http://www.familyhandyman.com/smart-homeowner/home-safety-tips/all-about-christmas-tree-safety/view-all

              Well, it’s that time of the year everyone. The time where every radio station you turn on, there’s Christmas music playing. Also it’s the time when everybody goes out to get a Christmas tree. Every year “about 25 million Christmas trees are purchased in the United States, according to the National Christmas Tree Association.” Wow, there’s actually a National Christmas Tree Association, I learn something new every day. Anyway, it is very important for one to take good care of the tree so that it can stay fresh for longer and also so it doesn’t become a fire hazard. Between 2006-2010, U.S Fire Departments responded to 230 fires that stared with Christmas trees with an average 4 dead, 21 injuries, and 17.3 Million dollars in property damage. More Statistics Here

              People who celebrate Christmas buy the Christmas trees to celebrate the holiday and bring a lively hood to the houses, however, how is it that some studies have proven that Christmas trees cause depression? Study Researcher Michael Schmitt of Fraser University asked participants to fill out surveys about themselves while sitting in either a nondescript room or a room with a small Christmas Tree. In this study, 30 celebrators and 22 non celebrators took part. The researchers repeated this study, this time have 19 Buddhist students, 19 Sikh students, and 47 Christian students.

              In both studies, the Christians/ Christmas celebrators felt mostly cheered by the tree, while the non-celebrators/ religious minorities felt fewer positive feelings towards the presence of the tree. This seems like the obvious response people were looking for, people that like to celebrate Christmas like Christmas trees, and vice versa. Of Course, even for Christmas lovers the holidays can be a stressful time. However, the interesting part is that both groups thought that Christmas decorations would make them happier.

              This result I don’t really understand. How could religious minorities and non-celebrators be inside a room with a Christmas tree and be uncomfortable and have fewer positive feelings, but also at the same time think that decorations would make them happier? Schmitt explains that “Maybe it’s a subtle effect, and they weren’t really aware that the tree is affecting them.”             

              This article is then concluded by explaining that positive things for some people could have a negative effects for others so one should take time to think about how their symbols could affect others.

Christmas lights are usually the catalyst to the fires, so remember to unplug lights before going to be or leaving the house. Other safety tips here.

How many of you guys celebrate Christmas and what’s the best present you’ve gotten?

When I started lifting weights, I was always told that “you cannot overtrain your muscles” or “you can’t work out the same muscle group everyday” When I heard about this I, like many others, thought it was true but had no idea why. I guess it made sense to me that your muscles need time to recover and that you need rest before your muscles are back at full strength but, looking at some of these bodybuilders, I thought to myself, “there is no way these enormous men do not workout their arms every day.” So about a year ago I stumbled upon a few Youtube videos made by a former bench press champion, <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHiKDa4ip_Q“>C.T Fletcher</a>. Although C.T has a loud, vulgar way of saying it, lets just say he disagrees with this whole “overtraining” malarkey.

Works Cited: 

http://experiencelife.com/article/overtraining-myths-facts-and-fantasies/

http://douglasernstblog.com/2013/08/03/ct-fletcher-is-correct-over-training-is-a-myth/

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that cigarette smoking causes 90% of lung cancers, and smokers are 15 to 30 times more likely to get or die from lung cancer. The relative risk seems insanely high, so I decided to research what the risk for getting lung cancer is for a non-smoker.

The American Cancer Society states that 16,000-24,000 “never smoker” Americans die of lung cancer each year. They define a “never smoker” as someone who has smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. It seems interesting that you could smoke 99 cigarettes and still be put in the same category as someone who has never touched one. This seems to be an inherent flaw in the research already, but cancer.org may have a slight bias in order to try and convince people to quit or never start smoking. Either way, these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

The important thing is, if there were a separate category for lung cancer in “non-smokers” (notice the quotations), it would be in the top 10 deadliest cancers in the US. The leading causes of lung cancer in non-smokers are secondhand smoke, gas and carcinogen exposure as well as air pollution. Looking at the numbers, it is interesting to note that the American Cancer Society estimates 3,400 people die per year from secondhand smoke. I stated above that they also said 16,000 to 24,000 non-smokers die per year from lung cancer. What accounts for the other tens of thousands of deaths?

