Monday, August 31, 2015

Brain Anatomy 101 - Lobes of the Brain by Stevie Biffen

A wonderfully artistic video on brain anatomy by my neuroscientist friend Stevie. Check out the lobes on this girl.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Kangen Water: Why Woo Peddlers Should Not Try to Explain How Electrochemistry Works, Part 2

Welcome back. 

Last week we talked about how Kangen Water is basically (hah) just glorified lies and disappointment. In this week's edition, we'll take a look at the measurements shown in the video, what their scientific definitions mean and whether they are indicative of any health benefits at all.

But before we get into that, I need to add an important point about water electrolysis. In order for sufficient electrolysis to occur, and the produced solution to be split up into acidic and alkaline parts, there must be impurities present in the solution. This is because pure water is completely shit at conducting electricity, and also because water solutions containing excess hydrogen or hydroxide ions require negative and positive ions respectively to maintain charge balance as shown here:

Charge Balance: all ionic solutions must contain equal numbers of positive and negative charges.[1]  (source)

Hydrogen and hydroxide ions recombine to form plain water, which would make it impossible for electrolysis to change the pH in the absence of other ions.[1]


That is why they have to add an "electrolysis enhancer" (sodium chloride and sodium hypochlorite) in addition to the minerals already present in tap water to achieve the desired pH. This translates into sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solutions produced at the anode and cathode respectively as shown here:


"Many "water ionizer" devices depend on the addition of ordinary salt to make the water more conductive. Electrolysis of a dilute sodium chloride solution liberates hydrogen gas and hydroxide ions at the cathode, producing an alkaline solution that consists essentially of sodium hydroxide NaOH which can be drawn off as “alkaline water”. At the anode, chloride ions are oxidized to elemental chlorine. If some of this chlorine is allowed to combine with some of the hydroxide ions produced at the cathode, it disproportionates into hypochlorous acid HOCl, a weak acid and an oxidizing agent. Some ionizer devices allow the user to draw off this solution for use as a disinfecting agent. In many cases the two streams can be combined to form a mixture consisting of both HOCl and sodium hypochlorite (equivalent to diluted ordinary laundry bleach), depending on the pH desired."[1]

In short, it is a very expensive and elaborate way of making diluted bleach and caustic soda solutions, and therefore the claim that alkalized water is made from pure water is, unsurprisingly, utter horseshit. Bob even mentions how municipalities shamelessly add lye (caustic soda) to adjust the pH of drinking water, when in reality he's doing the exact same thing and selling it for $3 000.00. Fucking idiot.

Oxidization/Reduction Potential (ORP): What is it and why is this guy sticking his probe in my Gatorade?

In last week's post, I erroneously gave the abbreviation "OCR" because I was messing around with an optical character recognition (OCR) app on my phone at the same time and my lady brain couldn't handle everything at once. ORP. It's ORP.

ORP is the tendency of a chemical species to acquire electrons (and thereby be reduced) and is measured in volts (V). So basically in every redox reaction, you have an oxidizer and a reducer. The oxidizer intimidates and mugs the reducer for its electrons, and the reducer files a police report but it never gets resolved because this is South Africa:

Exhibit A. (source)

Of course, none of this is mentioned in the video. Neither does he say what the units of the measurements taken are or explain why "more positive is bad :(", except for saying the alkalized water with a lower ORP has antioxidant properties and therefore neutralises free-radicals which cause aging.

A lower ("better") ORP value indicates that the solution has stronger reducing properties, and vice versa. However, whether any given substance behaves as a reducing or oxidising agent, is relative to the substance with which it is reacting. A low ORP reading doesn't necessarily translate into free-radical neutralising properties. On the contrary, Steve Lower (retired chemistry professor at UBC) goes on to say the following:
""Ionized"/alkaline water is falsely claimed to be an anti-oxidant. It is actually an oxidizing agent, as can be seen by its ability to decolorize iodine."[1]
Interestingly enough, ORP is often used as a means to monitor water quality in water treatment applications, by measuring the activity of the disinfecting agent. In these applications, an ORP reading above 665 mV ("more positive") is considered better since pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella have lower survival times at these levels than at ORPs less than 485 mV.[2] In fact, a study comparing traditional parts per million chlorination reading and ORP was conducted in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The results of this study argue for the inclusion of ORP above 650 mV in local health codes.[3]

pH: What does it have to do with anything? Is acidic good or bad?! I must know!

