D’espairsRay / 05. Infection [liquidize live – eng sub]

D’espairsRay / 05. Infection [liquidize live – eng sub]


My soul is frozen and it’s tied… My ears find no voice of you… My legs torn in sadness… I’m standing in the darkness.. I can never go on… rain in the way… the light is far away… How many times did I shout your name in the storm? My voice drying out… I live because of you, so I believe… close your eyes Therefore, this pain never heals… My eyes flowing with sorrow has twisted my world… Everlasting memories have lost its taste and became my enemy and hate rain in the way… the light is far away… How many times did I shout your name in the storm? My voice drying out… I live because of you, so I believe… close your eyes I know… I can never reach for you… I live because of you, so I believe… close your eyes I don’t regret dying for you…

Takoe Zuii “iNFeCTioN” UTAU Original Song


Today a new program was installed. However, the program is infected. … … Would you like to uninstall? … Ah, I’m really sorry. This program can not be uninstalled. Ah, I apologi—–I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You [Just more you’s] [Then die’s]

We need to talk about male suicide | Steph Slack | TEDxFolkestone

We need to talk about male suicide | Steph Slack | TEDxFolkestone


Translator: Leonardo Silva
Reviewer: David DeRuwe Did you know that
by the end of this event, three men in the UK
will have died by suicide? I can still remember exactly where I was when my dad called me to tell me
that they’d found my uncle. He had taken his life, and it had taken three weeks
to find his body. Richard was 47. He was a doctor, super smart,
creative, autistic, he spoke new languages with ease,
he played and wrote music and he understood science and math
like no one else I knew. He was the kind of kid
you’d really hate at school, right? He saved people’s lives for a living, and yet, he decided to take his own. I’d like to take you back to 2010. I was at my new flat in Brighton,
having dinner with a friend, about to start my third year
of university, when my dad calls me to tell me
that they’d found my uncle. That feeling, that sinking feeling in your stomach
when your heart drops all the way down, and all you can think is, “What could I have done
to stop that from happening?” that feeling is not something
I wish anyone ever has to experience. Men are facing a crisis. How many men do you think
die by suicide each day in the UK? Have a guess. Raise your hand
if you think it’s under five. Raise your hands. Under five? Under 10? It’s 12. That’s one man every two hours. While we’re all enjoying our day, we’re going to lose 12 men
to suicide today. In my work, we talk a lot about the fact
that 76% of all suicides are male and that this silent killer is claiming
the lives of more men under 45 than anything else. And I can’t help but find myself
asking, “Why is that?” Doesn’t that trouble you? Because it troubles me. These are our brothers, fathers,
uncles, partners, sons – these are our friends, and they decide to die. I think there are some hard questions
we need to ask about male suicide. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong
with men having suicidal thoughts, but is there something wrong with how
we react to suicide being thought about? Let me explain. We’ll all die at one point
or another, right? Our bodies will fail us,
and we’ll die of disease or old age. Or we’ll have our lives taken from us,
maybe in a tragic accident. So, isn’t it perfectly normal to consider being in control
of our own death? Yes, suicide is intentional, but does that automatically make it wrong? I believe suicide is preventable, and I believe we should do
everything in our power to prevent it, but I also believe
there’s nothing inherently wrong in thinking about our own death. I’ve considered what it’s like to die. I’d like to ask you all
to close your eyes just for a minute. I promise nothing scary will happen
if you close your eyes. Now raise your hands
if you’ve ever had a really bad day that’s left you feeling
maybe stressed or upset. Okay. Keep your eyes closed
and keep your hands raised if that bad day or bad week or bad month has ever led you
to think about harming yourself or taking your own life. Thank you; put your hands down
and then open your eyes. That was about half of this room. I invite you to consider
what might be different if we didn’t see having
suicidal thoughts as wrong, and what that might mean for the men
in our lives thinking of suicide. Let’s go back to my uncle Richard. For most of his life, he experienced
what was most likely bipolar, and he’d had suicidal thoughts
on more than one occasion. In fact, six years before his death,
he attempted to take his life. The sad fact was
that Richard lived in a time where suicide wasn’t considered
something that you spoke about. It was swept under the carpet
and a cause of shame amongst families. There was something wrong with it. I mean, it was only in 1961
that we stopped making suicide a crime. Richard’s parents were medics –
an anesthetist and a nurse – and they didn’t understand suicide either. They didn’t think that it was real, and I think they were probably in denial
about what was happening with Richard. What happened to my uncle
isn’t my grandparents’ fault. Suicide is complex and rarely
attributed to any one factor. But, when I reflect
on Richard’s experience and on how we still struggle
to speak about suicide today, nothing’s really changed. We still struggle to talk about it. We label it as abnormal or unusual, and we make men wrong
for having suicidal thoughts. We say that they’re unwell,
or that they need to get better. And because we think of it this way, it stops us from being able
to talk about it, and we stay silent instead. And suicide remains
shrouded in this stigma. That stigma is only perpetuated by irresponsible
and sensationalized journalism that happens in the cases
of celebrity suicide. Just look at some of the reporting
around Anthony Bourdain’s recent death. When I was thinking about
how best to explain this point, it made me think about
sex and sex education. Stick with me, okay? (Chuckles) It’s really uncomfortable for us
to talk to kids about sex. It’s so tempting to think if we don’t talk about it,
it won’t happen, our kids won’t have sex. But we know that teenage pregnancy
and STIs are the risks if we don’t have that conversation, and we take those risks seriously. We introduced sex education into schools, and it’s now compulsory across the UK. And, I mean, it’s far from perfect, but what it has been shown to do is to improve positive attitudes
towards safe sex, to delay sex and to reduce teenage pregnancy
when used alongside other methods. With suicide, we know it’s a myth that talking about it will plant
that idea in someone’s head. And if suicide is claiming the lives
