The other day my wife and I were talking about peanut allergies and wondered the following:

1) What is this allergy and what does it affect?

2) How come no one we knew as kids (during the '80s) had this allergy and lots of people and kids have it now?

3) Why is it such a huge issue today? There is food out there that says "peanut-free" (the last time I checked, my chocolate-covered raisins were raisins, not peanuts). Kids are not allowed to take PB&J sandwiches to school.

And lastly: How can someone who ate peanuts and all of their flavourful sidekicks (PB) all of a sudden be allergic?

Love your column, longtime readers, first-time writers.

- Mark and Michelle, St. Thomas

Hey Answer Man. Can you tell me why peanut allergies have become so prevalent in our society? I remember 20 to 30 years ago when I was in school I never heard of any person with peanut allergies, but now it seems like everyone has it. Some schools and workplaces have even barred any peanut or peanut product from their property.

- John

Love your column. Now I know more things than I really need to. But one question out there remains unanswered for me. Why are there so many people nowadays with peanut allergies? Back when I was growing up (in the '60s), there were very few people with any sort of food allergies. Now I can't send my kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches, a staple in my day. So, why the change — and why peanuts? Why not peas or string beans or meatloaf? They would be less of a problem because no one would want to bring them to school for lunch anyway.

- Cameron, Toronto

[NOTE: This answer generated a great deal of unintended controversy, prompting an extensive follow-up in the Jan. 23 column. Please read the responses in that column for a more complete picture of peanut allergies.]

Peanut allergies affect 1% to 1.5% of the population, and are more common in children than in adults. A peanut allergy is the result of your body mistakenly thinking that peanuts are harmful, so when you ingest peanuts (or sometimes when you even come in contact with them), your body's immune system springs to life, producing antibodies to combat the perceived invasion. These antibodies lead to the release of histamine, which can cause allergic reactions all over the body, including itching, shortness of breath, swelling, hives, diarrhea, and occasionally anaphylaxis — a loss of consciousness that can lead to death.

These allergies can be very serious, so it's strange that no one seems to have ever heard about them until the mid-'90s. I don't remember anyone my age being allergic to peanuts in the '80s, and I was very surprised and alarmed when I first heard about kids being forbidden to bring peanut-based treats to school because it could cause other kids to, you know, die. And now peanut allergies seem to be everywhere, with the number of allergic people continually on the rise. Some doctors and scientists would dispute that claim, but one thing that can't be disputed is that peanut allergy hysteria has grown.

Here are three things that could be contributing to the (real or perceived) Great Peanut Scare:

1. An increase in the incidence of peanut allergy.

It does appear that peanut allergies are more common these days than they were 20 years ago, though the increase is perhaps not that great. There's ample anecdotal evidence, and many studies have also found a small to moderate increase in the percentage of children with the allergy. But it's not just peanuts. Food allergies in general are on the rise, and peanut allergies have just been more visible because they tend to be among the most serious.

What could have caused this rise in allergies? No one's sure. It could have something to do with a generation of parents being raised on synthetic chemicals. Another theory called the "hygiene hypothesis" says that children in developed countries are now brought up in such antiseptic environments that they're not exposed to enough dirt and germs at an early age. Thus, their immune systems don't get a "workout" by fighting actual enemies, so they start fighting benign agents like pollen, cat hair and peanuts instead. This may have also caused an increase in asthma, and the combination of asthma with food allergies — not just the increase in food allergies themselves — might be what's causing the increase in serious reactions.

2. An increase in the diagnosis of peanut allergy.

As science continues to advance, doctors are better able to diagnose food allergies, and parents are more likely to know what's wrong with their kids. Instead of thinking, "Johnny's always out of breath; maybe I should make him play football," parents are understanding that "Johnny's allergic to peanuts; maybe I shouldn't give him PB&J sandwiches every single day."

Maybe we went to school with plenty of peanut-allergic kids and we just didn't know about it — because they didn't know about it either. (Remember, not everyone who is allergic to peanuts will die if they eat them. Some just get a little nauseous or itchy.)

