DST: Time-Saving Device, or Work of Pure Evil?

 Image courtesy of  pixabay

Image courtesy of pixabay

If you’ve noticed that people are a little more irritable lately, or maybe just a little more sleepy, you know what’s to blame. And for once, it’s not the exhausting political landscape currently plaguing… well, most of the world. No, people are so tired lately because of the awful social convention known as Daylight Savings Time. Before you start, no, it’s not about farmers. Ask a farmer why DST is a thing and they’ll shut you down faster than a fella can come up with a folksy simile. Don’t put the blame of your biannual exhaustion on farmers—they have enough on their plate. In fact, farmers were infamously against DST, presenting the only organized lobby against it.

If you’re looking for someone to blame, look no further than the founders of Oktoberfest and the inspiration for the bad-guys in the best two Die Hard movies: World War I era Germans.* DST was invented by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia, with the hopes it would help in the war effort. In spite of how Germany fared in WWI, a lot of other people thought this was a good idea and adopted it in their countries.

Regardless of whether or not it helped back then, it doesn’t now. Researchers at the University of Washington found that you save a bit of money on your electricity bill thanks to having more sunlight—but you end up paying way more in air conditioning anyway . Not to mention a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine found an increased risk of heart attack in the days after the time change—and another study shows that there is a significant increase in car collisions the day of DST.

So not only is this archaic system annoying and unnecessary, it’s dangerous. California recently voted to end Daylight Savings, freeing themselves from its iron grip. Arizona hasn’t done it since 2005. So why is Canada so far behind? How have we fallen behind Arizona? That’s just embarrassing.

*Little known fact: Canadians in Thunder Bay actually turned their clocks forward by one hour in 1908 and it was adopted by Regina in 1914, beating Germany and Austria by two years. But as anyone who has been to Thunder Bay or Regina can attest to, nothing done in those cities actually counts.


Ian Mitchell

Ian Mitchell is a pro-wrestling fan who also happens to be in the second year of the Professional Writing program. When not telling his friends about how he would run the WWE, he can be found playing video games, doodling, and writing a rules system for a pro-wrestling tabletop roleplaying game.

Stressed? Call Your Hairdresser—Here's How They Can Help

 Image courtesy of Pexels Images

Image courtesy of Pexels Images

You know when things are so hectic in your life that you just think to yourself screw it? And screwing it means doing something radical like buying something lavish, ending a relationship, or—I don’t know—getting bangs? If you find yourself about to make a big decision and you’re thinking of grabbing some scissors, I have to level with you—it’s the healthiest decision you can make.

I know twelve people who, over the course of our friendship, got bangs when they were in some sort of crisis. Maybe they didn’t have control over their environment and they wanted something they could control, or they weren’t sure who they were anymore, or they had just broken up with someone. Either way, all twelve turned to their hairdressers and said “Everything must go.”

We see it in TV all the time; a female character is going through something heavy and she cuts her own hair. The audience feels for her, because that’s the type of universal decision we can understand. In my life, any impulsive but harmless act that someone does under stress, I refer to as “getting bangs”. For example: you randomly got a tattoo. Bangs. You spent a lot of money on essential oils for no reason. Bangs. You bought a parrot. Bangs.

It’s all coming up bangs folks. But why? Why is it all literally coming up bangs? And why, during this school season, are there so many bangs?

As a matter of fact, it’s completely normal. Doing something impulsive, like breaking something, cutting your hair, or engaging in retail therapy is a form of self-investment. It’s self care. Cutting hair is popular because it often makes us happy or more confident. Changing our appearance is also immediate—I look different, therefore I shall feel different soon.

This transcends all levels of bangs; eliminating something that sometimes bugs you, that’s getting a daily roadblock out of the way. This translates into it is gone, therefore it cannot challenge me.  Indulging on something that might make you happy, for a moment, really does make us happy. I have something new, therefore something will change.

These rash decisions—no matter how big or small—make us feel like we’re doing something to push us out of the head space we’re in, however stuck.

Yes, sometimes you regret it. Sometimes the bangs weren’t the number one choice. But no matter what they look like, or what form they take, you took a step for yourself. A little moment, or a long one, that makes you see your situation in a new way.

