Here at the University of Minnesota, we always see those bins with designated openings for newspapers, trash, bottles and cans, and the like. It makes us feel good when we put our diet Coke bottle into the “bottles and cans” hole, and we feel like we patted Mother Nature on the back today. We pride ourselves in being sustainable and recycling our leftovers, but how much of an impact are we really making?

Every few years or so, a story always surfaces with claims that recycling isn’t doing much good at all. These stories have quotes from experts, and statistics scattered all over the article. They say: recycling wastes more energy than it would to just throw things away. The square footage of landfills wouldn’t change that much in 1,000 years anyway. The waste produced by recycling comes in the form of a goopy sludge that can runoff into lakes, streams and oceans; harming native species there. Another, perhaps shocking revelation is that recycling paper does nothing to save trees. The energy it takes to remove the harmful ink is wasted on such a task. Besides, tree farmers plant enough trees every year to make up for the paper that is recycled.

Then again, there are those who say that recycling is doing a lot for the environment and it is much better than doing nothing at all. With all this ecological and economical talk, it’s difficult to keep the story straight. So what is the truth?

Actually, there is truth to both arguments. While it does take some energy to process recycling, it isn’t as much as some would like people to believe.

The Environmental Protection Agency states that recycling paper requires 40 percent less energy than it would to make paper from “virgin wood,” as they call it. It’s the same across the board with other materials. Recycling aluminum requires 218 fewer gigajoules (that’s an SI unit of energy measuring mechanical work, heat and electricity) per ton than collecting and using “virgin” materials. Recycling greatly reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a ratio of 1:2. For every one pound of recycling, there is only two pounds of CO2 emissions, a substantially lesser number than other methods of waste disposal and resource harvesting.

When done right, recycling can make a difference. Rachel Horstman, a staff member at the University’s Como Recycling Facility lays down the basic process.

First, the recycling is gathered from the many posts around campus and then shipped off to the Como facility where it is sorted into the usual categories: newspaper, cans, bottles, etc. This step is obviously crucial to the entire process. There are many people who do not pay much attention to what they throw where. About 30 percent of the daily intake at the facility is non-recyclable contaminants, which also must be sorted through and separated. From there, the passable recyclables are processed on campus and then shipped off to be recycling at other facilities in Minnesota and around the country.

“Recycling is not the best option for saving our planet,” says Horstman, “Reducing our waste would be the first step.”

Consumers today produce a huge amount of waste, ranging from electronic parts to plastics. From excessive and un-recyclable packaging to just buying too many wasteful items, people feed into the market and produce without thinking. “We consumers need to have a different outlook,” Horstman says. “Marketers will not change until we demand it.” Meaning, until we refuse to use products that are harmful to the environment, the money mongers won’t care and won’t change.

Suddenly, there it is: money. Money is at the center of this mind-boggling enigma.

One problem for recycling which Horstman cites is that people are unwilling to pay the expense to develop new ways to reduce waste. The recycling process isn’t cheap, especially nowadays with the questionable economy. Where it used to cost $60 to recycle a ton of materials, it now costs $150, with the price ever rising. The University processes over 3000 tons of recycling every year. That’s a lot of money. Recycling programs rarely make a profit; and with the seemingly eternal build up of human waste, it is questionable if recycling can even make a dent.

So while the question of, “is recycling worth it?” will always hang over our heads, we need to turn our eyes to a similar, yet weightier matter. Whether you recycle or not, you should make the conscious effort to reduce the amount of unnecessary waste, which hopefully will reduce the need for recycling. As for now, this is all there is. We just need the money and motivation to look towards other and perhaps better ways of erasing our significant toxic footprint on Earth.

Doubts about the efficacy of recycling are well documented. Certainly recycling shouldn’t be our only defense against the consumption devil within every one of us. Throwing the debris of our overactive consumerism into a plastic bin isn’t going to single-handedly preserve the world. Relying solely on recycling is just a convenient excuse not to change our lifestyle. Reusing invites us to think more creatively about how to be small-scale conservationists. It also is more effective than recycling because it helps dry up the waste stream. Furthermore, it preserves the energy originally used in creating an item. The following are eight clever ways of reusing the mistaken garbage in your life:

1. The dangers of refilling plastic water bottles for drinking doesn’t exclude other uses: make a coin container. Painters use them as a water jar.

2. Too selfish or creative to donate your clothes? Hack them into new shapes and sew them together as a quilt! Sew together swatches of your cut-up clothes to make a large sheet. Make two sheets with the same measurements. Sew the sheets together on three sides. Fill the inside with something that gives the quilt some padding. Sew the last side shut and you’re done! An environmentally friendly sleeping buddy. Now you can brag to your friends about how artsy you are.

