Nowadays, global warming is a big deal. We all hear methods of ways to protect the environment from pollution. People practice recycling, turning the electricity off when not in use, brushing their teeth without running water, etc. There are many ways that we attempt to conserve things to help out our environment from the frightening threats of global warming. We are in an age where more and more people are beginning to realize that conserving things are good for the environment, which will help us in the long run.

Something that has been stirring was the use of electric cars. These are vehicles that run purely off of electricity through a battery rather than a gas tank. They were first introduced in the 1880s, and became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century. There are many different types of electrical vehicles. There are Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Extended-Range Electric Vehicles, and Battery Electric Vehicles. If you’re interested in learning about these specific types of electrical vehicles and more, click here

The controversial question about electrical cars is whether or not they are truly better for the environment. The argue behind this is the time and energy it takes for the engine to recharge. The goal for the usage of electrical cars is to cut the pollution that a regular car produces out of its gas engine. By using electricity, there won’t be pollution when transporting. However what many people do not know is how the electricity is produced. Most of the energy used to power the engine in electrical cars is created by burning fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels is a huge factor in pollution in our environment. This makes people question the usage of electrical cars, and more importantly the effectiveness of it.

A disadvantage linked to this is that the battery that is installed into an electrical car weighs a lot more than a regular engine. This means that it takes more energy and will reduce the range of the car on one fully charged battery. It could ultimately lead to more energy being consumed due to the weight. This is a potential issue with using these electrical vehicles. It seems minor, but it could add up to be something major.

Fortunately, according to the Electrical Vehicle Association of Canada, the amount of fossil fuels burnt in the process of producing the energy in these cars cut the carbon emission nearly in half. This means that electrical cars are proven to be more beneficial than using a regular fuel engine car. So it is a smarter choice to use these electrical cars.

The rise of these cars helps generate a new outlook on ways to help the environment. It opened me up to start being more conserving of what I do. I plan to recycle more, use less water (of course I’ll use water when I need to, just not excessively!), and other things. Writing this blog post helped me think like this and I hope it can send a message out to you guys!

Sources:

http://www.50waystohelp.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-battery3.htm

http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chinese-Officials-are-bound-to-Use-Electric-Cars.jpg

http://www.tva.gov/environment/technology/car_vehicles.htm

Since Halloween is right around the corner, there has been an obvious increase in horror films on TV. Even though I’m a fan of the genre, it’s undeniable that I, and most others, feel some type of way while watching horror movies. This made me wonder, what exactly is happening to us physically and psychologically when we watch scary movies?

The physical effects of fear are pretty noticeable. Most people will experience an increased heart rate, and an increase of adrenaline. The Huffington Post UK took a poll and found that The Shining is the number one scariest film, specifically the infamous “HEEEERE’S JOHNNY” scene. They then conducted a study by holding viewings and hooking the audience members up to heart rate monitors, and found that this particular scene caused viewers heart rates’ to increase by an average of 28.21%. This heart rate (between 97-165 BPM) is equivalent the heart rate of someone doing light exercise. So if you’ve ever heard that watching scary movies burns calories, it’s true! Of course it’s not substantial and also not effective if you’re eating a large buttered popcorn in the movie theater. Other noticeable effects could be sweating, or crying, or shaking, which would vary for each viewer. While these physical effects are only temporary, there can be more lasting effects, like sleeplessness if the viewer is very traumatized after the movie.

As for psychological effects, there are quite few more than you might think. The most obvious are anxiety and stress, which relate to the physical side effects because they can lead to increased heart rate and sweating. On a neurological level, during the scary or suspenseful scenes in horror movies, there is increased activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain that deals with emotions, in this case, fear. Under more serious circumstances, horror movies can cause PTSD or desensitization. Seeing traumatic scenes in movies can trigger traumatic memories from a viewer’s own life, which can sometimes be too much to handle. As for desensitization, this would be more common in people who watched a lot of intense horror films starting at a young age.

So if horror movies make us cry and lose sleep, why do some of us keep going back for more? The answer can in part be associated with The Excitation Transfer Process and The Gender Socialization Theory. Glenn Sparks, Ph.D., from Purdue University, attributes part of the reason to The Excitation Transfer Process. This process involves what happens to us physically during the movie (increased heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate), and how we were feeling on an emotional level. If you had an enjoyable time, besides the fact that you were scared, i.e. spending time with friends, eating your favorite candy, etc, you will be more likely to associate these good feeling with the experience of seeing a horror movie. This is because you are psychologically aroused, which heightens the feeling of whatever else you’re doing. As for his theory of Gender Socialization, the experience will depend on how your viewing partner reacts. In a study conducted by Dolf Zillmann, James B. Weaver, Norbert Mundorf, and Charles F. Aust, for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, it was found that, “men enjoyed the movie most in the company of a distressed woman and least in the company of a mastering woman. Women, in contrast, enjoyed the movie most in the company of a mastering man and least in the company of a distressed man. Mastery did not enhance the female companions’ physical appeal. However, it significantly enhanced that of the low-appeal male companion. The display of distress in response to horror reduced the desirability of both male and female companions as working mates”. This also shows that this theory can have the opposite effect, and leave the viewer associating horror movies with a bad experience. As for the Excitation Transfer Process, if the viewer has a bad time at the movie, i.e. gets in a fight with their friends, spills their popcorn, can’t find a seat, they could also leave associating horror films with a bad experience, and a heightened one at that. In the end, no matter if you love horror movies or hate them, they affect you whether you know it or not.