So congratulations! I hope you love your bangs! And I hope your coping mechanisms stay healthy this school year, because no matter how much I joke, bangs can sometimes be unwise. Debt, fall outs, and harm are unhealthy bangs, bangs that I don’t endorse. So if you notice you’re acting a little off and are looking for a little rush, check out your local hairdresser, and not the gambling table.

After all, bangs are making a comeback.

Want to read more? Check out the source on Lifehacker.


Shannon Morrow

Shannon Morrow is always curious, and as a result, loves knowing all sorts of things. A second year professional writing student, she enjoys telling people about her weird dreams, birds and trying to learn how to cook - that one isn’t going too well. And yeah, she knows her glasses make her look like a beetle sometimes. Roll with it.

Mushrooms—Not a Silent Killer


I’ve had a poster by David Arora hanging in my bedroom for over 20 years, titled: “Edible Mushrooms of the Forest Floor.” It’s stunning in colour, and the variety of all the different mushrooms would make your eyes cross if you looked at it for too long — but I love it. I love knowing that the mushroom is genetically closer to mammals than it is to plants. I love knowing that the largest known organism on Earth is a mushroom, but even with all this information, I also developed a fear of coming across one of them on a walk through the forest.

What if the mushroom was just a look-a-like of its non-toxic sister, and then my dog eats it? Or if the spores somehow get in my lungs and I become a mushroom lady? I think anyone would question the situation, rushing to the vet or calling poison control. As a society we generally fear fungi and their fruit — the mushroom — unless it’s wrapped in cellophane at the grocery store, assuming it can only be poisonous if found on its own. But in reality, mushrooms are the most incredible, productive, and fascinating organisms on our planet. And we’re still learning what they can do for us as well as what they can do to us.

In the past few weeks, I’ve had multiple conversations about mushrooms. The conversation usually starts with me asking the person, “Have you heard of Paul Stamets?” I’m always desperately trying to talk about his discoveries, but the conversation always leads to talking about psychedelic mushrooms (psilocybin). It’s disappointing every time; I take a moment to educate and just get blank stares or glances at the wall behind me.

First, Paul Stamets is a fascinating human being with more passion for fungi than anyone I have yet to come across; and second, I am not talking about psychedelic mushrooms. Although they are a big part of the growing fear that has developed in North America, I’m talking about the mushrooms growing on your lawn in mid-August, or the gourmet boxes you see at the grocery store, or even ones you’ve never heard of like the agarikon mushroom from the Pacific North-West. To me, there are few topics more misunderstood than mushrooms, and what makes it more intriguing for me is how fearful we are of them.

The first mention of mycophobia was by British mycologist W.D. Hay in 1887. He claimed that the people of Britain were well known for being fearful of mushrooms and stayed away from them, almost entirely to avoid poisoning. Now, only buying white button mushrooms to eat and considering portobello mushrooms as an exotic variety in our kitchens is just the tip of the cap of our on-going collective phobia. The only way to release our society from this irrational fear is to become educated, and finally grow out of this hardened primal concern.

Other countries are more inclined to harvest wild mushrooms (eg. Russia, Poland, and Ukraine), and they praise the ability to do so, with legislated guidelines. They’re the ones known as mycophiles, the polar opposite to the Brits of W.D. Hays’ time, and to us in the 21st century. David Arora — a veteran in the mycological community — as well as mushroom cultivators, are no stranger to this stigma against their beloved fungal group.

“…consider this: out of several thousand different kinds of wild mushrooms in North America, only five or six are deadly poisonous! And once you know what to look for, it’s about as difficult to tell a deadly Amanita from a savory chanterelle as it is a lima bean from an artichoke.” Comforting words from David Arora. He — as well as Paul Stamets and other mycologists — are patient and attentive to our fears. So before you panic at the park, or the grocery store, remember what you read here today.


If you’re interested in reading more about mycology, fungi, and the people who nurture them check out these sites:






Chloe Vincent

Chloe Vincent is an avid reader, aspiring writer, and lover of culture. Being in her second year of Professional Writing at Algonquin College and a new mother there’s always another step to take to get further. Check out her children’s book “The Life of a Pie” at the Connections store and always check back here for more.

