Yahoo! Answers

Hey Guys,

Late last week, I asked the Yahoo! Answers community if “happy songs” improve their moods. Most of the responders wrote that, heck yeah, songs definitely help in getting them out of a funk. The real question is “why.” Is there a scientific connection behind music and mood?

I did some searches and discovered a 2003 article from WebMD. According to studies at Penn State University, all kinds of music improve moods. It doesn’t matter if you’re listening to rock and roll, classical, or (gasp) Celine Dion–any type of tune helped those in the study feel more “optimistic, joyful, friendly, relaxed, and calm.”

And it’s not just a person’s mood that music can affect. U.S. News and World Report writes that some neurologists prescribe music for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. One neurologist says that, “‘music therapy can help restore the loss of expressive language in patients with aphasia following brain injury from stroke.” Apparently, “music can trigger the release of mood-altering brain chemicals and once-lost memories and emotions.”

The Harvard University Gazette hosts a nice (and surprisingly understandable) article on how the human brain perceives music. One small nugget of information that you can drop at your next cocktail party: As people play and listen to music, different areas of the brain receive increased blood flow and oxygen. According to Professor Daniel Levitin, “music activates the same parts of the brain and causes the same neurochemical cocktail as a lot of other pleasurable activities.

But for all the good music can do, it can sometimes drive humans nuts. Ask Yahoo! tackled a related question a few years back when it answered why certain songs get stuck in your head. Repetition seems to be the main reason. “The more you hear one chorus, beat, or whatever, the more likely it will burrow into your subconscious.” And, unfortunately, 97-99% of people are susceptible. The cure? Listen to another song (preferably something not by Los Del Rio).

Thanks for reading,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Hey Guys,

Driving requires concentration. Yet, I think just about everyone will admit to “multi-tasking” while sitting behind the wheel. I asked the Yahoo! Answers community if they ever drive while texting (DWT)–an activity many experts believe to be very dangerous.

The answers I received were all over the map. Some folks sheepishly admitted to DWT while others responded that they never do it under any circumstances. One responder wrote that once upon a time he/she was driving while texting and very nearly experienced a fatal crash as a result. Others write that they only DWT while at stop lights.

CNN reports that “46 percent of drivers ages 16 to 17 admit to texting while driving.” The percentage drops significantly for older drivers. According to nationwide studies, “just 14 percent of those ages 28 to 44″ send text messages or fiddle with their phones while driving.

Some states are attempting to ban driving while texting. In Washington, drivers receive fines of $101 if they’re found guilty. Lawmakers in Oregon are hoping to implement a fine of over $700 starting in 2009. And, according to CNN, various cities are implementing city-wide bans on the practice. The American Medical Association believes that “text messaging while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road.”

California recently banned talking on a cell phone while driving (unless you happen to have a wireless device). Do you think such bans are effective? Would a similar ban on texting while driving stop people from doing it? Please chime in with your thoughts below.

Thanks for reading,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Hey Guys,

Most dogs wear their emotions on their paws, but some canine characteristics are rather mysterious. Take tails, for example. Why in the world do dogs have ‘em? Do they serve a purpose?

I did a bit of research and discovered that I’m about the billionth person to ask this question. The American Kennel Club explains that a pup’s tail is an extension of its spinal column. And there are two main reasons why dogs have ‘em–communication and balance.

Obviously dogs can’t talk, so they rely on body language. The AKC writes that “the way dogs hold their tails can show how they’re feeling.” Dogs that are wagging their tails are usually relaxed and happy. A dog with its tail curved under its body is most likely scared or nervous. And if you spot a dog with its tail held high and stiff, odds are the dog is angry and should probably be avoided.

I knew cats used their tails for balance, but I was surprised to learn that dogs do too. Apparently this is especially true of hunting dogs who run and have to make quick turns. The tail can act as a counterbalance. Dogs that swim a lot, like Golden Retrievers, use their tails as a “rudder to help steer them in the water.” And dogs like Siberian Huskies that live in snowy environments use their tails to keep themselves warm. When they sleep, they curl up and keep their nose under the tail. Almost makes me wish I had one. Almost.

In the past, Ask Yahoo! has figured out why dogs turn around three times before sitting down, sniff each other’s rear ends, and stick their heads out car windows. What other habits and quirks do you notice in your dog? Please leave a comment below.

Thanks for reading,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Hey Guys,

Is anyone else sick of this election? Back in 2004, I was exhausted by the time the big day came, but I don’t think I was as fed up back then as I am now. How long has the campaigning been going on?

I did a bit of research and found that Senator Obama announced his candidacy on February 10, 2007. That’s over a year and half of speeches and kissing babies. John McCain has been on the trail nearly as long. The Arizona senator announced his candidacy on April 25, 2007. Senator Clinton was the earliest to throw her hat in the ring. She started running on January 20, 2007.

Such long amounts of time seem excessive, so I checked to see if the timeframe is really getting longer or if it’s just my fatigued imagination. Turns out I’m not crazy. Al Gore, who ran for president in 2000, announced his candidacy on June 16, 1999. President Bush announced his candidacy at roughly the same time, in June of ‘99. That’s several months later than Senators Obama and McCain.

In 2004, things were a bit different. George W. Bush was an incumbent so his candidacy was simply assumed. Senator Kerry, who ran unsuccessfully against the President, announced his candidacy in December of 2002. Howard Dean, best remembered for his “Dean scream,” was the earliest into the pool. He announced that he had formed an exploratory committee on May 31, 2002. That’s about two and a half years before the election. I don’t have all the stats in front of me, but that’s gotta be a record.

So, while it seems like the Obama-McCain campaign has gone on forever, things were worse in years past. Still, like a lot of you, I’ll be glad when it’s over. I can finally enjoy a few weeks of peace and quiet before the race for 2012 begins.

Thanks for reading,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Hey Guys,

I watched all the debates. I’ve read way too many articles on the upcoming election. I’m about as informed as I’m ever going to be. However, there is at least one issue that I’m still in the dark about: clean coal. Specifically, how in the heck is coal, a fuel that’s as dirty as they come, considered clean?

Both candidates have mentioned this seemingly oxymoronic term during their energy speeches, so I did a little research. According to the Sierra Club, there is “no such thing” as clean coal. However, the site notes that “new technologies and policies can help reduce coal plants’ deadly emissions, including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides.”

HowStuffWorks.com notes that coal still generates half the electricity in the United States. Clean coal technology aims to “contain its emissions.” One of the most promising ways of doing this is through carbon capture and storage. Essentially, this is a way of sequestering “carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants.” Whether they then take the emissions and launch them into space, I’m not sure.

The Department of Energy sums up the history of clean coal, while Greenpeace argues that clean coal does “nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming.” In other words, even when the coal is “clean,” it’s still dirty.

If you’re still curious about this controversial issue, the BBC offers an excellent summary of the benefits of and problems with clean coal. Based on what you know about clean coal, do you think it’s a good idea? Does clean coal make the best of a bad situation? Or, is that not good enough given the environment’s perilous state? It’s a big issue this election–what are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!