Eating healthily costs about $1.50 more per person daily, according to the most thorough review yet of the affordability of a healthy diet.

“For many low-income families, an【C1】_____$1.50 daily is quite a lot,” says Mayuree Rao, “It【C2】__to about $550 more per year per person, and that could be a real【C3】_____to healthy eating.”

Rao and her colleagues reached their【C4】_____after analysing 27 studies from 10 high-income countries, comparing price【C5】__for healthy versus unhealthy ingredients and diets.【C6】__, one study compared the cost of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables versus one that was【C7】__in them. Another compared prices of【C8】_____healthy and less healthy items, such as wholegrain versus white bread.

Individual items were【C9】_____matched in price. Meats【C10】_____the largest difference: healthier options cost an average of 29 cents per serving more than unhealthy options.

【C11】________this, comparisons of whole diets showed that healthier diets cost averagely $ 1.48 more per day.

This shows that comparisons based on single ingredients don’t tell the full【C12】_____. “It tells us that,【C13】__, it doesn’t cost more to eat healthier based on one nutrient,” says Rao. “But there’s growing evidence that the【C14】__of foods in your diet【C15】__your disease risk more than any single nutrient, so we think our【C16】__finding that healthier diets cost about $1.50 more has the most public health【C17】_____.”

As to why healthier food has become more【C18】_____, Rao says that it may be because the food industry organizes itself and the types of food it produces to【C19】__its own economies of scale,【C20】_____than what’s best for consumers.

The 20th-century philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer considered the encounter between the viewer and a work of art to be a dynamic relationship. Meeting a work of art made in the past involves a jolt, a reaction, an actual event, in the present. Coming across the same work of art later will set up another event, another reaction, in which the artwork will be, as it were, activated afresh by the intellect and emotions of the viewer. When we interpret a work of art, we are teasing out its possible meanings in the moment; but those meanings will change, depending on the viewer and the time.

Extend this thought into the world of the museum and it becomes clear that these institutions are not simply about the past. They are, necessarily, about the present. Paintings, sculptures, artefacts of all kinds become meaningful in the “now” of their being viewed and considered. They shape us as we excavate new depths from them.

In a more purely functional manner, museums are increasingly embracing their capacity to be actors in the present worlds of their communities—rather than simply repositories of things of the past, and gatherers and protectors of collective memories. Neil MacGregor, former director of the British Museum, notes along the way that nostalgia is a danger for some of these institutions: there can be a temptation for them to become containers of “loss and longing”, especially when part of their founding impulse may have been, understandably and rightly, to preserve what was on the verge of being erased— whether preindustrial ways of life or, in the post-Thatcher age, manufacturing cultures.

Something intriguing can happen when the drift to nostalgia is resisted. An example is Derby’s new Museum of Making, which both salutes the city’s history of manufacturing and aims to foster skills and inspire new acts of ingenuity. That in itself is nothing new, of course: part of the purpose of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London was to encourage innovation in design and manufacturing. But the Museum of Making takes things a step further—hosting, for example, sessions for teachers and educators on fostering environments conducive to creativity, and “maker challenges” for teenagers. In so doing, it bridges the gap between museum and educational institution and inserts itself more fully into the fabric—and future—of the city.

It is a welcome shift. Museums, often in the teeth of terrible loss of income, are increasingly becoming ethical actors, as heavily invested in conversations about the kind of places communities want to be as what they once were. It should go without saying that they need to be properly supported to do this, by the government, local authorities and donors.

According to legend, Aesculapius bore two daughters, Panacea and Hygeia, who gave rise to dynasties of healers and hygienists. The division remains today, in clinical training and in practice; and, because of the imperative nature of medical care and the subtlety of health care, the former has tended to dominate. Preventive medicine has as its primary objective the maintenance and promotion of health. It accomplishes this by controlling or manipulating environmental factors that affect health and disease. For example, in California presently there is serious suffering and substantial economic loss because of the failure to introduce controlled fluoridation of public water supplies. Additionally, preventive medicine applies preventive measures against disease by such actions as immunization and specific nutritional measures. Third, it attempts to motivate people to adopt healthful lifestyles through education.

For the most part, curative medicine has as its primary objective the removal of disease from the patient. It provides diagnostic techniques to identify the presence and nature of the disease process. While these may be applied on a mass basis, they are usually applied after the patient appears with a complaint. Second, it applies treatment to the sick patient. In every case, this is, or should be, individualized according to the particular need of each patient. Third, it utilizes rehabilitation methodologies to return the treated patient to the best possible level of functioning.