of more men under 45 than anything else, isn’t it time we just start accepting that suicidal thoughts
are something that happen, and instead start talking openly
and responsibly about it? I don’t think there’s anything wrong
with men having suicidal thoughts. But perhaps there is something wrong
with our expectations of men in society that lead them to have those thoughts. Let’s think about that. What does it mean to be masculine? What does it mean to be a man? Society tells us men should
be strong, dependable, and able to provide for their family. There’s very little research
into the reasons why men suicide, but the recent research that does exist speaks about how men’s high suicide rates
are linked to risk factors such as history
of being abused as a child, single status or relationship breakdown, and financial difficulty or unemployment. So that means that if you’re a man
and you’ve had a troubled childhood, you’re still searching for the one
or you’re worried about money, you’re at risk of suicide! How many of us know men in that situation? I mean, I’ve definitely
just described Richard, and I’ve probably described
half of millennial men in the UK. Unsurprisingly, these risk factors are linked to those
traditional notions of masculinity, of being strong, dependable,
and able to provide for your family. It seems as though when men feel
they can’t meet those expectations, they make themselves wrong for that. The research backs this up too. Just last year, there was a paper
confirming that there is a link between men feeling unable to fulfill the stereotypical
characteristics of masculinity and suicidal thoughts. Now, I imagine a lot of us in this room
don’t agree with those stereotypes, but some of us probably do,
or at least know someone who does. How many of us have been guilty of saying
“Man up!” at some point in our lives? I know I have. The conversation is starting to change. There are great campaigns
like BBC Three’s Real Men Do Cry and CALM’s L’eau de Chris, that are trying to shift those perceptions
of men and masculinity and encourage them
to be more open and vulnerable. But is it just men who are perpetuating
these outdated stereotypes of what it means to be a man and making themselves wrong for that? I don’t think so. I’d like us to consider
what our role is as women. Just last month, I was chatting
to a female friend of mine who described the guy she was dating
as “a sponge” and “too sensitive” because he opened up to her about some of the anxieties
he was facing in the relationship and how that was
making him feel vulnerable. I cannot begin to describe
the look I see on some women’s faces when I speak about how men I know
have broken down in tears in front of me. It’s somewhere between
discomfort and disdain. Men are already making themselves wrong for not living up
to these masculine ideals of being strong, dependable,
and able to provide for their families. They’re already
shaming themselves for that. But we’re compounding the problem
by making them wrong and shaming them for demonstrating
those open and vulnerable behaviors that we say we want them to show us. And we’re making them wrong for breaking out
of these rigid stereotypes and for just being fully human. To the women in the room, I’m not saying that male suicide
is our responsibility. I absolutely acknowledge that men have a huge role to play
in breaking down these stereotypes. But as a woman, I can only speak
to my experience and how I do see our role. What I’m inviting all of us to do,
regardless of our gender, is to reconsider the expectations
that we have of men in society and reconsider how we view men who have the courage
to show us their vulnerability. I’m inviting us to ask the men
in our lives how they’re really doing and if they’re struggling with anything
they haven’t told us about. And can we think about
how we respond to that? How we might choose
to empathize with their pain? Can we hold space for men
and listen to them, without trying to fix things, tell them that we love them and that it’s okay for them
to feel however they’re feeling? I’d like to tell you
about another guy I know. He’s a really good friend of mine;
I used to work with him, actually. His name’s Billy – he’s super smart, he’s genuine, authentic, kind, generous – he’s just the kind of guy
you really want to spend time with. So, imagine how I felt when Billy called me at 11:30 a.m.
on a Friday morning, three years ago, to tell that he’d spent
the night in hospital because the night before,
he’d tried to take his own life. He was 24. You’re probably thinking I felt shocked, panicked, uncomfortable. Actually, I felt honored. I felt honored that Billy felt
that he could talk to me about his suicide attempt
and how he’d been feeling. I thought back to my uncle, and I knew that I had a chance
to respond differently to Billy. I met him with compassion
and understanding, and a safe space to talk about
how he was feeling, without judgment. I didn’t make him wrong
for feeling the way that he felt or for attempting to take his life. I didn’t try to label him as suicidal
or as someone who needed to get better. I simply gave him a space
to talk about whatever he needed to. I saw what he told me
as incredibly courageous, and not something
he should ever be ashamed of. I can’t help but wonder
if this can make a difference. When I reflect on how my response
to Billy was entirely different to the response my uncle used to receive
when he spoke about suicide, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if we had different expectations
of men in society, if we had a different reaction to men who have the courage
to show us their vulnerability, and a different reaction to men
who have suicidal thoughts. Would men feel differently about suicide? I don’t have the answers, but I am inviting you
to consider the questions. Because I don’t believe there is anything
wrong with men having suicidal thoughts, but perhaps there is something wrong
with how we react to that and our expectations of men in society. So, what would happen if we all
have the courage to go home tonight and have conversations
with the men in our lives about how they’re feeling
and what they’re thinking, including their suicidal thoughts? Yeah, it’s going to be uncomfortable, I get that, but we do it with sex! Every parent dreads having
that conversation with their kids about how babies are made. But we know it’s important
to keep our kids safe, so we do it anyway,
no matter how uncomfortable we feel. I wish I could have had
a conversation with my uncle like the one I had with Billy. I wish I could have told him, “There is nothing wrong with you. There is nothing wrong with how
you’re feeling or what you’re thinking. It’s okay. I’m here to listen to whatever
you need to say or talk about because your feelings are important. You’re important, and you don’t have to do this alone.” Thank you. (Applause) (Cheers)