Sources:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/31/why-some-people-love-horror-movies-while-others-hate-them/

http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-psychology-of-scary-movies/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/22777/your-brain-horror-movies

http://jarviscity.com/2012/12/22/6-health-benefits-of-watching-horror-movies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/shingo-murakami/unearthing-how-horror-affects-the-heart_b_4234690.html

Imagine a “perfect child”; intelligent, immune to all diseases, strikingly beautiful, and extremely athletic.  Over the past two decades, technological medical advancements have made creating a perfect child possible.  Parents can use in vitro fertilization (IVF)  to screen the embryos for their sex, and for possible diseases they may develop.  New tests can also detect extra chromosomes present in fetal DNA circulating a woman’s blood streem.  Extra chromosomes cause Down Syndrome.  Parents can now find out and chose what kind of traits their child will have by screening the embryos. This also gives them the opportunity to extract the ones with genes they do not want.  The end result is a “designer baby”.

This is where the controversy begins.  Is it ethical to tamper with embryos to create the “perfect child”? Major medical societies have a wide variety of opinions.  The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is against testing embryos for sex, because it may lead to sex discrimination against women.  On the other hand, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) usually accepts couples wanting to screen and extract their embryos.  And then the FDA only regulates the safety of the embryo screening, not the ethics behind it.  So in the end, it is really up to the public to decide if these screenings and extractions of unwanted genes are acceptable or not.

A poll was taken on debate.org asking “Should there be designer babies?”.  35% of the surveyors said yes, and 65% said no.  The people who are advocating for the “designer babies” say that we could create a superior race.  They also argue that designing babies’ genetics would potentially save lives. Why wouldn’t we want all babies to be healthy and immune from diseases? Then, people who believe the tests are unethical argue that it is not natural, and it is immoral to meddle with mother nature. They believe that genetic modification is wrong since we chose how we want our children to be, instead of just loving them for how they naturally are. They also argue that human genetic engineering is a relatively new technology which could be unsafe to the infant and the mother.

Research was carried out by Dr Inge Liebaers and some colleagues at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, in Belgium. The study was funded and supported by the WFWG foundation and the Schering-Plough/Merck pharmaceutical company.  This research study was conducted to determine the risk rates of IVF for screening and checking embryos.  Although this study was preformed on a small group, constant results in the study’s control group showed no harm done to the embryo or the mother during IVF.  The end result was only 1.03% of deaths amongst  embryos treated with IVF.  Some other increased effects of IVF were premature births, low birth-weight, and major malformations.  But because these side effects have less than a one percent chance of happening, BBC had reported that these screenings and testings on embryos are safe.

So now I am asking you. Do you think that screening embryos and choosing which genes you want your child to have is ethical and safe?

http://www.livescience.com/44087-designer-babies-ethics.html

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-there-be-designer-babies

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/12December/Pages/embryo-screening-safety-study.aspx

As a female, I am constantly being told how I should look in order to be more beautiful and attractive to men. Beauty magazines and sales assistants at makeup counters will go on and on to say what colors, clothing, and makeup a woman should wear to look her best. For example, if a woman has brown eyes, it is suggested that she wear neutral eye shadow colors because this is what will make her look more attractive. Or if a woman has a pale skin tone, she should avoid wearing certain colors that could “wash her out.” We are told that men are going to be attracted to us based on a million different factors such as these however it is so much more simple than we make it out to be.

The first and foremost aspect of a person that we are naturally attracted to is their symmetry. Even though we may not be conscious of comparing the symmetry of a person’s face, we do it anyway. Good symmetry shows that a person is healthy and well suited for mating. Evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill states that choosing a perfectly symmetrical partner and reproducing with them will increase the chances of your offspring being symmetrical and able to deal with perturbations. Thornhill’s research has found that both men and women found symmetrical members of the opposite sex as more attractive and healthier. His studies also found that men with more symmetry had more sexual partners than men with less symmetry.

The next thing that men are naturally attracted to is the size of a woman’s hips. Men find wider hips more attractive because once again, they signal fertility and good genes for mating. Psychologist Devendra Singh conducted a study of people’s waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and found that men were most attracted to women with a WHR of 0.7. Otherwise known as “the hourglasss shape”, this waist-to-hip ratio indicates a waist that is significantly smaller than the hips. An analysis that was done on the body figures of Playboy models and Miss America contestants showed that most of these women had a WHR of 0.7 or lower. In a 2004 study, Singh further concluded that men find a WHR between 0.67 and 1.18 in women extremely attractive.

Since these studies are all observational, it cannot be concluded that all men find women with higher symmetry and wider hips the most attractive. After all, there are countless men whose wives/girlfriends do not have perfectly symmetrical faces or an hourglass figure yet they are still infatuated with their physical beauty. The men that were participants in the studies may have all been monthly subscribers to Playboy magazines. Or they may have all had girlfriends with perfectly symmetrical features and Marilyn Monroe bodies. In conclusion, although studies suggest what men are naturally attracted to, it is uncertain whether ALL men are more attracted to wider hips and symmetry.