Too Much of a Good Thing

 Photo by  pina messina  on  Unsplash

Growing up, there was probably some jerk/wet blanket who told you that there can be too much of a good thing. They told you not to eat all your Halloween candy in one night because you’ll get a stomach ache; don’t play that song over and over again, you’ll get sick of it; don’t forget to list three things, because only listing two things isn’t funny. But is there any truth to this? At what point is too much of a thing that’s actually good for you? What happens when you chug ten gallons of water? Or take fifteen vitamin supplements a day for three months?

As it turns out, bad things happen. All those jerks/wet blankets were right—there can be too much of a good thing. Now before you put that Halloween candy down, just hear me out—I’m not talking about Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, or those gross Tootsie Rolls that keep getting handed out. (Seriously, who likes Tootsie Rolls? Any amount of Tootsie Rolls is too much.)

I’m talking about water. That clear, wet stuff that you’re supposed to drink six cups of a day according to some study sometime. (Or maybe you aren’t supposed to drink that much? Jury’s out on that one.) Either way, at a certain point, it becomes too much water. And the result of drinking too much water isn’t just that you have to sit in your seat squirming anxiously, wondering if it’s too soon to go to the washroom again because you just went ten minutes ago so, will everyone think you’re weird if you go again? In fact, too much water can be downright deadly. It’s called water intoxication, or hyponatremia if ya nasty. It causes the levels of sodium in your blood to plummet, which is important in maintaining the proper level of liquid in your cells. Without sodium, your cells start to swell—which, in the case of your brain, is very dangerous.

But what else can you get too much of? Vitamin overdosing is also a real and messed-up thing. Too much Vitamin D can give you a lot of stomach issues and can even result in dangerous heart abnormalities. The B vitamins (did you know there are 8 B vitamins? Who came up with this?) can cause a whole mess of problems. B6? That can cause nerve toxicity. B3? Nausea, jaundice, and liver problems. And if you think that sounds bad, steer clear of Vitamin A overdosing—that can just straight up kill you. It can also give you dry skin and make you lose your hair, so any hopes of leaving behind a pretty corpse are out the window.

But before you throw out your water bottle and those expensive multivitamins, stop worrying. It takes a tremendous amount of water or vitamins to get these symptoms. It takes gallons of water in a short period of time for your kidneys to start falling behind, and it takes nearly forty times the recommended dose of any given vitamin every day for a while before those symptoms kick in. So as long as you aren’t religiously chugging water or chewing vitamins like candy (which, come on, we all did as kids—Flintstones vitamins were tasty) you should be able to avoid these Issues. Don’t use this as an excuse to skimp out on (what I’m told are) important parts of a healthy lifestyle.


Ian Mitchell

Ian Mitchell is a pro-wrestling fan who also happens to be in the second year of the Professional Writing program. When not telling his friends about how he would run the WWE, he can be found playing video games, doodling, and writing a rules system for a pro-wrestling tabletop roleplaying game.

The Ship of Theseus: What makes you, you? (Part 2 of 2)

 Image courtesy of  STOCKsnap.io

Image courtesy of STOCKsnap.io

If you haven’t, go check out Part 1!

Picking up where we left off: if we look back at our answers to the original problem, we might not feel so confident about either one, right? I’d hope so, because neither side truly resolves the problem. If we look at the first answer — that Ship A and Ship B are different because their physical makeup aren’t the same — then we have to believe that we also aren’t the same person we were seven years ago.

But that doesn’t feel right. Although our personalities might change a lot in seven years, most people probably believe that there is something that truly makes them them, and that this “something” has been there for their entire life. They might call it many things — their soul, their mind, or just their character — but in the end everyone has a sense of it.

But some people might have trouble agreeing with the existence of souls and all these vague ideas about “underlying qualities.” For them, the science is clear, and the science says that we are never the same thing; that we are constantly changing. But there also might be some facts that allow a compatibility between the two differing ideas.