Every time I hear someone say that pH means potential hydrogen, I can almost hear a chemist somewhere, tearing up their degree certificates and slitting their wrists with a broken test tube. Potential of hydrogen is a common quack term, and even though pH most likely originally referred to "power of hydrogen" or "potential hydrogen" when the phenomenon was first discovered, the term is currently more accurately used to specify the acidity or alkalinity of a substance in an aqueous solution, since we now know that a substance need not contain hydrogen in order to be acidic.

If you're familiar with the chemistry, you probably predicted that the pH measurements would correlate with the ORP readings (lower ORP = more alkaline = higher pH). The ions (added or naturally occuring) in each solution, are responsible for it's alkalinity/acidity. The pH of these beverage really do not matter (i.e. whether it is alkaline or acidic is neither bad nor good), and have a negligible effect on the body's acidity/alkalinity:
"The pH of intracellular bodily fluids such as blood is controlled by an exquisitely-balanced set of reactions involving removal of (acidic) carbon dioxide through the lungs, removal of (alkaline) ammonia through the kidneys, and the buffering action within the blood by bicarbonate, and to a smaller extent by phosphate and certain proteins. In the most important of these mechanisms, carbon dioxide produced by cell metabolism reacts with water to form carbonic acid H2CO3, and this reacts with carbonate in the blood to form bicarbonate
H2CO3 + CO2– → 2 HCO3
which is carried by the blood to the lungs, where the carbon dioxide is then regenerated and expelled:
H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O
The pH of blood is especially critical and must be maintained within the range of about 7.35 - 7.45. If the blood pH falls outside this range the condition is known as acidosis or alkylosis. Temporary acidosis can be induced by holding your breath, preventing release of CO2. Temporary alkylosis can be induced by hyperventilation, causing excess release of CO2. Chronic acidosis or alkylosis can be very serious and is often associated with kidney failure.
The pH of ordinary drinking water will have little effect on the pH of the stomach contents because gastric fluid has an overwhelmingly low pH (Gastric fluid is essentially a dilute solution of hydrochloric acid.) Hundreds of millions of years of evolution have adapted humans to tolerate drinking waters having a fairly wide range of pH (5-8). Any water that is sufficiently alkaline to significantly affect gastric pH is unlikely to be considered potable by most people. Further, the enzymes that digest proteins in the stomach require a low pH in order to function properly, so if one were to ingest sufficient alkali to reduce gastric pH, it would also interfere with digestion."[1]
"Uptake of water occurs mainly in the intestine, not in the stomach. But when stomach contents enter the intestine, they are neutralized and made alkaline by the pancreatic secretions — so all the water you drink eventually becomes alkaline anyway."[1]
Were you also confused when, towards the end of the video, Bob explained that acidic water can be used as a "beauty water" instead of your regular toner because of its "astringent properties"? Firstly, do not get me started on the bogus claims cosmetics companies make about toners. Secondly, what the hell happened to all those aging, oxidising, free radicals in the acidic water?

He says the Kangen system uses salt to make their acidic beauty water. That is, the added sodium chloride which provides chlorine ions for the hypochlorous acid on the acidic side.

In other words, Bob, you're trying to convince me that using diluted bleach on my face is somehow a good idea? Right. Gotcha.

Next up:

  • Get ready to be teabagged by Bob Gridelli: are smaller microclusters really responsible for the effects observed in the tea experiment?
  • Can you believe that soap dissolves oil? Bob is baffled by seemingly elementary scientific concepts.


