Sept. 12, 2007 - “Go pump some neurons! Expand your craniums!”
—Robin Williams, in “Mrs. Doubtfire”

You don’t need to read this column to know that exercise is good for you. You probably already know that regular, moderate exercise is one of the best things you can do for your health and well-being. What you may not know is that new research is showing that exercise beneficially affects your genes, helps reverse the aging process at a cellular level, gives you more energy, makes you smarter, and may even help you grow so many new brain cells (a process called neurogenesis) that your brain actually gets bigger.

Really.

So does improving your nutrition. A diet high in sugar and saturated fat diminishes neurogenesis, whereas other foods increase it, including chocolate (in moderate amounts), tea and blackberries, which contain a substance called epicatechin that improves memory. Small amounts of alcohol increase neurogenesis, whereas larger amounts decrease it. Chronic emotional stress decreases neurogenesis, but stress management techniques increase it. Drugs such as nicotine, opiates and cocaine decrease neurogenesis, whereas a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 1995 showed that cannabinoids (found in marijuana) increase it, at least in rats. (Uh, what were we just talking about?)

Use It or Lose It
Until about nine years ago it was thought that you were born with a certain number of neurons, and they tended to decrease in number as you got older. The best you could hope to do was to slow the rate at which you lost brain cells.

Fortunately, it’s not true. Researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and at Columbia University showed that older adults continue to generate new neurons at virtually any age. Earlier this year these researchers found that in addition to growing new neurons, exercise doubled blood flow to the brain. A study published last year by researchers at the University of Illinois reported that just walking for three hours per week for only three months caused so many new neurons to grow that it actually increased the size of people’s brains. CONTINUED

---

WOODS HOLE — There's still a lot to iron out when it comes to storing carbon in the world's oceans to mediate global warming. Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution held a public forum Friday to consider the pros and cons of fertilizing the oceans with iron, which produces increased phytoplankton — and other carbon dioxide-reducing plants — that could mitigate greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere.

The good news, according to Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine chemist, is a dozen iron fertilization experiments in recent years have shown success in reducing carbon dioxide levels by increasing algal productivity. However, Buesseler also said there are still too many unanswered questions to safely move forward.

Along with Scott Doney, a WHOI senior scientist of marine chemistry and geochemistry, and Hauke Kite-Powell, a research specialist at WHOI's Marine Policy Center, Buesseler told the 75 people in the audience about environmental concerns, the lack of long-term testing and the dangers of moving forward based solely on commercial interests.

There is at least one publicly traded company already trying to geo-engineer the ocean with iron, Buesseler said. The idea is gaining popularity because of the market demand for carbon offsets.

However, all three WHOI panelists agreed there is no method that exists to verify carbon has been permanently removed from the atmosphere

Once the carbon is sequestered in the deep ocean, it is dispersed and impossible to audit, Doney said.

"It's like the Wild West out there," Buesseler said.

This drew the ire of WHOI biologist Heidi Sosik, who asked why the discussion was even taking place if there's no way to hold companies accountable for the actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

The idea needs to be researched and proven effective, Sosik said. It should not be considered just because people are willing to invest in it, she added.

"It's just another money-making scam without regard for the health of our planet," Sosik said.

Further complicating matters are other unanswered questions, such as the legality of dumping iron into the ocean and whether it would be considered pollution internationally. Doney said studying iron fertilization to the point where a decision could be made would take five to 10 years. Even if it is proven effective, Doney said, iron fertilization is not a panacea for global warming.

"We can't look at this in isolation because we have to consider other technologies out there," Doney said. "Instead of one silver bullet, we may need three dozen technologies to make this work."

Arkansas native Luke Erickson, 20, attended the forum as part of his curriculum with the Sea Education Association down the road from WHOI.

Erickson has researched other methods of reducing carbon dioxide levels, including increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere by adding sulfur compounds. He remains doubtful about iron fertilization in the ocean.

"It's enlightening to see a feasible possibility like this," Erickson said. "But I don't hold a lot of faith in any geo-engineering solutions."

Aaron Gouveia can be reached at agouveia@capecodonline.com.

A storm from the sun ripped a tail off a comet, and a NASA satellite captured the whole event.

Attempted Side Swipe
Web Page
Page