Insects: food of the past and food of the future | Lars-Henrik Lau Heckmann | TEDxLakeComo

Insects: food of the past and food of the future | Lars-Henrik Lau Heckmann | TEDxLakeComo


Translator: Michele Gianella
Reviewer: Rhonda Jacobs Let’s talk about food. If we look at food
from a biological perspective, it’s one thing. If we look at it
from a cultural perspective, it’s another thing. So, for us now, food – it’s pizza,
it’s pasta, it’s panini, to keep it a little bit Italian. But it’s not that many years ago,
at least in geological terms, only a few thousand years, that food for us,
when we roamed to the savannah, was leaves, roots, berries, insects. And occasionally,
when we got lucky, big game. So you can see, there’s a huge divergence between what we consider food now
and what we used to consider as food. So, what happened in Europe? Why is insect not part of our food, when we have been eating insects
for thousands of years? Well, it was part of our food culture,
at least in Roman times, and sometime into early medieval times. But then we had other things
that shaped our food culture, like agriculture, providing
steady supply of crops, animal livestock. And also during medieval time,
there’s another theory that tries to explain
why we forgot eating insects, which is that we had the Little Ice Age. That’s not a theory, that’s a fact, at least if you believe
geological records, but it meant that temperature dropped. And insects are cold-blooded animals, so they need energy
from their surroundings to keep their metabolism going. And for them, that was a huge blow,
when temperature dropped. So species diversity and abundance
dropped accordingly. So our food supply and hence influence –
insects into our food culture diminished. So, it’s not something
that is completely forgotten. Actually, it’s just in Europe;
North America as well. Around the globe, still about two,
two and a half billion people, it’s difficult to count, but on an average day,
millions are eating insects. Over 2000 species of insects
have a known history of being eaten. When you start counting
the cows and the pigs and the poultry, you don’t even get into the hundreds. And in Mexico, for instance, which is probably
the world’s leading country, regarding eating insects, they eat more than 500 different species. And here, a very common picture
from a food market in Mexico, where women are selling locusts. So, why should we start
eating insects in Europe again? I mean, it’s going so well
with the pizza and pasta, right? Well, there are several reasons
why we might want to consider that. And one of them could be climate change. And at this moment in our history, our food production, agriculture at large, has about a fourth of the climate impact, so about 25 percentish
of all greenhouse gas emissions, globally, comes from agriculture. And even from animal
production alone, it’s 15%. If you accept the notion that we have an influence
on global change, and that food production
surely contributes a large part of that, well, here is a place
where we can make a difference. We can start producing more sustainably, producing it in a way that at least it’s more good
to the environment and to our climate. And this is where insects come into play. Because insects have
some competencies from nature. They are really, really efficient. And I’ll give you a comparison
with cows just in a minute, because that’s the most
extreme example, really. So it’s not that I’m against cows,
I do eat steak, now and again. But it’s just the best example. Insects are cold-blooded animals,
as I mentioned just before. So just that fact makes them,
like fish, really efficient. So if we can keep
the right temperature around them, then what we feed them
is being converted into food at a far higher rate than if we fed that same amount
of feed to a cow. That’s my first example, really,
when we compare insects with cows. But we are working on making
special diets or feeds for insects, so this will be better, but roughly now we get
five times more insect biomass, if we give that feed to them, than if we gave it to a cow. Also, what is interesting about insects
is regarding land use. Already now, we can produce
10 times as many insects in the same space that it would require to produce a cow. This is because with insects
we can have vertical farming. Just like many of you
maybe know from plants, vertical farming
is also possible with insects. We’re not talking square metre production,
we’re talking cubic metre production. So if you have a facility
that is 10 or 20 meters high, you can really have
a lot of kilograms coming out – or tons, even, coming out
per month per square metre. And then there is the use of water, which is also a resource
that is really, really valuable, and on decline in many parts
of the world, or – the distribution of water is changing, due to our impact on water systems
as well, unfortunately. Insects use in general, and it is a very generic comparison
when you take insects, because they constitute
a million species, really, but I have to keep a little generic – about 100-fold less water is being used as would have been used
for producing a cow. And when we talk of hundreds,
the emission of greenhouse gas is also a 100-fold lower
with insects than with cattle. So, looks delicious, doesn’t it? What’s not to like? It’s good for the planet,
also nutritionally, it has, like an animal product,
a high protein content – 40 to 60%, when we look at it
at a dry matter level; good fats, actually, a lot of unsaturated
fatty acids, like omega-6 – not so much omega-3, a little bit,
but they are terrestrial, so if they had been from the sea,
that would have been a little better; and they have good vitamins
and minerals, iron, zinc; on the vitamins, vitamin B12, vitamin D. So yeah, it sounds delicious, doesn’t it? I mean, it maintains our body really well. But because we have forgotten
to eating these types of foods, culturally, this is revolting. Maybe I could have wrapped it
in a nicer shape for you, but, yeah, there are products out there. So really, we need to close
this cultural gap. And how do we do that? For my own sake, it’s the biggest change management effort
I’ve ever been part of. And it’s really, that it is what it is,
so we need to let it take time. But we can influence
how it will be implemented. Because it has to be
implemented, I will argue. So, right now, as it’s not
part of our culture, we are skeptical towards it. That’s a natural response. We haven’t seen this before.
It could be from Mars, we don’t know. But as you know
from other foods, there’s hope. Like Sushi, I hear now
is getting popular in Italy. This could be the same with insects. Maybe it’s not the the older generations
that will take this on, and particularly, perhaps,
not in this shape, but younger people
like the millennial generation who care a lot about climate change, they are really keen on this. And in Northern Europe
this is a hot topic, I can tell you. Also younger children,
like my own children, six and nine – well, they may have been
a little indoctrinated, I admit that. But it’s nothing like, ‘You have to eat your insects today,
otherwise you won’t have your dessert!’ They really took this on
very instinctively, really. And I’m sorry to say, but it was far easier for me
to having my kids eating mealworms, like you’re seeing here –
beetle larvae – crickets and locusts, than it was convincing them
eating pasta bolognese. I’m not kidding. So I think this also shows
that this is a natural food to us. But culture has messed it up
a little bit for us and therefore we need to rely, as always,
on the children to implement this. So within 10 to 20 years, I’m hopeful, and I will still keep on
indoctrinating my children to make the future a better place, there’s hope for change. But, there are still a lot of challenges,
for this new industry. It’s been around for maybe
five, seven years in Europe, in an industrial form,
or a form that wants to become industrial, where we can produce large quantities that can substitute some
of the red meat in particular. And we are facing
some real big challenges, so – Upscaling, it’s a huge challenge. Right now, it’s a few thousand tonnes
that are being produced in Europe. We need that to be a million tonnes. That will likely happen in 2030, according to the IPIFF,
the trade association, where lots of insect
producers are organised. Consumer awareness or acceptance,
I think we covered that. And then legal framework. Insects are being put into boxes right now
that have been made for pigs and poultry, but they need their own boxes, really. But right now, that enables us to produce and sell insects
as fish feed, but also as food. And then, particularly in northern Europe, there are many countries where it’s legal
to market insects as food. But we need innovation
to help us gain critical mass, or build critical mass. And one of the projects
which I’m part of, the inVALUABLE project, which is [short for] insect value chain
in a circular bioeconomy, looks at consolidating the value chain. So we focus on producing,
in this case, mealworms, how do we process them and how do we then apply them in products
that also consumers are willing to eat. This is a relatively huge project, and there are luckily, also,
other big projects in Europe. And is through these projects
that we gain momentum and can hopefully build
this critical mass. And at the same time, of course, also hoping for some private funding
being invested into the companies that want to implement this commercially. That is also happening. I think at present,
several hundred millions euros have already been invested
into this new sector within just five years. But, there’s more to insects
than just food, as I’ve also mentioned. And I’m sure many of you
are right now thinking, well, it’s ok, but let a pig eat it,
or let a fish eat it, and then I will consider
eating that product instead. And that’s totally fine, it’s also culturally,
how can I say, understandable. Insects can really help us
implement circular economy in our food production systems. Right? This is a strategic effort
in Europe, by the way. The commission has set a goal that they want to implement
circular economy and they also want to fight food waste. And here we can have
a win-win situation with the insects. The commission is also open towards changing
different legal frameworks to implement the circular economy, which is needed, as we’ll get back to. So at the moment food waste,
it’s more than just this apple. It’s actually, in the entire region, 88 million tonnes of food
that is being wasted annually. You can’t even imagine how much that is. This equals over 140 billion euros
that we lose just by wasting this food. Maybe that’s more easy to imagine,
I don’t know; still, two very big numbers. So, what can we do about it? Well, of course, we need
to waste less food or we need to make sure
that more food is being eaten. I think there would still be
millions of tonnes, so what can we do about that? Well, legally we can’t do
what I’m supposing on this slide yet because insects have been put
into some legal framework in the EU. And now, for instance,
they are considered farmed animals, which is a huge win for the insect sector, otherwise they would not be able
to feed them to fish, when they have been fed on feed material
that is considered safe as we would just use for poultry or pigs. So a huge win. And we also have legislation
that enables us to to eat them. But when we use materials
that are considered unsafe, like waste, then, because insects
are coined as farmed animals, we cannot feed them this waste. I’m sure most of you will have,
at some point in your life, found a few fly larvae in some food
that had been left for too long. It’s a perfect substrate for them, really. And they are very diverse, some of these. And one of the superstars
in the insect industry is the black soldier fly. It’s very general in its diet – of course, it need certain nutrients, but it’s very general
in how it gets those nutrients. So food waste, it’s the perfect substrate
for black soldier flies. We’ve done many experiments with that
at the Danish Technological Institute, where I do my work on a daily basis. So right now it’s not legal.
It might be unsafe. We need to document that, of course,
before we can commercialize it, for sure. But there’s a huge opportunity
for letting these black soldier flies, or other competent insect species,
use food waste as a substrate. Roughly, they can convert
10 kilograms of fresh food waste into 1 kilogram of dry larvae. This is as efficient as the most efficient
fish producing systems, which are some of the most
efficient in the world. And then we can take this insect meal
and feed to fish, or poultry. Of course, having documented,
before we do this, that it’s all safe. And I’m quite hopeful
that we will be able to document this because in theory that should be possible. And we need, of course,
to supplement this with testing. But these black soldier flies,
as do other insects, they actually eat some of the bacteria
that might be harmful to us, so pathogen bacteria
that could make us ill. That’s part of their diet
in this whole process. So they completely take them apart, and just use the nutrients
from these microorganisms. So, to wrap up, I think it was – well, I’d like that that fear myself, because it makes a nice
little circle on my talk – that climate change, with the Little Ice Age
in early medieval times took insects off our dinner table. But now climate change, and we can blame ourselves
for that, I believe, is bringing them back on the table again. So insects may have been food of the past, but I would put my money on that they are also going to be
food of the future. Thank you. (Applause)

NECK AND THROAT RELAXATION EXERCISES (5 of 6) — Vocal Exercises — American English Pronunciation

NECK AND THROAT RELAXATION EXERCISES (5 of 6) — Vocal Exercises — American English Pronunciation