  1. Lower, S. "'Ionized' and alkaline water: Snake oil on tap". Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  2. Trevor V. Suslow, 2004, Oxidation-Reduction Potential for Water Disinfection Monitoring, Control, and Documentation, University of California Davis,
  3. vanLoon, Gary; Duffy, Stephen (2011). Environmental Chemistry - a global perspective (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 235–248. ISBN 978-0-19-922886-7.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Kangen Water: Why Woo Peddlers Should Not Try to Explain How Electrochemistry Works, Part 1

My psyche was recently gang raped when I decided to watch this in the name of skepticism. The video shows this condescending douchebag named Bob Gridelli, an independent distributor of the Kangen system, going on about how magical Japanese alkalized water is totes superior to your basic-ass tap/bottled water. Of course, it's complete bullshit. He uses a fancy looking aquarium OCR meter and a pH test kit, sciency-sounding terms like "potential hydrogen" and then does ridiculous experiments demonstrating his lack of basic scientific understanding while making nonsensical claims AND contradicting them simultaneously. If you make it through the entire monstrosity of a 23 min. video, I applaud you.

"Ooh! Pretty colours!"

Throughout the video, a few vague claims about the supposed health benefits of ionised water are made:
  • due to its low OCR, it's an antioxidant which neutralises free radicals
  • balances out your body's pH as well as the tap water you were so foolishly chugging before
  • the smaller molecular microclusters make ionised water a better solvent, as demonstrated by the tea experiment, which somehow translates into more better
  • strong Kangen water with a very low pH can break down and dissolve Sesame oil as well as scary oil-based pesticides and chemicals on your tomatoes and makes them tastier
  • can be used alone as a household cleaner which is naturally free from those pesky chemicals and toxins which you are so desperately trying to avoid
And all this could be yours for the low, low price of just $3 000.00! You can even see the demonstration and be patronised by the Bob-man himself, in person! Just call 555-RATHER-KILL-YOURSELF for more information.

But seriously. What is this magical, anti-aging, ionised, alkalized water you speak of? And, more importantly, do the claims hold any truth? The short answer is no, but I'm going to deconstruct the whole thing in detail anyway.

I decided to break this post into an n-part series (where n > 1, n ∈ ℕ) because I need time to cry and reflect on my life while I contemplate what I've just learned.

What is alkalized/ionised water?

The video doesn't really explain the process of water ionisation and neither does the manufacturer's website. All we're told is that platinised titanium plates are used which electrically charges the water as it passes over, so it sounds like the process they are using here is water electrolysis.

If you remember your high school chemistry, you'll know that electrolysis is the process where a DC current is passed through an electrolyte solution in order to drive a chemical reaction that is otherwise non-spontaneous. In water electrolysis, water is broken down into its constituents, namely hydrogen and oxygen, as given by this reaction:

2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g)

The diagram below purportedly explains how the Kangen system works. However, you'll see that there are quite a few fundamental flaws:

How Kangen water is produced, apparently.

The figure shows that water molecules are split into hydrogen and hydroxide ions, the positive ions then move towards the negative electrode (hydrogen labeled as an antioxidant) and out the alkaline outlet and vice versa for the positive electrode, but this time with hydroxide anions labeled as evil free radicals. The first thing you are probably wondering, is how the hell do water molecules just split up like that? And how can the solution containing the hydrogen ions be alkaline? The answer, dear reader, is simply because these people have no effing clue about what's going on.

To understand how alkalised water is produced by electrolysis, we must look at the chemical reactions that take place at the anode and cathode respectively.

Real water electrolysis, yo.

Anode (oxidation): 2H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4 H+(aq) + 4e-

An oxidation reaction occurs, producing oxygen gas and releasing hydrogen ions into the solution. The hydrogen ions will cause the solution near the anode to be more acidic = acidic water.

Cathode (reduction): 4H2O + 4e- → 2H2 + 4OH-

A reduction reaction occurs, producing hydrogen gas and releasing hydroxide ions into the solution. The hydroxide ions will cause the solution near the cathode to be more alkaline = alkalized Kangen water.

Therefore the evil hydroxide ions are present in the alkaline water solution, while the hydrogen ions are on the acidic side as it should be.

Next up:

  • Oxidization/Reduction Potential (OCR): What is it and why is this guy sticking his probe in my Gatorade?
  • pH: What does it have to do with anything? Is acidic good or bad?! I must know!