3. Use blank CD spindles as storage containers. You can cut off the rod in the middle to create more space. One online devotee to reusing even claims the spindles will keep away flies (now I really wonder about that smell…). Remove the clear plastic cover and set the black remainder in fly infested areas to test this idea out.

4. Screw fancy Chip-Clips! Reuse the twist-ties that seal your groceries to keep your snacks fresh for less money. Collect a stockpile of these overlooked fresh-savers from the packaging of bread loaves.

5. Keep extension cords organized with toilet paper rolls. Once you have finished a roll, use the cardboard cylinder to contain those wayward cords by sliding the cords through the tube.

6. Don’t toss shabby old toothbrushes. Scrub your nasty toilet instead!

7. Save the newspaper and wrap gifts in them; like Uncle Ronnie used to. The comics are more fun than the wrapping paper for which you threw your money away, anyway!

8. A never-ending memo pad! Write in pencil and erase your markings. Brand new! Reuse the same piece of paper multiple times.

If high school is the best time of your life, then what is college? You go to class, go to the library, work if you have a job, stay up late, pass out from exhaustion then repeat it all. Everyday. The weekends offer a brief intermission–one where academia–more often than not, is replaced with raucous dance parties or impromptu beer fests. Unfortunately, this is only a temporary relief with detrimental effects to your well-being. Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy the warmth that a few good beers provide, but I also realize the importance of a healthy lifestyle, for mind and body.

Luckily, there are options for those of us who need a respite from such chaos; one that will soothe your tensions, calm your manic thoughts and offer repose from the hectic ways of the world. It’s called yoga, and while many believe this practice to be an uncomfortable experience of awkward twisting and spacey dialogue, those willing to attend walk away feeling rejuvenated, both spiritually and physically.

Ever since I’d heard about the free yoga classes held at Boynton, I’d been meaning to go to one and see if it was something I’d be willing to allot time for in my crazy schedule. As it turns out, I found myself penciling the times of the classes into my calendar as soon as I got home. The class began with calming techniques, involving slow movement and full body relaxation. The instructor had soft music playing as you followed her gently spoken directions on how to stretch the tense areas of your body and loosen the knots caused by stress. Certain positions, such as the Extended Child and Table, are the base poses that allow you to center your thoughts and regain your balance before doing the more complicated or difficult positions. One such position requires an extreme amount of flexibility and that is the Handstand. It begins as the Dolphin pose, where you make an upside down “V” with your elbows and forearms as your balancing base and your feet in front of you. You then walk your legs toward your arms, closing the gap in the “V” until you can go no further; in which case you lift your legs, one by one, above your head and hold it there for as long as you can. If done correctly, your entire body’s weight will be on your forearms and in your shoulders. However, you should not feel any pain; instead, it is performed to calm your brain and relieve stress. Yoga has been associated with therapeutic concentration ever since it began.

Part of the therapeutic nature of yoga is the last pose of the session, which is centered on deep relaxation. This is called the Corpse pose. A daunting name, yet descriptive of what it entails. Basically, when all is said and done, this pose symbolizes the “death” of stereotyped body image and allows you to be completely one with yourself. It takes many years to achieve full effects of this pose, but I’m sure it’s a very tranquilizing experience. Throughout the class but most specifically at the end, it is as if your body has taken a deep breath of air and exhaled it all at once. You are completely content. Your mind, while still racing with thoughts, has taken a step back and is watching those thoughts from a third person’s view. Not to say they’re meaningless or unimportant, but they have now become objects of introspection or worries that appear manageable rather than incomprehensible and unfocused.

Studies at the U have shown that exercising regularly can improve your grades, so why not exercise in a way that is both relaxing and reenergizing? Give yourself a break and stop by Boynton for one of their free yoga classes, or get a FitPass from the Rec Center to take the variety of yoga classes that they offer. Your body will thank you.

Boynton classes are held in room W120,. Monday 12-1 p.m. and 5-6 p.m., Tuesday and Wednesday 5-6 p.m., and Fridays from 12-1 p.m. The Rec Center’s group fitness schedule can be found online at www.recsports.umn.edu.

If everyone lived like me, we would need 3.82 planets of resources to be sustainable. This is severely disturbing and in fact quite disgusting. I had a very high food footprint compared to the national average, and I think this is because I eat out probably more than the average American. I’m not a vegetarian, I don’t buy organic and natural foods, and I eat at least two large meals a day. If I wanted to decrease my footprint in the most effective way possible, I would definitely have to start with my eating habits. Unfortunately, being a college student limits the amount of money you can spend on food as well as where you get it. I could start shopping for natural and organic foods, eat less meat, and most importantly of all buy local! I could also start turning off appliances more often because there is no need to have them on as much as I do. I have two power strips that I could turn off at night and when I’m not home or using them. This is just a start to listing off the things that I could easily do for our planet.