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html

Unexpectedly my phone died this past week and I wasn’t able to get a new one until a few days ago. I had to go around campus and New York City without my phone. I realized that cellphones are destroying our ways of communicating with others. If you decide to leave your phone at you dorm for one day, you are going to know what I’m talking about. With my phone, I don’t feel the need to talk to other while waiting for class to start or I don’t feel the need to look at how beautiful is Penn State’s campus, or maybe I’m too busy taking a picture to share rather that seeing the whole picture. My point is that in this not-plan-at-all experiment, I realized that cell phones are destroying our ways of communicating with others. After that I realized that maybe technology is not the problem, the problem is that we are using technology way too much and for not so important things.

I have three roommates; of course all four of us have cellphones and we’re constantly using them, even when we go and get dinner, instead of talking and actually looking at each other we are using our freaking phones. But, one day my roommate said that since I didn’t have a phone that she was going to leave hers at the dorm and I could say that, that night all of us had a really conversation and we actually looked at each other instead of looking at our phones. Also, on my trip to NYC, I actually found myself talking to different people because I didn’t have a phone and I made a couple of colleagues. While walking around NYC everyone was taking pictures and I was just staring at how beautiful NYC is, every detail of the city, every detail of every building. I was looking at the whole picture.

I was researching on the Internet people that had been through the same and I found a guy who did it on purpose, you could find his story here. Also there’s a website that it’s a really good one, is about a study called “24 hours: Unplugged” . This study gives you an inside of what is it like to give up your phone for 24 hours, it gives you a perspective of different student and how they work with it.

My conclusion for this is that probably cellphones per se aren’t ruining the way we communicate with other, but a third variable like the way we use them and the way we let them take over our lives is. Cellphones are great for a lot of things, but instead of texting someone to catch up, try to text them to meet up and then that way you can catch up.

Have 5 minutes? Look Up.

If you watched the video, can you see how cellphones are changing us? If you didn’t, you probably should, its going to give you a new perspective. Just 5 minutes.

It is commonly said that exercising benefits peoples’ health and that for older people it keeps the mind young. Does physical activity actually have any impact on cognitive function? Boston University School of Medicine researchers found that physical activity improves brain health and cognition. Certain hormones that help improve memory are increased when people exercise. The hormones released are called “growth factors”, which positively correlate to brain health (in the hippocampus) (Christopher Bergland). In another relative study, “Dr. Bruce Spiegelman of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School reported that a molecule called FNDC5 and its byproduct, irisin, become elevated in the brain through endurance exercise” (Christopher Bergland). The increasing levels of irisin cause the molecule to cross the blood brain barrier, which increases the expression of BDNF. BDNF helps to stimulate the growth of new neurons, which is linked to decrease in stress, anxiety, and depression. Researchers believe that an increase BDNF due to exercise can improve memory.

Studies of school-aged children have concluded that regular aerobic exercise helps their memory, attention spans, and inhibit disruptive impulses. In younger adults, their executive functioning reaches its peak, but aerobic exercise can still improve it. Studies show that young adults that exercise frequently “post quicker reaction times, give more accurate responses, and are more effective at detecting errors when they engage in fast-paced tasks” (Annie Murphy Paul). In older adults, research showed that consistent aerobic exercise boots cognitive functions that usually fade with age. This includes length of attention span, switching tasks, and good memory. The study was conducted well since it hit different stages in life where brain development will obviously be different.

While not everyone who is intelligent and has quick reaction times routinely works out, exercise does seem to improve over all cognitive function, even slightly. In general exercising not only releases good hormones that help with memory and reaction time, but it also helps to relieve stress, anxiety, and depression, which disrupts how a person acts. People, especially adults, should exercise regularly to help fuel the mind, stay healthy, and increase cognitive function.

Sources:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201312/can-physical-activities-improve-fluid-intelligence

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-exercise-boosts-intelligence-2013-3#ixzz3GeCUMKYd

http://cdn.toptenreviews.com/rev/misc/articles/6210/brain-fitness-2.jpg

In my senior year of High School as the year dwindled down there was talks of possibly ridding my school, and the county as a whole, of our vending machines. It turns out this same discussion had been going on for a while in states all over the nation. It was a topic I had a hard time wrapping my head around and up until this day I still struggled with what was the right decision in this debate. Do the burdens placed upon the health of students outweigh the funds donated to schools by companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola? Well, according to a study led by our own PSU researcher Jennifer Van Hook, the answer is no.

There is no disputing the unhealthy and almost wasteful calories within most vending machine food. It is also widely accepted amongst the medical community that foods like chips, candies, and sodas (all found in vending machines) significantly contribute to childhood obesity. It is the issue of wether or not vending machines themselves are putting children at higher risk of obesity that is still up for debate. According to the New York Times, a study done by researchers at the Pennsylvania State University has found no support of a correlation between junk food sold in school and obesity. The researchers reached this conclusion after an observational study of 19,450 students from their fifth grade year to eighth. “In fifth grade, 59 percent of the children attended a school where candy, snacks or sugar-sweetened beverages were sold. By eighth grade, 86 percent did so.” Researchers then analyzed the weights of children who attended schools that did and did not sell junk food, they also analyzed numerous other scenarios like that of comparing students who ”always attended schools with snacks with those who moved out of such schools.” The data was analyzed in various manners, each of which showed “no correlation at all between obesity and attending a school where sweets and salty snacks were available.”

