Since the iPhone debuted in 2007, ushering in the age of the phone-as-computer, smartphone use has exploded worldwide, with an estimated 2.3 billion users last year. According to a 2016 Pew Research survey, 77 percent of Americans own a smartphone, and other recentstats have found that users are on their phones an average of more than five hours per day—almost double the rate in 2013. More people now use a mobile device to get online than they do a computer. This is especially true in regions where people may not be able to afford a personal computer but can buy a smartphone.
We love our smartphones perhaps a little too much, and the desire to unplug is growing among people who see 24/7 connectedness as damaging to their mental health. This week, Apple announced new iPhone features meant to curb our dependence on our devices, including a weekly "Report" app that shows your phone and app usage, as well as how many times you physically pick up your phone. (One small study by the consumer research firm Dscout found that we touch our phones more than 2600 times a day.) You can also set customized limits for overall phone usage with the "Screen Time" app.
Many of us feel anxiety at the very thought of being without their phone and the access it offers to the internet. Researchers have a term for it: nomophobia ("no mobile phone phobia"). So how much smartphone use is too much?
That turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer. "Smartphone addiction" isn't an official medical diagnosis. Even the experts haven't decided how much is too much—or even whether smartphone addiction is real.
To understand what's going on, we have to first step back and define what addiction is. It's different from habits, which are subconsciously performed routines, and dependence, when repeated use of something causes withdrawals when you stop. You can be dependent on something without it ruining your life. Addiction is a mental disorder characterized by compulsive consumption despite serious adverse consequences.
Yet, our understanding of behavioral addictions—especially ones that don't involve ingesting mind-altering chemicals—is still evolving. Actions that result in psychological rewards, such as a crushing a castle in Clash Royale or getting a new ping from Instagram, can turn compulsive as our brains rewire to seek that payoff (just like our smartphones, our brains use electricity to operate, and circuits of neurons can restructure to skew toward rewards). For a minority of people, it seems those compulsions can turn to addictions.
Psychologists have been treating internet addiction for almost as long as the internet has been around: Kimberly Young, a clinical psychologist and program director at St. Bonaventure University, founded the Center for Internet Addiction back in 1995. By 2013, addictive behavior connected to personal technology was common enough that in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the bible for mental disorder diagnoses, the American Psychiatric Association included "internet gaming disorder" as a condition "warranting further study." These days, thanks to an abundance of horror stories involving people who were glued to the internet until they died—and living gamers who are so engrossed in their games that they ignore paramedics removing dead gamers—internet rehabs are popping up all over the world.
But in virtually all of the medical literature published so far about internet addiction—including the WHO's forthcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), whose "excessive use of the internet" is built around how much gaming interferes with daily life—there's no mention of smartphones.
According to Marc Potenza, a professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Yale School of Medicine, there's a reason for these omissions: Despite the official definitions included in the DSM-V and ICD-11, "there's debate regarding the use of those terms [internet addiction]. Both the ICD-11 group and the DSM-V group chose to focus on the behavior rather than the delivery device."
So while you may feel nomophobia when you can't find your internet "delivery device," the global psychiatric community thinks it's the internet itself that's the problem—not the phone in your hand.
THE REWARDS THAT COME FROM OUR PHONES
We are getting something from our phones, though, and it's not just access to the internet. Receiving a notification gives us a small dopamine burst, and we learn to associate that dose of pleasure with the smartphone. You may pull your phone from your pocket a dozen times an hour to check for notifications—even if you know they're not there because your phone would have, well, notified you.
It's not unusual for people to become attached to an action (checking the phone) rather than its reward (getting a notification). Sometimes smokers trying to quit feel the urge to chew or bite and need to replace cigarettes with gum or sunflower seeds. According to Stephanie Borgland, a neuroscientist and associate professor at University of Calgary, this is called a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer—a reference to Ivan Pavlov's experiments, in which he reinforced behavior in dogs through signals and rewards. Borgland tells Mental Floss that we can become compulsively attached to the cues of phone use. We cling to the physical stimuli our brains have linked to the reward.