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Blog Update

I wrote an about section for the blog! Check it out here if you have the urge. Also, I should probably warn those who are sensitive to profanity that I do sometimes use strong language to express my views in this blog. I apologise for my passion. This video basically sums it up:

Watch the Macedonian Cafe sketch from this week's episode to find out why everyone around you keeps calling each other "mother bitches," and tune in for new episodes Wednesdays at 10:30/9:30c.
Posted by Key & Peele on Saturday, October 25, 2014

Sunday, April 19, 2015

How to Exercise Your Woo Muscle

Plough pose (image from Yoga Journal)

I really love yoga. It's nice and relaxing, a great way of increasing one's flexibility and one of the very few forms of strength training that I can stomach. When I started taking yoga classes I knew it was a one way ticket to the Land of Woo. I can only roll my eyes when I hear stuff like "the plough pose really stimulates the parathyroids". So many nopes in just one sentence. It's also a great workout for my superior rectus muscles.

The superior rectus muscle - used for rolling thine eyes.
Unfortunately, fitness woo isn't contained within the hippy-dippy realm of yoga. Earlier today a well meaning friend posted this article on Facebook. Please take the time to read it before continuing here. It's infuriating. I ended up compiling a detailed reply which ended up looking like a blog post on it's own. Besides the fact that the article is misleading in so many ways, I would really like to highlight some of the red flags I use as an indicator of potential bullshit:

1. No citations.

From this alone it's reasonable to assume that it's just some random person's opinion. Unless it's an article on cosmology written by Stephen Hawking, you should definitely check the facts. Even if there are citations, you should also make sure they're from reputable sources (peer-review literature published in a reputable scientific journal is preferred, but not always necessary).

(Side note: Have you watched The Theory of Everything yet? Because you totally should.)

2. Lack of scientific insight -  i.e. over simplified, "common sense" explanations of complex concepts.

The article states that low-intensity cardio weakens or "downsizes" the heart because "it signals the cardiovascular system to do as little work as possible in order to go further and last longer". Yeah. If that sentence doesn't send your BS sensors into out-of-wack mode, I don't know what will. The article shows no physiological insight into the workings of the cardiovascular system or what actually happens to the heart when you exercise regularly over a long period of time. The basic argument here is that slower = weaker = bad.

3. Incorrect basic definitions.

If the article made you think that "when a heart attack occurs it is a result of cardiac demand challenging the maximal capacity of the heart" - SURPRISE! It isn't. WebMD defines a heart attack is as follows:

"A heart attack, or myocardial infarction (MI), is permanent damage to the heart muscle. "Myo" means muscle, "cardial" refers to the heart, and "infarction" means death of tissue due to lack of blood supply."[1]


"The heart muscle requires a constant supply of oxygen-rich blood to nourish it. The coronary arteries provide the heart with this critical blood supply. If you have coronary artery disease, those arteries become narrow and blood cannot flow as well as they should. Fatty matter, calcium, proteins, and inflammatory cells build up within the arteries to form plaques of different sizes. The plaque deposits are hard on the outside and soft and mushy on the inside.

When the plaque is hard, the outer shell cracks (plaque rupture), platelets (disc-shaped particles in the blood that aid clotting) come to the area, and blood clots form around the plaque. If a blood clot totally blocks the artery, the heart muscle becomes "starved" for oxygen. Within a short time, death of heart muscle cells occurs, causing permanent damage. This is a heart attack."[1]

This is the standard definition of a heart attack - it has nothing to do with the heart's maximum capacity. You can basically just google "heart attack" and you'll be presented with numerous websites that give this exact explanation. If an article can't even get that right, it's probably nonsense. No need for looking up peer-reviewed scientific articles here.

4. Blatant counter-intuitive statements.

This one is a bit trickier, but saying that exercise is bad for your heart is kind of like saying that insulin is bad for diabetics or that chemotherapy gives you more cancer (spoiler: it doesn't).

According to Mayo Clinic, cardiovascular exercise is exercise that involves repeated movement of large muscle groups, increased heart rate and breathing (jogging, swimming, aerobic dancing, etc.)[2]. They go on to say that aerobic exercise strengthens the heart and that "a stronger heart doesn't need to beat as fast. A stronger heart also pumps blood more efficiently, which improves blood flow to all parts of your body"[2]. This is mainly because aerobic exercise increases the heart's output (i.e. the volume of blood that it's able to pump per minute) and increases the amount of oxygen that can be transported to, and utilised by the muscles as well as the rate at which waste products such as lactic acid and carbon dioxide can be removed. Therefore slower ≠ weaker ≠ bad.