You might remember in Part 1 that I didn’t say that every part of your body is replaced every seven years. I actually said almost every part. It just so happens that this irreplaceable part is also the most important organ in your body: your brain. Unfortunately for us, our neurons don’t regenerate. But on the other hand, our brain cells last a very long time. Once our brain stops growing in our mid-20s, the neurons we have at twenty-five will be the same neurons that will carry us all the way to old age. So unlike your hand, which will be replaced many times in your life, your brain will always remain.

What does this mean for the scientifically-minded person? Well, it should mean that there is no problem: everything that makes you you, like your memories, are stored in your brain. And since the brain never physically changes then neither do you.

However, I don’t think it’s so simple to separate our bodies from our brains, given that they are fundamentally linked and can’t exist without each other. On top of that, are memories really the best basis for your identity given that they are never set in stone and often wither away in old age? Does that mean that as you grow older, you become less and less of your original self? And let’s not even mention what might lie in the future with cybernetic brain enhancement. Will you still be yourself when half of your brain is machine? What about when it is completely cybernetic? 

Unfortunately, I’m out of time! These are questions you’ll have to wrestle with on your own.

In the end, it seems the only fact about ourselves that never changes is that we are always changing. As Heraclitus says, “It is not possible to step twice into the same river, or to come into contact twice with a mortal-being in the same state.”

Matthew Montopoli

Matt is in his second year of Algonquin’s Professional Writing program. He enjoys writing, editing, reading history and philosophy, and not talking about himself.

Warning: Your Game Avatar Just Became Sentient

 Image courtesy of  www.iqvis.com

Image courtesy of www.iqvis.com

What would happen if a video game character became sentient?

How would it view humanity? Would it be able to comprehend our world, even if a detailed explanation were provided to it? How would it react if it was granted access to a web camera to view the real world?

I have always thought that the character would probably think they were crazy if a human were to transmit a voice and explain what the human world is. Since a video game character is completely locked within a computer generated world, the concept of anything being outside of their world may appear as ridiculous and confusing. Much the same as the very thought that humans have sometimes: is there anything outside of our universe?

Just like if God Itself were to whisper into one of our ears and tell us that there is so much beyond our universe, we would probably think we were crazy and seek medical help immediately.

The character in the video game world would probably be confused and have a huge amount of questions for us: why am I here? Where does my universe exist? How did you make the universe? How long will my universe exist? The questions would be endless in the same way as if God spoke to a human.

What questions would you ask God (if there were such an entity)?

If the entire population of the video game world became sentient, then the situation would become even more interesting. If a human transmitted a message to only one character (providing the game characters were programmed to understand English—or any other language) how would the character’s story be viewed by its friends? Would the character seem like one of the “crazy prophets” that have been encountered in our own world?

Hearing voices from far away has been a problem for humanity for as long as can be remembered. Mental illnesses have been shown to be the cause of auditory and visual hallucinations. I wonder, of what would the sentient game character be accused?

Would they be accused of lying? Would they be accused of mental health problems? Would they be accused of attempting to manipulate their friends? These sound like the familiar things that those in our own world are accused of when they “hear the voice of God”.

I wonder if the characters would gather together and protest against the human voice and demand a perfect way of life to be programmed into the machine. Perhaps they would all stop working and doing other programmed tasks (depending on each of their roles within the video game like blacksmith, mechanic, soldier, etc) and demand that all life be perfect within their world.

How would the characters view the concept of their world being powered by electricity? Would they be able to comprehend something that is so near to them? Electricity could safely be considered the “fabric of their reality” and as we humans have a difficult time understanding the atoms and quarks (and potential superstrings) that make up our own world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. Perhaps they too would not be able to comprehend the nature of their own electric reality.

I have asked more questions than I have answered.

Screen Shot 2018-09-25 at 6.33.57 PM.png

Christopher N

Christopher is a second year Professional Writing student at Algonquin College who specializes in fantasy and science fiction. He sings and plays guitar in his spare time.

The Problems With Transporters

 Image courtesy of manic-expression.com

Image courtesy of manic-expression.com

As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I have always wondered how the problems with transporter technology were handled. Since transporters do not exist, the problems I have with them are more philosophical than scientific; although the engineering problems connected to them would be the first challenges with their construction. For example, how do we build one? Is it possible to do so? Are they even theoretically possible? 