There may be an evolutionary basis to this behavior. Like other primates, humans are social mammals, but we have dramatically higher levels of dopamine than our cousins. This neurotransmitter is associated with reward-motivated behavior. So when we get a notification on an app that tells us someone has engaged us in social interaction—which we naturally crave—it triggers our natural inclinations.
HOW TO CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM (FOR YOUR PHONE)
The global psychiatric community may not be convinced our smartphones are a problem, and no one has died from checking Snapchat too often—or at least it hasn't been reported. But most of us would say that spending five hours a day on our smartphones is too much. So are there any guidelines?
At this stage of research into smartphone use, there are no specific time-limit recommendations, though some researchers are working on a smartphone addiction scale; one was proposed in a 2013 study in the journal PLOS One. Based on what's said to be coming out in the ICD-11, here's one simple guideline: Problematic smartphone use negatively interferes with your life. Some research suggests Facebook, Instagram, and even online gaming make us feel more isolated and less connected. The more we try to fill that hole by tapping away at our phones, the more we crave social interaction. "There are a number of factors that have been associated with these behaviors or conditions," says Potenza, who is developing tools to screen for and assess problematic internet use and has consulted with the WHO on these issues. "And arguably one of the most consistent ones is depression."
One way to assess whether your smartphone is a problem is noting how you react when you're cut off from it, according to the PLOS One study. The study proposed a "smartphone addiction scale" based on negative responses to being without a smartphone, among other criteria. What happens on a day when you accidentally leave it at home? Are you irritable or anxious? Do you feel isolated from friends or unsafe? Do you have trouble concentrating on work, school, or other important responsibilities, whether or not you have your phone?
While smartphones may not be truly addictive in a medical sense, learning how to use them in a more mindful, healthy manner couldn't hurt. Test yourself for nomophobia [PDF]—knowing how much time you spend online is the first step to identifying how that can be problematic. Block distracting sites or track usage via a timer or an app (beware third-party apps' privacy settings, however). Delete the apps that keep the phone in your hand even when you're not online, like games. If you're still struggling, you could ditch smartphones altogether and downgrade to a "dumb" phone or get a Light Phone, a cellular device "designed to be used as little as possible."
A recent WIRED feature argued that using the internet five hours per day isn't a personal failing so much as a reflection of the way many apps are purposely designed to keep you salivating for more. So perhaps the best measure is to leave your phone behind once in a while. Schedule a screen-free Sunday. Go for a walk in the woods. Meditate. Socialize instead of binging The Office again. Don’t worry—you’ll be fine.
The next time you hold in a fart for fear of being heard by polite company, just remember this: It could leak out of your mouth instead of your butt. Writing on The Conversation, University of Newcastle nutrition and dietetics professor Clare Collins explains that pent-up gas can pass through your gut wall and get reabsorbed into your circulation. It's then released when you exhale, whether you like it or not.
“Holding on too long means the build up of intestinal gas will eventually escape via an uncontrollable fart,” Collins writes. In this case, the fart comes out of the wrong end. Talk about potty mouth.
A few brave scientists have investigated the phenomenon of flatulence. In one study, 10 healthy volunteers were fed half a can of baked beans in addition to their regular diets and given a rectal catheter to measure their farts over a 24-hour period. Although it was a small sample, the results were still telling. Men and women let loose the same amount of gas, and the average number of “flatus episodes” (a single fart, or series of farts) during that period was eight. Another study of 10 people found that high-fiber diets led to fewer but bigger farts, and a third study found that gases containing sulphur are the culprit of the world’s stinkiest farts. Two judges were tapped to rate the odor intensity of each toot, and we can only hope that they made it out alive.
Scientific literature also seems to support Collins’s advice to “let it go.” A 2010 paper on “Methane and the gastrointestinal tract” says methane, hydrogen sulfide, and other gases that are produced in the intestinal tract are mostly eliminated from the body via the anus or “expelled from the lungs.” Holding it in can lead to belching, flatulence, bloating, and pain. And in some severe cases, pouches can form along the wall of the colon and get infected, causing diverticulitis.