3. An increase in the reporting of peanut allergy.

Consider the "culture of fear" that we live in today. TV stations, newspapers and websites know that they can increase ratings/sales/page views by scaring us. You know how it works: "Could the sofa you're sitting on be filled with deadly parasites? Don't go anywhere, we'll tell you after the commercial..." Thanks in no small part to the media, people are now scared of killer bees, SARS, the Ebola virus, explosives concealed in shampoo bottles, etc. Of course, all of these things can be extremely dangerous in worst-case scenarios — and people would rather be safe than sorry — but the amount of panic is way out of proportion to the actual risk.

So let's say you're a conscientious parent. You know your son has occasionally had mild reactions after eating peanut butter, but it's never worried you too much. Now you're watching the news and you see that some kid in Saskatoon died after eating a peanut butter cookie at school. (Maybe he had other health problems, and it wasn't just the peanut allergy that killed him, but you probably won't see that on TV.) Then you get online to do some research and start reading about scary things like anaphylaxis. What are you going to do?

Twenty years ago you might have thought, "Oh, Johnny doesn't have any real health problems," but now you're thinking, "If Johnny even touches a peanut, he could die!" I wouldn't blame you for sending a note to your son's school asking for a ban on peanuts, or checking with the chocolate companies to see if peanuts come in contact with the other ingredients, or avoiding foods that might contain trace amounts of peanuts. It's natural to prepare against the worst, particularly when your kids are involved. But fear and worry spawn more fear and worry, and suddenly everyone thinks their kids could be killed by peanuts, which greatly overstates the actual risk. The Straight Dope says: "One U.K. study estimates that the annual risk that a food-allergic child will die from a reaction is 1 in 800,000." When it's your child, even that's too high, but, seriously, this is struck-by-lightning territory here. There's a much greater risk of death when you let your child go swimming, bicycling or riding in a car. How many of these reported peanut allergies are real, and serious, and how many are the result of paranoia?

When you add it all up, there probably are more actual peanut allergies than there used to be, but the reason we hear so much about them is because they are over-reported and over-hyped. The danger posed by peanuts is probably not as great as you have heard, though I certainly don't mean to trivialize the situations where peanut allergies can be ultra-serious.

Oh, and it is possible (though unusual) to develop allergies as an adult to things that never bothered you as a kid. No one really knows why this happens. Often it's the return of an allergy you had as a child which you might not even remember, set off by a move to a new environment.

Sources: Peanut allergy: Where do we stand?, MayoClinic.com, The Straight Dope, HealthLink, New York Times

As a true "Man of the People," I hope you can shed some light on this. The "People's Choice Awards" are deemed very prestigious by those who win them because they come from "the People." Could you tell me how or where or when "People" get to make the "Choices"? As a member of "the People" group, I feel left out... or are the choices made only by "Certain Select People"?

I thank you for your input!

- V. from Midhurst

In 1975, a TV producer named Bob Stivers took a look around and decided, "You know what? There just aren't enough awards shows! I'd better make another one." So he dreamed up the People's Choice Awards, which would be awards with a special twist: Instead of the winners being selected by "experts" and "professionals" and "people who have some semblance of taste," they would be chosen by Joe Sixpack and Jane Stretchpants.

For the first 30 years of People's Choice Awards, the winners were determined through Gallup polls. The noted polling organization surveyed 5,000 people at random (presumably over the phone) to ask about their favourite actors, movies, TV shows, rock groups, etc. Gallup's polls were scientific and probably did reflect, for better or for worse, the "people's choice" at the time, but because those surveyed were asked to choose their "favourite" as opposed to the "best," the winners didn't always reflect notable achievements. For instance, John Wayne was named "Favourite Motion Picture Actor" in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978, and he wasn't even in any movies in 1977 and 1978! Regardless, the first PCA telecasts were huge sensations, and Procter & Gamble bought the show from Stivers in 1982, then watched it undergo a slow decline in popularity and relevance. (Stivers, who died in 1988, also created The Circus of the Stars.)