And now for your personal enjoyment:

Shit my yoga teacher says:

"The plough pose really stimulates the parathyroids, they're the glands that produce calcium in the body. It's really a great pose for balancing out your hormones."
The parathyroids produce parathyroid hormone (PTH) which regulates serum calcium, serum phosphates and vitamin D synthesis. PTH secretion is regulated by means of inhibition when blood calcium levels are elevated. Staring at your own crotch in plough pose probably doesn't have any effect.

"You need to breathe deeply in order to rid your lungs of excess built up carbon dioxide and toxins."
Ah, "toxins". Ruler of the woo-world. Actually, your lungs are pretty bad-ass at effectively absorbing oxygen, expelling carbon dioxide and even getting rid of other particles such as dust or smoke. I don't even want to go into this, since it's an insult to lungs everywhere.

Bottom line:

Knowledge is power, motherfuckers.


Thursday, January 29, 2015

Green Ignorance

A while back I saw a Green Peace poster about the dangers of new nuclear projects in South Africa. However, instead of informing the general public about actual risks involved in nuclear power, they resorted to some cheap fear mongering:

You'd think that "dodgy" would imply secrecy and corruption, but no. They clearly ran out of scary sounding things after option B.
Apart from the fact that none of those points have anything to do with nuclear power itself (but rather our incompetent, corrupt government), it still succeeds at spreading misinformation and unfounded fear on the topic while undermining the fact that nuclear power is a crucial component in the future of clean, sustainable energy generation.

Yeah, Green Peace.
Green Peace goes on to say that "nuclear power is a dead end" and "renewable energy is the fastest and cheapest way to boost electricity supply. And it creates the most sustainable jobs, too". Right. While renewable energy certainly should be utilised as much as possible, it's unfortunately not the magical solution to all our problems that Green Peace would like us to believe. As Vujić et al stated:
"It must be emphasized that an ideal energy source that is at the same time efficient, cost-effective, environment-friendly, and risk-free does not exist."[1]

Nuclear power vs. everything else:

The main advantage of nuclear fuel is its extremely high energy-density compared to other sources[2]. Because of this, nuclear power produces very small volumes of waste per kWh and also allows reactors to take up less space, whereas the low energy-density of other renewables results in high land requirements[2].

Moreover, when compared to other means of electricity generation, nuclear power is the most efficient as shown below:

Rates of fossil-fuel consumption of different power-generating systems.[2]
"Nuclear, hydro and geothermal power plants have the lowest fossil-fuel consumptions: one to two orders of magnitude smaller than that of renewable energy and fossil fuel power systems."[2] 

Another rather shocking attribute of nuclear power generation, is that the production of radioactive waste is very small compared to other methods and it doesn't release noxious gasses or other pollutants into the atmosphere[2].

Waste generated annually — in fuel preparation and plant operation (IAEA).[2]
Lastly, safety remains one of the highest concerns when considering nuclear power production. In an analysis done by A. Strupczewski, it was found that early deaths relating to all nuclear power plant (NPP) accidents, except RBMK (i.e. Chernobyl) type NPPs were 0/GW as shown below[3]:

Early deaths due to severe accidents in various energy-systems.[3]
In the same study, health hazards due to low-level emissions in the full fuel cycle were also compared between various energy generation systems:

Loss of expected life due to electricity production in various fuel cycles.[3]
The study further concludes that:
"The review of the safety level of nuclear power reached in actual international practice shows that the original goal for nuclear power, namely that the risks associated with NPPs be much less than those due any other energy sources, has been successfully reached."[3]

Bottom line:

It is reasonable to assume that there are safety risks involved with any method of energy generation, whether renewable or not. However, spreading fear and ignorance under the guise of environmental concern is irresponsible and hinders progress towards a future with clean energy. Green Peace should be ashamed of themselves.


