By: Allison Ouellette
“Soap causes cancer!” screamed numerous news outlets this week. The findings from a study produced by researchers from the University of California have been grossly exaggerated.
The university’s press release, “The Dirty Side of Soap,” misrepresents the study’s results. It claims that triclosan, a common antimicrobial agent in hygiene products, “causes liver fibrosis and cancer in mice.” By exaggerating the scope of the research, the press release misleads readers, including journalists.
Shortly after the press release was published, fear-mongering articles from popular news sources arose. They unduly warned readers that triclosan could harm their health. One source called the research a “cancer scare.” Others falsely reported the findings as conclusive and exaggerated the study’s relevance to humans. Many writers distorted the scope of the research to the extent that the “facts” in their articles barely resemble the study’s conclusions.
Contrary to the university’s press release and several online articles, the researchers did not conclude that triclosan causes cancer in mice. The researchers found that large amounts of ingested triclosan may promote tumour growth in mice. To observe triclosan’s effect on tumour growth, the researchers injected mice with a chemical (diethylnitrosamine) that is capable of inducing liver cancer.
In a separate group of mice, the researchers found that ingested triclosan can lead to liver damage.
The study results cannot be applied to humans. Although mice are used to model human disease, some chemicals that are toxic to mice may not be toxic to humans. As the authors of the study recommend, long-term observational studies in humans must be conducted before triclosan’s effect on humans can be understood. Also, since people do not eat large amounts of triclosan as the mice did in the study, the results observed in the mice are not reasonable to expect in humans.
Although the study does not provide enough evidence to condemn antibacterial soap, consumers may want to reconsider purchasing antibacterial soaps for other reasons. Though triclosan and other antibacterial agents are useful to healthcare workers, Health Canada notes that antibacterial soap is usually unnecessary in the home. Further, when triclosan is washed down the drain, it may cause environmental damage. Triclosan in toothpaste, however, can significantly prevent plaque and gingivitis, according to the Cochrane Review.
The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal. According to standard practice, to access an article in the journal, one must either belong to an organization or institution that purchases a subscription, or pay for access to the article. Consequently, most people do not have access to articles published in journals.
Even if the public were granted access to journals, articles would still be inaccessible. Few people possess enough scientific literacy to interpret and evaluate a biological study. Most people rely on writers and journalists to identify and publicize important research findings.
It is the responsibility of science correspondents to be scientifically literate and commit to reporting findings accurately. They must critically evaluate a study and understand the significance of findings before they can communicate truthfully. Just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse for committing a crime, lack of scientific literacy is not an excuse for distributing false information.
Shocking and overblown headlines commit a disservice to readers. Exaggerated research findings may serve to boost traffic to websites, increase research funding, or sway consumers to purchase certain products. None of these reasons justify invoking gratuitous fear in readers.
The latest research does not demonstrate whether triclosan negatively affects human health. It is unethical to claim otherwise. The media must uphold the integrity of science to produce ethical journalism. Fear mongering and sensationalizing disrupts the shared foundation of science and journalism: to report truthfully.
In the age of the internet, there has never been more access to music in all of history. More importantly, there has never been more music being created and recorded than what we have seen in the last ten years. Thanks to the advent of home studio and computer-based digital audio work stations, creating a quality recording of your work has never been easier. Musicians no longer have to rely on major labels to make what they love, resulting in music for the masses.
So why is it that when I sift through my Facebook news feed I hear the same broken record echoing that “the music industry is dead,” when my iTunes library seems to grow bigger every year? I’m talking about those kids who won’t shut up about how the only good music was made in the 70s, or that old-school hip-hop is the be-all and end-all of quality rap music. How can someone complain about music being dead when every conceivable sound is being created and recorded around the world? Do you really want to go back to a system where you were only able to listen to the handful of bands that could afford the thousands of dollars it costs to go to a recording studio 30 years ago?
I can already imagine your counter-argument. Yes, I know that people have their own preferences and tastes, and some people might just like a different style, but too often the people complaining describe music as a hugely important thing in their life. If you don’t care about music and just want to listen to a few of your favourite tracks, that’s fine, but if you love music the style you love is very likely still being created, and you just don’t know about it because you’re too busy mourning the loss of Pink Floyd despite only knowing “Money” and “Wish You Were Here.”