In this American English pronunciation video, we’re going to go over neck and throat relaxation exercises. When we help students find the UH sound, which we consider the core sound of American English, we often suggest finding a chest resonance, or a lower resonance, to help them find this sound. The way to find that lower resonance is to relax your neck and throat, and connect the vibrations of your sound to your body. Here are a few exercises to help relax your neck and throat and access that body connection. First, let’s just relax the head down, chin to chest, and massage the back and sides of the neck.>>I can do that. This should feel really good.>>Oh it does! Feel free to give your shoulders some love. You may also feel like sighing as you do this, a nice easy sound carried by easy breath.>>Great. Now let’s roll our head around, starting slowly, just let your head hang down, with the chin on the chest, and start to gently roll it back and forth. Just a little bit, don’t go too far. Stay slow, and then start rolling it up even further on each side. Then eventually, you can go around the whole circle.>>How’s that feel Tom?>>That feels really good. Now as you go around the full circle, if you feel any spot that feels tense, that you feel a little bit of ache in as you go around, really focus on that. Maybe get in there with your fingers and rub that out, so that you can go ahead and free the neck all the way around. Now drop one ear to your left shoulder, while you do this, gently reach your right hand towards the ground, you’ll feel a little stretch in the right side of your neck. Don’t go too far, just do what feels good to release. Then switch sides.>>How you doing there Tom?>>This is great! Now, leading with your eyes, look over your left shoulder, as far as you can (but, of course, don’t hurt yourself!!), and switch. Here’s one that may feel a little bit weird at first. Let’s start with a very relaxed face, the jaw should be relaxed and possibly hanging open just a little bit. Let’s just sigh, nice full breath in, and a relaxed sigh out. Let a little sound out with the sigh, let the vibrations from the sound relax the throat even more. Now, put both hands on either side of your larynx, and very gently jiggle it back and forth. As you do this, continue your easy breath in and easy sigh out. If you’re able to do this, then it means your throat is relaxed because it’s impossible to do this with a lot of throat tension. Lastly, let’s rub our hands together so they’re nice and warm and then place them around the neck. A natural heating pad, though it cools down a little too quickly! Now, with your newly relaxed neck and throat, sigh on AH and see if you can feel the vibration in the chest. This relaxation will really come in handy as you work on your American English. A lot of my students who speak with natural throat tension because of their native language have a hard time identifying the tension, because it’s so normal to them. So one way to work with this, to try to move your placement down is just to think of opening up the neck some. And all of these exercises will help. So go through all of these exercises, and then think of an opening sensation, so that your voice can rest more here. Any time there’s tension in the neck, it brings the placement up higher. But we want the American English placement to feel like it’s coming from here. This video is part of a series on Relaxation and Placement. If you like it, check out the previous video on Lip Relaxation, or the next video on the Soft Palate. If you have any questions, put them in the comments below. Now, I have to thank Tom for the exercises in this section. Tom picked up a lot of these tools when he was getting his Master’s degree in Acting at Harvard University.>>So thanks, Tom, for lending your expertise.>>You’re very welcome. That’s it, and thanks so much for using Rachel’s English.

Sleepy teens: A public health epidemic | Wendy Troxel | TEDxManhattanBeach

Sleepy teens: A public health epidemic | Wendy Troxel | TEDxManhattanBeach


Translator: Joanna Pietrulewicz
Reviewer: Krystian Aparta It’s six o’clock in the morning, pitch black outside. My 14-year-old son
is fast asleep in his bed, sleeping the reckless,
deep sleep of a teenager. I flip on the light and physically
shake the poor boy awake, because I know that,
like ripping off a Band-Aid, it’s better to get it over with quickly. (Laughter) I have a friend who yells “Fire!”
just to rouse her sleeping teen. And another who got so fed up that she had to dump cold water
on her son’s head just to get him out of bed. Sound brutal … but perhaps familiar? Every morning I ask myself, “How can I — knowing what I know and doing what I do for a living — be doing this to my own son?” You see, I’m a sleep researcher. (Laughter) So I know far too much about sleep and the consequences of sleep loss. I know that I’m depriving my son
of the sleep he desperately needs as a rapidly growing teenager. I also know that by waking him up hours before his natural
biological clock tells him he’s ready, I’m literally robbing him of his dreams — the type of sleep most associated
with learning, memory consolidation and emotional processing. But it’s not just my kid
that’s being deprived of sleep. Sleep deprivation among
American teenagers is an epidemic. Only about one in 10 gets
the eight to 10 hours of sleep per night recommended by sleep scientists
and pediatricians. Now, if you’re thinking to yourself, “Phew, we’re doing good,
my kid’s getting eight hours,” remember, eight hours is the minimum recommendation. You’re barely passing. Eight hours is kind of like
getting a C on your report card. There are many factors
contributing to this epidemic, but a major factor preventing teens
from getting the sleep they need is actually a matter of public policy. Not hormones, social lives or Snapchat. Across the country, many schools are starting
around 7:30am or earlier, despite the fact that major
medical organizations recommend that middle and high school
start no earlier than 8:30am. These early start policies
have a direct effect on how much — or really how little sleep
American teenagers are getting. They’re also pitting
teenagers and their parents in a fundamentally unwinnable fight
against their own bodies. Around the time of puberty, teenagers experience a delay
in their biological clock, which determines when we feel most awake
and when we feel most sleepy. This is driven in part by a shift
in the release of the hormone melatonin. Teenagers’ bodies wait to start releasing
melatonin until around 11pm, which is two hours later than what
we see in adults or younger children. This means that waking a teenager up
at 6am is the biological equivalent of waking an adult up at 4am. On the unfortunate days
when I have to wake up at 4am, I’m a zombie. Functionally useless. I can’t think straight, I’m irritable, and I probably shouldn’t be driving a car. But this is how many American
teenagers feel every single school day. In fact, many of the, shall we say, unpleasant characteristics
that we chalk up to being a teenager — moodiness, irritability,
laziness, depression — could be a product
of chronic sleep deprivation. For many teens
battling chronic sleep loss, their go-to strategy to compensate
is consuming large quantities of caffeine in the form of venti frappuccinos, or energy drinks and shots. So essentially, we’ve got an entire population
of tired but wired youth. Advocates of sleep-friendly
start times know that adolescence is a period
of dramatic brain development, particularly in the parts of the brain that are responsible for those
higher order thinking processes, including reasoning, problem-solving
and good judgment. In other words, the very type
of brain activity that’s responsible for reining in those impulsive
and often risky behaviors that are so characteristic of adolescence and that are so terrifying
to us parents of teenagers. They know that like the rest of us, when teenagers don’t
get the sleep they need, their brains, their bodies
and behaviors suffer with both immediate and lasting effects. They can’t concentrate, their attention plummets and many will even show
behavioral signs that mimic ADHD. But the consequences of teen sleep loss
go well beyond the classroom, sadly contributing to many
of the mental health problems that skyrocket during adolescence, including substance use, depression and suicide. In our work with teens
from LA Unified School District, we found that teens with sleep problems were 55 percent more likely
to have used alcohol in the past month. In another study with over
30,000 high school students, they found that
for each hour of lost sleep, there was a 38 percent increase
in feeling sad or hopeless, and a 58 percent increase
in teen suicide attempts. And if that’s not enough, teens who skip out on sleep
are at increased risk for a host of physical health problems
that plague our country, including obesity,
heart disease and diabetes. Then there’s the risk
of putting a sleep-deprived teen, with a newly minted driver’s license, behind the wheel. Studies have shown that getting five hours
or less of sleep per night is the equivalent of driving with a blood
alcohol content above the legal limit. Advocates of sleep-friendly start times, and researchers in this area, have produced tremendous science showing the tremendous benefits
of later start times. The findings are unequivocal, and as a sleep scientist, I rarely get to speak
with that kind of certainty. Teens from districts
with later start times get more sleep. To the naysayers who may think
that if schools start later, teens will just stay up later, the truth is, their bedtimes stay the same, but their wake-up times get extended, resulting in more sleep. They’re more likely to show up for school; school absences dropped
by 25 percent in one district. And they’re less likely to drop out. Not surprisingly,
they do better academically. So this has real implications
for reducing the achievement gap. Standardized test scores
in math and reading go up by two to three percentage points. That’s as powerful as reducing class sizes
by one-third fewer students, or replacing a so-so teacher
in the classroom with a truly outstanding one. Their mental and physical health improves, and even their families are happier. I mean, who wouldn’t enjoy a little
more pleasantness from our teens, and a little less crankiness? Even their communities are safer because car crash rates go down — a 70 percent reduction in one district. Given these tremendous benefits, you might think, well, this is a no-brainer, right? So why have we as a society
failed to heed this call? Often the argument against later
start times goes something like this: “Why should we delay
start times for teenagers? We need to toughen them up
so they’re ready for the real world!” But that’s like saying
to the parent of a two-year-old, “Don’t let Johnny nap, or he won’t be ready for kindergarten.” (Laughter) Delaying start times also presents
many logistical challenges. Not just for students and their families, but for communities as a whole. Updating bus routes, increased transportation costs, impact on sports, care before or after school. These are the same concerns
that come up in district after district, time and again around the country as school start times are debated. And they’re legitimate concerns, but these are problems
we have to work through. They are not valid excuses for failing to do the right thing
for our children, which is to start middle and high schools
no earlier than 8:30am. And in districts around the country, big and small, who have made this change, they found that these fears
are often unfounded and far outweighed by the tremendous
benefits for student health and performance, and our collective public safety. So tomorrow morning, when coincidentally we get
to set our clocks back by an hour and you get that delicious
extra hour of sleep, and they day seems a little longer and a little more full of hope, think about the tremendous power of sleep. And think about what a gift it would be for our children to be able
to wake up naturally, in harmony with their own biology. Thank you, and pleasant dreams. (Applause)

