QCCQ #1
Lula Richardson
September 26, 2013
Quote
“In our society, it's important to know colors,” Langstaff says over a rising happy-hour diner. We need to know the difference between a green light and a red light. It’s not so important to know the difference between bitter and sour, skunky and yeasty, tarry and burnt. “Who cares. They’re both terrible. Ew. But if you’re a brewer, it’s extremely important.”
Comment
This quote sums up a hefty amount of the first 40 pages. The meaning behind this quote started with a question. “Can wine tasters really taste the different a cheap bottle of wine and that cost hundreds of dollars. It went on to describe the insane talent of taste. Wine tasters can tell a winemaker what exactly is the problem with their wine like if it was a mistake in the formation of the grapes or even the water used. Even more crazy the nose is actually doing most the work here. The tongue can only detect 5 flavors; sweet, bitter, salty, sour, and umami. Your nose can pick up more than 100 different smells. This is considered such a special talent because our human nature is based off of mostly sight. You wouldn't give someone directions to turn left when they smell pizza. Visuals is a universal language.
Connection
After thinking about this quote I noticed little signs of how visually based society is. We use sight to determine nearly everything. It describes how even as babies we are taught throw sight. A baby points to a lamp and the mother says lamp. The baby points to a dog and the mother says dog but when a baby smells an odor the mother says nothing. We rely mostly on our sense of sight for survival.
Questions
How do blind people live in a society based upon a sense the don't have? Why is this sense so natural to humans? When you lose a sense does your other senses become heightened? Why does this happen? How much more heightened do your senses become? Does just one sense get affected? Are there are blind people with a heightened sense of taste and smell that is a wine taster. How do taste buds work? What determines in our brain bad smells from good ones?
September 26, 2013
Quote
“In our society, it's important to know colors,” Langstaff says over a rising happy-hour diner. We need to know the difference between a green light and a red light. It’s not so important to know the difference between bitter and sour, skunky and yeasty, tarry and burnt. “Who cares. They’re both terrible. Ew. But if you’re a brewer, it’s extremely important.”
Comment
This quote sums up a hefty amount of the first 40 pages. The meaning behind this quote started with a question. “Can wine tasters really taste the different a cheap bottle of wine and that cost hundreds of dollars. It went on to describe the insane talent of taste. Wine tasters can tell a winemaker what exactly is the problem with their wine like if it was a mistake in the formation of the grapes or even the water used. Even more crazy the nose is actually doing most the work here. The tongue can only detect 5 flavors; sweet, bitter, salty, sour, and umami. Your nose can pick up more than 100 different smells. This is considered such a special talent because our human nature is based off of mostly sight. You wouldn't give someone directions to turn left when they smell pizza. Visuals is a universal language.
Connection
After thinking about this quote I noticed little signs of how visually based society is. We use sight to determine nearly everything. It describes how even as babies we are taught throw sight. A baby points to a lamp and the mother says lamp. The baby points to a dog and the mother says dog but when a baby smells an odor the mother says nothing. We rely mostly on our sense of sight for survival.
Questions
How do blind people live in a society based upon a sense the don't have? Why is this sense so natural to humans? When you lose a sense does your other senses become heightened? Why does this happen? How much more heightened do your senses become? Does just one sense get affected? Are there are blind people with a heightened sense of taste and smell that is a wine taster. How do taste buds work? What determines in our brain bad smells from good ones?
QCCQ #2
Lula Richardson
October 4th 2015
Quote
“The fundamental challenge of the pet-food professional, moeller is saying, is to balance the wants and needs of pets with those of their owners. The two are often at odds”
Comment
This chapter was mostly about our pets and their digestive systems. It does into depth about developing dog food. What Moeller is describing is the most important thing to consider while creating pet food. You must meet the needs of the animal and the owner. Animals need certain nutrients and the food has to be tasty enough for them to eat it. Owners want food to be healthy, cheap, and easy. Something Mary Roach mentions that I found interesting was the invention of dry kiddle. Originally all pet food was sold wet in cans but during World War II tin was being rationed and all can production was stopped. This is when they had to produce dry food that could be store in bags. Pet owners gladly accepted this new food because it was less messy and smelt better.