The U.S. has the largest average ecological footprint worldwide at 98.48 hectares per person. It is strikingly obvious that the U.S. consumes much more than its resources are capable of sustaining. As Al Gore says, “political will is a renewable resource.” In many respects we probably do not want to do things like less developed countries, but they do hold the framework for a more sustainable lifestyle.

The footprint sizes in hectares for the developing countries of Mexico and China are 23.14 and 12.46. People living in developing countries simply do not consume anywhere near the amount of waste that U.S. citizens do. For unfortunate reasons, they live more sustainably than any of the citizens in affluent countries do. What we can learn from them is how to use only what we need and the ability to understand that we are capable of living modestly, among other things.

Personally, I think doing an ecological footprint really opens your eyes to how much consumption takes place in our nation and how much we think we need to survive when we don’t. I learned that there are many things I can do to start living more sustainably. I need to change the way I shop for
food, what I consume in terms of food, be conscious of how much energy I use in my apartment, and limit my transportation via cars, buses, and planes. I am more motivated than ever before to begin changing my lifestyle. There are so many things we can do that hardly take any effort at all. Sustainability is feasible, and doing an ecological footprint is a good way to figure out where you are making the biggest impact; so go to myfootprint.org today and starting changing your
lifestyle!

We have all heard the basic ways to save energy, turn off the lights when leaving a room, shut down your computer when you’re not using it, etc.

So, what do you do if you are already a typical energy conserver and you want to do more? As college studenta most of us aren’t ready to buy our first Energy Star washer and dryer or insulate our living spaces; but we still have other options to help reduce the energy we use. Here are five easy ways to do more in the effort waste less.

1. As winter approaches, it is important to make sure that your thermostat is working correctly. If your thermostat is not, you could be overheating your home and wasting money. Also, every degree above 68 F can add up to three percent more energy needed to heat your house. If you have the cash, opt for a thermostat that can be programmed to adjust the temperature when you are asleep or away.

2. Everyone goes to the bathroom at least once a day, and with every flush you use anywhere from 1.3 gallons to 4 gallons of water. With the help of a plastic water bottle filled with rocks, you can save some of that water. According to the book Green Chic by Christie Matheson, adding a 16.9 oz
water bottle filled with rocks in your toilet tank you could save 16.9 gallons of water with 10 flushes. This works because the float value in the tank (the floating thing) monitors how much water is in the tank and stops filling up once it has reached the top. With the bottle in place, you are displacing
water so that you will not need as much.

3. Some lamps have two or more sockets for light bulbs. Instead of filling each socket, use just one higher wattage bulb rather than multiple smaller wattage bulbs. Four 25W bulbs do not equal the light a 100W bulb does; so just use a 100W bulb. If you can, replace the incandescent bulb with a compact
fluorescent one. A 25W compact fluorescent bulb is as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb.

4. Using a dryer 10 times a week can indirectly create more than 800 pounds of CO2. Not everything that is washed needs to go in the dryer. Invest in a sturdy drying rack. Not only does this save energy, but your room will smell like clean laundry.

5. Everyone has heard this before, but it’s no urban legend: make sure to unplug electronics or appliances when they are not in use. Use a power strip and all you will have to do is flip the switch when you want to turn all your electronics off. It may seem as though there is not much energy being wasted, but if everyone did this, a lot of energy would be conserved. Still searching for more ways to save energy? Join the Minnesota Energy Challenge. It takes five minutes to sign up-and once you do-the money and energy you save is added to the state’s total!

A gaunt, bald figure in a loose-fitting shirt and baggy plaid sweatpants posed in front of a camera with his new guitar. He grinned, in spite of the life-threatening tumor inside his abdomen. The tumor rotted cells throughout his body, absorbing the nutrients from his food and encasing his organs, trying to shut them down. Andrew Kippley, a 15-year-old youth from Farmington, Minnesota, had it tough for a teenager. While most teens his age dealt with high school, Andrew dealt with death itself, trying to prove he was tough enough to beat it twice.

Doctors diagnosed Andrew in May with neuroblastoma, a cancer usually found in infants. Andrew had previously beat neuroblastoma when he was two, yet his cancer resurfaced 12 years later. This time, Andrew faced a tougher battle as neuroblastoma is easier to treat in infants than young adults. His
odds grew worse when doctors at Children’s Hospital in St. Paul thought Andrew’s tumor was inoperable the first time they tried to operate on him. They put radioactive chemicals inside Andrew’s body during two rounds of chemotherapy trying to shrink the tumor while it pushed Andrew’s organs
out of place.