While it is true that both preventive medicine and curative medicine require cadres of similarly trained personnel such as planners, administrators, and educators, the underlying delivery systems depend on quite distinctive professional personnel. The requirements for curative medicine call for clinically trained individuals who deal with patients on a one-to-one basis and whose training is based primarily on an understanding of the biological, pathological, and psychological processes that determine an individual’s health and disease status. Preventive medicine, on the other hand, calls for a very broad spectrum of professional personnel, few of whom require clinical expertise.

The economic differences between preventive medicine and curative medicine have been extensively discussed, perhaps most convincingly by Winslow in the monograph The Cost of Sickness and the Price of Health. Sickness is almost always a negative, nonproductive and harmful state. All resources expended to deal with sickness are therefore fundamentally economically unproductive. Health, on the other hand, has a very high value in our culture. To the extent that healthy members of the population are replaced by sick members, the economy isdoubly burdened. Nevertheless, the per capita cost of preventive measures for specific diseases is generally far lower than the per capita cost of curative medicine applied to treatment of the same disease.

There is an imperative need to provide care for the sick person within a single medical care system, but there is no overriding reason why a linkage is necessary between the two components of a health care system, prevention and treatment. A national health and medical care program composed of semiautonomous systems for personal health care and medical care would have the advantage of clarifying objectives and strategies and of permitting a more equitable division of resources between prevention and cure.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against a prominent Toronto doctor by patients who allege he injected a banned substance into their faces for cosmetic purposes. The doctor had already been investigated for more than three years for using the liquid silicone, a product not authorized for use in Canada.

Some patients say they are now suffering health problems and think the liquid silicone may be to blame. One of those patients is Anna Barbiero. She says her Torontodermatologisttold her he was using liquid silicone to smooth out wrinkles. What she says he didn’t tell her is that it isn’t approved for use in Canada. After her last treatment, Anna discovered Dr. Sheldon Pollack had been ordered to stop using the silicone two years earlier by Health Canada.

“My upper lip is always numb and it burns,” Barbiero says. Barbiero is spearheading a lawsuit against the doctor, who her lawyer thinks might involve up to 100 patients injected with the same material. “The fact, a physician of his stature would use an unauthorized product on a patient because he thought it was okay, is really very disturbing,” says lawyer Douglas Elliott.

Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons (OCPS) is also investigating Dr. Pollack to see if, in fact, he continued to use the silicone after agreeing to stop and whether he wrote in patient records that he used another legal product when he used silicone. However, in a letter to the College, Dr. Pollack wrote that he had always told patients that the silicone was not approved for sale in Canada, and had warned them of the risks. And in Barbiero’s case, “…I specifically informed her that the material was not approved for sale in Canada… I would like to emphasize that, as is evident on Ms. Barbiero’s chart, I drew a specific diagram on the chart which I carefully discussed with and explained to Ms. Barbiero as I did with every other patient… to explain the nature and likelihood of complications and the reasons and consequences of those possible complications.”

Dr. Pollack declined to speak to CTV News, or to have his lawyer discuss the case. None of the allegations have been proven in court. But the case raises questions about the ability of governing bodies to monitor doctors. “There’s a larger message and that is: buyer beware,” says Nancy Neilsen of Cosmetic Surgery Canada, “It’s incumbent (负有义务的) on consumers to do their research.”

“Few articles change owners more frequently than clothes. They travel downwards from grade to grade in the social scale with remarkable regularity,” wrote the journalist Adolphe Smith in 1877 as he traced a garment’s journey: cleaned, repaired and resold repeatedly; eventually cut down into a smaller item; finally, when it was beyond all wearability, the fibres recycled into new fabric for the wealthier classes.

That model is almost incomprehensible in the era of fast fashion. The average British customer buys four items a month, often at pocket-money prices; though the low cost is a godsend for the hard-up, many purchases are discarded after a few outings, or never worn at all.

Yet a gradual revival of the secondhand trade has gathered pace in the last year. At fashion website Asos, vintage sales have risen 92%. It was once worn out of necessity, then it became the quirky choice of Jarvis Cocker-style misfits and the label of “vintage” gave it cachet. Now it is simply a way of life. Strikingly, it has become big enough business that mainstream retailers want a slice of the action. For some buyers and sellers, the switch to secondhand is born of pandemic-induced financial need. Others have become queasy at working conditions in factories, or the impact of their shopping habit on the planet.

One concern is that mainstream brands may “greenwash”—using relatively small volumes of secondhand goods to improve their image, rather than engaging more seriously with sustainability. Another worry is that good causes are losing out as people trade rather than donate unwanted clothes. The biggest concern may be that people keep buying because they know they can resell goods, still chasing the buzz of the next purchase but with an eased conscience and healthier bank balance. Cheap items are unlikely to last long or be repaired easily: shoes are glued rather than stitched; seams are skimpier; fabrics quickly sag or bobble.