So go ahead and let it rip, just like nature intended—but maybe try to find an empty room first.
NASA was officially established in October 1958. Just two years later, the agency started what would become one of the defining programs of the 20th century—Apollo, which put humans on the Moon in 1969. In honor of NASA's 60th anniversary, and the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Moon landing, here are 17 facts about the Apollo program.
1. THE NAME DOESN’T HAVE DEEP ROOTS.
When NASA and the Space Task Group were brainstorming names for their first manned satellite project, they favored “Project Astronaut,” which they believed would “emphasize the man in the satellite.” According to NASA, that name was eventually discarded “because it might lead to overemphasis on the personality of the man.” Mercury was chosen instead: Thanks to its use in thermometers and automobile branding, it was familiar to the American public. The Roman god's role as a messenger was also appealing [PDF]. The program would go on to make six manned flights between 1961 and 1963, taking us from Alan Shepard’s 15-minute flight to L. Gordon Cooper’s 34 hours in space.
As NASA began looking beyond Mercury missions, they recognized that a mythological naming convention had been established. Dr. Abe Silverstein, NASA's director of space flight programs, suggested the Greco-Roman god Apollo—which might seem like an odd choice for a lunar program, considering Apollo is traditionally associated with the Sun rather than the Moon. But Silverstein supposedly felt that the image of “Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program.”
According to The New York Times, however, Silverstein would later say there was “No specific reason for it ... It was just an attractive name.”
2. APOLLO WASN’T ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO TAKE US TO THE MOON’S SURFACE.
The original intent of the program wasn't actually a lunar landing. When it was announced in 1960, Project Apollo’s goal was to send a three-man crew to orbit the Moon, not land on it. It wasn’t until May 1961 that President John F. Kennedy delivered his famous speech declaring that “this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
It was an ambitious plan: At the time Kennedy made his announcement, only two people had ever been in space. In addition to Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin in April 1961, and Alan Shepard a month later, other animals that had made it to space included fruit flies, monkeys, dogs, and a chimpanzee.
3. APOLLO 2 AND 3 DIDN’T EXIST.
In 1967, astronauts Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee were conducting a preflight test—where the command module was mounted as it would be for a launch, but nothing was fueled up—for what was known as mission AS-204 when a fire broke out, killing the three astronauts. The decision was made to honor the astronauts by referring to the never-completed flight as Apollo 1—but this left open the question of what to call the next flight.
One solution was to call the next flight Apollo 2. Another option proposed was to retroactively designate three earlier flights (AS-201, 202, and 203) as Apollo 1-A, Apollo 2, and Apollo 3, even though these flights launched before the fire. The reason for the suggestion wasn't evident even to NASA. As the agency explained, “the sequence of, and reasoning behind, mission designations has never been really clear to anyone.”
Eventually, according to NASA’s history, the never-launched flight “would be officially recorded as Apollo 1, ‘first manned Apollo Saturn flight—failed on ground test.’ AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203 would not be renumbered in the ‘Apollo’ series, and the next mission would be Apollo 4.”
4. THE LAUNCH OF APOLLO 4 WAS ONE OF THE LOUDEST MAN-MADE NOISES EVER.
Apollo 4—an unmanned mission that served as a test of the 363-foot-tall Saturn V rocket—was the first ever launch at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, when it occurred on November 9, 1967. The liftoff was so loud (according to NASA, one of the loudest manmade noises ever) that it shook buildings as far as three miles away, causing dust and debris to fall from the ceiling of the control center (above). "I hope the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) doesn't get any cracks," Dr. Hans Greune, director of Kennedy Launch Vehicle Operations, said after the launch. "It rattled pretty hard and a cheer went up in the control room after liftoff." The launchpad lacked a sound suppression system—but by the time the Space Shuttle was in use, more than 300,000 gallons of water were sprayed out in just 41 seconds to dampen its sound to acceptable levels.
The mission, which was successful, was designed to test the structural and thermal integrity of the craft and to evaluate various support facilities.