Beginning with the 2005 People's Choice Awards, final voting has been conducted online. The nominees are now selected by a screening panel; in 2005 it was spearheaded by Entertainment Weekly magazine, now it's done by a research company called Knowledge Networks. Here's how the process works, according to the PCA website:

Potential nominees for THE 34TH ANNUAL PEOPLE'S CHOICE AWARDS were compiled with the help of Knowledge Networks, a leading market research company along with members of the People's Choice Community. Knowledge Networks used its consumer research resources, which include the only projectable, web-based, nationally representative panel to identify a pop culture-involved sample of men and women ages 18-49. For each category, the respondents were provided with a set of candidates determined by national ratings averages, box-office grosses and music sales. The respondents then chose their favorites in Television, Movies and Music. They also had the option to write in their favorites where not included among the provided candidates. Their top three selections in each category became the final nominees.

Once the nominees are chosen, online voting opens up at the People's Choice website, and anyone over the age of 13 in the U.S. or Canada can participate (including you!). You can vote for each category once a day.

Sources: New York Times, People's Choice FAQ, Variety

I love your column. I was wondering — what is the cultural background of Jacob Hoggard, lead singer of Hedley? My friend says Italian, I think Irish. Help me out!

- D.C., Toronto

This comes from a now-defunct Jacob Hoggard fan site, and seems to be written by his mother and/or father:

Our young man is Italian on his mamma's side and then his Dad's side is Irish, Scottish and English, poor guy what a mixture.

It appears to be legitimate information (there are descriptions of his childhood and his family, and it seems pretty personal) but I suppose it could be a work of overzealous fan fiction.

Source: MSN Groups

Longtime reader, second question. I was watching the 1990 film Home Alone with Macaulay Culkin. At one point you see Culkin's character watching a gangster film. The person you see in the film is a person holding a tommy gun and telling someone that he has 10 seconds to leave before he shoots the person. Just wondering what the name of the film was and if you can find it somewhere?

- Alex D.

In Home Alone, Kevin watches a movie called Angels With Filthy Souls. This was not an actual movie, but was footage invented especially for Home Alone. (He then watches Angels With Even Filthier Souls in Home Alone 2.) The obvious inspiration for the title was the 1938 James Cagney classic Angels With Dirty Faces.

So you can't watch the entire movie, because there wasn't one. You can, however, watch YouTube re-enactments of it created by high school kids. Keep the change, you filthy animal.

Sources: IMDb: Home Alone, TV Guide

This question is about word usage. I often hear people in the media say "take a decision," when I think they mean "make a decision." Which usage is correct? Also, what is the difference between "previous" and "prior"? I know the difference in usage, but can't formulate a rule to explain it.

- Frank H., Ottawa

I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone say "take a decision" except in a sports context (e.g., a boxer takes a decision in a match), and that's quite different. In that usage, the subject does not do the deciding, but rather gets a decision from someone else. But clearly you are consuming a more diverse media diet than I am, as you are very correct that "take a decision" frequently pops up in newscasts and stories.

It appears that both forms are correct, even though "take a decision" sounds really weird to people like you and me. The simplistic way to distinguish them is to consider "take a decision" to be the British variant and "make a decision" to be the American variant, but it's not quite that simple. While "take a decision" is definitely more common in the U.K. than it is in the U.S. (or Canada), "make a decision" is the most common variant in the U.K. as well. "Take a decision" actually seems to be most heavily used in English-language media in India and Pakistan.

"Previous" and "prior" can have slightly different connotations, but 95% of the time they're synonymous. Both of them mean "occurring before, in time or order." Sometimes "previous" can mean "the one right before this one," while "prior" almost always refers to a more general time period. "Prior" can also add the connotation that the earlier event was also more important (it's the root of "priority").

Sources: The Grammarphobia Blog, Better Writing Skills, WordReference Forums

How many cups in 1 kg of sugar?

- Marilyn

I don't know if this is a coincidence or part of some intelligent design, but 1 kilogram of raw sugar equals exactly 4 cups! Metric to non-metric conversions don't often line up that neatly — especially when you're going from mass to volume.

If you're using brown sugar, it's 5 cups; powdered sugar, 8 cups; and caster (superfine) sugar, 4.44 cups.