Mathematics of Epidemics | Trish Campbell | TEDxYouth@Frankston

Mathematics of Epidemics | Trish Campbell | [email protected]


Translator: Yifat Adler
Reviewer: Hussain Laghabi It starts with just one person, and after 8 hours
100 have been infected. 16 hours later, 10,000 people. And a million after the first day. How many people by tomorrow? This is the story of #TheDress. And was it blue and black?
Or was it white and gold? [Laughter] This question was first posed
by a Facebook user who was a family member
of the person who owned the dress. There had been a disagreement
about the color of the dress, and later another user
posted the photo on Tumblr and the rest is history. With over ten million tweets
in the first week, this is an extreme case of going viral. So, let’s take a look at how
#TheDress spreads through a population. The population is divided
into three groups of people. People who haven’t seen the dress, people who have seen
and have started sharing the dress, and people who are
no longer sharing the dress because they’re sick of the dress and never want to hear about it again. And people change groups over time. So, how do the numbers
in each of these groups change? Well, the people who
haven’t seen the dress reduce by the number of people
who start sharing the dress. So, they see it and they start sharing. And the more people that we have sharing, the more new sharers that we get. The people who are sharing the dress increase by the number
of new sharers that we get. But they also decrease by the number
of people who give up sharing. And the people who are
no longer sharing the dress just keep increasing
by the sharers who give up. And we can track what happens to the numbers of people
sharing the dress over time. So, here in a population of ten million. The number of people sharing the dress
starts growing very slowly at first. But then it starts to take off. And once it does so,
it does so very rapidly, and reaches about 4 million people
sharing at any one time up to just a day and a half. Then the numbers fall away to nothing. At the same time, the number of people
who haven’t seen the dress reduces slowly at first and then plummets,
as they start to become new sharers. And the number of people
who are no longer sharing the dress rises really slowly at first
and then it quite reaches its maximum. So, why does the dress stop spreading? Has everybody in the population
seen the dress? Well, no. By the time that
the dress stops spreading, not everybody has seen it. The number of people
who are no longer sharing the dress never quite reaches back up
to a population of ten million. It stops because the people
that are sharing the dress can’t find any new people
to share it with. So they lose interest before they get
to pass it on to anybody else. And, so, the sharing numbers
drop to zero. This is a very simple picture
of how #TheDress spreads in population. And they’ve ignored some realities, like, not everyone has computers
or internet access and not everyone is interested
in sharing memes. So, even if they see it,
they won’t share it. And people have different numbers
of virtual friends. So, it’s not an exact representation, it’s a model, one that is based on
a set of assumptions. So, why should we even care about how a meme spreads through the internet? Well, it turns out that going viral
has its origin in the term virus. So, the way that a meme spreads
through the internet shares many characteristics with the way that an infectious disease
spreads through a real population. So, diseases like Ebola or influenza,
whooping cough, or measles… And fortunately none of these diseases,
or indeed any others known to man, spread any way near as quickly
as #TheDress does through a population. So, while it’s very difficult to stop
a meme such as #TheDress from spreading once it starts going, we’ve got an arsenal of weapons
with which to fight infectious diseases. Vaccines, antibiotics, quarantine,
just to name a few. And a very powerful weapon
behind the scenes: mathematics. Using mathematics to study
infectious diseases isn’t new. A scientist called Daniel Bernoulli
first used probability and statistics nearly 250 years ago to calculate the benefits
of vaccination against smallpox. And the model that I used
to describe the spread of #TheDress has actually been used by epidemiologists
for nearly a hundred years. It’s used to investigate the causes
and spread of infectious diseases and to help develop strategies
to prevent and control them. So, just like we did with #TheDress, we now have a population
that’s made up of people who are susceptible to catch a disease. People who are infectious
and spreading the disease, and people who have recovered
and can no longer pass on the disease. And people will move from these groups. This is called an SIR model, and it’s the basic infectious
disease model. Just like we did with #TheDress, we can keep track of the number of people that are in each
of these groups over time. But just like #TheDress,
we’re also ignoring a lot realities which influence the spread
of infectious diseases. And importantly what we are doing as well
is assuming that everybody in these groups has identical characteristics
and behaviors. And not many diseases or populations
behave quite so simply. So, we often have to allow for
new members to join the population, or for old members to leave. Or we have to account for the fact that for some diseases
just because you’ve had them, it doesn’t mean
that you can’t have them again. And we need to add in vaccination
and treatment for some diseases as well, if we really want to know
how they spread through a population. So, we can run virtual experiments
to answer questions like: how many cases could we prevent
if we had an effective vaccine against Ebola, for example? We can answer questions that
we can’t answer using real people. Sometimes because
the type of experiments that we would need to run
in a population are unethical. And at other times, just because collecting information
is really just too difficult. So, bear in mind that when these models were
first developed a hundred years ago, all the calculations
would have been done by hand. So, increasing computational power,
though, has meant that the process of mathematically modeling
infectious diseases has got much much faster, and we can now add
a lot more data into models to try and build a match
what’s really happening in a population. So, in this era of big data with rapid advances
in science and technology, we are seeing a rapid evolution in
the field of infectious disease modelling. So, here is just a few of the things
that are happening. We now have individual base models which follow the history
of individuals in a population and track the information that changes
their chance of catching a disease. So, things like their infection history,
their vaccination history, the number and ages of people
that they live with. People are even now using
radio frequency identification tags to start collecting information
on how people contact other people, how they move through a population. Because how you mix with
other members of a population is very important
to the spread of infectious disease. So, we’ve gone from modeling
groups of people in a population to modeling individual characteristics
and behaviors of individuals, to modeling the genomes,
the genetic material of the organisms that actually cause disease,
viruses and bacteria. And we are doing that so we can
find out who patient zero was, and to look at how the infection
has spread through a population. And we’re also using mathematics
to investigate how infectious diseases,
viruses and bacteria actually spread within a human body, and how our immune system
is fighting back. And all of this work is hoping
to give us a better understanding of how infectious diseases spread
and how we can stop them. In my lifetime, we’ve seen
the eradication of smallpox. And we’re on track to see
the eradication of polio in yours. Through careful planning aided by
the use of mathematical models, we wipe diseases that have caused millions of deaths
off the face of the Earth. But infectious diseases isn’t
the only application of mathematics to health problems. There are many biological processes
that are still a mystery and lend themselves
to mathematical exploration. So, what questions will you
answer using mathematics? Thank you.
[Applause]