Connection
A connection I made with this chapter is a common misconception most pet owners have (including me). Cat foods come in many varieties, from salmon and veggies to duck and gravy. We assume that our pets like what we like but this is not true. Cats actually find this difficult and prefer to have consistent meals. This is a example of how the pet market caters more to the owner than to the actually animals.
Questions
What else do I not know about my pets preferences? What do animals prefer; Wet or dry food? Is milk actually bad for cats? How is it ethical to use horse meat to feed to dogs?
October 4th 2015
Quote
“The fundamental challenge of the pet-food professional, moeller is saying, is to balance the wants and needs of pets with those of their owners. The two are often at odds”
Comment
This chapter was mostly about our pets and their digestive systems. It does into depth about developing dog food. What Moeller is describing is the most important thing to consider while creating pet food. You must meet the needs of the animal and the owner. Animals need certain nutrients and the food has to be tasty enough for them to eat it. Owners want food to be healthy, cheap, and easy. Something Mary Roach mentions that I found interesting was the invention of dry kiddle. Originally all pet food was sold wet in cans but during World War II tin was being rationed and all can production was stopped. This is when they had to produce dry food that could be store in bags. Pet owners gladly accepted this new food because it was less messy and smelt better.
Connection
A connection I made with this chapter is a common misconception most pet owners have (including me). Cat foods come in many varieties, from salmon and veggies to duck and gravy. We assume that our pets like what we like but this is not true. Cats actually find this difficult and prefer to have consistent meals. This is a example of how the pet market caters more to the owner than to the actually animals.
Questions
What else do I not know about my pets preferences? What do animals prefer; Wet or dry food? Is milk actually bad for cats? How is it ethical to use horse meat to feed to dogs?
QCCQ #3
Lula Richardson
October 16, 2013
Quote
“At a community feast ealrier in the week, I was offered “the best part” of an artic char. It was an eye, with fat and connective tissue dangling off the back like wiring on a headlamp. A cluster of old women stood by a chain link fence digging marrow from carivou bones with the tilt-headed focus nowadays resefed for texting.”
Comment
I choose this quote because it captures the chapter but also becasue it shows mary roach first hand experrience with it all. She is deicated and you can tell she tries to imerse herself in what ever she writes about. This chapter was titeled “Liver and Opinions” It begans with the Inuits. They are a tribe of eskimos in alska. The reason Mary Roach found them so intreging was thier unqic food tradtions. The Inunits are hunters. They explain that hunters eat all parts of an animal. There is no reason to waste food when it is limited and difficult to obtain. Not only is this economical but also a tradtional preefrence. When I say all parts I mean all parts. As this quote demistraights not even a eye ball goes to waste.
Connection
This quote made me wonder. Why dont we eat all parts of animals. To the inuits the brains and eye balls are concidered the best parts and are thought of as more delicatable than the plan meat. I can connect this to my family. I have many relitives from texa on my mothers side. They are all acostume to hunting. As an animals rights enthusist I would always dissmiss this as barbaric. My moms story of eating squirel brain would make we want to throw up. This really made me think. Maybe the reason we are so against these odd parts are that we were simply raised to think they were odd. I mean as a vegatarian I think its exstemely odd to eat an animals flesh. Whats the difference in what part you eat?
Questions
Why most people conisder different parts of the animal gross? Why dont we eat all parts? What is the best part of the animal? Is eating other parts healthier?
October 16, 2013
Quote
“At a community feast ealrier in the week, I was offered “the best part” of an artic char. It was an eye, with fat and connective tissue dangling off the back like wiring on a headlamp. A cluster of old women stood by a chain link fence digging marrow from carivou bones with the tilt-headed focus nowadays resefed for texting.”
Comment
I choose this quote because it captures the chapter but also becasue it shows mary roach first hand experrience with it all. She is deicated and you can tell she tries to imerse herself in what ever she writes about. This chapter was titeled “Liver and Opinions” It begans with the Inuits. They are a tribe of eskimos in alska. The reason Mary Roach found them so intreging was thier unqic food tradtions. The Inunits are hunters. They explain that hunters eat all parts of an animal. There is no reason to waste food when it is limited and difficult to obtain. Not only is this economical but also a tradtional preefrence. When I say all parts I mean all parts. As this quote demistraights not even a eye ball goes to waste.