Source: TraditionalOven.com

I must say I find your column to be truly interesting and full of great information (I have learned about things I never thought I wanted to know). With that being said (God I sound like I'm about to cast a vote to evict!!!), here is my simple, yet it's driving me crazy, question:

I would like to know if the actress who plays Polly on Las Vegas, namely Suzanne Whang, is the same woman (with the same name) who hosts HGTV's House Hunters? I hope you can clear this up for me.

- Natalie

Yes, it is. It's clearly stated in the filmography on her IMDb page. (If you're a Whang fan, you'll probably enjoy reading her self-written IMDb biography.)

In addition to acting and hosting, Whang has also had success as a stand-up comedian and author.

I went to see the movie Sweeney Todd starring Johnny Depp a couple of days ago. Yesterday I read a clip about the movie opening in Japan. Just how do they do an English musical in Japan? Do they subtitle the songs? Do they have the whole thing dubbed over in Japanese? The music is such a strong part of the movie, I can't see them not trying to get the lyrics translated somehow, but I can't think how they could sing the songs in Japanese.

And a somewhat related question. When they showed Pirates of the Caribbean in Japan, was it subtitled? If they did it with Japanese dubbing, did they change Captain Jack Sparrow's name? "Sparrow" might be hard to say in Japanese.

As always, love your column.

- Jeannette, Canada

I asked my friend Mark for help with this question; he's married to a Japanese woman and lives in Japan half the year, and his input was invaluable.

In Japan, foreign movies in the theatres are typically shown in their original language with Japanese subtitles. There are quite a few exceptions, however. Animated movies (e.g., from Disney or Pixar) are usually dubbed, and big blockbusters with kid appeal (e.g., the Harry Potter and Spider-Man films) can often be found in both dubbed and subtitled versions.

When movies are released on DVD, they usually contain both subtitled and dubbed versions, so you can choose whichever you prefer. When they're shown on TV, they are usually dubbed in Japanese with English available on a separate audio track (assuming your TV is equipped for such a thing, but if you're in Japan, it's probably equipped for that and much more).

Movie musicals are, as you note, a slightly different beast. In most movies, songs serve as "background" and don't require translation (though occasionally the lyrics will appear in the subtitles). But in a movie musical, the songs are the story, and if you don't understand the lyrics, you'll be totally lost. As to whether they're subtitled or dubbed, Mark writes:

My wife (who loves musicals) said it "depends" on a lot of things, including how well Japanese folks know the songs, how big a hit the show is internationally, the intended audience, etc.

In this specific case, it appears that Sweeney Todd will be showing in theatres with subtitles only. Time will tell if a dubbed version will appear on DVD or television. If it is dubbed, the songs will surely be translated into Japanese, as at least 75% of the dialogue in Sweeney Todd is sung.

I do not believe there has ever been a Japanese version of Sweeney Todd on stage (it must be very challenging to come up with Japanese lyrics to Stephen Sondheim's songs), but many other musicals, including Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera and Rent, have been translated into Japanese — both dialogue and songs. So for the movie versions of Phantom and Rent, you would probably be able to find fully dubbed Japanese versions, at least on DVD.

For your related question, proper names are occasionally changed to fit Japanese phonetic patterns — "Sparrow" might sound something like "Suparo" — but they usually retain a resemblance to the original. (Names appearing in subtitles are written in a different script anyway.) Mark also notes that Ronald McDonald is called Donald McDonald in Japan!

Source: My friend Mark

When does 10 + 3 = 1???

- Laura P.

Time for multiple answers!

• When your calculator needs new batteries.
• When you also add -12.
• When the Alabama state legislature passes a law saying it does.
• When you convert the numbers into letters with a simple substitution cipher, with 10 representing J, 3 representing C, and 1 representing A, leading to J + C = A, wherein J + C clearly stands for "Jesus Christ," who once said "I am the alpha and omega," with alpha being the Greek equivalent of A, thus Jesus Christ = Alpha, J + C + A, and 10 + 3 = 1. Duh.
• When you're adding hours on a clock. (This is probably the answer you're looking for)