Andrew’s cancer wouldn’t disappear so easily. The tumor kept growing in spite of the chemo. Left with no other choice on July 29, 2008, Andrew once again underwent surgery to remove the tumor that threatened his life. For Andrew, it wasn’t about what happened if the surgery didn’t work. This was just another step to subdue his cancer. The surgery proved to be difficult; however, complications arose before the surgery started, during Andrew’s bowel preparation.

“First they gave me this [liquid], I don’t even know what it’s called, and that was completely disgusting and I couldn’t drink it,” Andrew says. “So they put in a feeding tube to pump it directly into my stomach. I threw it up through the tube, right back out of my stomach, so it was a complete loop out of my nose and out of my mouth. I didn’t like that so much.” Andrew’s difficulties got worse as the surgery began. Doctors worried over the amount of blood Andrew was losing and at one point considered stopping the surgery.

“They discussed pulling out being an option but they wanted to continue trying until it became dangerous for Andrew,” says Amber Kippley, Andrew’s mother.

They made the right decision. According to Don Kippley, Andrew’s father, the doctors told the Kippleys that Andrew’s tumor popped out of his body into the surgeon’s hands. At the time, doctors told the Kippleys they had removed about 95 percent of the tumor, later figuring they had removed about 90 percent. During the surgery, Andrew needed 21 units of blood in transfusions, or almost two adult bodies worth of blood. He stayed in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit overnight since his blood pressure had dropped too low for safety. He didn’t wake up from the surgery until the next day.

Even though Andrew still had tumors in his tailbone and spinal column, he had a better chance to beat his cancer than he ever did before. While Andrew spent a week recovering from his surgery, his family learned about other treatments for him, since chemotherapy wasn’t working.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia offered a treatment called MIBG therapy, or Metaiodo-benzylguanidine therapy. MIBG is a chemical used in scans of certain cancer patients. It is injected into the blood stream and gathers in certain types of tumors, including neuroblastoma tumors. A type of radioactive iodine, specifically I131, is combined with the MIBG to attack neuroblastoma tissue directly. Studies show it is one of the most effective treatments for patients who are treated for recurring cancer. If Andrew flew out to Philadelphia, his treatment would be monitored by Dr. John Maris, who is one of the world’s top experts in neuroblastoma. “We think that we had an opportunity to really help Andrew,” Maris says. “It is the most effective therapy we know of for patients in
relapse.”

The Kippley family agreed to the MIBG therapy, making the arrangements for Andrew and Amber to fly to Philadelphia for 12 days. Once in Philadelphia, they stayed at the Ronald McDonald house until it was time for Andrew’s MIBG therapy to begin. While there, doctors noticed a large amount of blood clotting in Andrew’s right leg, from hip to knee, something doctors in St. Paul didn’t find. This is the reason why Andrew’s legs would become “just monstrous,” during his chemotherapy rounds, Don says. After a week or so in Philadelphia, Andrew began his treatment on Aug 18, hoping to destroy his cancer for good.

Andrew spent his time at the hospital in a “typical” hospital room, as Amber described it. What’s typical for Andrew isn’t exactly typical for other hospital patients, however. The hospital rooms that MIBG therapy patients use at CHOP are covered by a one-fourth inch lead barrier, in order to prevent
radioactive contamination from spreading throughout the building. While much of the MIBG chemicals will collect in the tumor, most of the radioactive chemicals leave the body through urine, saliva, even oils off a patient’s skin. Three lead shields about three feet long surrounded Andrew’s bed, to prevent radiation from affecting anyone in the room with him. Everything in the room, including the bed, was wrapped in cellophane or plastic, according to Amber. In spite of the precautions, Andrew did much better with this treatment.

“It’s nothing like chemo,” Andrew says. “It’s not nauseating.”

Doctors placed the MIBG into two “huge” syringes, which are then placed into infusion pumps, which slowly releases the MIBG chemicals into the bloodstream through an IV. Andrew spent over two and a half hours receiving the chemicals. He then had to wait five days for the radioactivity to wear off,
staying in bed the entire time on doctor’s orders. His mother and a disposable cell phone kept him company during his five day wait. Amber had to wear a dosimeter, a device that monitors the amount of radiation a person receives, while spending time with Andrew. CHOP recommends parents who wish
to spend time with their son or daughter during MIBG treatment keep across the room from the bed their child is laying in. Of course, boredom set in quickly. At one point, mother and son threw things at each other while yelling, “contamination!” whenever somebody got hit.

Andrew left Philadelphia the day after the first round of his treatment was done, making an appointment for the next round of therapy in mid-October. He now had to visit the doctor twice a week, getting his blood counts checked each time and going through a physical once a week. If Andrew’s blood counts drop, he could face the same side effects affecting chemo patients like a weak immune system that could leave him susceptible to infections. Although it is common for an MIBG patient’s blood counts to drop during treatment, Andrew’s counts remained steady each week he’s visited the doctor since his first round of MIBG therapy.