Instead of complaining about Nirvana being the last best west of rock, start looking for the hundreds of bands that still want to create music that way. Instead of whining about Wu-Tang-Clan why not look into the rap artists who love them, and are channelling their style to this day. There is almost a zero percent chance that someone right now in this world with billions of people that someone isn’t making great music just like the artists you love. You just have to find it.
Is it that hard to imagine that there are people just like you, who want to create music that channels your favourite time period? If you love classic rock, check out Tame Impala, The Black Keys or The Sheepdogs. If you miss old-school rap, check out Joey Bada$$ or Kendrick Lamar. To borrow classic relationship advice, there are other fish in the sea, and those fish probably play your favourite music. Sure, these artists aren’t going to be identical carbon copies of the older generation, but there is far more to music than what you hear on the radio. Are you really so dull that you have already given up on finding new stuff in your 20s?
At the end of the day, those complaining about rock or hip-hop being dead need to admit to themselves that they are either too lazy to look for something new to listen to, or just looking for something to complain about. I’m grateful for the music of the past, and excited for the music of the future. If music is really important to you, maybe you should be too.
By: Sarah Jama
The first time I travelled out of Canada was in December of last year, when I went to Ecuador for a festival. I was randomly selected for a search four times before I got onto a plane to Houston, and randomly selected for a search another two times before I got onto a plane to Ecuador. I travelled with ten other people, but was one of the two people in my group of friends to be searched at all.
The two of us were the only coloured ones. The searches were so extensive that security put on rubber gloves and picked through my hair with her fingers, and my walker was taken aside and scanned multiple times, maybe for hidden compartments. I was born and raised in Canada and I told them I was Canadian, but it didn’t matter. According to airport security, I was more likely than my white friends to be a terrorist or drug transporter.
A lot of this is why I feel bad for the 30-year-old assault-rifle collector from Pakistan who was arrested on allegations that he is a terrorist threat to Canada. Muhammad Ansari is now a person of interest in an investigation by the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Team in Ontario.
This means that instead of just being charged for the crimes he committed, i.e. collecting rifles illegally, he is being investigated for acts of terrorism. His parents say he was a software engineer looking to escape violence in Pakistan. His friends say he is not a violent individual. There is no evidence to suggest that his hobby, though against the law, was tied to terrorism.
Terrorists exist. They attack, they hurt, and they kill. But as a black woman from a religious minority, I have to do the work of fearing terrorists and proving that I’m not one myself, leaving me in this awkward gray area. I have to be more careful about my hobbies, and careful in abiding by every single law, so that my mistakes aren’t looked at through a lens of terrorism. I have to be submissive and okay with being searched head to toe multiple times in airports before I can board a plane.
Maybe if someone had warned Muhammad Ansari about this gray area, he would have done away with his gun collecting hobby earlier.
I consider myself somewhat of a magazine junkie. I use the word “somewhat” in an attempt to not oust myself as the magazine-loving nerd that I am. My lack of attention span in combination with my love of creative nonfiction writing led to me to the discovery that I would rather stare at a computer screen for hours, reading article upon article, than read a novel for the same amount of time. The change in topic and introspective style makes me feel like I’m doing many things at once instead of one monotonous task. Of all the magazines and websites that I frequent, I only subscribe to one: GQ. GQ is arguably my favourite magazine. At the end of each month, I await the arrival of my issue.
My love for GQ started years ago in the aisles of grocery stores sneaking peaks at it while my mother shopped. Whenever my mother would find me reading the men’s lifestyle magazine, she would ask me why I was interested in a magazine titled “Gentleman’s Quarterly.” I would reply with one of two things: either, “well it’s not a quarterly magazine anymore so maybe the gentleman doesn’t apply either?” or “hot guys in suits, mom, duh.” The truth was somewhere in between the two. I did love seeing men in men’s clothing but not because I was necessarily attracted to them, but more so because I wanted to emulate them in any way I could while still staying in the very deep closet I built for myself.