“A new Netflix series, Worn Stories, documents the emotional resonance that clothes can have, each item a memoir in miniature”, writes Emily Spivack. A handbag from a grandmother; a scarf passed on by a father; garments that made people feel confident in their first job—almost everyone has at least one item they cherish. Perhaps we could cultivate such attachments. A love of style is not a bad or trivial thing. But a committed relationship is better than a quick fling. Can we learn to appreciate our own old clothes as well as other people’s?

What is it that brings about such an intimate connection between language and thinking? Is there no thinking without the use of language, namely in concepts and concept combinations for which words need not necessarily come to mind? Has not every one of us struggled for words although the connection between “things” was already clear?

【G1】__________________Yet most likely the mental shape of an individual, growing up under such conditions, would be very poor. Thus we may conclude that the mental development of the individual and his way of forming concepts depend to a high degree upon language. This makes us realize to what extent the same language means the same mentality. In this sense thinking and language are linked together.

What distinguishes the language of science from languages as we ordinarily understand the word? How is it that scientific language is international?【G2】_______________As an illustration, let us take the language of Euclidean geometry and Algebra. They manipulate with a small number of independently introduced concepts, respectively symbols, such as the integral number, the straight line, the point, as well as with signs which designate the fundamental concepts. This is the basis for the construction, respectively definition of all other statements and concepts.【G3】_______________.

The super-national character of scientific concepts and scientific language is due to the fact that they have been set up by the best brains of all countries and all times. In solitude and yet in cooperative effort as regards the final effect they created the spiritual tools for the technical revolutions which have transformed the life of mankind in the last centuries.【G4】__________________

What hopes and fears does the scientific method imply for mankind? I do not think that this is the right way to put the question. Whatever this tool in the hand of man will produce depends entirely on the nature of the goals alive in this mankind. Once these goals exist, the scientific method furnishes means to realize them. Yet it cannot furnish the very goals.【G5】__________________and it would not even have been born without a passionate striving for clear understanding.

Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem—in my opinion—to characterize our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state. Even if only a small part of mankind strives for such goals, their superiority will prove itself in the long run.

[A] What science strives for is an utmost acuteness and clarity of concepts as regards their mutual relation and their correspondence to sensory data.

[B] The scientific method itself would not have led anywhere,

[C] The connection between concepts and statements on the one hand and the sensory data on the other hand is established through acts of counting and measuring whose performance is sufficiently well determined.

[D] Their system of concepts has served as a guide in the bewildering chaos of perceptions so that we learned to grasp general truths from particular observations.

[E] We might be inclined to attribute to the act of thinking complete independence from language if the individual formed or were able to form his concepts without the verbal guidance of his environment.

[F] The sensory data might not have brought any consequences,

[G] So we must thoroughly study and use the interaction between culture and economy, vigorously promote cultural economy, truly implement the scientific development concept.

It’s unsurprising, though, that the reaction against character criticism germinated in Shakespeare studies. Shakespeare’s characters had long been treated as if they were not only real people but exemplary ones. In Character. The History of a Cultural Obsession, Marjorie Garber notes that, for European culture since the seventeenth century,【T1】Shakespeare was the author who provided, through his dramatic characters, not only powerful “imitations” of human conduct, emotion, and attitude, but the blueprint, the language, and the responses that taught us how to be us.

Figures like Hamlet and Romeo were endlessly analyzed for clues to human nature and made into models of conduct, both good and bad. The idea that Shakespeare’s characters are somehow quintessentially human even left its mark on the sciences. Charles Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals cites passages from Henry V to illustrate anger and Titus Andronicus to depict shame. A generation later, Freud drew on Richard Ⅲ , among other Shakespearean characters, for his 1916 paper “Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work”: “【T2】We all think we have reason to reproach Nature and our destiny for congenital and infantile disadvantages; we all demand reparation for early wounds to our narcissism, our self-love.”

We could chalk all of this up to Bardolatry (莎士比亚崇拜), of course; something about Shakespeare seems to make people (especially English people) act a little funny. For Garber, though,【T3】Shakespeare is merely a privileged example of a cultural dynamic operating across the centuries: the way specific literary characters inform a more general conception of human psychology, and vice versa. Reading about characters, it has long been thought, builds character; it also helps us to define and understand it.【T4】In the fourth century BC, Theophrastus (提奥夫拉斯图斯), a disciple of Aristotle, wrote a literary work entitled Characters, a collection of thirty brief descriptions of characters such as the Flatterer, the Chatterer, the Superstitious Man…

【T5】There’s already a tension here, one that will continue to haunt literary characters over the course of their history, between typicality—the Gross Man obviously is meant in seme sense to represent all gross men—and specificity: the details need to be convincingly concrete in order for the imaginative exercise to have any value at all. Who is the Gross Man? A fiction? A satirical portrait of a real Athenian? A model for playwrights to copy? A type to watch out for, or avoid becoming oneself?