Andrew would face a new challenge soon after his MIBG therapy. Amber was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the beginning of September after doctors found cysts on her ovaries. In spite of this latest tragedy for the Kippleys, they reacted as they always do. Andrew began bragging his tumor was bigger
than Amber’s and Amber bet Andrew her tumor was larger. They had practice taking bad news after all Andrew had gone through and something like Amber’s cancer diagnosis wasn’t going to affect them. “If we didn’t laugh so much we’d be crying all the time,” Don says.

Amber underwent surgery two weeks later to remove her cancer. Doctors discovered the tumor was benign while removing Amber’s ovaries, ensuring she would never again contract ovarian cancer and securing Andrew’s place as the only Kippley with cancer. Andrew did his part by staying with his mom during her surgery. “It was real important to him,” Amber says. “He wanted to take care of me like I took care of him. He was little Mr. Mom.”

Therefore, Andrew was one of the first people to know he’d lost the bet between him and Amber. While Andrew’s tumor was about three pounds at the most, Amber’s tumor doubled in size within the two weeks between her diagnosis and surgery. Her tumor weighed eight pounds when doctors removed it.

“I so kicked his butt,” Amber says. “He’ll try to argue and say, ‘Well mine bled more,’ but I so kicked his butt.”

Regardless of who won the bet, Andrew’s struggle with neuroblastoma won’t go away for a long time. Doctors aren’t sure if they can ever cure Andrew’s cancer. While the MIBG therapy appears to prevent the tumor from growing, Andrew will most likely never get rid of the cancer left in his spinal column
and tail bone, which means he’ll have to find other treatments that won’t affect his body like chemo or MIBG therapy. Of course, fighting cancer costs a lot of money, especially in tough financial times. Andrew has used up over half of a $1 million insurance policy thus far battling for his life.

Having cancer has its benefits, however. During his fight so far, Andrew has had the support of his community, a strong network of friends raising money for his treatment, and a lot of funny stories to share like “prowling the streets of Farmington” at night with his dad. He’s received a brand new guitar for free and even got an autographed picture of legendary musician BB King in the mail, thanks to his music teacher Randall Ferguson. Best of all, he’s still alive. Even though the future is uncertain for Andrew, he still has a few things to look forward to: bugging his mom for driver’s education lessons.

To keep up to date on Andrew’s battle with cancer, visit www.andrewkippley.com

Rich Americans spend countless hours using the technology to which we’ve so quickly become addicted. The current college-going generation is the first that grew up with electronics for the masses. As toddlers some of us were running around with gameboys in our hands. Now as university
students, it’s rare to find one of us that doesn’t claim our own computer, mp3 player, or cell phone. Personal electronics have become accessible enough for us to use them daily without even knowing their effects on health. Try this: Turn your iPod up to full volume and touch the ear buds together. When I showed my astronomy professor this he certainly didn’t think magnetism could be healthy so close to the brain. Many of the electronics we so readily use have health question marks underlining their legitimacy. Unfortunately, answers may be difficult to find. For example, the possible health consequences of computer and TV screens remain a mystery; even after rigorous investigation!

People have feared the damage potentially caused by Visual Display Terminals like computer and TV screens for a long time. Many have heard the annoyingly repetitive warnings not to sit so near the TV as children from concerned parents. Any user has felt dizzy after staring at a computer screen for
hours. Nearly 20 years ago, TIME was already asking, “Could your computer be killing you?” They discovered that magnetic field emissions were “ten times as high as those linked with cancer in children” when one sits four inches from the screen. Hopefully, people have the intelligence not to hold
their face that close to the computer. Still, it is a startling discovery. Pregnant mothers also have concerns. A multitude of pregnant women whose jobs involve working with VDTs reported miscarriages and birth defects in the late 1970s. The measured UV rays, X-rays, radio frequency fields, and static
fields surely beg for scientific investigation.

Surprisingly, the experts have confirmed very little. Richard S. Rosenberg, professor of Computer Science at Dalhousie University, claims in his book The Social Impact of Computers that
“the current medical opinion is that ‘most epidemiological studies suggest VDT work is not associated
with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.” A Wisconsin-Madison study found no significant evidence for job stress differences between VDT users and non-users. The IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation asserts that “neither laboratory nor epidemiological research has shown convincing evidence that the electromagnetic fields emanating from VDTs adversely affected the
health of VDT operators.” The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
further beats concerns into submission by concluding that any eye pain you may experience is only temporary and does not lead to long-term damage. The feared emission and radiation are all low-level
enough to be harmless. Most scientific investigation concurs.

