McDonald's food doesn't decay. So, eat it and live forever? :)

From Salon and the LA Times:

New York photographer Sally Davies left a McDonald's hamburger Happy Meal, complete with a small side order of french fries, siting on a shelf in her home for more than 130 days. Every three days, Davies took a photo of the food. By day 137, the food looked pretty much the same.

Some were quick to blame McDonald's for using preservatives to elicit the appearance of "fresh" food. But scientists now say it's preservatives aren't the reason why the Golden Arch's food won't break down..

Yes, it did not decay even four-and-a-half months after it was purchased :)  Explain away, scientists:

Marion Nestle, chairwoman of New York University’s food studies program, told us over e-mail that McDonald’s would have to use "really a lot of" sodium propionate to prevent bacterial or mold growth. McDonald's French fries, for example, which have repeatedly proven their hardiness to spoilage, contain citric acid as a preservative. But a bigger factor might be the fat content of the fries. About 50 percent of the total 250 calories contained in a small order of fries come from fat. "Anything that is high in fat will be low in moisture," says Barry Swanson, a professor at the Washington State University department of food science. And low moisture means less room for mold to grow.

BTW, isn't it neat that "Nestle" is the last name of the food studies program's chairwoman?  (editor: yes, you are the billionth person to find this funny. Don't you have a class to teach?)

However, don't load up on those burgers and fries to achieve immortality:

For better or for worse, McDonald’s is no more a chemical laboratory of secret compounds designed to embalm us from the inside than any other processed food maker. A Happy Meal manages to stay unspoiled because it is fatty, salty and practically empty of nutrients -- which, really, are all good reasons to avoid it anyway.

On the anniversary of Gandhi's assassination

Einstein summed it up best when he noted that  "Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."

January 30th 1948 was when Gandhi was felled by Godse's bullet.  62 years later, some of his ashes were scattered in the waters off South Africa, where Gandhi had spent a few years before returning to India. "Gandhi's ashes were brought to South Africa after his death in 1948 but only some of them were immersed in the ocean while the rest were given to a family friend who kept them for decades."

It is simply incredible that Gandhi was able to convince everybody on the merits of a non-violent movement for independence.  I have always felt that India's democratic politics (except for the brief period when Indira Gandhi suspended the constitution) is a result of the non-violent methods that were used to gain freedom.

Sir Richard Attenborough deserves a special meritorious place for making a movie about Gandhi.  One of my favorite scenes from the movie is also the one that troubles me the most--even more than the scene when Gandhi is shot.  The scene that I have embedded here depicts the "salt satyagraha."  The British imposed a salt tax, which was unfair and unjust.  Gandhi was arrested days before the planned non-violent protests at one of the salt works.
This scene gets my emotions every time I watch it; yes, even now as I type this.  Unlike a James Bond beating the crap out of a villainous character, this is a depiction of real happenings.  It is just awful how volunteers line up to get beaten up by the police--who are also Indians--and then the women volunteers bandage them up and they re-join the protest line.  The reporter--played by Martin Sheen--displays the emotions I suppose most of would feel if we were to witness such a horrible spectacle.

We owe Gandhi a whole lot.