Connection
This quote made me wonder. Why dont we eat all parts of animals. To the inuits the brains and eye balls are concidered the best parts and are thought of as more delicatable than the plan meat. I can connect this to my family. I have many relitives from texa on my mothers side. They are all acostume to hunting. As an animals rights enthusist I would always dissmiss this as barbaric. My moms story of eating squirel brain would make we want to throw up. This really made me think. Maybe the reason we are so against these odd parts are that we were simply raised to think they were odd. I mean as a vegatarian I think its exstemely odd to eat an animals flesh. Whats the difference in what part you eat?
Questions
Why most people conisder different parts of the animal gross? Why dont we eat all parts? What is the best part of the animal? Is eating other parts healthier?
QCCQ #4
Lula Richardson
October 29, 2013
Quote
"'I know Dr. Beaumont very well. The experiment of introducing food into the stomach through the orifice, purposefully kept open and healed with that object, was convinced by the doctor very soon after the first examination”. Beaumont denied this. In his journal, he claims to have tried every means within his power to close the puncture of the Stomach.”
Comment
This chapter is titled hard to stomach and for a good reason. It is about a young man named Alexis St. Martin and and a surgeon named William Beaumont. This grim and gross discovery of digestion begins in 1822. Alexis St. Martin was a young hunter and in a freak accident wound up with a large hole in his stomach. William Beaumont was a curious surgeon in a time when all things of the human body were not yet discovered. He admittedly took advantage of this situation. What was unique about St. Martin is that we was stable and relatively healthy with this whole in his stomach. This gave Beaumont the opportunity to observe what actually happened inside a live humans digestive system. Before most knowledge was obtained by cadaviors. While these dead people gave good clues what happened in the human body St. Martin was living facts about how our digestive tract works.
I choose this quote because it was the creepiest part of the chapter. It makes the story a little bit more interesting and a lot more scary. It made me think if William Beaumont was a mad scientist performing these experiments on this unwilling subject or if he was a hero for collecting vital information for humanity about the human body.
Connection
I had a difficult time connecting to this chapter. I have personally have never had a open wound in my stomach for decades. I could relate this to the changes in medical technology over time. This story seems very barbaric and cruel. Today we can simply use a ultrasound to look inside someones stomach. Then it made me think. We had to start somewhere. These cruel experiments often times are necessary for the advancement in humane medical procedures.
Question
Was it right or wrong for William Beaumont to lie to this rare patient and purposefully not heal him?
October 29, 2013
Quote
"'I know Dr. Beaumont very well. The experiment of introducing food into the stomach through the orifice, purposefully kept open and healed with that object, was convinced by the doctor very soon after the first examination”. Beaumont denied this. In his journal, he claims to have tried every means within his power to close the puncture of the Stomach.”
Comment
This chapter is titled hard to stomach and for a good reason. It is about a young man named Alexis St. Martin and and a surgeon named William Beaumont. This grim and gross discovery of digestion begins in 1822. Alexis St. Martin was a young hunter and in a freak accident wound up with a large hole in his stomach. William Beaumont was a curious surgeon in a time when all things of the human body were not yet discovered. He admittedly took advantage of this situation. What was unique about St. Martin is that we was stable and relatively healthy with this whole in his stomach. This gave Beaumont the opportunity to observe what actually happened inside a live humans digestive system. Before most knowledge was obtained by cadaviors. While these dead people gave good clues what happened in the human body St. Martin was living facts about how our digestive tract works.
I choose this quote because it was the creepiest part of the chapter. It makes the story a little bit more interesting and a lot more scary. It made me think if William Beaumont was a mad scientist performing these experiments on this unwilling subject or if he was a hero for collecting vital information for humanity about the human body.
Connection
I had a difficult time connecting to this chapter. I have personally have never had a open wound in my stomach for decades. I could relate this to the changes in medical technology over time. This story seems very barbaric and cruel. Today we can simply use a ultrasound to look inside someones stomach. Then it made me think. We had to start somewhere. These cruel experiments often times are necessary for the advancement in humane medical procedures.
Question
Was it right or wrong for William Beaumont to lie to this rare patient and purposefully not heal him?