However, Allan Rose claims in Human Stress and the Environment that “VDT work may be contributing” to mental health problems in VDT users. Workers overloaded with VDT use report greater job dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem. Those who spend a majority of their work time with VDTs have
“higher levels of catecholamine,” which suggests that VDT users take longer to unwind.” Others have suggested that a certain threshold of daily VDT use must be reached for psychological effects to exist. Nakazawa concludes that “mental and sleep related symptoms increase with VDT work of more
than five hours per day.” They also contend that “further study is needed” to confirm their results. To be sure, science is less than settled about whether VDTs are dangerous.

Even if the majority of scientific investigation finds nothing harmful about VDTs, the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” as Ralph Levinson, professor of ophthalmology at UCLA’s Jules Stein Eye Institute, points out. The disconcerting eye pain remains. Levinson asserts that a longitudinal study following users and non-users for decades is the only conclusive way to determine the existence of eye damage from VDT use. As of yet, this has not been conducted. The research group of miscarriages and birth defects as a result of VDT use in the workplace is unexplained. Certainly, the mental effects suggested by a small handful of studies merit an effort to limit our time in front of a screen. It seems that at present we computer dependent youth cannot rest easy, knowing how our habits will affect our health later in life.

In today’s technology-driven society, innovations are abounding. The presidential election is just around the corner and people have gotten so swept up in the intoxication of it all that they didn’t stop to think about what “presidentia strategies” really imply. Naturally, technology has become a
significant portal for politicians to use in marketing themselves. Many of you probably know what it means to get an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). These scans “visualize a structure and body” so that physicians can determine differentdetriments or assets to our vitality. Neuroscience has
especially been focusing on research centered around MRIs more recently; but now they use a different scan for the brain called an “fMRI.” An fMRI measures blood flow and determines when
brain cells release; resulting in the need for more oxygen to those parts of the brain. What you would see on the “brain map” of an fMRI would be the areas that need the most oxygen lighting up on the screen. If all of this is new to you, hold onto your hats because scientists have made such headway in this department within the last several years that fMRIs are being used for political and marketing purposes to determine what people think about the way a candidate looks as well as what words give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. We now have the capacity ahead of time to predict how an audience will react to contradictory, manipulated statements made by politicians. The findings are intriguing, but also frightening. Will this research overcome the human capacity for logical reasoning or will we trump those deep-pocket-funded machines?

Research on politics and the brain is not just simply a field devoted to neuroscience majors. Here at the University of Minnesota, my political science class “Political Psychology of Elite Behavior” has begun to discuss the effects this type of research is having on people and their political partisanship.
Last year during the primaries, fMRI studies were conducted to predict which candidates were more or less likely to make it to the big one. A few of the candidates who were used in experiments were Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.

Most Democrats (and probably a few Republicans) either adore Hillary Clinton or absolutely loathe her. Whether you claim to like her or not, the average fMRI for people who have previously stated that they detested her actually portrayed a brain scan that represented “conflict.” In this case, “conflict”
does not mean that they want to start a conflict with her; it means that they are conflicted about whether or not they actually hate her. So, if you are a self-proclaimed Hillary-hater, maybe underneath it all and when no one’s looking you really don’t mind her that much.

John Edwards is a renowned Democrat that most Republicans aren’t too fond of. Many Democrats profess their love for him on a daily basis; but according to fMRIs, it was no surprise that he lost the primaries. What came up as the average area of the brain that needed the most oxygen (indicates
the most work) in people who already don’t like Edwards was “disgust.” Hillary Clinton probably outlived Edwards because her opposing party didn’t harbor feelings of “disgust” towards her.

Another explanation for a failed nomination is found in the brain scan results for Mitt Romney. Yes, Mitt may be an alright looking fellow who is younger than a lot of the other Republican nominees were; but, he made people anxious. A candidate who induces “anxiety” among his voters will not be likely to go very far.

For the last of the sample of primary candidates, Fred Thompson definitely had potential. While Romney seemed to make people nervous, Thompson evoked their “empathy.” If people intellectually identified with Thompson, it’s surprising that he actually didn’t go further in the primaries.

Now, what I’m sure everyone has been wondering this entire time is: what are the results for Barack Obama and John McCain? Well, you may be surprised to find out that people returned pretty much
the same results on the fMRI scan for Obama as they did for McCain. What we learned was that no one felt particularly strongly about either of them; there was an overall “low response.” Does this mean that our two candidates running for president right now are simply the ones that no one has
a huge problem with? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we be scared for the future of the United States of America if we elect an individual that people just don’t have much of a reaction to?