I have always wondered how the brain is broken down and reconstructed upon transport. I have always thought that if the brain were “pulled apart” into subatomic particles, would the person not be considered dead? How would the brain be reconstructed? Wouldn’t a small amount of misplaced neurons result in a possible alteration of the person’s personality, brain functioning, etc?

Would there have to be some kind of artificially maintained communication between the cells of the body as they were “injected” through the subspace stream? How would this occur? What would the person experience upon being transported? Would they “go dark”, as if falling asleep? Would their vision fall apart as the transporter beam disassembled their entire being?

Once the brain was pulled apart, would not everything that makes the person human also be pulled apart? If the neural network were to be disassembled, even for an instant, would not all memories, learning, everything, be lost forever?

My theory on these odd questions would have to be the following: somehow, when the brain is deconstructed, there would have to be some information transfer between the atoms, molecules, and neurons of the brain in order to keep the person alive while retaining their personality, memories, and other mental qualities. Either that, or the transporter would have to keep a snapshot of the entire personality and experience profile of the person at molecular deconstruction, “re-injecting” this profile into the fully reassembled brain.

And where does the transporter keep a record of the human’s appearance? How would it reconstruct trillions of atoms, cells, and molecules? Would it rebuild them in the same way in which they came apart? I have often wondered how Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle related to transporter technology (even though, if I remember correctly, there was a mechanism present within the transporter to “compensate” for the problem of not knowing a particle’s position and velocity simultaneously, known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle).

Screen Shot 2018-09-25 at 6.33.57 PM.png

Christopher N

Christopher Nehme is a second year Professional Writing student at Algonquin College who specializes in fantasy and science fiction. He sings and plays guitar in his spare time.

What Happens When You Crack Them Knucks?

 Photo courtesy of  pixabay.com

Photo courtesy of pixabay.com

It’s been a long day. You’re just home from work, and the whatever it is you do was tough today. You relax in your favourite chair or on your second favourite couch and stretch out your tired limbs. In return, you are greeted with a cacophony of snaps and crackles that would put the Rice Krispies mascots to shame. People tell you you’ll get arthritis, and that the sound is really gas bubbles popping in your joints. But is any of that true?

In short, no. It’s been shown conclusively that knuckle cracking has no correlation to developing arthritis. A study published in 2011 showed that the rate of arthritis was the same in people who cracked their knuckles than it was in those who did not. Unfortunately, other studies have shown that habitual knuckle-crackers have a higher rate of swollen joints and a weaker grip. So while the traditional rumour might be false, it seems that knuckle-cracking still isn’t an incredibly healthy option.

As for the cause, it’s a fairly recent discovery. In diarthrodial joints (which is a fancy way of saying joints where two bones interact, like your wrist, elbow, or knee) there is something called a joint capsule. This is a pocket of tissue that is formed around the joint, and inside this pocket is a lubricant as well as serving as a nutrient for the cells that live there. The fluid in the capsule also contains dissolved gasses, mainly nitrogen, which form bubbles that pop as you stretch your joint. The popping allows your knuckles to move a little further, which is why cracking your joints lets you stretch them a little more.

As for why such tiny bubbles of gas cause such a loud noise, scientists aren’t even sure. However, they do know why you can’t just endlessly crack your knuckles: the gasses need about 20 minutes to build up again before there’s enough to form a bubble. So next time you reach a little further for your phone and you hear your shoulder pop, don’t worry too much about what’s going on. It’s just bubbles of nitrogen and carbon dioxide quickly forming and popping in your joint capsule with such force that you can hear it quite clearly from a few feet away. So when someone complains about you cracking your knuckles, just throw some science back in their face.


Ian Mitchell

Ian Mitchell is a pro-wrestling fan who also happens to be in the second year of the Professional Writing program. When not telling his friends about how he would run the WWE, he can be found playing video games, doodling, and writing a rules system for a pro-wrestling tabletop roleplaying game.