Air conditioning with wind, sun and water: Ben Bronsema at TEDxDelft

Air conditioning with wind, sun and water: Ben Bronsema at TEDxDelft


Translator: Els De Keyser
Reviewer: Ariana Bleau Lugo Ladies and gentlemen, the buildings
you see here are very different. There is a town hall,
there is a big ministry building, there is an airport terminal,
there is a head office of a big bank and a small bank, and an office
of a broadcasting company and also two old buildings
from the last century, a museum in The Hague and the head office of an important
Dutch trading company from the former century. These buildings were built in the 20’s
and the 30’s of the last century. Well, these are very different buildings and yet they have one thing in common: the airconditioning systems in these buildings
were designed by me and by my staff. (Laughter) Everybody can talk about airconditioning but few have ever seen
the heart of an air-conditioning. And what you see here on this slide is the very heart
of an airconditioning plant: huge air handling units
which cool and dry your air or heat it up and humidify it. Well, this has always been
important work for me. This was my joy, this was
my passion and my life, to design this kind of things. Ordinary people
are not allowed to go in there. And architects also
don’t like those systems. Architects dislike airconditioning, in fact. It costs a lot of space. They hate the pipes and the ducts. They hide them very carefully above the false
ceilings and in insulating shafts. And at last, airconditioning
costs a lot of money. It has to be funded
from the construction budget, and that’s their budget. Then next, do people like airconditioning? Well, they generally do not. They hate the noise of the fans, the draft of the cold air
that is coming into them, they don’t like the air quality, they think the inside air quality is not
as good as the outside air quality. They complain about dry air. And, well, energy consumption
of air conditioning is rather high. So that’s also not so very good
for air conditioning. So having a relationship with architects
that is a love-and-hate relation, and customers that do not like my products, you can imagine that I had
a very hard and difficult life. (Laughter) So, should I have given up
or is there a solution to this problem? Well, can we learn from nature? What you see here
is a termite hill. I’ve seen lots of termite hills
in Africa, in Kenya. They are very large buildings
they build for themselves. Inside that building, that mound, they grow a fungus. The fungus is
their primary food source. The fungus grows best
at a temperature of 30°C. So the temperature in the mound
has to be kept at 30°C, while at the outside, it’s 50° in daytime
and the sun is shining on the hill, and at night time, the temperature
can go down to about zero. So, can we learn from some —
could we design a building like those termites do? Well, we don’t know for sure, but I think termites do not split up
the design of these mounds and architecture [and] engineering.
They build it together. (Laughter)
(Chuckles) I say: as far as we know!
(Chuckles) (Applause) And I think termites are very satisfied with the endoclimate in their buildings. So could we imitate this,
the way termites do this? It’s called the biomimicry principle. Could we learn from them
and build a building in reality? Could we make buildings
in the human world as a machine
for natural air conditioning? Then I come to the words architect
and engineer – different minds. Architects are artistic,
intuitive and creative and engineers logical,
rational and well, I must say that architects sometimes
have very fantastic ideas but they leave the quality
of the endoclimate to the engineer. The engineer is always responsible. So, different minds. I have learned the mind
of the architect rather well during my career. About 20 years ago I was
appointed as a guest lecturer at Delft University,
at the faculty of architecture and I got to know the minds
of architects even better. And then I got a new idea. Can we build a building
with natural air conditioning in the way termites do it? How do the termites do it? Well, they very carefully open and close vents that let warm air out and let cool air in, and opposite. Could we do that in the same way
as the termites do it? And could we, by doing so,
have natural air conditioning, avoiding fans, could we, by doing so,
probably, maybe, hopefully, make a zero energy building and a building where the endoclimate is more like the outdoor climate
and people are more satisfied with it? Well, this was the idea. On a morning, I awoke,
during a holiday, and I said: well,
but what’s the title for it? What about Earth, Wind and Fire? That was the working title
for this investigation. (Laughter) I wrote a research proposal on that. And I applied for funding
from the Dutch government. Well, the Dutch government
took their time — about two years — (Laughter) but at last, I got
about a million of euros. That’s a lot of money.
The good old times, you can say. It is tax money. So you all contributed
to my research. Thank you very much.
(Laughter) (Applause) So when I got the funding for my research,
the research could start. It started in the early summer of 2007. My wife, Ilona, was recovering
from major surgery after chemotherapy. About 20% of the women
survive ovarian cancer. I was convinced that
she would belong to that 20%. Then in a week in November
came the message from the hospital that the cancer was back
and there was no more hope for her. I was a caregiver, so
I had to divide my time between Earth, Wind and Fire
and Ilona. But you can understand
that that was a difficult task. And at the end of the year,
my inspiration and ambition had gone so much that I thought: well, I’d better give up Earth, Wind and Fire, forget about that and
concentrate on my wife. But she didn’t agree with me. She said, “Ben, your work, your job has always been your passion
and your life, your joy, so go on with that. And when I’m no longer here, you still have a wonderful
purpose in your life. And that little voice, I still
hear it after so many years. So she died in February 2008. For a couple of months, I did nothing
at Earth Wind and Fire, but then, slowly, I restarted. (Ramses Shaffy singing:) Sing, fight,
cry, pray, laugh, work and admire. (Applause) This is the title page of my thesis, stating that singing, fighting, crying,
praying, laughing and working, I restarted the research and was more and more
surprised by the results. As a principal investigator I put together a team of researchers. Scientists of the University of Delft
and the University of Eindhoven. A fantastic combination
of old and young, of trained intuition —
that’s me, of course — (Laughter) and open minds —
that’s the researchers. Also practical experience,
but also scientific expertise. There was a fantastic team
to do this work. You see a picture here. It’s part of my research team
and also one of my promotors. We also had a project advisory team of people from the building industry. Once or two times a year we came together and they said what they thought
about the progress of the research. Well, this was the idea:
Earth, Wind and Fire. What you see here, is a cross-section
of an office building. The wind comes from the left in this case, but it’s wind direction independent, so it’s not important to place the building
in the wind direction, but there are overhangs at roof level and the wind blowing to the facade is caught by the overhangs
and is entering the building. Part of the wind is used
for air conditioning of the building, and part of it is used for energy production by wind turbines
that are not on this picture. At the left side,
you see the climate cascade where the fresh air enters. At the top of the climate cascade cold water is sprayed,
water of 13° C That cold water cools the air in summer and preheats the air in winter. The temperature of 13° C, we can get that
from cold from the soil. The soil is about 11 to 12° C, so we don’t need chillers, we can get
the cold from the soil to cool the air. Then the air is cooled, for instance, in summer from 28 degrees outside
to 18 degrees — about 10 degrees,
we can cool that. At the top of the climate cascade,
the water is sprayed. At the foot of the climate cascade,
pressure is built up. We need some pressure
to distribute the air into the building. Because of the weight difference
between the water air mixture inside the climate cascade and the surrounding, there is a negative thermal draught, so we have positive pressure at the foot. At the other side of the building, we have the solar chimney. The sun shines into the chimney, the air is heated up, is rising, it’s thermal draught, and at the foot
of the solar chimney, there’s an underpressure. That underpressure
exhausts the fresh air that is distributed
by the climate cascade. At the top of the solar chimney, we have a heat recovery system. It would be a pity, of course,
to leave all the energy that’s in the air. It’s not only the solar energy but also all the energy
that’s produced in the building. the heat from lighting, from people,
from computers and so on. All that heat is recovered by water, that water is heated and stored
into the soil beneath the building. We can use that in winter
to heat the building. Then the air is going up
through what is called a venturi ejector. This room is like a venturi. When wind blows through the roof,
the wind speed is accelerated and there is an underpressure
in the heart of the roof. By that underpressure, the wind, the air
is removed from the building. This works all naturally. We only need one small pump to pump the water up
to the sprayers. That was the idea. I concocted it myself
in a very coarse way. But it has to be calculated, of course. So the scientists
from Eindhoven and Delft made very sophisticated
computer models. But what is the value
of a computer model? It always needs to be tested. So the next step was that we built physical models, physical mock-ups. In those mock-ups,
we did all the measurements and based on those measurements
in the physical mock-ups, we could validate the computer models. So we have very reliable
computer models now. It turned out to be really good. We have very reliable models. It’s amazing that you can
make a CFD simulation of hundreds of thousands
of water droplets — what is the cooling effect? —
but it can be done, and it was really fantastic to do that. You see the tester here,
a mock-up of the solar chimney. It’s eleven meters high
and two meters wide. For one year,
many points were measured: the solar radiation, but also
the temperatures inside the solar chimney, the air velocities and so on,
and on the basis of all those measurements we could validate and
verify the computer models. And it turns out that we have
a reliable computer model for that. We did not only build a test mock-up
for the solar chimney, but also for the climate cascade
and for the ventec roof which is tested in the wind tunnel. Well, the question is: will people
like natural air conditioning? Well, most probably, yes! There’s no noise,
there’s no draft, the air is not so cold,
it’s about 18° C, there is outdoor air quality,
the best quality you can have, there’s no dry air
and the system uses very little energy. But of course the building itself consumes energy, because of the lighting
and so on, and the computers. So we need to provide for the energy consumption
of the building itself. So the next idea was to produce the energy
for the building in the building itself. We designed a power plant on a roof, a power plant using wind and using sun to produce energy — sun by PV roofing
and wind by wind turbines. This is a picture of such a power roof. It’s an energy power plant for the building. You see the wind turbines
in the pressure room and you see the ventec roof and a wind turbine can be
situated in there as well. In the best case, we can produce
all the energy we need in the building. This is an exploded view of the roof. Here is the entrance
of the climate cascade. You see the turbines running. Again. Then at last — the idea
of Earth, Wind and Fire was to apply it in newly designed buildings. That can be done:
you can design a building so that it is ideally suited
for the Earth, Wind and Fire concept, but there is no big building production
at the moment, so I did a test, a virtual case study on an existing building in Amsterdam. This is the new view of the building. This is the south facade. We made a complete
solar facade on the south. You see the roof and the overhangs
and the ventec roof. Well, it can be done. We calculated — we tested, of course,
but only virtually — that by the Earth, Wind and Fire concept you can reduce the energy
consumption of the air conditioning by about 40-60%,
and the remaining energy we need, can be produced
in the power plant on the roof; purely with nature. So I can say that Earth, Wind and Fire
is a multiple innovation. In the first place, I think
it’s a social innovation, because architects and engineers
are cooperating so closely. Architects are engaged in the design
of the climate system and they are also engaged in the problem
of energy and indoor environment. And that’s of course very important. And also for the people in the building
you can call it a social innovation because the indoor environment is better. Scientists have proven many years ago
that when the indoor environment is better, the productivity of the office staff
is improved as well. And at last it is a technological innovation. We have air conditioning without vents. We can have zero energy buildings
and that’s of course fantastic. We should do that in the future. Some of my favorite statements: the trouble with getting old it that one doesn’t. That means that your body gets old,
but your mind doesn’t get old. Is that a problem? No,
for me it’s not a problem — (Chuckles) but that the body gets old
is sometimes a problem. The most wonderful youth is a youthful mind
when you are no longer young. That’s my favorite saying. It’s from
a famous French philosopher.