After combing over the study I found it to be overall well done. Its sample size was extremely large, used previous research, and the purpose of the research was clearly stated. With the exception of the possibility of bias, considering Penn State is an institution of higher education that sells junk food, I see no real issues within the research. With this data in mind and knowing the monetary benefits for schools with vending machines, I see the benefits as outweighing the costs. Perhaps it isn’t so bad for schools to have vending machines.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/research/study-finds-no-childhood-obesity-link-to-school-junk-food.html?_r=2&

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/compfoods.asp

http://www.rand.org/standards/standards_high.html

http://www.wgem.com/story/16771820/schools-say-vending-machines-actually-benefit-students-school

courtesy of: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/vending-machine-pictures.htm

On a rainy day have you ever just wanted to stay in bed all day and watch Netflix? Most of us have and rainy days cause us to want to do nothing at all, and even put some of us in a bad mood. On the other hand, days when it is really nice out put us in a great mood. I decided to look into this and see if there was any science behind it.

In 2008, a study was done and it was found that warmer temperatures can bring a depressed person’s mood up. This study showed that the daily weather impacts a person’s negative mood more than it impacts a person’s positive mood. Therefore, when the weather is nice, it brings a person’s mood who is depressed up, but when it is rainy or windy, it puts a person who is depressed in an even worse mood. There is a type of depression called Seasonal affective disorder (SAD), where the person’s mood and level of depression are determined by the season and the weather of that season.

A study done in 2013 showed that there is a link between human aggression and temperature. This makes complete sense because I feel like when it is really hot out, people become aggravated so much quicker and their temperaments are a lot shorter. Not only do people get more aggressive in higher temperatures, but also when there is snow or rain. One’s favorite season can also determine what kind of personality they have. All of these weather related mood swings are determined by hormones in the brain and the psychology of the brain. Certain hormones cause your moods and when the weather comes into play, it affects these hormones.  Another way your mood can change based on the seasons is allergies. When people have allergies, they become more tense and are more easily aggravated. The spring is a big time for allergies, and even though the weather is beautiful, people are so uncomfortable because of their allergies that they are put in a bad mood. I personally have allergies and I understand this because I am get annoyed when I am constantly sneezing. Further studies have also shown that bad weather directly affects your mood more than good weather does. Bad weather is much more likely to put us in a bad mood than good weather is to put us in a good mood.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/08/29/can-weather-affect-your-mood/

http://www.infoplease.com/science/weather/moods.html

One of my friends, her mom died from breast cancer, her tattoo is a remainder for her that her mom is still with her; for me is a remainder that there is other people suffering from chemotherapy and the effects. I always wonder if there is another way to treat cancer, is when my investigation begins.

When it comes to taming tumors, the strategy has always been fairly straightfoward. Remove the abnormal growth by any means, in the most effective way possible. The standar treatments used today has the same approach, surgery physically cuts out malignant lesions, chemotherapy agents dissolve them from within, and radiation seeks and destroys abnormally dividing cells. No one can deny that such methods work; deaths from cancer have dropped by around 20% in the U.S over the past 2 decades. But even though of the effectiveness of the method, these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumor. Researchers were excited by some studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed a new type of anticancer drug, which is entirely different way from chemotherapy, the patients tally up to an 83% survival rate after being treated for 2 years.

It is called ibrutinib, and it`s a potential breakthrough in treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) that could save patients from some effects of the chemotherapy. The experimental drug is being tested on tumors that target the body`s inmune system, such as CLL and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Early work on animals showed that the experimental drug effectively shut down tumor cell division, so the researchers tested the compound on 85 CLL patients who had all tried and failed to respond to at least 2 other anticancer treatments. The patients were randomized to take on of two different doses of ibrutinib a day. Three pills of ibrutinib are taken once a day. After two years of treatment, 71% of this hard-t-treat group had responded with slower tumor growth, and at 26 months, 75% showed no additional progression of their cancer. At the end of the study period, 83% of the participants were still alive, and most of the patients only complained of diarrhea and fatigue.

“The most common thing I have heard patinets say is that it brings their disease under control and makes them feel how they did before their cancer. I have heard that at least a dozen times,” says study author Dr. John C. Byrd, the director of the division of hematology of The Ohio State Comprehensive Cancer Center.

So, could the ned of chemotherapy be near? the difference between carpet bombing and “smart bomb” strategies for leveling an enemy, targeted therapies are aimed at specific pathways that tumor cells use to thrive, blocking them in the same way that monkeying with a car`s ignition or its fuel intake, can keep it from running properly. The advantage of these precise strategies is that they leave healthy cells alon, which for patients means fewer side effects and complications. For patients, these types of creative strategies could mean gentler, more tolerable cancer treatments and more years of living cancer-free.

The study was experimental and the results that suggests to be truth ( or a false positive, which would be really unfortunate but it can only be prove with more studies and more patients, and there is always chance) about the end of chemotherapy would be a great advance on the medicine area. Because there was only one variable tested, the Texas sharp shooter problem can be discarted. Wherever or not these drug works, I think we are on the right track to a most successfull and least painful treatment for cancer.