The Ship of Theseus: What makes you, you? (Part 1 of 2)

 image courtesy of  StockSnap.io

image courtesy of StockSnap.io

Imagine this for a second: you have a job at a history museum, working on preserving a large wooden ship. When it was first stored in the museum each of its wooden planks were fairly new. But as time goes on, some of the planks start to rot. Your job is to replace the rotting planks. So you diligently do your job until, suddenly, you realize that you’ve replaced every plank in the ship. There’s nothing left that was original. It might look like the same old ship the day it was brought to the museum, but it’s not made out of the same wood. So the question is: “Is it the same ship at the end?”

That’s the conundrum at the core of the “Ship of Theseus” paradox. It might seem pretty simple to figure out at the start. But after looking closer, you might not feel so confident; especially once you think about some of the larger implications.

Let’s start off with a simple response, the one you probably thought of first. “You’re such a dummy, Matt,” you say. “It’s obvious they’re not the same ships since they have a completely different physical makeup.” And you would be right, my inquisitive friend. It’s plain that Ship A (the original one) isn’t the same as Ship B (the restored one) since their essential atomic structure is different. And we could easily walk away from this so-called “paradox,” baffled at how someone could be stumped by it.

On the other hand is an equally strong point of view. “It’s ridiculous to say that they’re different ships,” another person might say. “They may be made of different things, but there was always an underlying part of the ship that kept it what it is: its form. Its shape was always the same, so it was always the same ship.” Again, another interesting perspective.

But I don’t think this example is concrete enough for us to really sink our teeth into. Besides, who cares if a new wooden ship is or isn’t the same as an old one? What we need is something more personal, more intimate.

And there isn’t anything more intimate than ourselves and our bodies. Anyone who’s gotten a scab over a scrape knows that their body is always replacing old cells: skin cells are constantly scraped off, and old blood cells are programmed to die once they grow old. In fact, almost every part of your body will be replaced after seven years. As well, nearly three-hundred million of our body’s cells die every minute—that’s five million every second! You are, in many ways, a living, breathing Ship of Theseus.

Read more about the “Ship of Theseus paradox” and what it could mean for your identity in Part 2.

2d6f76ae1cfddbce103cebd3ff15822b copy 2.jpg

Matthew Montopoli

Matt is in his second year of Algonquin’s Professional Writing program. He enjoys writing, editing, reading history and philosophy, and not talking about himself. 

CHANGE MY MIND: The Witches from Macbeth are the coolest ladies in literature.

 Image courtesy of Rob Potter via. Unsplash Images

Image courtesy of Rob Potter via. Unsplash Images

If you’ve been to high school, you’ve probably read Macbeth. If you haven’t, you’ve heard of it. If you haven’t, who even are you, and why do you live in isolation? I loved Macbeth, which sounds basic, but I loved it because the language was off the chain beautiful and because it’s got witches. I love witches—the magic, the mystery, the outfits. Never have I ever seen witches in media and not fallen in love with them. But the witches from Macbeth are by far my favorites, and some of the coolest characters in media ever. Let me explain.

Evidence the first: They were, at the time, a smart political device used by Shakespeare. In 1606 when the play was first written and performed, witches were the talk of every town. Who was a witch? What would they do? How do we stop them?

With the church being pretty much the only power everywhere, witchcraft became a capital offence and many women were executed with no proof that they were actually witches. Can you imagine minding your own damn business and some local police roll in and kill you because Prudence next door said she saw you near a frog one time? Because that’s what it was like. Women would be accused of witchcraft for any reason, including not having enough children, or living at the edge of your community.

So, with witches being the fear and talk of the town, Shakespeare made the inspired move to have three of them not only in his play, but open his play. The three witches meet on a heath and discuss meeting Macbeth in an open field when the battle is over. This would have captured the attention of his audience immediately, with both fear and curiosity.

Evidence the second: Who doesn’t love magic and who isn’t curious about the occult? These three haggard women show up talking about screwing up Macbeth’s life with an ill-fated prophecy, then they talk about a grey cat and toad (both of which are symbols for the devil). Then they get down to gossiping about a woman with chestnuts and how they’re just going to screw up her husband’s whole situation and get him lost at sea!

