Question #12 Is the Great Divide Basin the only watershed in North America that does not drain into another water system?

This question comes from Corky via messaging here on blogger.


First let's define a watershed. A watershed is any region or area drained by a river, stream or other water system. Watershed can also refer to the dividing line between river drainage systems.

To answer the question at hand.....

No.

There are several Basins that do not empty into other watersheds. Endorheic basins are those that do not have an outflow and so build up water. There are many of these throughout the world (For example the Black Sea in Eur-Asia). Most of these basins are going to occur in an area where a divide watershed is blocked from reaching the ocean or outflow river by natural barriers such as another mountain range or plateau. Most of these systems are going to involve a lake or sink where the water builds up. Many sinks are intermittent meaning they have water in one season and are dry lakes in others. The other features of a sink include being below sea level nd lose water either through evaporation or loss into groundwater or aquifers. These are also sometimes called ephemeral lakes.

On the North American Continent you can find the following basins with these qualities:

Guzman Basin in northern Mexico which drains the Mimbres River from New Mexico.

Willcox Playa in southern Arizona. This is a sink or large dry lake which collects water. Most notably this is an area inhabited by Sandhill Cranes and also has great opportunities for winter birding.

Tulare Lake in California though agricultural demands have dried this lake because its infeeds were diverted for irrigation. Years of record weather that overwhelm flood control tend to bring this basin back to a water filled lake.

Crater Lake in Oregon is sometimes considered a enclosed water system. Though this is not a watershed system with rivers merging to a final lake like the other systems are.

In fact, there are piles of lakes throughout North America that have inflow and no outflow. These include all the following lakes plus many more...
Devils Lake ND
Devil's Lake WI
Little Manitou and Old Wives Lakes in Saskatchewan
Pakowki in Alberta
Lago Enruquillo on Hispanola
Tularosa Basin NM
Zuni Salt Lake NM
And a multitude of others in ND and Manitoba.

There are also the individual locked lakes, Sinks and Valleys within the Great Basin which is different than the Great Divide Basin. The Great Basin includes some well known lakes such as The Great Salt Lake, Groom Dry Lake (Where Area 51 is), Goose Lake (CA), Malheur Lake (OR), Carson Sink NV and others. More about the Great Basin here which is a set of closed basins in close proximity to one another in Nevada, Oregon and Utah.

So what is the Great Divide Basin then?

The Great Divide Basin is in Wyoming and gets the name from being an enclosed basin on the Continental Divide. This area is basically a rectangle enclosed by mountains. Information on the Great Divide Basin.


Hopefully this clears up the idea of what is included in the idea of an enclosed watershed. North America has quite a few of these systems. Some have many inflows and no outflows. Others are simply lakes (like Crater Lake) that have no inflow or outflows.

Question #11: What does it mean to be Vegetarian? All the terms confuse me.

You are not alone in the confusion. Due to the wide range of diets considered "vegetarian" it can be difficult to sort through what people mean. I will try to define as many of the terms as I can to help you sort through this mess.

Vegetarian in general means that the individual avoids eating meat.

When most people say vegetarian they are referring to what is often called a Lacto-ovo Vegetarian. Lacto refers to lactose or milk and ovo to eggs. This is someone whose diet consists of plant foods and non-meat animal products. Non-meat animal products include milk products, eggs and honey. (There is a debate about Jello and gelatin though. As a product made of collagen from bones and other animal parts some vegetarians steer clear of it and others do not.)

Two closely related and more narrow diets fall under the traditional term vegetarian. These are vegan and raw food diets.

Vegans are those vegetarians who choose to eat no products derived from animals. These diets do not include eggs, milk products or, in most cases, honey. Vegans rely solely on plants for nutrition.

Raw Food diets can be vegan, vegetarian or in the gray area I will discuss below. Those on raw food diets choose to limit or eliminate cooking of foods because they believe this maintains the nutritional integrity of the food. As you can imagine, most of those on raw food diets avoid meat though some will eat sushi, kibbeh and/or carpaccio which are raw meat dishes. Many raw food diets also include honey and milk. In essence, raw food diet describes food preparation styles and not necessarily what types of foods are taken in. For example, someone who consumes only grains and raw fruits and vegetables would be on a raw food diet... another who ate raw fruits, raw vegetables, milk, yogurt, honey and grains could also be termed on a raw food diet. Yet the first individual is vegan and the second is a lacto-ovo vegetarian. (Hope that is not too confusing.)

Then there is a gray area. These are diets termed vegetarian but that do not fit the traditional (Standard?) definition of vegetarian. Many refer to these diets as semi-vegetarian diets.

Pescatarian are individuals who have the diet of a lacto-ovo vegetarian (or vegan in some cases) and in addition include fish and fish products in their diet.

Related there are diets where it will include all the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet plus chicken (and sometimes fish).

Venn Diagram of diets

These gray area diets spark a lot of concern for many vegetarians because it makes it more difficult to make themselves understood when it comes to discussions of dietary requirements. I have heard from many vegetarians (and have had this happen to me as well) express their dismay when they comment about being vegetarian only to have someone ask them if they would like fish or chicken.

Hope this clears up some of the terms associated with a vegetarian diet. Here at the end I've included  great resource from Harvard University that discusses all sorts of diets and diet concerns.


Resource: Harvard's The Nutrition Source

Question #10: Does eating sugar make you more likely to get sick?

A question from email and a complicated one.. the answer is yes... and well no.

