iblog

Rushda: At approximately 1am this morning, an earthquake shook many homes all across the country. The earthquake, which measured 5.3 on the Richter scale, is the most intense one experienced in 25 years, with much damage being caused to buildings as well as injuries caused to residents. The British Geological Survey have said that the earthquake's epicentre was near Market Rasen in Lincolnshire. The tremors, which were felt in many places such as Newcastle, Yorkshire, Wales, and London had widespread effects. In many streets residents came out in their dressing gowns to find out what had happened. The emergency services were alerted at many homes which suffered great damage from the tremor. Not only that, but there were some injuries as well. For example, 19 year old student David Bates was pinned under masonry in his attic bedroom in Barnsley Road, Wombwell, South Yorks, and suffered a broken pelvis as a result and had to be taken to hospital. His father said:

"There was a rumble and then we heard a bang and my son screaming 'Dad'."

Other residents from the country also had stories to tell about the shaking. For example, Bev Finnegan from Market Rasen, where the tremors were greatest, said:

"I was terrified to be honest. The noise was really, really terrifying... it was so deep and rumbling. It felt like the roof was going to fall in. There were people coming out in their dressing gowns wondering what it was. It was quite an experience."

Thankfully there were no emergency calls from Lincolnshire about injuries. A Lincolnshire Police spokesperson has said:

"There is slight structural damage, cracks and a couple of chimneys damaged. There's nothing serious at present. Mostly people were distressed by it so there were a large quantity of calls coming in."

Since this was the biggest earthquake for so long, many have been naturally worried that it will happen again, perhaps even worse than this time. But the British Geological Survey has said that earthquakes such as these are very rare so there is no need to fear. As Dr Brian Baptie, of the BGS, said:

"An earthquake of this size, of magnitude five or thereabouts, will occur roughly every 10 to 20 years in the UK. So we can get these kind of moderate to significant earthquakes of this size but they're relatively rare."

Myself, I felt a mild tremor all the way down in Cambridge - thankfully, I didn't feel much of the terror as it was so mild but I was certainly confused. I'm so glad the mystery was resolved!

Thomas King: Sales of Morrissey albums will soar, the poetry of Leonard Cohen will top the bestsellers lists, black will become (if possible) more fashionable. No, it's not the Eighties coming back, it's a new piece of research saying that, if you're depressed, you may need to live with it and not rely on pills to feel better because anti-depressants may not really work. The study, published yesterday in the journal PLoS Medicine and led by an academic from the University of Hull, took data from 35 clinical trials, covering the four most-prescribed anti-depressants in the US. The results from these studies were pooled and examined to see if, overall, there was any significant effect of anti-depressant. The research found that, overall, there was a improvement in mood when taking an anti-depressant. But it also found that an almost equal improvement in mood was seen when taking a sugar-pill that the subject was told was an anti-depressant. In fact, in two of the trials, patients reported feeling happier when taking the sugar-pill than they did when taking the actual drug. Interestingly, the trial found that the more depressed an individual was to begin with, the greater the benefit that they seemed to get from the drug. Severely depressed individuals were the group who reported the biggest difference in improvement of mood when taking the real drug and when taking the sugar pill. The study's authors say that this is a false result, "attributable to a decrease in responsiveness to placebo, rather than an increase in responsiveness to medication." More depressed people were no more likely to report an increase in mood with the anti-depressant, they were just less likely to report an improvement with the placebo. If these drugs have no real effect, then why are they still prescribed? In the year 2006/2007 there were over 31 million prescriptions for anti-depressants in the UK. Would so many people be taking them if they didn't make them feel better? According to the study's authors, any beneficial effects you might feel come down to a 'placebo effect'. We've probably all heard stories of people getting drunk on water because they believe it's vodka. This, in essence, is a 'placebo effect'; something affects you a certain way because you believe it should. Anti-depressants make you happier because you expect to be happier. After all, you're taking anti-depressants. So, should this finding be seen as a hammer-blow to depressives, one less way to scare away the black dog? No. If anything it should be seen as a hopeful message as it shows just how easily depression can be relieved if you're in the right frame of mind. They say "Let a smile be your umbrella" but an upbeat attitude could protect you from more than just rain.

Thomas King: Valentine's Day has been and gone and left in its wake the treacley-sweet feeling of how nice it is to be in love. But for many couples, the post-Valentine's match report can actually leave them questioning just how happy they really are. Fortunate then, that a new study from the University of Texas suggests a couple's relationship can be made much stronger by stepping into each other's shoes. The adjustment to parenthood after a new baby arrives has been identified as one of the most stressful times in a relationship and it can be weakened for up to a year after the birth. Recent studies have suggested that this may be because men were struggling to fill the traditional 'breadwinner' image of a father. This struggle was causing them to become "emotionally isolated" from their families as their duty to earn money became so much more significant. Up until now, though, little work has been done on families where the mother was the breadwinner and the father looked after the children. In theory, these couples should face even more stress from the arrival of a new child because, not only are they coping with their new responsibilities, but they also have to deal with society judging them for bucking the usual 'stay-at-home mum' and 'working dad' roles. In reality, the new University of Texas survey found, fathers who were also caregivers often rated their relationship satisfaction much higher. This increased satisfaction seemed to stem mostly from the fact that the men felt more supported by (and supportive of) their partners than those in a more traditional role. The men might have partly been more supportive as they felt freed of the responsibilities associated with a job. This, though, seemed unlikely since many men treated the daily responsibilities of childcare much like those of a job. The survey's authors suggested that, even if childcare was treated as a job, it was a job that felt more meaningful and more challenging for the fathers. This made them feel more supported as they were being allowed to try the role out while their partners took on their perceived responsibilities. At the same time, they understood the pressures facing their spouse in the working world and, as they could empathise, they were more supportive. This research shouldn't suggest to every man that he should instantly down tools and become a house-husband but it does emphasise how important it is to try to see things from your significant other's point-of-view. So instead of roses next year, perhaps the best Valentine's Day gift would be a good dose of perspective.