5. APOLLO 5 WAS A SUCCESS; APOLLO 6, NOT SO MUCH.
The uncrewed Apollo 5 was designed to test the operation of the lunar module, and it was mostly a success (there were concerns with the water boiler temperature). Apollo 6 was also unmanned, but had many more issues. For 30 seconds it experienced something called the “pogo effect” (which Popular Science explains is “almost like the rocket is bouncing on a pogo stick”)—something that NASA pointed out “would have been very uncomfortable for any crew.” Then two of the engines shut down, and the third stage wouldn't restart. Despite all these setbacks, Apollo 6 never made national headlines. On the day of the disastrous flight, Martin Luther King. Jr. was assassinated in Tennessee. “About the only explaining that NASA had to do, therefore, was to the congressional committees on space activities, who seemed satisfied with what they heard,” NASA explains.
6. THE PROGRAM RECEIVED AN EMMY.
Apollo 7 was a mission of firsts: It marked the first Apollo mission that sent people to space, as well as the first live television transmissions from space. During the transmissions—which were called the “Wally, Walt, and Donn Show”—astronauts Walter Schirra, R. Walter Cunningham, and Donn Eisele gave a tour of the vehicle and cracked a few jokes. Schirra even commented that he was “going to try for an Emmy for the best weekly series,” to which the ground crew responded, “I thought you were going to try for a Hammy” [PDF].
In a way, Schirra did get his wish: In 1969, Apollos 7, 8, 9, and 10—all of which made broadcasts back to Earth—received a special Trustees Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
7. APOLLO 8 GOT NASA SUED.
On Christmas Eve 1968, Apollo 8 astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders circled the Moon and snapped the famous Earthrise photo. They were also told to do “something appropriate” to honor the event for the millions who were listening to them. They decided to recite from Genesis. "It's a foundation of Christianity, Judaism and Islam," Lovell said of the choice. "They all had that basis of the Old Testament."
Famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair—sometimes referred to as “the most hated woman in America”—sued, alleging her First Amendment rights had been violated. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the suit and the Supreme Court declined to hear it due to lack of jurisdiction. But it did have an effect on later missions—according to Buzz Aldrin’s memoirs, he had intended to read a communion passage back to Earth during Apollo 11, but at the last moment was asked not to because of Apollo 8’s legal challenges.
8. THE FLAGS ON THE MOON HAVE A COMPLEX STORY.
Raising the American flag on the Moon turned out to be a controversial move. In his 1969 inaugural address, President Nixon had proclaimed that we should “go to the new worlds together—not as new worlds to be conquered, but as a new adventure to be shared.” That spirit of shared exploration led some at NASA to discuss putting a United Nations flag on the Moon. At the same time, some had concerns over the visual effect of planting an American flag on the Moon, which they believed could make it look like the Americans were taking control of the Moon (which would have been a violation of the Outer Space Treaty). Eventually, however, the committee decided to plant the American flag and also leave a plaque to emphasize that they “came in peace for all mankind.”
The flag debate would be settled in no uncertain terms later in 1969, when NASA’s appropriation bill proclaimed “the flag of the United States, and no other flag, shall be implanted or otherwise placed on the surface of the Moon, or on the surface of any planet, by the members of the crew of any spacecraft making a lunar or planetary landing as a part of a mission under the Apollo program or as a part of a mission under any subsequent program, the funds for which are provided entirely by the Government of the United States.” Mindful of the Outer Space Treaty, the bill made sure to note that “This act is intended as a symbolic gesture of national pride in achievement and is not to be construed as a declaration of national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.”
9. IT’S UNCLEAR WHERE THE APOLLO 11 FLAG CAME FROM.
There are two possible sources for the Apollo 11 flag—and neither of them involve anything high-tech. Originally, NASA proclaimed that the “Stars and Stripes to be deployed on the Moon was purchased along with several others made by different manufacturers” in Houston-area stores. When it was affixed to the pole and crossbar that would be planted in the Moon dust, all labels and identifying information were removed.