The answer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is radon gas exposure. An estimated 20,000 people per year die in the US from lung cancer caused by radon gas exposure in the workplace or elsewhere. The reason I am giving you these statistics is for perspective. According to an article from LiveScience.com, “fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer”, and you apparently are “more likely to have a condom break than get cancer from smoking”.

You have to look at the facts objectively or else they can become extremely ambiguous. As you cans see, the statistics I gave in the first part of this blog would make you wonder why anybody would ever pick up a cigarette in the first place. The information from this article attempts to explain the different risks and percentages that get thrown around in the cigarette danger conversation. It is important to note that if the CDC or the American Cancer Society posted the stats on how many smokers beat lung cancer and survived, it wouldn’t make for a very good anti-smoking platform.

The problem with trying to research hard data on topics like this is the amount of bias and statistical manipulation that goes on. It really does feel like walking in circles, with one pro-smoking website giving one number and an anti-smoking website giving the inverse of that. This just furthers the importance of learning the skills like we have in class so that we can become more educated in how to see through the smoke and mirrors and identify the true facts.  I am curious if anybody else can find a true, unbiased number of deaths occurring from lung cancer in smokers and non smokers. 

            We all remember that time of year as an adolescent when we had to take our standardized tests. Up to three hours of pure boredom of writing in the box provided below and always “showing all work and explaining each step”. These tests seemed like a gift of torture from our government. Now as I am past that stage of my educational process I pondered what the effects of these tests are. Are they even beneficial to teachers or students? My personal hypothesis is that the null holds true and that these tests do nothing for the teachers and students. Personally I think that the remedial aspects on these test downplayed my schools curriculum. The confounding factor that the test makers didn’t think about was the demographics of the schools. All of the tests across the state were the same, and yes some of the simple math topics may have been difficult for some students in some areas but in others their simplicity was a nuisance and a waste of time.

            One study disagrees with my hypothesis in saying that testing is beneficiary to schools because it increases pressure on teachers to improve their students’ learning. “Fish found that apparent pressure on teachers to improve their students’ test scores was influenced by a number of factors including: the degree and nature of administrator involvement, teachers’ professional self-concepts, and teachers’ years of teaching experience (Fish, 1988)”. One important note Fish’s study was that there was a confounding factor was that experienced teachers thought that inadequate test scores were caused by factors beyond their control “such as low student ability and discrepancies between the test and curriculum, than did novice teachers”. I admired the variety of the observational studies. The study observed different types of teachers in various types of settings and this helped explain the confounding variables that were found.  

            But what about the effect it has on the students? I also thought that it had no effect on the students because the tests were too easy to make a student think about the testing process. Another observational study agrees with my hypothesis in saying that the tests do nothing for the benefit of the students. The study says that the important traits of learning (“Innovation, creativity and love of learning”) are not enforced through these tests, so “Subjecting students to incessant drills and practice under the guise of test preparation does them few favors in the long run”. The issue that I have with this notion from this study is that these matters are subject to opinion and frankly if you ask a child does a standardized test help you in your process of the love learning, many will say no simply because of the fact that many hate the tests and think they are boring.

A third finding collaborated the pros and cons of standardized test. The website stated “93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a “positive effect” on student achievement”. It showed a randomized study that also provided reasoning for students to benefit from standardized tests. As the first study stated this one alike said that students feel pressure to do well on these and gifted students in particular feel pressure to bring up scores and have frustration for these tests. With these conclusions from the study I inference that standardized tests are detrimental to the learning process of students because it doesn’t allow them to enjoy learning materials with the thought in the back of their head that they are only doing this for the benefit of their teachers and school personnel.  

            With the results from all of the studies I chose to adjust my original hypothesis. Now I believe that the null hypothesis remains true in saying that standardized tests have no benefit with regards to students, but the opposite is true for teacher in which the alternative is true.

The United States is still one of few countries that continue to enforce the law of “no drinking until you are 21.” Right about now, all the seniors’ in High School are shaking their heads in disapproval. But honestly, why is this? I understand that the United States is trying to prevent younger audiences from participating in such debauchery, but wouldn’t there be benefits of lowering the drinking age?