  1. Vujić, J., Antić, D. P., & Vukmirović, Z. (2012). Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power: the US case. Energy, 45(1), 31-42.
  2. Rashad, S. M., & Hammad, F. H. (2000). Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems. Applied Energy, 65(1), 211-229.
  3. Strupczewski, A. (2003). Accident risks in nuclear-power plants. Applied Energy, 75(1), 79-86.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Woo in a Jar

(Image source)

This might come as a surprise to a few of my 5 readers, but I'm extremely nitpicky when it comes to buying skin care products. Since I'm not a cosmetic chemist, I rely on other reputable sources (The Beauty BrainsPaula's Choice) to make informed decisions. I hate it when I know exactly which products I need, and then some "consultant" tries to convince me to buy some expensive hocus pocus product they think is better, and ask all kinds of unnecessary questions about my skincare regime to try to convince me that I'm wrong. Which, by the way, happened again today.

The hair care industry might be ridden with woo, but it ain't got nothin' on the granddaddy of pseudo-science and marketing BS, aka, the skin care industry. They promise everything from plastic surgery-like anti-aging results to scar removal, cellulite firming and whatnot, all without much to show for it. While hair care nonsense is quite easy to avoid (don't waste money on expensive stuff, there are no miracle hair treatments and it's really difficult to find a bad hair product[1]), skincare is much trickier since skin is very much alive and can therefore react to whatever you put on it.

Cosmetic chemistry is obviously a very complicated subject, however there are a few basic rules anyone can follow to avoid being ripped off:

  • Never buy anything in a jar:

"The fact that this product is packaged in a jar means the beneficial ingredients won't remain stable once it is opened. All plant extracts, vitamins, antioxidants, and most other state-of-the-art ingredients break down in the presence of air, so once a jar is opened and lets the air in these important ingredients begin to deteriorate. Jars also present a hygiene issue because even if you wash your hands or use a spatula to remove the product, you're introducing bacteria that causes further breakdown of key ingredients (Sources: Free Radical Biology and Medicine, September 2007, pages 818-829; Ageing Research Reviews, December 2007, pages 271-288; Dermatologic Therapy, September-October 2007, pages 314-321; International Journal of Pharmaceutics, June 12, 2005, pages 197-203; Pharmaceutical Development and Technology, January 2002, pages 1-32; International Society for Horticultural Science,; and" [2]

  • Avoid products with fragrance ingredients at all costs:

"The way most fragrance ingredients impart scent is through a volatile reaction, which almost always causes irritation and some amount of inflammation. Research has established that fragrances in skin-care products are among the most common cause of sensitizing and allergic reactions." [3]
"Frequently used fragrance ingredients to avoid are (the names in parentheses are how the ingredient's name will appear on the product):
  • Fragrance
  • Parfum/Parfume
  • Linalool
  • Citronellol
  • Cinnamal
  • Limonene
  • Geraniol
  • Eugenol
  • Lavender oil (Lavandula angustifolia)
  • Rose flower extract (Rosa damascene)
  • Bergamot oil (Citrus bergamia)
  • Ylang-ylang oil (Canaga odorata)
  • Lemon (Citrus limon)
  • Lime (Citrus aurantifolia or Citrus medica)
  • Orange (Citrus sinensis)
  • Tangerine (Citrus tangerine)
  • Peppermint (Mentha piperita)
  • Spearmint (Mentha spicata)
  • Menthol
  • Cinnamon (Cinnamomum)" [3] 

  • Resist the hype:

Cosmetics companies often market specific product lines by puffing up the benefits of one particular ingredient (think argan oil, vitamins, collagen). However, whether or not those ingredients are even effective, they are often added in such small amounts (or unstable forms) that any effect would be negligible. Apart from that, it's really difficult to tell whether a product has a good formula just by looking at the label, since there are many other factors such as the pH, ingredient stability and concentration which greatly determines it efficacy. 

Bottom line:

The only way to really know what you're getting is by researching which products are suitable for your skin type, contain beneficial ingredients and does what it says before you hit the shops. I highly recommend the brand reviews section on Paula's Choice. I have never seen such a comprehensive, scientific database of product reviews anywhere else. Not to mention the site is packed with useful articles on skin and hair care.


  1. Paula Begoun (21/8/2013) Hair-Care Product Steals - Get Gorgeous Hair For Less, Available at: (Accessed: 15/11/2014).
  2. Paula Begoun (15/1/2013) Beautypedia Review, Available at: (Accessed: 15/11/2014).
  3. Paula Begoun, Fragrance & Skin Care: Smells Like Trouble!, Available at: (Accessed: 15/11/2014).