Not long after the Moon landing, according to a NASA Contractor Report on the Lunar Flag, the head of flag manufacturer Annin & Co. asked if the flag was one of theirs. He was told that "three secretaries had been sent out to buy 3x5-foot nylon flags during their lunch hours. After they had returned it was discovered that all of them had purchased their flags at Sears."
Annin was the official flag supplier to Sears, but not wanting “another Tang”—a reference to the free publicity Tang received from NASA after John Glenn drank an orange liquid from a pouch on Friendship 7—they refused to confirm the manufacturer.
Jack Kinzler, a NASA executive, was unable to verify any of this information, though; his notes suggest that the flag was purchased from the Government Stock Catalog for $5.50.
10. BUZZ ALDRIN HAD TO FILL OUT AN EXPENSE REPORT FOR HIS TRIP.
Even a guy on the work trip of a lifetime had to fill out some paperwork afterward: Once he was back on Earth, post-successful moonwalk, Aldrin filed a travel voucher totaling $33.31. "To: Cape Kennedy, Fla. Moon Pacific Ocean (USN Hornet)," it read.
11. APOLLO 12 WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING—TWICE—AFTER LIFTOFF.
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Just 36 seconds after liftoff on November 14, 1969, the astronauts on Apollo 12—Alan Bean, Charles "Pete" Conrad, and Richard Gordon, Jr.—felt something strange. Then, things began to go wrong. The craft had been struck by lightning twice, at 36 seconds after takeoff and again at 52 seconds. Though no one in the crew or on the ground realized what had happened, the three men were calm and waited it out. Bean would later say that “One of the rules of space flight is you don't make any switch-a-roos with that electrical system unless you've got a good idea why you're doing it. I knew we had power, so I didn't want to make any changes. I figured we could fly into orbit just like that.” Eventually, he reset the electrical systems, and after 25 minutes, those systems and the fuel cells were back up and running. But the crew still had to fire its main engine to leave Earth's orbit and head for the Moon—and the automated navigation was busted. Gordon used a sextant, and Bean broke out a star chart to help them figure out where to go. And they made it.
The next Apollo mission may be the most famous, besides 11, because of its own problems—and an oxygen tank intended for Apollo 10 (Apollo 13’s Jim Lovell would later congratulate the Apollo 10 crew for getting rid of it). The tank, 10024X-TA0009, was one of two set for the earlier Apollo mission, but problems with pumps meant all the tanks needed modification. In the removal of this particular tank, it caught on a bolt and fell two inches—but because it was felt that no damage occurred, everyone moved on, and the tank was installed in the spacecraft soon to be known as Apollo 13.
During testing before the flight, technicians noted that the tank had difficulties emptying. To boil off the remaining liquid oxygen the electric heater inside the tank was plugged into 65-volt power for eight hours, with the nearby wires being subjected to 1000°F temperatures. It would later be discovered that using 65-volt power severely damaged the tank’s thermostatic switches, which were designed for 28 volts (NASA explains that in 1965, the permissible voltage to the heaters was raised to 65 volts, but the thermostatic switch manufacturer never got the memo). This internal damage likely resulted in a spark that destroyed the tank, leading to the legendary saying "Houston, we've had a problem” [PDF] and, in 1995, an award-winning movie.
12. APOLLO 12 MIGHT HAVE FOUND MICROBES ON THE MOON ... OR MAYBE NOT.
When Apollo 12landed on the Moon, it was right next to the lander from 1967’s Surveyor 3. The astronauts grabbed parts from the craft—including a camera—to study the effects of years on the lunar surface.
Researchers hadn’t sterilized Surveyor 3, and when the camera was opened in a clean room back on Earth, a small colony of Streptococcus mitis was discovered. These bacteria had apparently survived almost three years without nutrients in freezing space and the finding, which frequently gets discussed on the internet, was hailed as a remarkable discovery.
Sadly, researchers have recently returned to the Surveyor 3 camera and learned that the claim was, at best, unconvincing. One problem was that the people studying the camera were wearing short sleeves, meaning post-recovery contamination was a very real possibility—though the researchers caution “proving the truth in such a situation is difficult, if not impossible” [PDF].