One thing we must consider is the health of the person consuming the sugar in question. Those with immune diseases, diabetes, leukemia and digestive disorders (among other conditions) are going to have different experiences on health in this case than the average, healthy individual. Age and body size can also affect the case related to this question, partially, due to the body mass to sugar intake ratio. Of course a 40lbs child will be more effected by the large quantities of sugar than a 150lbs adult.

So, for the sake of this discussion we are going to assume that the individuals consuming the sugar is a healthy, average sized adult with no health conditions that will increase or decrease the effects of the sugar on the body.

The background

The only study discussing sugar and the immune system revolves around the behavior of neutrophils. Neutrophils are one type of immune cell found in the body. They are often in the blood but can also be found at sites of infection or cancer. These cells are usually the first ones to respond to infection or cancer due to their phagocytic nature, i.e. they come in and devour  the foreign or cancerous cells. There are several types of neutrophils that respond to different stimuli. The study does not seem to list which type(s) of neutrophils they are observing. This is problematic for deducing the actual impact of the sugar on the specific parts of the immune system.

The 1973 study I read started with individuals who have fasted. This means that they have not consumed food in 12-24 hours. Their body would be processing stored sugars at this point after exhausting the blood sugar (sugar in the blood). The subjects are then dosed with 20 or more teaspoons of sugar (different sources are used in studies such as honey, fructose, glucose, etc.) are then administered. After a wait time blood is drawn and added to a culture of bacteria. The neutrophil or other white blood cell activity is observed.

What did I find?

Aside from the 1973 study, which by science standards would be considered way out of date, I didn't uncover any scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that discussed humans and sugar intake. I was very disappointed as I searched around many distributors such as PubMed, EBSCOHost and several others and found nothing. I even tried different sugars to see if there would be papers for glucose or fructose instead of just sugar. I had no luck. I did find lots and lots of blogs and unreferenced sources that harken back to the 1973 study or no study at all.

What does that mean? Well there is one, outdated source, that suggest there may be a link. I say outdated because in most fields, particularly medicine, articles over 10 years old are considered sketchy to use and those 20 years or more are considered obsolete. The study suggests that it is the large inflow of sugar into the blood stream after fasting that depresses the immune system. The neutrophils are still working just a little slower.

Does this mean I will get sick from drinking a can of soda? No, probably not. Everything in moderation is how I have always felt. Perhaps with the recent interest in the subject more studies will be done to clarify what the outcome truly is. Below are links to the study and some relevant sources. Sadly, I can't give a better answer to this question until there is more research to read.


Sources:
Information about White Blood Cells
Blog Post about Immune System Cells
1973 Study most often cited
Blog post summarizing the study.
USA Today discussion of the study
Mouse Study - Note that the mice here are give 50g/kg of sugars which is much, much higher sugar to body weight dose than was used in the human study.
Another article that examines the study and raises the fact that no studies have really been conducted since 1973.
Another mouse study but it isn't only high sugar given but also high fat and cholesterol.

Question #9: What caused the black plague to spread?

This wonderfully upbeat question came through email.

The disease that caused the black death or black plague in Europe first appeared in the early 1300s in Asia. Some people in Europe were aware of the disease at this time but it had not yet been seen in Europe.

Black Death or Bubonic plague is caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis and gets its name from the black pustules that form during the disease. These pustules appeared at the lymph nodes of the armpit and groin area. However, bubonic plague is not the only disease caused by Y. pestis. Septicemic plague, which is a blood infection, and pneumonic plague which affects the lungs and respiratory system are also caused by this bacteria. All three types of plague were likely responsible for deaths during the European outbreak in the 1300s.

When we discuss how the Black Plague spread through Europe we need to define two things: How did the plague arrive in Europe? (i.e. who or what was the vector to bring plague from Asia to Europe) and What was the progression through the different types of plague as it spread from its starting point in Europe to the rest of the continent?


The very first recording of this disease in Europe occurred in Kaffa (now called Feodosiya) a city in the Ukraine on the Black Sea coast. This city came under attack by Tartar's from Asia, approx 1347. The besieged city was happy to see their attackers dying in droves. The happiness was short-lived when the Tarters started catapulting their dead over the city wall.  The Tarters thought the smell of the decaying bodies would break the siege. When the dying Tarters fled the people of Kaffa also fled to Sicily.  Thus the black plague came to Europe from Asia.

From Eyewitness History

It is believed that the plague began its spread human to human via the septicemic (direct contact) method but later moved to the other forms as the plague spread.  There were a number of ways the bacteria spread during the Black Death event including via the air through coughing, fleas who were carrying the disease from rats and then biting humans, physical contact with the dead and dying as well as other methods. At its peak, it is believed that the plague was traveling 2-3 miles per day across Europe from the original site.

No one at the time was really sure how the plague was spreading quarantines were common as were people fleeing to other areas (which helped it spread faster if those who had contact fled). In coming ships were kept in quarantine off shore for 30 or more days to try and ensure the disease wasn't being carried. The only thing that was known for sure at the time was that the Black Death was very contagious and people died within days of the symptoms.

Many causes and ways to avoid the plague were written about. Causes were everything from bad air to the Jewish population with avoidance ranging from herbs and incense to not bathing and more.

By 1352 most areas of Europe were no longer plagued by the Black Death. In the 5 years it ravaged Europe, the Black Death spread to every corner of Europe, devastated the population and nearly crashed the entire economy of Europe. Approximately 1/3 or 20 million people died in those 5 years.


Resources:
http://www.history.com/topics/black-death
http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/black-death.htm
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/plague.htm