My personal opinion on this matter is that we really shouldn’t be scared. We could look at it from a
pessimistic point of view and propose that this research is telling us that neither of our presidential
candidates evokes a good enough response from the nation. Will they fail to inspire and motivate their citizens? I don’t think so. The problem with the research isn’t necessarily the results that are spewed out, but what they mean.

What was eerie and ironic about the research that I have not yet mentioned is that the people, even in the face of contradictory evidence, stood by their candidates. Yes, even when they were blatantly shown two quotes from their candidate dictating completely different arguments, they didn’t change
their mind. They were in a state of denial. The studies did show that they were having emotional upheaval, however. They convinced themselves through rationalization (because they are apparently so deeply attached to partisanship) that although justifying their candidate’s contradictory remarks
may be unethical; remaining loyal was the only option.

Taking this into consideration, the future of eliminating partisanship looks grim: will people ever be able to think logically and rid themselves of the emotional attachment they have to their party and their party members? I hope it’s possible for the state of the economy as well as for the state of human
integrity.

With the development and utilization of fMRIs as they have been, it seems only inevitable that the results of this type of research will be a staple in mainstream businesses, local politicians, and advertisers before long. While this seems very exciting from a scientific and technological perspective,
we might ask ourselves where to draw the line? Isn’t it an infringement of our human rights for politicians and advertisers to use information that they know will automatically manipulate our minds to make us act or think in a way that they aim to control?

Frankly, this got me wondering which negative political campaign ads have used psychological manipulation methods and were they really effective? As you probably have seen on TV, ads sponsored by Norm Coleman attacking Al Franken are some of the worst. They were taken out of context, disgustingly repetitive, and simply vulgar. I’m not even a supporter of Al Franken and it just made me feel pitiful. Obviously Norm wasn’t using the most advanced methods for psychological advertising out there, but if these ads can evoke such an emotional response; who is to say ones based off fMRI research wouldn’t make us act on a whim? Many of these ads have been circulating between John McCain and Barack Obama recently, but I think they have also realized the negative effects that the audience has responded to, thanks to what little human integrity remains.

My point in bringing up all of this is that yes, neuro-politics/marketing and the mal-use of fMRI research can be frightening and disturbing when thinking about these types of things being able to control our thoughts and actions but will they really work? I am one of the few who still has a little bit of faith in the human race, and I think (as we can see through negative political ads that have backfired on the sponsoring candidate) we are probably smarter than is sometimes expected. Science and technology are powerful tools that are used on a regular basis in today’s society, but they have not become our downfall just yet. Politicians and advertisers will probably use this form of technology in the future and they’ll probably succeed to some extent; but intuition and logical reasoning will always be there at your disposal. My challenge to you is to always use integrity for the good of the present as well as for the good of the future.

Angelina Jolie did it—so did Johnny Depp and Princess Diana. According to recent research studies, between 10-20 percent of college students do it too. Self-injury is an increasing phenomenon in today’s young adult culture, but it’s often misunderstood.

According to the Mayo Clinic, the majority of those who self-injure are adolescents. Risk factors include depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders, and other mental health conditions. Victims of childhood trauma are especially likely to self-injure—those haunted by neglect or abuse often have an impaired ability to control their emotions and behavior.

A common misperception of self-injury is that those who commit it are suicidal. In reality, those who harm themselves are usually not trying to kill themselves, but instead trying to hold their lives together. Everyone has coping mechanisms to let out feelings of hurt, anger, and frustration: some go for a run, some write in their journal, and some throw a temper tantrum. Others, in silent secrecy, choose to take a blade to their skin. The sight of blood swirling down the drain can be as therapeutic to a cutter as a deep tissue massage; and the phrase, “it hurts so good” takes on a new, much more disturbing meaning.

There are many reasons that those who self-injure choose to hurt themselves. In her book A Bright Red Scream, Marilyn Strong writes that self-injury often occurs when the perpetrator feels abandoned or alone. The feelings build until they are unmanageable, and then the act is committed and dissociation is attained. Dissociation is commonly described as a feeling of numbness, a sensation of separation from one’s body. Unable to cope with the chaotic emotions they are experiencing, self-injurers use dissociation to distance themselves from the pain of reality.

A completely opposite motive for self-injury is the feeling of life it brings. Some who cut themselves report that the sight and sensation of bleeding is the only way to prove that they are still alive. For those who are depressed, the pulsating red release can be the sole sign of life in an otherwise gray existence. Some cutters feel that the blood is a symbol of the negative feelings or impurities inside their bodies. By cutting, they are letting the bad blood escape. This idea echoes the historical method of using leeches and bloodletting to cure ailments: once the evil has been evicted, the body can be pure and healthy.