GQ is the magazine for those of us who don’t fit into gender categories. I love fashion, but often I have a hard time finding fashion that feels right for me, or at least finding representations of this fashion. When flipping through fashion magazines targeted at females, I can appreciate a few items of clothing, but when flipping through magazines geared towards men, I find myself falling in love with many more items.
GQ doesn’t just exist to show us how to dress impeccably well; it also has some hard-hitting features. Recently, GQ wrote about the issue of male sexual assault in the army and the pressure to be silenced. They’ve also written about Matthew McConaughey revival – commonly known as the McConnaisance. GQ has also looked at the difference between male and female nudity on television.
My two favourite GQ writers are Devin Friedman and Jeanne Marie Laskas. Friedman has written about “middlebrow” culture, about war, the awkwardness of highschool, race and the token black friend, and the culture around things going viral. Laskas has written about the impact that football has on players’ brains, one of my favourite pieces of all time. She has also written about Richard Norris’ face transplant, hitmen, gun culture in America, immigration, and many other stories that need to be told. The magazine’s piece on David Foster Wallace following his suicide was a poignant piece of literary genius.
Sure, GQ can be misogynistic at times, but I wouldn’t say that it’s more misogynstic than Cosmopolitan, a magazine geared towards women, or The Globe and Mail which has on many occasions featured opinion articles that invalidate the struggles that women commonly face in society and tried to debunk the “myth of rape culture.” On the surface, GQ looks like a magazine for bros sporting high fashion suits and naked girls on the pages, but once you pick up a copy and actually read it, you discover that behind the misguided perceptions of the magazine, it actually is a collection of the best writing about life, sports, technology, culture, entertainment, politics, and everything in between.
The lines of gender are blurry. People express or identify in so many different ways that categorizing clothing and style into strictly “men’s” or “women’s” becomes antiquated. The reason that I like GQ so much is a direct result of societal expectations that make me feel like I don’t fit into the box of “woman”. The magazines out there for women don’t feel like they’re created for me. GQ gives me the mix of everything I like from fashion that I would actually wear to stories that I can get lost in. Simply, GQ is my favourite magazine and I will continue to wait by the mailbox at the end of every month.
By: Grace Kennedy
The Conservative government launched a new anti-marijuana television ad campaign that aims to warn parents about the harms of recreational marijuana use. The ad really tries to convey "science." A woman speaks in a serious warning tone accompanied by imagery of smoke funnelling through what appears to be a clear tube, which I naturally assumed was part of a bong. When the picture zooms out it turns out to be an image of the brain composed of a clear tube-like material, i.e. a really cool looking bong. I really hope the marketing firm responsible for the ad sold this idea to a head shop after.
Bong jokes aside, the ad is entirely aimed at parents, urging them to "talk to their teens" about the side effects of marijuana and visit their website.
After doing so, all I can think is, thank God I don't have a teenager with a marijuana "addiction" that I'm trying to convince to stop blazing. The website has very little useful information. However, it does have a Pinterest account with a picture of an alarm clock that reads, "Do you know what 'four-twenty' means?”
The television ad may as well say, "Hey voters, who are considering voting Conservative," because of its narrow target audience of "traditional" families and complete incompetence in providing compelling information that could alter anyone's opinion on marijuana use.
If this ad by the chance of a Hail Mary causes any teen to visit this website for help, there is no way they will spend more than 18 seconds on this brutal, uninformative page. The site is so poorly constructed that I think it's actually condescending toward parents or teens who actually want help.
Of course, the reason for this could be because there is no specific treatment for marijuana addiction and methods such as behavioural cognitive therapy have had modest success at best.
The ad is part of a $5-million campaign that has been controversial because critics have viewed it as a partisan attack on Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's stance in favour of the legalization of marijuana.
The Huffington Post reported this summer that the government spends $500 million per year on anti-drug campaigning and enforcement, and that 475,000 people have been criminally convicted in relation to the "drug" since Harper was elected. Furthermore, the main bodies representing physicians in Canada did not co-sponsor the ad, stating it was a "political football."