Microbes or no, there's still an important takeaway from the situation: It demonstrated the potential issues that could arise with future samples returning from places like Mars.
13. APOLLO 15 TOOK A VEHICLE TO THE MOON.
Apollo 15, the fourth mission to put human boots on the Moon, brought along a first-of-its-kind, 460-Earth-pound Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) that was about the size of a dune buggy. Astronauts David Scott and James Irwin became the first people to drive on the surface of another world, and the LRV—which had a top speed of 8 mph—allowed them to travel farther from their landing site than any previous astronauts. "The LRV on Apollo fulfilled a very important need, which was to be able to cover large traverses, carry more samples, and get more scientific exploration done," Mike Neufeld, a senior curator at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., told SPACE.com in 2011. "It was a really important part of why Apollo 15, 16, and 17 were so much more scientifically advanced and productive." Scott and Irwin traveled around 17 miles in the LRV. The design of the vehicles—and their experiences on the Moon—helped inform the design of the rovers that went to Mars.
14. ONE APOLLO ASTRONAUT HAD A REACTION TO LUNAR REGOLITH.
Of the 12 men who have walked on the Moon, geologist Harrison Schmitt was the only scientist. He had a reaction to lunar regolith, or Moon dust. Schmitt said the dust caused “a lot of irritation to my sinuses and nostrils soon after taking the helmet off ... the dust really bothered my eyes and throat. I was tasting it and eating it.” He joked that he had “lunar dust hay fever.” Apollo 17 would go on to collect 741 rock and soil samples—more than any other Apollo mission.
15. THE APOLLO ASTRONAUTS HAD VARIED JOBS BACK HOME.
But the astronaut to have the most interesting job post-Moonwalk might be Buzz Aldrin, who told CNN, “Most people who have received a degree of public recognition find themselves financially pretty well off. Doesn't happen to be the case with astronauts.” And so he found himself working for a Cadillac dealership in Beverly Hills—though by his own admission he wasn’t very good at it. He explained in his memoir Magnificent Desolation, “I was a terrible salesman ... People came onto the lot in search of a car, and as soon as I struck up a conversation with them, the subject immediately turned from the comfort and convenience of a new or used luxury automobile to space travel. I spent more time signing autographs than anything else ... In fact, I didn’t sell a single car the entire time I worked at [the dealer].”
16. AN EXPERIMENT LEFT ON THE MOON DURING THE APOLLO MISSIONS IS STILL ONGOING.
One of the most lasting contributions of Apollo 11 was a 2-foot-wide panel consisting of 100 mirrors. Similar objects were left by Apollos 14 and 15, as well as Soviet rovers. Called the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment, it is "the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon,” according to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The experiment works by shooting a laser at the mirror and waiting for the reflection—but as anyone who has shined a laser pointer knows, while they don’t disperse as much as other light sources, lasers still disperse. In the case of the Moon, the laser is 4.3 miles in diameter when it hits the Moon, and 12.4 miles wide when it returns to Earth. But thanks to the program we’ve been able to learn that the Moon is moving roughly 1.5 inches away from the Earth every year, and gain new insights into Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.
17. NEARLY HALF A CENTURY AFTER THE FINAL APOLLO MISSION, HUMAN EXPLORATION STILL MATTERS.
It’s often said that we’ve never returned to the Moon after Apollo. That’s not quite true—in 2016, China’s Yutu rover ceased operations after spending 31 months on the Moon. But humans haven’t returned, and that may be a problem.
In 2012, Ian Crawford of Birkbeck College London wrote a paper arguing that human space travel has its benefits over robotic exploration. For one, “human missions like Apollo are between two and three orders of magnitude more efficient in performing exploration tasks than robotic missions, while being only one to two orders of magnitude more expensive” [PDF]. The paper also points out that missions like Apollo are funded and undertaken for a wide range of sociopolitical reasons, and humanity can benefit in many ways.
Not everyone is convinced. Some critics argue that autonomous robots, with their rapidly improving abilities, are the better option. It’s a question with serious implications for the future of space exploration.