According to ScienceNews, Dry pet may be more environmentally friendly than wet food by Meghan Rosen. A Veterinary nutritionist for the University at Sao Paulo, Brazil, analyzed over 900 hundred pet diets and was able to ascertain that caloric intake from wet food was approximately double that of dry food. Factoring in the type of pet, the cost of food, and environmental factors. “The findings, described November 17 in Scientific Reports, suggest that wet food production uses more land and water and emits more greenhouse gasses than dry food.” The article goes on to state typical cat and dog food is not made from prime cut meat, but rather animal byproducts (things humans usually do not eat). Due to the nature of the meat by-products, how to measure the carbon output is an ongoing debate. According to Gregory Okin, an environmental scientist at the University of California.  “There is much debate, and on the specifics of what the wet food contains and the degree it will affect the atmosphere, but clearly dry food is healthier for the environment.”   He goes on to say it would be advantageous to have this information on the labels, so that an educated consumer can make an informed decision, not only on what they are feeding their pets, but how it is affecting the planet.

  According to one citation it is the human consumption of food that is the biggest culprit harming the environment, cutting down forests so cows and other animals can be raised.  Reported in Nature Food in March 2021, the article goes on to state that  split food system emissions into four categories: land (including both agriculture and related land use changes), energy (used for producing, processing, packaging and transporting goods), industry (including the production of chemicals used in farming and materials used to package food) and waste (from unused food).I realized that every major category pertaining to feeding those on the planet are important while trying to preserve the earth and her integrity. Our pets and their diets may represent only a small portion of this equation, but still, it is an important variable.  Wet food diets for pets were responsible for the highest impact, and dry diets were the type of diet that least impacted the environment. It does have a significant impact particularly since the population of pets is growing. 

According to Science News, false teeth could double as hearing aids.  That sounds innovative and exciting. The article claims, a dental implant strategically located can transmit sound and can be used as part of a hearing device.  Via vibrations through the jaw bone, this device/implant can aid many people who experience hearing loss.  According to the article, previously, technological breakthroughs used a clip on a molar to transmit sound to a wireless microphone worn behind the ear.   Dental researchers refined the process even further, turning the tooth/implant itself into the actual hearing device.  The tiny hearing aid would be placed directly into the tooth, doing away with the need for the microphone behind the ear.  This sounds like the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Before this could come to fruition, the scientific application would have to be applied.  The scientists must first compare the different types of sounds from natural teeth, as opposed to implants.  They needed to determine where on the jaw would be most effective and efficient.  They needed volunteers to compile and analyze data.  According to the article, this looks like a winning proposition, offering a discrete, comfortable way for the hearing impaired to improve their quality of sound and quite frankly, quality of life. 

This article was very impressive, it made the possibility and procedure of using an implant as a hearing aid sound like it would and could happen in the very near future.  The citation, The sensitivity of bone conduction for dental implants was not nearly as optimistic. The bone conduction threshold was not reported, which seems significant.  Leading to the assumption that much more research and experimentation will be needed. This citation seems to suggest that the process mentioned in the article is more in a preliminary state. The study in the citation seemed to focus on pure tone auditory thresholds of normal subjects (not people with hearing loss).  It did not mention many factors, which would have made this citation more comprehensive. It does seem like a step in the right direction, but definitely not as optimistic as the original article.  

Rip carrod

Michael is a minor.