Health Canada's website currently states that "dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada," but on the same page, gives instructions for how to obtain it with the support of a physician.
I write "drug" because I think that the stigma behind criminalizing drugs, especially a softer substance like marijuana, is the real harm to society. Criminalizing drugs requires policing and judicial costs that are a burden to taxpayers, but it also poses horrible consequences to people who are criminalized as "addicts" or depend on trafficking, and then face sentences that drastically jeopardize their lives, for a substance that is arguably pretty widely-accepted.
In the U.S., 46 percent of the population will have tried marijuana by the time they graduate from high school. I couldn’t find comparable Canadian statistics perhaps because the government doesn't want to publicize that throwing money on these campaigns is like combating Facebook usage.
The war against drugs hasn't paid off, hasn't decreased drug use, and only makes life harder and dangerous for addicts and participants in its black market economy. The Conservative government's obsession with drug prevention is archaic and severely out of touch with Canadian needs.
By: Jyssika Russell
The SRA meeting on Oct. 19 demonstrated the power of student engagement, democracy, and the ability of the SRA to represent student voices during the year-end celebration motion, also known as #concertgate or #215kparty.
But still, the bigger question remains: how did it get this far?
MSU President Teddy Saull stated that he consulted both the MSU Finance Committee and the Presidents’ Council, a regular meeting with the presidents of the MSU, faculty societies, SOCS and IRC. Both bodies supported the year-end celebration, with the Finance Committee supporting the full $215,000 expenditure.
Yet, after The Silhouette published two articles about the proposal, there was a huge outcry from students, larger than anything I have ever seen since arriving at Mac in 2009. How is it that thousands of students strongly disagreed with a motion that their elected student leaders supported?
The simplest answer I could come up with was the structural inequality of the MSU.
Many of the 1,500 students who signed the online petition cited financial struggles in their disagreement. They felt that their hard-earned money was being spent on something that was frivolous, inaccessible, and unsustainable. As someone living in poverty with over $25,000 in student debt, I can’t help but agree. How did their elected leaders not represent these voices before the motion was brought to the table?
If you are a low-income student, it is harder to be or become one of those voices at the table.
For example, many community- and leadership-building events hosted by the MSU occur in Hamilton over the summer, often on weekends. If you are struggling to fund your education, you’ll most likely be working and at home—potentially at a “student” job, like retail sales or summer camp, which often involves working evenings and weekends. To attend one of these MSU weekends, which includes SRA and PTM trainings, Horizons, and CLAY, you would have to lose funds by taking time off, and spend more money making your way to Hamilton. There are also no advertised bursaries for low income students to attend these events.
While being involved in these events isn’t mandatory, it significantly affects your ability to be involved, to make connections, and to be at those meetings where your voice needs to be heard.
This doesn’t even include other student leadership positions that require large time commitments, like being a Welcome Week rep or planner, or other leadership roles during the school year.
Even those student leadership positions that are paid, such as service managers in the MSU, pay only just above minimum wage, and aren’t near the $14/hr suggested living wage for Hamilton.
Many students can literally not afford to be involved in student leadership.
How can this be solved?
Last year the concept of an Inclusion Council was brought to the SRA, to include historically marginalized voices on campus, including those of low income students. There are many reasons why it didn’t pass, and the concept is being further developed to bring forward again this year. Still, many SRA members questioned its necessity.
I firmly believe that if Mr. Saull had brought the year-end celebration to an Inclusion Council, a council designed to hear the unheard, he would have faced disagreement and dissent. He would have faced the 90 percent of students not involved in the MSU; those whom he ran to represent. He would have heard that bringing forward a motion for such a $215,000 celebration was not only unnecessary, but insulting to students who are struggling day to day to make ends meet.
By: Olivia Monardo
Finding a significant other these days can be difficult, especially with the added pressure of maintaining a solid social media presence on multiple platforms. But what if I told you that there is an app that can take all these troubles away? Introducing Luxy, the dating app for only the snobbiest, most self-indulgent people. Luxy incorporates aspects of Instagram, Facebook, and even Twitter into one big mobile dating service that lets people pick their most desired matches based on the three best selfies they choose to display. The only catch? You have to be rich to use it. Along with providing information on your favourite designer brands, Luxy lets you know the net worth of each one of your matches—which is obviously what truly matters when choosing a mate.