When I think about the age “18,” I think about the privilege of being allowed to vote. If someone is old enough to legally change the way a country operates, don’t you think it would be alright for them to grab a quick beer at the bar afterwards? Along with being able to buy tobacco products, driving, and voting, turning 18, in a lot of ways, symbolizes becoming an adult. My parents always told me that when you are an adult you can make your own decisions, but I guess that was not entirely true.

 A lot of times, because kids are not allowed to drink, it makes them want to do it even more. This can lead to kids drinking in unsafe environments and developing unsafe drinking habits. According to the <a href=”http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm“>Center for Disease Control and Prevention</a> people between the age of 12 and 20 consume 11% of all alcohol drank in the United States already. If kids were taught proper, safe drinking habits, this number would be undoubtedly lower. If the drinking age were to be lowered to 18, kids could learn how to drink in regulated environments and learn the safest way to handle themselves when doing so. In my opinion, binge drinking on weekends would be greatly reduced, as would the nasty habit of drinking and driving. If kids were exposed to this privilege at a younger age, it would give them the experience they need to learn how to develop safe drinking habits. Safer drinking habits means less underage citations and happier parents.Binge drinking is also the fifth leading reason for <a href=”hospital visits“>http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/drunken-teenage-revelers-fifth-leading-emergency-room-visits-city-public-hospitals-article-1.1085829</a> among underage teens. If teens were taught how to practice safer drinking habits at a younger age, hospital visits would decrease as would the number of fatalities associated with binge drinking.

Not only would this <a href=”http://drinkingage.procon.org/“>lower drinking age</a> incur benefits for the kids, but would also benefit the United States economy. With more people in general allowed to go to bars, beer distributors, and liquor stores, an entire new demographic would appear for the owners of these establishments. They would increase profits greatly and could really have the chance to thrive in their respected markets. The tax dollars generated from this new audience could also be used to better the United States in a number of ways. For example, the government could fund more programs to teach kids the dangers of alcohol use. A good idea would be to have every 18-year-old attend a mandatory alcohol abuse class funded by the tax dollars generated by the new law. This class could inform, teach, and even frighten kids about the dangers they could encounter when partying too hard. It would cut down drinking and driving dramatically and save many lives in the process. 

The most important reason why the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old, is because it has proven itself to work in other countries. For example, Germany’s drinking age is <a href=”http://www.cognac.com/15-reasons-why-drinking-age-should-be-18/“>16 for beer and wine and 18 for liquor and other spirits</a>. To many people’s surprise, the number of drinking and driving fatalities in Germany is significantly less than the number in the United States. An alternative method of enforcing drinking and driving laws if the drinking age were to be lowered to 18, would be to have a “no tolerance” law for drinking and driving. This means that even if you have .01 blood alcohol content, you are over the legal limit to drink and drive. This “no tolerance” law would certainly make people think twice before drinking and driving. 

Works Cited: 

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/drunken-teenage-revelers-fifth-leading-emergency-room-visits-city-public-hospitals-article-1.1085829

http://drinkingage.procon.org/

http://www.cognac.com/15-reasons-why-drinking-age-should-be-18/

The whole world knows at this point that <a href=”http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2012/08/16/why-were-so-fat-whats-behind-the-latest-obesity-rates“>obesity in the United States</a> is a huge problem. Fast food places are thriving, gym memberships are going unused, and physical activity in general is basically non-existent. I get that our country has been labeled as “fat” but I just did not understand how we got to this point of near disaster. This curiosity allowed me to stumble upon some interesting reasons why it wouldn’t hurt Americans to occasionally mix in a salad.

One of the catalysts of this problem are the many Americans who have extremely low incomes every year. This completely limits their abilities to obtain a healthy lifestyle. For starters, healthy food has become extremely expensive to afford. Lower class Americans have to resort to eating cheap fast food because they cannot support their families and, at the same time, make sure they maintain a healthy diet.

Yet another reason why obesity is at an all time high is because Americans are very insecure about their weight and those who are not overweight, are very judgmental towards others who are. Although some Americans are able to afford gym memberships and expensive exercise equipment, they are not willing to use it if they are not in a completely comfortable environment. For example, a man could have purchased a fancy gym membership at the local LA Fitness but never attend because he is afraid of the way people will perceive him as he is working out. No one wants to be seen as the “fat guy” at the gym. It is a shame that Americans are so harsh when dealing with anything concerning looks. A man or woman who puts their inhibition behind them and takes the leap of faith to workout at a gym, should be rewarded with compliments rather than being glared at like an outcast.

Lower education levels is also a contributing factor to the obesity problem in the United States. People simply are not informed enough to realize what they are actually putting into their bodies. If people were more aware of the harm they were doing to themselves, the epidemic would decrease drastically. Schools should consider adding a mandatory health class to the curriculum for kids from years k-12 that stress the importance of eating healthy. Although this may cost a little extra, the lives saved and the knowledge gained would certainly be worth it.

<a href=”http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/weight-loss/solving-common-obesity-problems-early.html#b“>17% of 6-19 year-olds are obese in the United States</a>. This is an absolutely alarming statistic. Almost one out of every five Americas between the ages 6 and 19 years old are obese. There are many easy ways to lose that extra, unwanted poundage. First off, keep track of the foods you eat every day. If the amount of calories, carbohydrates, fats, etc. consumed surpass the suggested amount for your body weight, it is clearly time to cut back on the junk food. Do not go on crash diets or starve yourself because this will decrease your metabolism in the long run. The weight that you would lose from your crash diet would eventually come back, along with some more. A high metabolism is key to losing weight. The higher the rate that your body can burn off the calories you consume and turn those calories into fuel, the easier it will be to lose the weight. Another way is too just start walking. If you normally drive everywhere or take public transportation, consider walking to your desired endpoints. Simply moving increases your metabolism, which should be the focal point of those who desire to lose weight.

I feel like if people are made more aware of the solutions to losing weight, the United States’ obesity epidemic could be a thing of the past. If less people are obese, that means that average lifespans could increase, sports would be more competitive, and maybe even being healthy would begin to become a “cool” thing.

Works Cited: 

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/weight-loss/solving-common-obesity-problems-early.html#b

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2012/08/16/why-were-so-fat-whats-behind-the-latest-obesity-rates

From September 2012 – April 2013 a rare study was conducted in the Montreal Region. Twenty-one heterosexual couples from the ages of 18-35 years were asked to engage in 40 minutes of exercise with a 5 minute warm-up and cool down, leaving 30 minutes for 65% of their maximal heart rate to be up. Each was administered a test at the beginning of the study to determine what amount of exertion on the treadmill did this for them. The couples were asked to perform 1 sexual activity per week in their homes for a month ( four sexual activities). Sexual activity was characterized by the study as the onset of foreplay, intercourse, and at least one orgasm by either the male or female. A questionnaire was filled out after each sexual activity involving how much energy output and pleasure they experienced from the sex in comparison to the treadmill.
As predicted, couples reported experiencing much more pleasure after their sexual activity than the exercise activity. Women assumed more energy output occurred for them during sexual activity than what actually did occur. The actual results somewhat surprised me. The energy expenditure for men was 101kcal (4.2 kcal/min.) and 69 kcal for women (3.1 kcal/min). This proves to be less strenuous than jogging at 8 km/h, but more strenuous than walking at 4.8 km/hr. From a very simplistic and general viewpoint, unless you are going to hit the gym and jog for thirty minutes or more, opting for sex isn’t necessarily the lazier option. However, the 30 minute exercise proved to exert more energy and had greater intensity overall. On the contrary, though, men did occasionally exert more energy during the sexual activity than in the exercise activity. Also, sexual activity overall had an intensity level that represented more than 2/3rds of the treadmill exercise activity. The way I see it, sex can and has proved to be a rigorous exercise activity that can exert as much energy and burn as many calories as low to moderate intensity exercise. I find that if someone is having regular sex, they may have a health advantage over those who are not. Not only does it count as exercise but it can lower risk of heart attack, improve mood, promote well-being, improve sleep, increase chances of longevity, improve immunity, and lower mortality rates. The way I see it, everyone could benefit from some sexercise!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0079342

I told myself I wasn’t going to write a molly blog because it would be too predictable, but it is so popular it almost be ignore not to, so here it. This is about purity of supposedly pure drugs.