Self-injury can also grant a feeling of power or control. People who have had many of their freedoms and choices taken away turn to the one thing they can control—their bodies. It is interesting, though not surprising, that many women who suffer from eating disorders also self-injure. Both disorders can stem from the need to maintain whatever control they can in a world of perceived powerlessness. In a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry by Drs. Winchel and Stanley, 35 percent of anorexics and 39 percent of bulimics reported self-injuring.

In the end, self-injury can be a cry for help. While most self-injurer hide their wounds, some are also hoping that someone notices their silent suffrage. Scars, usually on the arms, legs, and torso, may casually flicker in and out of sight. Unable to express emotion in conventional ways, some resort to their bodies as their medium of communication.

The scars left from self-injury can be viewed as burdens or battle wounds. Some self-injurers try to erase their scars with creams or surgical procedures so they can forget their bloody past. Others view their scars as life markers too important to disregard.

While cutting is one of the most well known modes of self-injury, numerous others exist. Other methods include carving, burning, hitting, pulling out hair, biting, and many more. According to the Mayo Clinic, scars, injuries, bruises, frequent “accidents”, the constant carrying of sharp objects (knives and razors, but also paper clips, pins, or pieces of jagged metal), and wearing long sleeves and pants even in hot weather are signs of self-injury.

If someone reveals that they self-injure, or have done so in the past, it’s important to remain supportive. If they are willing to talk, be willing to listen without judgment. Self-injury is unsettlingly common –it occurs in somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 college students, and some studies suggest it’s even more frequent than that. By increasing awareness and understanding of the phenomenon, society can give a voice to those who carry silvery secrets and facilitate outward expression rather than inward aggression.

Resources for Help

Counseling:
- Boynton’s Mental Health Clinic (first appointment must be in person)
- University Counseling and Consulting Services
Minneapolis: 109 Eddy Hall
St. Paul: 199 Coffey Hall
Phone: (612) 624-3323
Emergencies:
- Boynton’s Crisis Connection: (612) 379-6363
- Hennepin County Acute Psychiatric Services
701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis.
(612) 873-3161
- S.A.F.E. ALTERNATIVES® (Self Abuse Finally Ends)
- 1-800-DONT CUT
Recommended Reading:
- Bleeding to Ease the Pain by Lori Plante
- A Bright Red Scream by Marilee Strong

Atop a lofty skyscraper, you sit in your office on a break with the window open. The reflection off the glass is a rich shade of green. Crowded railcars navigate their endless tracks like caterpillars. Solar panels gleam in the sun. The tops of buildings are green with plant life. Below, you hear only birds chirping, people chatting, traders swapping goods in farmer’s markets. The chaotic noise of the city and the relentless roar of thousands cars is gone.

This daydream could be a reality of future “eco-cities” that would bring vast change to the most populous of human living arrangements. This suggestive term was conceived by Richard Register, leader of EcoCity Builders, which is a non-profit organization “dedicated to reshaping cities, towns, and villages for the long-term health of human and natural systems.” EcoCity Builders illustrates a near utopia: buildings would be very close and very tall, since “urban sprawl” grossly contributes to waste in current city designs. Combined with a network of connective pedestrian bridges and an extensive public transportation system (running on non-fossil fuels), high-density city planning would facilitate convenient travel between work and home in a environment largely void of cars.

Cars are the tumor of the contemporary city, according to Register: “To call the car in the city overbearing is just beginning to assess the damage of the bull in the china shop.” Cars force road-centered design, foster unhealthy, polluted living environments, take up space, and create excess waste. Of course, we would be responsible for keeping our eco-cities healthy. Antidotes include slashing resource waste. Any usage would be carefully regulated and restored. People and businesses would need to recycle and compost assiduously. But, in return, cities would sustain their entire population; very rarely looking beyond their borders to satisfy basic needs which would save money and energy on transportation in the process. They would provide a more vigorous living environment. “Concrete jungles” would not-so-aptly describe our cities.

However, it’s due time for a reality check: “we can’t ‘expect’ anything.” The eco-city vision has progressed too slowly: “People have not been very courageous or creative.” Register, believing we need to part with the car, thinks our current efforts are misguided: “The ill-advised ‘better’ car perpetuates the present sprawl infrastructure and postpones dealing with eco-city design.” It may yet be too frightening for society to part from a tool on which we’ve become so dependent. “People are too worried about staying comfortable.” People, tightly gripping their current ways, are only willingly to take the daintiest step forward. “I’ve written dozens of interviews and editorials like this and the idiot editors of mainstream press exorcise everything but the cool creek projects I do-which are nice-but far from sufficient. Serious car criticism and shifting of urban patterns is modern taboo. If we maintain this taboo much longer, we’re not going to make it.” Eventually, Register believes these cities are “inevitable.” Let’s just hope society doesn’t oversleep.