The CEO of Luxy, whoever he is, remains anonymous due to the fact that he fears the criticisms that may come along with this app. But who would criticize such a forward-thinking app? It’s not like Luxy bases its matches on pure aesthetic, or decides a person’s worth based on the brands they choose or the ritzy sports they play. No, Luxy prides itself on maintaining a reliable, solid network of all the richest people within a 100-kilometer radius, ensuring that none of these rich people should be forced to flirt among the general population.
Luxy allows each of its users three rounds of people choosing per day. Each round consists of 10 profiles; those of which get accepted appear in a list that does nothing more than remind you how lonely you truly are. In order to message one of these obviously elite people, they must first accept you in return, and the chances of that are slim to none. Although Luxy is an app with very few problems, it doesn’t take into account the ego of the rich people who use it. Not only do they want everyone to know how great they are, they want to know how great everyone else is too, which often leaves them disappointed, bored, and impatiently waiting to play their next round.
By: Em Kwissa
Ah, post-Thanksgiving – the time when the honey-dipped optimism of summer makes way for the cool gray reality of autumn. The time that brings to an end the idealism of hometown hookups and vacation exploits, finding them far less attractive when faced with distance, obligations, and even just generalized staleness. A time of beginnings that bring endings. A time of turkey dumps!
So, right in time for the end of the summer fling or the three-year relationship that won’t survive the start of university, for all you evolved and civilized once-flame-now-burned people who are still friends on Facebook: A guide to the modern breakup, from the people watching it all unfold from the sidelines of your social media.
1. Post constant status updates on Facebook and Twitter, preferably ones that can be accompanied by pictures of your face and/or body.
Obviously you’re handling this whole thing with maturity and grace. You are not emotional or really thinking about your ex at all, so the whole idea of taking some personal time to heal and move on is clearly for people who are Not You. Time to assure everyone that you’re doing well. What better way to do that than with pictures of your face and body? Look how cute and fun you are! You are clearly loving the single life! This barrage of staged photographs of you smiling in a bathing suit / in spandex / in a towel while you’re “At the beach!” / “At the gym!” / “Just relaxin’ today!” is neither transparent to your ex nor annoying as fuck to everyone else.
2. Accidentally run into your ex.
Get dressed up and go out. Maybe go to places you used to go as a couple. Maybe go places you know your ex loves. Maybe go places you heard Julia say your ex would be. Better make sure you have a great pair of jeans on. Not that you have to prove to anyone that you are a total catch. You will just be chilling with your friends.
3. Catch up with old friends.
You know, the ones you never spoke to or saw for ages because you were too busy dating someone. Call them up! Let’s hang out! It’s not like you were at all crummy or neglectful! Take tons of selfies together! Look how many friends you have! And you know, you always wished you were closer with your ex’s friends... They seemed really cool. Well, breakups are a great time for self-improvement. Get out there and make friends, you! This won’t be weird at all.
4. Keep everyone updated on your every passing emotion throughout this process.
Sure, it’s a raw, emotional time, and your mind and heart are going to be changing every two to five minutes, but that’s why they made mobile apps. Why have an actual conversation with someone when you can just shout your feelings at everyone from your co-workers to your grandparents? It’s better this way. No one’s going to comment on a public Facebook post, “didn’t you say really awful things during the breakup?” or “do you think you’re maybe being a bit dishonest with yourself?” or “your poetry is really bad.”
5. Keep trying to “work things out” with your ex,
even though that is something people do to prevent a breakup, and you are, in fact, broken up. Give your ex that highly comprehensive list of character flaws you compiled. Dredge up all that old crap you never talked about when it was actually happening. Keep tabs on them through mutual friends and social media. If you’re going to stay friends, you’ll want all this out in the open. You’ll want to have it all worked out. And who wouldn’t want to be friends with you? You’re really nice until the chips are down and things get difficult, at which point you react the way any reasonable adult human would – by being mean to people you supposedly care about. Fair trade, right?