New Drug May Be Best Treatment for Leukemia Yet

No More Chemo: Doctors Say It’s Not So Far-Fetched

Nowadays, twins and triplets are becoming much more popular. Some people say twins skip a generation and multiples run in the family. I agree with this because usually when a family has a set of twins, somewhere else in the family, there is another. One in about eighty pregnancies results in twins. There is a science behind getting pregnant with twins, even though many people think it is just luck. Twins can be formed from three different ways. In one case, twins can be formed when multiple eggs are released during one ovulation, and both of these eggs are fertilized. With this, these twins would be fraternal twins, where they won’t look alike. On the other hand, when one egg splits and both parts are fertilized, identical twins will be formed. This can be done with or without fertility drugs, even though fertility drugs may make conceiving twins easier. The third way to conceive twins is through IVF, which is fertility treatments. For this, there are usually three or more fertilized eggs that are put into the uterus, which from here, there is hope that any of these eggs will attach and start to form. Sometimes, multiple eggs will attach and this is how twins are formed. Here is a picture of an ultrasound of twins.

In order to discover twins, the doctor looks at the ultrasound and either hears two heartbeats or sees two babies. Although twins may be discovered, there is also a chance of a syndrome called Vanishing Twin Syndrome. Unfortunately, when this occurs, one twin stops growing. This twin will either be absorbed into the mother’s body or is born a still born when the other twin is born. In some rare cases, one twin is not discovered until birth, when the mother is surprised when she has not just one baby, but two.

Twins and triplets only account for about three percent of births and identical twins account for about one third of births. Nowadays, twins are much more common than they used to be. This is predicted to be due to the up and coming fertility treatments. Many women have been taking fertility drugs in order to help them conceive quicker, which in turn, they are having multiples or twins. It has been proven that if you are given a fertility treatment, whether it is IVF or ICSI, you are about twenty times more likely to have a multiple baby pregnancy. This is because these drugs stimulate your ovaries, causing a greater likelihood of more eggs to be released when a woman ovulates. Fertility drugs are obviously not the only cause behind twins or multiples, but they definitely play a big part. The lifestyle choices of the woman and her size also matter as well.

http://community.babycentre.co.uk/post/a536705/the_science_behind_multiple_pregnancies

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/pregnancy/a/Twin-Pregnancy.htm

Hamburgers are an American classic. In one year, Americans eat about 50 billion burgers (Huffington Post). There is no hiding how much we love eating meat and how much we crave those tasty burgers. But, will this craving disappear if we replace our hamburger meat with in-vitro meat?

About a year ago, Professor Mark Post from Maastricht Univeristy served the first test-tube hamburger. He had been persistent at attempting to grow meat in the laboratory since 2008. Unlike imitation meat such as soy protein, this burger is made from a real animal. It is created by muscle stem cells from cows. According to Popular Science, the meat was formed from 20,000 cells mixed with bread crumbs and eggs. This lab grown burger was served to two brave volunteers. Both of them agreed that it had a good taste and that it was close to meat.

Dr. Post was thrilled that he was finally successful, but he was concerned that it will take at least 10 to 20 years before the in-vitro meat can be mass produced. Dr. Post also shared that it would be possible to create the meat from any animal cells. This would cause an increase in supply of the meat.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about eating a burger that was created in a laboratory. I do realize that there are many advantages to producing meat this way. For example, this process is more ethical because there is no harm done to the animals when creating this meat. Their cells are taken painlessly from them and we would no longer be killing off livestock for our meat. This is seen very positively in the eyes of many vegetarians. For those who do not eat meat because they are against animal cruelty, they will no longer have to worry about animals suffering in this process.  In addition to this, it is cheaper to produce in-vitro meat with our current technology. In-vitro meat is also healthier for us because scientists can control the fat content and the nutritional content (In-Vitro Meat).

On the other hand, there are also some disadvantages to this new discovery. I mentioned previously that it is cheaper to produce the in-vitro meat, but it is very expensive to fund research and development for making the meat. Also, one of the biggest disadvantages is that majority of the public is not in favor of change. Most people assume that the lab grown meat will taste disgusting and they are not interested in trying new meat since they are already satisfied with the meat they have been eating for years (Huffington Post). Many people argue that the in-vitro meat is not solving anything. There are already cheaper diet solutions for vegans and vegetarians and people who do enjoy meat are not looking for an alternative.

I found this to be a very interesting topic. After researching, I think I am against the in-vitro meat. Even though it may bring some advantages to the table, I think the disadvantages out weigh them. Personally, I am a very picky eater and I know that I would not be willing to try a burger that was grown in a lab. Also, each of the articles claim that the in-vitro meat is healthier but I am worried that it could have long term health risks that no one is aware of yet. It might be healthier in the nutritional aspect but how can we be sure that no serious health risks will come out of it.  I think it will be difficult for in-vitro meat to become popular since no one knows what to expect in regards to taste, side-effects, etc.

No matter how much sleep I get, I wake up every morning exhausted and remain tired all day.  I was interested in knowing why I constantly feel this way so I did some research and it turns out there are three main reasons.  The first and most obvious is how much sleep you get, the second is what you eat and the third is how often you exercise.

Many people don’t get enough sleep and are therefore going to be tired throughout the day.  As soon as not getting enough sleep becomes a routine it starts to affect how you feel throughout weeks and months because of the 24-hour cycle your body functions on. If you aren’t sleeping at night one good idea is to avoid caffeine and alcohol before going to sleep. Another good idea is to turn off all electronics before going to sleep.

