What’s the Difference Between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes?

iStock
iStock

The odds are pretty good that you know someone with diabetes. Affecting more than 30 million Americans, it's an incredibly common—and commonly misunderstood—condition.

The word diabetes comes from the Greek for "siphon"—a reference to the frequent and copious urination the condition can cause. The term was coined in the first century by ancient physician Aretaeus the Cappadocian, who vividly (and inaccurately) described the theory that "great masses of flesh are liquefied into urine."

Today we know a bit more about this illness, what causes it, and the forms it can take.

Diabetes is ultimately a hormone problem. The hormone in question is insulin, which helps the body convert glucose (sugar) into energy. Your pancreas releases a little dose of insulin into your bloodstream when you eat. The insulin tells certain cells to gobble up the glucose you've just added. The cells take in the sugar and put it to work.

Or at least that's how it's supposed to go. If you've got diabetes, the situation looks a little different.

Like rheumatoid arthritis or celiac disease, type 1 diabetes is the result of a person being attacked by their own immune system. In rheumatoid arthritis, the issue manifests in the joints; in celiac disease, it occurs in the gut; and in type 1 diabetes, it's the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas that are targeted by the immune system.

Little fluctuations in blood sugar that would breeze right through a healthy system can wreak havoc in the body of someone with type 1. People with type 1 must keep a very close eye on their glucose levels and take supplemental insulin, in shots or through a pen, port, pump, or inhaler, as blood sugar that goes too low or too high can cause serious complications and even death.

Type 2 diabetes is caused by an obstacle at the other end of the road. Someone with type 2 diabetes typically may have enough insulin to function, at least to start; the problem is that their body can't process it. Unused glucose builds up in the bloodstream and the body begins to need more and more insulin to see any effect.

Type 2 used to be known as adult-onset diabetes and type 1 as juvenile diabetes, but both kids and adults can and do develop both types. And while being overweight or obese does increase a person's risk of developing diabetes, thin people get it too. To complicate matters even further, researchers in Finland and Sweden recently identified five subgroups of diabetes, each with its own unique characteristics and risks for complications. Knowing which subgroup people fall into may improve treatment in the future.

And while we're myth-busting: The idea that diabetes is the product of eating too much sugar is a gross oversimplification. How you eat affects your body, of course, and a low-carb diet can help keep blood sugar in check, but diabetes can be caused by a lot of different factors, including genetics, medications, and other health conditions. (If you're on insulin, talk to a doctor before starting a low-carb diet, as low blood glucose levels can result if not done carefully.)

There's no common cure for diabetes—at least not yet. An artificial pancreas and other treatments for the immune system and pancreas cells are all in the works. In the meantime, both types can usually be managed with medication, diet changes, exercise, and a lot of doctor visits.

Does Sound Travel Faster or Slower in Space?

iStock/BlackJack3D
iStock/BlackJack3D

Viktor T. Toth:

It is often said that sound doesn’t travel in space. And it is true … in empty space. Sound is pressure waves, that is, propagating changes in pressure. In the absence of pressure, there can be no pressure waves, so there is no sound.

But space is is not completely empty and not completely devoid of pressure. Hence, it carries sound. But not in a manner that would match our everyday experience.

For instance, if you were to put a speaker in interstellar space, its membrane may be moving back and forth, but it would be exceedingly rare for it to hit even a single atom or molecule. Hence, it would fail to transfer any noticeable sound energy to the thin interstellar medium. Even the somewhat denser interplanetary medium is too rarefied for sound to transfer efficiently from human scale objects; this is why astronauts cannot yell to each other during spacewalks. And just as it is impossible to transfer normal sound energy to this medium, it will also not transmit it efficiently, since its atoms and molecules are too far apart, and they just don’t bounce into each other that often. Any “normal” sound is attenuated to nothingness.

However, if you were to make your speaker a million times bigger, and let its membrane move a million times more slowly, it would be able to transfer sound energy more efficiently even to that thin medium. And that energy would propagate in the form of (tiny) changes in the (already very tiny) pressure of the interstellar medium, i.e., it would be sound.

So yes, sound can travel in the intergalactic, interstellar, interplanetary medium, and very, very low frequency sound (many octaves below anything you could possibly hear) plays an important role in the formation of structures (galaxies, solar systems). In fact, this is the mechanism through which a contracting cloud of gas can shed its excess kinetic energy and turn into something compact, such as a star.

How fast do such sounds travel, you ask? Why, there is no set speed. The general rule is that for a so-called perfect fluid (a medium that is characterized by its density and pressure, but has no viscosity or stresses) the square of the speed of sound is the ratio of the medium’s pressure to its energy density. The speed of sound, therefore, can be anything between 0 (for a pressureless medium, which does not carry sound) to the speed of light divided by the square root of three (for a very hot, so-called ultrarelativistic gas).

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

How Fossil Fuel Use Is Making Carbon Dating Less Accurate

iStock.com/Harry Wedzinga
iStock.com/Harry Wedzinga

The scientific process of carbon dating has been used to determine the age of Ötzi the Iceman, seeds found in King Tutankhamun’s tomb, and many other archaeological finds under 60,000 years old. However, as SciShow points out in a recent episode, the excessive use of fossil fuels is making that method less reliable.

Carbon dating, also called radiocarbon or C-14 dating, involves analyzing the ratio of two isotopes of carbon: C-14 (a radioactive form of carbon that decays over time) and C-12 (a more stable form). By analyzing that ratio in a given object compared to a living organism, archaeologists, paleontologists, and other scientists can get a pretty clear idea of how old that first object is. However, as more and more fossil fuels are burned, more carbon dioxide is released into the environment. In turn, this releases more of another isotope, called C-12, which changes the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and skews the carbon dating analysis. This phenomenon is called the Suess effect, and it’s been well-documented since the ‘70s. SciShow notes that the atmospheric carbon ratio has changed in the past, but it wasn’t anything drastic.

A recent study published in Nature Communications demonstrates the concept. Writing in The Conversation, the study authors suggest that volcanoes “can lie about their age." Ancient volcanic eruptions can be dated by comparing the “wiggly trace” of C-14 found in trees killed in the eruption to the reference "wiggle" of C-14 in the atmosphere. (This process is actually called wiggle-match dating.) But this method “is not valid if carbon dioxide gas from the volcano is affecting a tree’s version of the wiggle,” researchers write.

According to another paper cited by SciShow, we're adding so much C-12 to the atmosphere at the current rate of fossil fuel usage that by 2050 brand-new materials will seem like they're 1000 years old. Some scientists have suggested that levels of C-13 (a more stable isotope) be taken into account while doing carbon dating, but that’s only a stopgap measure. The real challenge will be to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

For more on how radiocarbon dating is becoming less predictable, check out SciShow’s video below.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER