioning, being a gnome version of my favourite Shakespearean play. The plot is Bill's. The visuals are okay, and are as you'd expect from modern CGI. There are some scenes that are good in 3D, but not enough to pay the extra. No, no. This film is for people that like friendly animated productions, such as kids, old women and people that refuse to grow up. These people have no need for substance in a film; just give them a happy ending, and they're gay as Christmas. Sadly, that is not me, and so it missed the mark here. But I'm sure some will really enjoy it. 


In summary, the film is okay to watch, but it's not unmissable. If you've read/seen R+J, it's painfully easy to know what happens next, which makes it more boring than it needs to be. The comedy is a joke, but can be forgiven. 


Feel-Good Factor: 8/10
Story: 4/10
Visuals: 7/10
Humour: 5/10
Soundtrack: 7/10
Final Mark: 6.5/10 (Saved from the <5 mark by Elton John's music on the soundtrack).






'Tangled'


I am a Disney fan. Who isn't? The animation and the ever-sweet musical numbers take us back to the days where we had nothing better to do than to watch 'Pocahontas' or 'Beauty and the Beast' on VHS. Nostalgia is a beautiful thing, and apparently Disney have noticed this too. Their new baby, 'Tangled' is a movie that tells the often-forgotten tale of Rapunzel, a tale by the Brothers Grimm. A bit of related trivia for you: According to the LA Times, Tangled is the most expensive animated film created to date, and the second most expensive film EVER. How about that, eh? So here's the story. A girl with hair embodied with rejuvenating and reviving powers from the Sun is kept up in her tower by an old woman, posing as her mother. She uses her hair to keep herself young. A thief crosses Rapunzel's path whilst trying to escape capture, and they end up going on a journey to find Rapunzel's real mother and father (unbeknown to our characters, the King and Queen of the land). That is a VERY brief synopsis, okay? 


Okay. 


I was hoping that this movie would fill me with the same nostalgia that I get from watching older Disney films, or visiting my home town of Nuneaton, or playing with those gooey alien-in-a-pod-with-funky-jelly-stuff-inside things. I was hoping that I'd want to find songs from the soundtrack afterwards on YouTube because I liked them so much. I was hoping that I'd be able to write a positive review, singing Tangled's praises until your eardrums could take no more. Fortunately, it did make me feel this way. Let me make a claim. I think that 'Tangled' is one of the best films I have ever seen. It was put together masterfully. The funny bits were really funny, the sad bits were really sad, and the whole thing flowed beautifully. This... this is like old Disney with better visuals. The characters are REALLY likeable, the story is classic, with some twists to avoid making it predictable. The soundtrack is as good as any top Disney film (Lion King - eat your heart out), with beautifully-written songs that may well prove to be timeless. And the ending... well, I won't spoil anything. But let's just say that I'm still smiling after two weeks. ;)


I hardly need a summary for this review. If you do like Disney, go and see 'Tangled'. If you don't, give it a try anyway. I think it has enough going for it to be able to ride along all on it's own without the need for the Disney tag stabilisers. It's an awesome movie in it's own right. I think I might go and see it again. ^__^


Feel-Good Factor: 10/10
Story: 8/10
Visuals: 9/10
Humour: 9/10
Soundtrack: 9/10
Final Mark: 9.5/10

New Year's Eve... Oh joy.

It's a shame that the Christmas period has to come to a close. Three months of build-up, and after the season has disappeared faster than Sour Cream and Onion Pringles, it leaves you feeling like you missed the opportunity to celebrate it fully. So what now? Christmas is gone for another year, only the decorations remain (showing how stubborn we are as a nation for letting Christmas go). Everyone's on a downer. After all, work and school start soon, as well as all the responsibilities that come with them. Early rises are normal again, and there aren't as many films on TV. We begin to think about taking the Christmas tree down (it has to be done some time...) and the distant relatives have left for another year. Is there any way to rid ourselves of this melancholy? Oh yes. Not only that, but it'll finish off that excess booze you had lying around too. ¬__¬

Some might not like to hear this, but New Years Eve... is stupid. I could go on and on about why this is, but I'm gonna limit myself. After all, I'm sure you're either getting ready to celebrate now, or are recovering from a hangover. So I'll get on with it. 

Firstly, as anyone that can read this should know, the year is actually a circle. Just the same cycle repeating itself. Funny things, circles. We used them for transport when we learned that they roll much easier than other shapes. We also use it as a letter, and to represent nothingness. More importantly, however, a circle has no beginning. So why should we celebrate this day? Simply because it represents the start of the Gregorian calendar? Beats me. 

Maybe this is less to do with people 'letting old acquaintance be forgot' and celebrating the start of a new year, and more to do with a desire to keep the parties going. After all, the next day worth celebrating after Boxing Day (or 'Visit-People-I-Hardly-Ever-See Day' as I so aptly refer to it as) would be Valentines Day, as some people don't even like that. No, I propose the idea that people are simply celebrating for the point of celebrating. And with this comes another point. 

If people simply celebrate on the 31st of December as an excuse to have a laugh and booze it up, then what's with the silly traditions that have to be maintained? Traditions such as the counting down of the seconds to midnight, followed by the well-rehearsed chorus of 'Auld Lang Syne' (which generally features more murmuring than singing) should be cast away as archaic symbols of a society that actually cared. 

Really, my rant is not about people enjoying themselves on the 31st of December. Honestly, after all the celebrations from the past week or so, we need a good party. ;) No, my rant is aimed at those who will believe that we do all this because it's the start of a new year, because that is where they are wrong. Maybe once ago, in the not too forgotten past, we would drink and be merry to wish goodbye to the year that has passed, and embrace the new year with open arms. Sadly, the world has moved on from that, which is what will always happen. Call it evolution. No, the only embracing that will be happening this evening will be friends supporting each other, both trying to keep balance in an inebriated state, and moaning about how much of a bitch 2010 was. 

...Oh, and maybe a frisky embrace from the stranger at midnight. Watch out, ladies. 

As for me, I'll be enjoying myself tonight in the company of friends. And when the countdown commences, and 2010 waves goodbye, I'll be happy to stay sat down and think "It's just like any other day". Although if you do sing Auld Lang Syne... try to keep each other in time. 

To the whole world, I'll catch ya on the 2011 side. And have a guddun tonight. 

Dan - Shinobi14.

Quote of the day: "Time is free, but it's priceless. You can't own it, but you can use it. You can't keep it, but you can spend it. Once you've lost it, you can never get it back".  -Harvey MacKay