Eating healthy is a great way to keep from being tired. Drinking caffeine or sugary drinks will keep you up at night, thus not being able to sleep and waking up exhausted. A balanced, healthy diet with fruits and vegetables and protein will keep your body functioning during the day and will let your body rest at night. “Most people feel they are less tired if they eat a healthy diet,” says J. Fred Ralston Jr., MD, (past president of the American College of Physicians.)  Eating healthy will additionally keep you thinner which is important to this topic because obesity has been shown to increase fatigue.

How much you exercise is a big factor in exhaustion as well. It has been proven that exercising gives you energy. It’s funny because one would think that exercising would make you more tired because you are moving around so much but this is not the case. Studies have shown that sedentary people are much more lethargic than people that exercise regularly. The more you move, the more energy you will have.

References:

http://www.medicinenet.com/why_am_i_so_tired_the_many_causes_of_fatigue/views.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-am-i-so-tired/

Every Monday morning whiling I catch up the bus to take the first class, I can see a lot of runners running with their pedometers passing me. And at that moment, I can feel a deep guilty about the last-night beer in my stomach. As a runner like those people, I feel like drinking this hobbit decreased good thing running bring to my body. As runners, we have enough daily excise, and it is so good for our health. But some of us still drink, even drink a lot during the weekend. So, is there any influence will drinking and bring to runners? How bad they are to our daily excise?
The most noticeable influence drinking can bring to runners is not as complicated as the people thought, but can be described by just one word: fat. Lots of runners use running as a perfect way to keep body’s shape and lose weight, but a pint of beer can ruin your last days 3 miles running. Although beers do not contain the real fat, it has bulk, which can effectively stretches people’s stomach lining. So that people who drink beers usually are easier to have bigger appetites. Except that, beer contains sugar. Proved by one research from years ago, a pint of beer contains nearly 400 calories, so if we count in this way, three pints is about 1200 calories. But a man in a sedentary job needs only 2500 calories to keep life going per day. It’s almost a half of that number! After seeing that, it is not difficult to explain why some runners still have beer belly. Under this paragraph is a list of calories for beers, maybe it can work for runners to decide how much beers they want to drink for the next time.
• 12 oz. of beer (~150 calories)
• 4 oz. of wine (~100 calories)
• 1.25 oz. of liquor (~100 calories)
Besides the annoying fat that drinking would bring to runners, here’s another effect from beer drinking- the mineral depleting. As is known to all, our body’s inside balance is achieved due to different minerals co-operation. But for alcohol- as a diuretic, it would cause the urinary excretion of calcium and magnesium. How important calcium to our body is obviously, it is an essential material for runners bone health. As to magnesium, magnesium is an important co-factor for a few of enzymes involved in transferring phosphate groups to produce ATP (energy). Without ATP in our body, running cannot be achieved.
All of those things, even though they do make sense in pure science field, we cannot say that the truth is exactly act in the same way. In my Communication class, there’s a word named “experimental realism” which said that rules worked in lab maybe not work in the same way as they did in our real world. Like the influence of drinking to runners, as I can see, it depends on personal situation, like different runner’s diet and their running habits. But all in all, if you plan to take a run tomorrow, don’t drink across the line is a wise choice!

Citation:
http://runnersconnect.net/running-nutrition-articles/alcohol-and-endurance-running/
https://www.google.com/search?q=drinking&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&rlz=1I7DMUS&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MjlEVNGdGerbsATU_YGwCg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=907#rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US%3AIE-Address&tbm=isch&q=drinking%20beer&revid=960743276&imgdii=_
http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-194879,00.html
http://www.aperfectpint.net/What%20is%20Beer%20-%20The%20Basics.pdf<a

Considering that students from all over the world have tons of homework everyday, I feel like it is an appropriate to question whether homework helps students gain more intelligence and understanding on whatever they are learning. I looked at a few websites that contained different viewpoints, but generally the same research was gained. It seems that most research concludes that homework does help students gain more knowledge, but only at a certain age. Research shows that homework mostly benefits high school students and older. Students of ages 11-13 also showed that they benefit from homework, but not as distinctly as older kids. Children under the age of 11 did not show any benefit.

This study is complicated to research because there are many third variables that cannot be controlled. For examples, different schools and teachers have different policies and curriculums. Some teachers may teach very well in the classroom and give an appropriate amount of homework, while other teachers may not be as good at their jobs and may give an overbearing amount of homework. Students in the study would give different data on whether homework is beneficial or not. Other third variables include how much time students spend on extracurricular activities, if students read in their free time, gender, how much sleep each student receives, what students’ life situation at home is, if students are ill, and if students are fed well. To read up on what a Penn State Professor concluded from his research on this topic click here.

Homework can be used to further students’ research or understanding of a topic. It is also used to reinforce information learned in the classroom. Teachers should not overload students’ homework especially at young ages because it does not allow for as much time for children try to discover learning by themselves nor experience life outside of school. Homework is good when it is given to help and benefit students, not to just give students busy work. Teachers need to allow for students to have time for family and friends outside of school and experience other life lessons that cannot be taught within a classroom.

Sources:

http://www.memory-key.com/improving/strategies/children/homework

http://www.greatschools.org/students/homework-help/1938-what-research-says-about-homework.gs?page=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/too-much-homework-test-scores_n_1391134.html

http://blogdailyherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Student-Studying-1.jpg

Love as science? Yes as hard as it is to believe there are actually studies done on love. Love is a powerful emotion that we all hope to find the true form of one day. Some people are lucky and find love early on which lasts forever, some people find temporary love, and some people go a whole life time without experiencing real love. But have you ever wondered what makes you attracted to someone. Yes variables such as if they are funny, tall, and long hair may make you find someone attractive but there are also scientific explanations on why we gain long lasting love.

From my research I have found that it only takes in between 90 seconds to 4 minutes to fall in love. One of the most surprising stats that I have found was that primarily we show our attraction to others through body language. In fact, 55 percent is shown through body language, 38 percent through your tone in voice, and only 7 percent is for what we say. Learning this makes me think about, the expression actions speaks louder than words.

What is more interesting is that humans find beauty as being Symmetrical. Studies have proven this theory that more often than none people are more attracted to people with symmetrical facial structure. Furthermore, it is not only facial symmetric that attracts people but it is also symmetrical body shape and hair also attracts people. In fact, women have more orgasms with men who have more symmetrical bodies.

However, another study done by a New York Photographer, Alex Beck, shows that the symmetric faces are not always viewed as beauty. Some people look less attractive, faces looked distorted, and unhuman. Beck was able to show this by mirroring one half of someone’s face to create a perfect symmetrical reflection of the other half of the person’s face.

You can go to this website http://www.anaface.com/ to upload your picture and it will generate a score on how beautiful you are based on how symmetric your face is. The website also gives you advice on how to make your face more symmetrical to enhance your beauty.

BBC. BBC, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/flirting.shtml>.

Cade, DL. “Perfectly Symmetrical Portraits Show That a Symmetrical Face Is Not Always Beautiful.” PetaPixel. N.p., Feb. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

Daily Mail Reporters. “The Test That Tells You How Beautiful You Are.” Mail Online. N.p., Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

For the students that don`t have a meal plan like me, after a day of class, projects, exams and papers, the last thing they want to do is cook. So instead of looking for all the ingredients, chop them, mix them, and cook them; a easier option is to go to the freezer, that your frozen pizza put it in the microwave, set it for 5 minutes and dinner is serve!

So when I try to do the same at home, my mom always tells me to put the pizza on other non-plastic container. So I decided to investigate what is this decision based on. When food is wrapped on plastic or plced in a plastic container and microwaved, subtances used in manufacturing the plastic may leak into the food. Some kind of food like fatty food such as meats and cheeses causes a chemical called diethylhexyl adipate to leach out of the plastic. These chemical is a light-colored, oily liquid with an aromatic odor. It is used in making platics. It is also used as a solvent in aircraft lubricants. The health effect are on the short-term, the chemical is not known to cause any health problems when people are exposed to it at levels above 0.4 ppm (parts per million). On the long-term, it has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above 0.4 ppm like reduced body weight and bone mass; damage to liver and testes; cancer. The damage caused by plastic containers has been studied in animals. IN these studies, hgigh doses of toxic chemicals from plastics have lead to repdroductive illnesses, cancer and olther health issues. It is believed, however, that the leaking of the chemicals in plastics in very small amounts is not a health hazard in humans.

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is aware of this problem and mandates that manufactures of platics food containers test their products to be sure that this dander does not exist. The testing process takes into account the tumber of times a plastic food container is likely to be used, what types of foods will be heated in it, and how long it is likely to be placed in to the microwave at specific temperatures.

First, the test is experimental, so the independent variable is manipulated by the people running these test. It could be possible that the study is suffering the Texas sharp shooter problem because of all the variables that are being tested it can be that something is going on and also can be due to chance.So now that the alternative hypothesis is correct or is a false positive, is still enoguh to change your behavoir toward microwaving food in plastic containers? leave it up to you.

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/is-it-safe-to-microwave-plastic-food-containers.html#b

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/adipate.pdf

For most of us this is the first time in our lives that we had to share a bathroom with lots of people other than our family. Okay we may have been out and had to use a public bathroom but on a daily basis this is the first time. So let me ask everyone a question, which is healthier squatting or covering the seat with toilet paper?

So I did some research and this is what I found. Medical Daily’s website states that covering the toilet seat may not be worth the time. This is because there are more germs in the surrounding bathroom items than the actual toilet. This includes the toilet paper that you use to cover the toilet. Wow I found this very interesting that the effort used for us not sit on the toilet with bacteria is for us to sit own toilet paper with the same bacteria. Now the question I had was how the toilet paper gain the same bacteria as on the toilet seat. Reading more into the story I was able to find the answer to it and it is more alarming than surprising. When you flush the toilet it disperses the bacteria airborne to other surfaces. So things like the lock on the door that you touch, the floor in which your pants rest, and yes toilet paper too all have bacteria that is found on the toilet seat.

So how beneficial is squatting? Squatting is found to be more productive than covering because you never touch the toilet seat. But as I mentioned before the bacteria is found on other things in the bathroom. With that being said you still have to use the toilet paper which has the bacteria.