That’s power. And not just power—needless power. They don’t have to do that, but they want to, and we never learn a concrete reason as to why. Evil for the sake of evil? Now that’s cool, and an absolute rarity today in media. Everyone needs a reason, but in life there isn’t a reason for everything. So we are left to our little mysteries, and Macbeth provides.

Evidence the third: Their presence in the play, in any reimagining of it, is always super cool. My personal favorite is the Patrick Stewart 2010 version where the witches appear as nurses and show up throughout the story. Their lingering presence gives the audience the feeling that Macbeth and his surrounding partners are putting on a performance for the witches, and not the real audience. In Geoffrey Wright’s 2006 version, they are school girls, first seen having a ritual in a graveyard. But if you’re old school, they are as they were first depicted: ancient, strange women in the 1971 version by Roman Polanski. There’s a witch for everyone, and with Halloween quickly descending, why not make finding your favorite a mission?

So, the three witches were politically created, powerful, mysterious, and always end up being badass. The play is one of Shakespeare’s most famous, no doubt with a little help from the witches and their charm. So the big question is: when will you buckle down and revisit a high school classic?


Shannon Morrow

Shannon Morrow is always curious, and as a result, loves knowing all sorts of things. A second year professional writing student, she enjoys telling people about her weird dreams, birds and trying to learn how to cook- that one isn’t going too well. And yeah, she knows her glasses make her look like a beetle sometimes. Roll with it.

Do Bugs Get Sick?

 Photo by  Denise Johnson  on  Unsplash

I was sitting on my porch when a fly came into my personal space. He buzzed around my head and, very naturally, landed on me. I wasn’t feeling well that week as I was fighting a cold my son so graciously shared with me. My younger, more curious mind made an appearance and I asked the question, “Can I give this fly my cold?” I was really hoping I could.

I really hate insects; buzzing around my head, making shots at my ear, their tiny nonsensical legs, and just generally pissing me off on a regular basis left me with nothing to love. I wanted it to feel as crappy as I did. Someone once said to me, “If they’re outside they’re insects—but if they’re inside, they’re bugs.” Makes sense. But either way, they’re an entity I choose to despise regardless of their status in the circle of life.

Although there is no research I could find that shows an insect can be infected the way we are with the common cold (I picture a tiny house fly with a microscopic hanky wiping mucous from his mouth parts after a wee sneeze attack) there is an entire field dedicated to insect pathology. With my strange thought as a platform for discovery, I found all kinds of new branches of what I would consider underground science.

The most publicly known topic in the insect the pathologist’s agenda right now is Colony Collapse Disorder. In 2006, beekeepers in America were seeing 30-90% of their bee colonies just disappearing over-night with no explanation, trace, or even a clue to speculate on the mysterious disappearance. Insect pathologists burst into action to find the cause. They’re still working on the causes and effects in this department, but there has been significant research and studies on neonicotinoids having a deathly effect on pollinators. Insecticides with the neonic are now being banned across the world; such bans are active in Canada and in Europe. This field of study is fascinating, and easily steals you into the rabbit hole of the internet, yet it still didn’t answer my question.

With a bit more digging I came to a very reasonable and easy answer, cited from a guy who goes by the name Klenow on Reddit. He works in biotech (whatever that may entail, good luck to you). He stated that, although they can contract the cold virus, their respiratory system works nothing like ours and wouldn’t be affected the way we humans are. No mini hanky for you, fly!

That being said, it’s still important to know that flies thrive and survive off excrement and carcasses. They carry bacteria around like they’re the local transit system. Salmonella, E. Coli, and typhoid are just a sample of terrifying bacteria they could drop off at any given time. If that doesn’t make me hate them even more than I already did, well, the word loathe now comes to mind.

Related Articles

Giving House Flies a Virus to Prevent Reproduction

Insects Get Sick Too: The Study of Insect Pathology

Chloe Vincent


Chloe Vincent is an avid reader, aspiring writer, and lover of culture. Being in her second year of Professional Writing at Algonquin College and a new mother there’s always another step to take to get further. Check out her children’s book “The Life of a Pie” at the Connections store and always check back here for more.