English Vocabulary: Talking about BUGS and INSECTS

English Vocabulary: Talking about BUGS and INSECTS


Hi, everyone. I’m Alex. Thanks for clicking,
and welcome to this lesson on talking about bugs and insects. So in this lesson, I’m actually
going to get the help of one of my oldest friends. This is Steve the Spider. We’ve known
each other since high school. We were on the basketball team together, on the swimming
team together. He’s a heck of a chess player. And you know what? We lost contact for a long
time, but he recently found me on Facebook. And I thought, “You know what, Steve? I’m
going to do a lesson on bugs and insects. I think it would be really cool if you
helped me.” So here he is helping out, Steve the Spider. So this is a basic lesson on some of the vocabulary
nouns that we use to talk about different bugs and insects as well as some of the actions
associated with those bugs and insects. So to begin, we have caterpillars. And we
are going to focus on pronunciation a bit on this one, too. So repeat after me, everyone.
“Caterpillars.” Okay. So what do caterpillars do? Well, they make cocoons and become butterflies.
So here is a picture of a butterfly. Do you like that butterfly, Steve? Yeah? It looks
very nice, right? Okay. So here’s a picture of a caterpillar. They make cocoons, which is
the home of the caterpillar before it becomes a butterfly. All right? So caterpillars
make cocoons and become butterflies. Next, we’ve ladybugs. Here is a picture of
a ladybug. Steven has dated many ladybugs in his life. And ladybugs have black spots.
I think it’s the black spots that attract him the most. So they have black spots.
Here’s a ladybug — red ladybug with
some black spots on it. Next, we’ve bees. And bees can sting you.
So this little sharp stinger — it’s called a “stinger” — can sting you. Okay? They can
sting you. So you can say, “I got a bee sting”, or “I got stung by a bee. I was stung by a bee.”
And bees, the sound they make, obviously, is “bzzz”, so we
say, “Bees buzz.” Next, we’ve spiders who are cousins of Steve
here. Spiders make webs.” Steve has made many a web in his life, and he’s going to continue
making webs for the rest of his life as well. So if you’ve seen Spider-Man, you’re familiar
with spiders, and they make webs. Okay? Next, we’ve ants. The same pronunciation like
your aunt, which is you know, the sister of your father or your mother. Ants live in colonies,
so large groups or colonies. And here’s a picture of ants going to their home. This is
actually called an “anthill”, so an “anthill”. Ants live in colonies
and anthills. Next, mosquitoes. Mosquitoes can bite you
and make you itchy. So mosquitoes are the insects that like human blood. And you can say,
“I was bitten by a mosquito”, or “A mosquito bit me.” You can also say, “I have a mosquito
bite.” So if your hand is red and you’re itchy — “itchy” means you want to scratch. Scratch,
scratch, scratch. It’s because you have a mosquito bite. Next, fireflies. Fireflies glow — which means
they give light — and flicker. So when you think of “flicker”, thank of lights that go
on, off, on, off. Okay? So they glow — they give light at night — and they flicker. So
here’s a picture of a firefly giving light. And finally, we have cockroaches, which very
few people like. They have some uses, but — cockroaches have hard shells. So you know,
the back of the cockroach, the shell of the cockroach is very hard, which makes them crunchy
and hard to kill. Depends on the size of your boot. You would never hurt a cockroach,
right, Steve? No, I didn’t think so. Okay. So just to review, let’s do some pronunciation
of all of these insects one more time. Repeat after me. “Caterpillar”. We’ll use the singular.
One more time, “caterpillar, ladybug, bee, spider, ant, mosquito,
firefly, cockroach”. Okay. So if you’d like to test your understanding
of this material, as always, you can check out the quiz on www.engvid.com. And don’t
forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel. Did you subscribe to my YouTube channel, Steve?
Okay. We’re going to go play some basketball, so we’ll talk to you guys later.
See you.