In conclusion, I think avoiding the bacteria on the toilet seat is almost inevitable. Our skin has a resistant barrier helps protect you so the likelihood of you getting a disease from sitting on a toilet is slim unless you have an open cut on your butt. However, I suggest that you should buy sanitation wipes to wipe the toilet seat, use your own toilet paper so you won’t have to use the contaminated ones, and lastly properly wash and dry your hands before leaving the bathroom. Also, use a napkin for the handle when opening the door because some people do not wash their hands and then grab the handle.

Borreli, Lizette. “The Best Way To Use The Public Toilet, To Avoid Germs [VIDEO].” Medical Daily. N.p., 18 June 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

Steve, Dr. “Down and Dirty.” Men’s Fitness. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

As Madonna once cleverly said, “Hey Mr. DJ put a record on I wanna dance with my baby. And when the music starts I never wanna stop, it’s gonna drive me crazy”. What is it about music that drives us crazy? As college students we are all familiar with the “beat drop”. The tension in the room builds during the absence of the bass and then once the heaviest sound returns to the song, the crowd goes wild.

Canadian research scientists developed a study that aims to target the reason behind the base drop phenomenon. Researchers from the McMaster Institute for Music and Mind set out to investigate the brains reactions to high and low pitched tones. Dr. Laurel Trainor, a neuroscientists and the head researcher involved in the study, assembled 35 random people to participate. Trainor and her team played a variety of high and low pitched piano notes for the participants. They then asked the 35 men and women to tap their fingers to the rhythm. As the participants taped the researchers monitored the electrical activity in the subject’s brains. According to the study researchers found that “people were more likely to modify their tapping to fall in sync with the low-pitched tone”. (Sara Gates)

After examining all of the data compiled during the study, Dr. Laurel Trainor concluded that “virtually all people will respond more to the beat when it is carried by lower-pitched instruments.”

If something went wrong during the study it is possible that the low and high pitch tones have no correlation between a persons ability to respond to the beat, which if true would mean that the researchers findings were a false positive. Assuming the study was done correctly then confounding variables could not explain the researchers findings and in this particular study reverse causality is not likely. Therefor if the study was executed correctly it shows that there is a direct correlation between low- pitched tones and the human brains ability to detect the beat.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/deep-bass-sounds-music-rhythm_n_5548301.html

A lot of people including myself loooovvveee to eat chocolate! Chocolate can come in so many different varieties. You have dark chocolate, you have white chocolate, you have the classic chocolate, , you have chocolate with nuts, chocolate with fruits, triple chocolate, double chocolate, just so much chocolate! Did you ever think about if certain chocolate can actually be good for you. That if you eat it, you don’t have to feel as guilty after?

Well the one chocolate that is said to actually be good for you is…………DARK CHOCOLATE!!!

Dark chocolate and almost every other chocolate contains cacao. Cacao is a seed or bean  that comes from a cacao tree. These trees are usually in south America. Cacao is the basis of chocolate. Even though on its own, it has a very bitter flavor to it, the chocolate that we know and love today would not be able to be made without it.  So whats in dark chocolate that makes it good for you? One difference between dark chocolate and other chocolates is the high amount of Cacao it has inside of it. That’s why it is not as sweet as chocolates such as milk chocolate, and white chocolate. Those chocolates contain more milk, sugar, and butter, the unhealthy stuff.

So what else is important about this cacao bean?  The cacao bean contains a thing called flavonoids. I talked about these in recent posts before, but flavonoids are antioxidants. Antioxidants are pretty much nutrients for the body, that help fight against things that can weaken the body. What can eating dark chocolate do for the body? It is said that dark chocolate can give the body good cardiovascular benefits. According to “Womans Health mag” “there was a Swedish study done with with over 31,000 women and the results showed that out of the the woman who ate one to two servings of chocolate each week cut their risk for heart disease by a third”. (womanshealthmag). There also was another study done in Germany  where it “showed that eating a square of dark chocolate a day lowered blood pressure and the risk of a heart attack and stroke by 39″. (Womanshealthmag). Now with these studies these conclusions could be reasoned out by chance. Also I think there could possibly be something else that is helping lower the levels in these studies. Maybe the dark chocolate is working with other parts of the body to make these things possible. I did read an article about gut bacteria that talks about the gut bacteria and the dark chocolate work together in helping out the body. Apparently” the gut bacteria breaks down the components in the dark chocolate and turns them into anti- inflammatory compounds.” (mercola.com). These compounds are good for a persons heart.

So dark chocolate seems like pretty beneficial chocolate. Some of things dark chocolate is good for is that it is said that dark chocolate can lower blood pressure, improve blood flow, its a lower  calorie snack, and help a person lose weight because its more filling,   and it can possibly help with brain function. For some of these facts about dark chocolate they have not been fully proven. I think it would be a pretty cool experiment to try and find out what dark chocolate can really do. I think an experiment like this could be not as difficult. There is always that possibility that the dark chocolate can affect each person differently, and it would be pretty interesting to see what happens. I think people would actually love to be in these experiments because, if I was asked to eat a certain amount of chocolate of course i would!  I personally love dark chocolate, and its pretty cool to see what it can do for me.

Here are tasty ways and forms that dark chocolate comes in! 🙂

http://authoritynutrition.com/7-health-benefits-dark-chocolate/

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/benefits-of-chocolate?page=4

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/31/dark-chocolate-health-benefits.aspx

http://www.livestrong.com/article/522112-health-benefits-of-raw-cacao-nibs/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/07/antioxidants-in-a-nutshell/