Molly is the trendiest drug right now. According to the New York TImes, it was patented by Merck pharmaceuticals in 1914, but did not start getting abused until the 1980’s where it was used primarily in New York nightclubs. Molly is designed to make people happy and upbeat. It has become popular recently due to the popularity of EDM.

CNN Investigators, reported that Molly is appealing because is pure MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine), which is the active ingredient in Ecstasy. It was intended to be a medication to help with depression but the Molly sold today (or what is called Molly) is a dangerous mixture of lab created chemicals according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Either way, anything done excessively is not good in my opinion.

“You’re playing Russian roulette if you take these compounds because we’re seeing significant batch-to-batch variances” say deputy drug administrator Al Santos. Law officials have found completely different ingredients in the same package of molly. The main chemicals in Molly are created in China then distributed to middle men in the US who then combine it with other drugs. The worst part about it is that some of the filler drugs are drugs that are not even used for recreation, such as, plant chemicals. In other words it is not pure at all.

I do believe there is any pure drugs, even prescribed ones. The are manufactured chemical substances, so technically it cannot be pure in overall quality. This especially goes street drugs which are what are used for fun such as Molly.

Over Thanksgiving break, I have been sleeping for almost 12 hours a night. I have actually done more sleeping than anything else. The universally “accepted” hours of sleep for proper function the next day is known to be 8 hours. I’ve noticed that when I sleep for more than 8 hours a night, I tend to be sluggish and unmotivated the next day. I’ve also noticed that when I sleep for 8 hours in any given night I tend to feel exactly the same, sluggish and unmotivated. But, the crazy thing is, I feel more awake and focused when I get less than 8 hours of sleep. Either I am programmed differently than everyone else in this world or this magic number of “8 hours” cannot be correct. This made me extremely curious about the subject so I tried to dig a little bit deeper.

According to the <a href=”http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/howsleep-works/how-much-sleep-do-we-really-need“>National Sleep Foundation</a> the number of hours of sleep necessary for someone can vary. Various factors including, exercising, eating habits, and sleep consistency can all affect the amount of hours necessary for someone to sleep. This number of hours that an individual needs to sleep per night is completely variable depending on any number of these factors. This chart posted by the <a href=”http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/how-sleep-works/how-muchsleep-do-we-really-need“>National Sleep Foundation</a> shows the estimated amount of sleep time necessary separated by age group. So it looks like this 8 hours of sleep per night “mumbo jumbo” has come to be known as a thing of the past.

If one’s sleep schedule can be variable, do we actually require sleep? Can we survive without sleeping if our body says “keep going?” I personally think that if we accepted tiredness as a state of mind rather than a necessity, we could sleep for shorter hours of time per night and could be way more productive as a society. Imagine the feats we could accomplish if we, as a world, cut down the amount hours of sleep per night by 5 hours. Those five hours could be used to think, generate ideas, and innovate society. It could incidentally, propel us into the future of technology.

Now, when I express the idea of decreasing the amount of sleep per night by 5 hours I am being completely hypothetical. Sleep is essential for brain function during the day along with several other key functions of living. The good thing about sleep, is that you can always make up for lost sleep. According to <a href=”http://www.helpguide.org/life/sleeping.htm“>many studies concerning sleep and brain function</a>, if you struggle with sleeping during the week, sleeping more on the weekends can reenergize your brain allowing you to have more brain capacity come Monday morning. And more brain-power on Mondays, equals happy college students.

In short, yes we do need to sleep to live. It is a basic human function. <a href=”http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-can-humans-stay“>The Scientific American</a> claims that any given human being can live without sleep for around 8-10 days. But, eyesight would suffer and hallucinations would begin to occur. So yes, technically we cannot go on without sleeping at least a little bit each night. But my theory is that if everyone decreased the number of hours they sleep per night by just a little, we could accomplish many things.

Works Cited: 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-can-humans-stay

http://www.helpguide.org/life/sleeping.htm

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/how-sleep-works/how-muchsleep-do-we-really-need