Ending the arms race with infectious diseases | Janelle Ayres | TEDxSanDiego

Ending the arms race with infectious diseases | Janelle Ayres | TEDxSanDiego


Translator: Ilya Bychkov
Reviewer: Denise RQ “It is now time to close the book
on infectious diseases and declare the war
against pestilence won.” It is something we all want. We all want to live in a world
free of infectious diseases. Think about when you watch movies
like, “Contagion” or “Outbreak.” or when you watch the news coverage on the Ebola virus
or more recently, the Zika virus. How did seeing those things make you feel? They freaked you out, right? Infectious diseases
evoke legitimate feelings of fear in every single one of us, because none of us is free from the threat
of contracting an infection. The quote that I began with is from
the US Surgeon General from the 1960s. He made this statement in response
to the success of the early antibiotics. It is a statement that accurately reflects
the overall sentiment of the time: which is that because we had such great success
with the early generation of antibiotics, infectious diseases were soon
going to become a worry of the past. I want to tell you about one
person’s war against an infection that took place just last year. That is my dad’s. In January of 2015,
my dad became very sick. It took the doctors
a few weeks to figure it out, but they realized that he had gallstones, and he would have to have
his gallbladder removed. That diagnosis was actually
a relief to all of us, because gallstones are very common
in the United States, and gallbladder removal surgery is one of the most commonly performed
surgeries in the country. So this is basically standard
operating procedure for his doctors. We couldn’t imagine that anything
serious could possibly go wrong. Actually, nothing serious did go
wrong with his surgery. It went quite well.
He was discharged from the hospital, but 12 hours after his discharge,
my mum sent me a text. It said, “He can’t walk.
I have to call an ambulance. I don’t know what’s wrong.” My family is up in the Bay Area; I was down here in San Diego
when this happened. So my sister was communicating to me
from the ICU my dad’s symptoms. I’m the only biologist in my family, so you can imagine how confused they were. How could 12 hours ago
my dad be perfectly healthy, and discharged from the hospital, and now he is laying paralyzed
in a bed in the intensive care unit? But after I heard his symptoms,
I knew exactly what had happened. My dad had sepsis. If you don’t know what sepsis is this is a life-threatening condition that occurs when your body’s response
to an infection is so powerful that it begins damaging
its own tissues and organs. It’s pretty much a death sentence because it has mortality rates
greater than 80%. I dropped everything. I had to rush home. I had to get to the hospital
to be with him and to talk with his doctors. It felt like I couldn’t get there
fast enough. First, my flight was delayed. Then I had to battle Bay Area traffic
for over two hours. I was certain that he was going to be gone
by the time I got to the hospital. But he wasn’t. When I walked into his room in the ICU, my dad waived to me and gave me
one of his classic thumbs up that I had seen 1,000 times growing up. The doctors confirmed
that he did have sepsis. What happened is that his gallstones
went undetected for so long, that his gallbladder became infected. From there, the bacteria
spread into his bloodstream, and then infected his vertebrae,
and that caused his paralysis. It was his body’s response
to the bacteria being in the blood that caused him to have sepsis. The treatment strategy
proposed by his doctors was really the only option
they had available for them: to administer broad spectrum antibiotics and to hope for the best. I sat there for a week with my dad, and I can remember obsessively
watching his vitals monitors, hoping the next blood pressure read
was going to be higher, or the next ventilator read
was going to be lower. I was looking for any indication that the infection was actually
responding to the antibiotics. But the numbers never got better, because he had
an antibiotic-resistant infection, making the only strategy that was
available to him completely useless. After nine days, my dad lost
his war against an infection and he passed away. It is because of the global spread
of the antibiotic resistance, and our current strategies
for treating infectious diseases that my dad died. We are further away than ever from closing
the book on infectious diseases. But why? If we really had such great success
with the early generation antibiotics, how is it possible
that we screw things up so badly that we now are in far worse condition
than we were 50 years ago? And the main issue is our perspective on
how we should be dealing with problems. When we are faced with the challenge, we think that in order to solve
that challenge, we have to annihilate
the source of the problem. If you have a mouse in your house,
you set traps to try to kill that mouse. If you have a weed in your yard, you spray toxic chemicals
all over your yard to try to kill that weed and prevent
new ones from coming in. Infectious diseases are
no exception to this mentality. All of our current strategies
to fight infectious diseases are based on the question: how do we fight infections? As a result, we declared a war
against infectious diseases. We put all our efforts
into developing weapons in the form of antibiotics and antivirals
in order to win this war. But bacteria and viruses
are incredibly slippery targets. They can evolve so quickly resistance
to our weapons, making them obsolete. So what do we do? Our solution has been
to just make more new weapons, make more antibiotics,
make more antivirals. It’s not surprising that the microbes have
evolved resistance to our new weapons. So our perspective is fueling
an ever escalating arms race between us and the infectious diseases. The scary fact is it’s
an arms race we can never win. The second issue, in addition
to driving drug resistance, is that there is a fundamental issue
with this perspective, if we actually want to develop therapies that will enable a patient
to survive an infectious disease. To help you understand
what I mean by this, I want to continue with the war analogy. In an actual war, there is
combat between soldiers. But that combat
does not occur in isolation. Something that can happen is what’s called
“the collateral damage of war,” which is the unintentional
or incidental damage that can occur to civilians,
property, economy, and the society. The same principle
can be applied to an infection that’s occurring in a patient’s body. So if we have a septic patient, there is going to be bacteria,
virus, or even fungus that has entered their bloodstream. Their immune system
is going to recognize that foreign invader and it’s going to mount a killing response
to try to fight that infection. But that fight
is not occurring in isolation. What happens is, basically, every other physiological system
in the patient’s body becomes damaged: the liver, the kidneys,
the intestine, lungs, the cardiovascular system,
all get damaged. You can give
a septic patient antimicrobials, and they might be effective
at killing the infection, but you are left with a patient that has suffered extreme
collateral damage to his body. For my dad, even if his infection
was sensitive to the antibiotics, the likelihood of him
to surviving was very low because he suffered so much physiological
damage from the infection. What he needed were therapies
that would fix that physiological damage. He wasn’t given any drugs that do that
because those drugs don’t exist; because we haven’t been approaching
infectious diseases from the right perspective. So if we’ve been asking
the wrong question, what is the question
that we should be asking? Instead of asking,
“How do we fight infections?”, we should be asking
“How do we survive infections?” I know that a single word change
from “fight” to “survive” seems simple, but by making the single change, we’ve completely changed
the meaning of the question. If we can understand
the answer to this question, we will completely change the way
we treat infectious diseases. We will be able to develop
drugs, therapies, strategies that will enable the patient
to survive an infection without driving drug resistance
in the microbial populations. Because these drugs will be
fixing the collateral damage that’s happened in the patient’s body rather than targeting the microbe
that’s causing the infection. I became very interested in this question,
“How do we survive infections?” when I was getting my PhD
at Stanford about ten years ago. We all know that our bodies
have an immune system, and this immune system is important for recognizing microbes
that are invading our body, and it is important for mounting
a killing response against these microbes to fight the infection. We found in addition to our immune system, our bodies encode
a distinct defense system that we call the tolerance defense system. This tolerance defense system
is absolutely necessary for our ability to survive infections. It protects us from mortality by preventing and fixing
the collateral damage that happens to our bodies
during infectious diseases. This is really exciting
because it means that if we can find out how this tolerance defense system
is working in our bodies, we can change the way
we treat infectious diseases, we will be able to develop therapies that overcome the limitations
of current strategies that are available, we can develop strategies
that promote survival without driving drug resistance. So then how do we go about doing this? This is actually a main goal
of my team at the Salk Institute. We’re committing to understanding
this tolerance defense system so that we can make this a reality. We take a variety of approaches
to address this goal, but one of our main approaches
that we’re really excited about, and that we have already
been successful with is we’re leveraging our interactions
with beneficial microbes. Right now all of you have
about three pounds of bacteria that are living on you body surfaces
exposed to the environment. If we sprinkle in some viruses
and some fungus, now you have your microbiome. Your microbiome is
absolutely essential for your health. We have an evolutionary theory,
that has lead us to predict that the microbiome has evolved mechanisms
to turn on our tolerance defense system. It can effectively manipulate
this defense system to promote our health. We are using the microbiome to teach us
how to turn tolerance defenses on, to teach us what they are,
how to manipulate them to promote health. We are using these microbes
as platforms for drug design so that we can move this into the clinic. For example,
we’ve recently identified an E. coli that lives in the intestines
of healthy individuals. This E. coli has taught us
that we can cure infectious diseases by mediating communication between the immune system,
our fat tissue, and our skeletal muscle, by preventing collateral damage
in the form of skeletal muscle wasting. In pre-clinical trials, just by orally administering
this E. coli to the model patients, we can cure sepsis, bacterial pneumonia,
typhoid fever, and infectious diarrhea without the need for a single antibiotic. I think that’s amazing. I think it’s exciting (Applause) I think it opens up a promising future for our ability to treat
and cure infectious diseases. My lab will continue to do this. We are committed to it,
but we can’t do it alone. We are all vulnerable to the threat
of contracting an infectious disease. We are all terrified of that threat. But if you leave here
with one thing today, I want you to leave here
believing that there is hope to get us out of the mess
that we got ourselves into. The first step to this
is really changing our perspective going from “How do we fight infections?”
to “How do we survive infections?” All of you: doctors, scientists,
health care officials, drug companies need to make
that perspective shift. We have the technology
and knowledge to do it. We have to make that shift,
because it’s only then when we’ll truly be able to close
the door on infectious diseases and end the war against pestilence. Thank you. (Applause)