It’s almost November, ten weeks into the semester and the work load is increasing exponentially.  You realize you have yet another exam next week, but you are totally lost in the course content and do not even know how to start preparing for this exam.  What if you fail? Should you late drop the class? If you don’t get at least an A- your GPA will suffer, and that is not an option.  Panic starts taking over your mind as you contemplate how you are ever going to survive. This is a perfect example of stress.

Life is full of hassles, deadlines, demands, and frustrations.  These incidences in life cause stress, and if you are constantly stressed, your mind and body will pay the price.  Stress is a physical response to events that upset your balance in life in some way.  Our body’s defense mechanism kicks in when we feel this way and we go into a “fight- or -flight” mode also known as stress response.  Stress response can be beneficial because it gives us the motivation to get a task or job done.  But stress is only helpful to an extent, beyond a certain point it can cause major damage to your health, mood, relationships, productivity, and quality of life.

No one likes to be hungry.  But people rarely eat chocolate to ease hungry pains.  Chocolate is usually eaten as a tasty snack or desert for those who are craving something sweet.  But what is it about chocolate that we crave and desire so much?

Chocolate contains several compounds that react with the brain’s chemistry and receptors in such a way that it results in a feeling of pure pleasure. And in general, when we eat chocolate, we gain feelings of content, comfort, and gratification from it.  This is why people love to eat chocolate, and in large amounts too.  I don’t think anyone would object to the statement that chocolate makes us feel good and happy.

Now the question is, is there any scientific evidence that chocolate does cause happiness?  We would need to experiment on the chemical relationship in the brain that causes us to be happy, and compare it with the chemical components of chocolate.   Unfortunately, scientists have yet to discover what causes the relationship between chocolate and happiness, but studies have managed to put together some correlations. An observational study done in 2007 surveyed 1,367 respondents.  This was a controlled group of all men in their 70s with similar socioeconomic backgrounds.  The scientists asked the men questions about their health, satisfaction in life and emotions like happiness and loneliness. A key question was snuck in there that asked what kind of candy they preferred. When compared to the men who chose a fruity candy, those who preferred chocolate showed lower frequencies of depression and loneliness and had a more optimistic outlook on life.  This result agrees with the hypothesis that chocolate does make people happy.  However, it does not prove that chocolate causes happiness, it only shows that there is a correlation between people who eat chocolate, and them being happy.

Even if science never quite figures out what chocolate does to our moods, does it really matter?  Just because it is not proven that chocolate causes happiness, does not mean that it may not be correlated with it. So if you feel that eating chocolate makes you happy, go for it.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/chocolate-high.htm

When Valentine’s day comes around, the first gift we think of giving to that special someone is a box of chocolate.  But why do we relate chocolate to Valentine’s Day?  Well if you think about it, chocolate gives people a feeling that is very similar to the feeling of falling in love.  The feeling of excitement, giddiness, and sexual arousal, flood our bodies when we fall in love, or eat chocolate.

So how is it that chocolate can increase sexual arousal, heighten excitement, and create an overall feeling of pleasure?  Neurologists and Molecular Biologists have discovered that chocolate contains several compounds that create chemical reactions in the brain that make us feel these ways. This sounds to me like some sort of “high”. But can chocolate actually make those who eat it high?

Multiple compounds in chocolate can potentially make a person high.  For example, the most widely known and uses psychoactive drug in the world is found in chocolate; 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine, better known as caffeine.  Caffeine produces a stimulating effect by exciting the central nervous system which increases heart rate and contracts muscles.  This creates a fight or flight response sort of feeling.  Caffeine acts on dopamine receptors in the brain,  which results in a release of chemicals that causes pleasure.  Another compound found in chocolate that can cause a high are the fatty acids- cannabinoids.  Cannabinoids are related to an active ingredient in marijuana.  Cannabinoids act as a depressant, and hit receptors in the brain dealing with motor function and memory.  And when these receptors are hit by the cannabinoids, a person will start to feel a bit intoxicated and more relaxed.  Another proven belief, is that chocolate increases arousal when consumed.  This would make chocolate an aphrodisiac. Chocolate contains Phenethylamine, an endogenous alkaloid (also known as a ‘love chemical) that induces this sort of heightened sexuality and attraction.

Chocolate contains the same stimulating compounds in it as marijuana, morphine, and ecstasy.  So why aren’t hoards of people using chocolate instead of these other drugs?  The answer is because the amounts of most of these stimulating compounds in chocolate are relatively small.  And since humans consume more stimulants (such as coffee, cigarettes, and chocolate) than ever, our brains have become accustomed to these stimulating compounds.   So the low level of stimulating compounds in chocolate do not nearly have as large of an effect on us compared to marijuana and ecstasy.

Even if the compounds found in chocolate may be too minute for us to get a high, chocolate still has a slight effect on our brain chemistry which dictates how we feel.  In conclusion, chocolate cannot necessarily get us high, however, the low levels of stimulating compounds can react with our brain just enough to increase our sexual attractions and levels of excitement.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/chocolate-high2.htm

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

Hundreds of millions of school students and workers look forward to one thing; vacation.  It allows for the brain to take a break from weeks of strenuous work and for the body to re-energize itself, plus who wouldn’t want to kick back and enjoy a little TLC?  Some of the best ways to relax during vacation include traveling to distant locations, so that we can truly feel distant from the stress and work back home.   But are vacations all good?  Many people do not think about the negative effects vacations have on the environment.

“According to FlightStats, an online air travel stat source, an average of 90,000 commercial flights take off every day.” (Smithsonian)  A 747 commercial airplane burns gas at a rate of five gallons per mile, so that means 8,255 gallons of fuel are burned per flight.  And times 90,000 daily flights, equals about 740 million gallons of fuel burned every day by planes.  Now you may ask, so what? Well our atmosphere takes a big hit from all this gas emission.  “Jet fuel produces twenty-one pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per gallon burned.” (Smithsonian)  These airplanes emit their fumes directly into the upper atmosphere where they may linger for a long period of time and cause more damage to our atmosphere.

Ever heard of our carbon footprint?  That “footprint” is the amount of carbon dioxide each person creates.  Burning any type of fuel creates carbon dioxide, so whenever we drive a car, or ride ion an airplane, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  All the carbon dioxide from burned jet fuel being put in our atmosphere is a large contributor to global warming.  “Though air travel emissions now account for only about 5 percent of warming, that fraction is projected to rise significantly”. (NY Times) This is because more people can now afford to travel by air because the tickets are getting less and less expensive. The amount of people traveling by air is increasing much faster than the flight fuel efficiency levels.

For many vacationers, airplane flights are their biggest environmental sin.  Research has shown that “One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year.”  (NY Times)  Five long flights per year accounts for three-quarters of the carbon dioxide emissions you create.

Vacation doesn’t sound so nice anymore does it? It would be very beneficial for our earth’s atmosphere if fewer carbon dioxide emissions were circulating up there.  But for the most part, not many people will give up a well-deserved relaxing trip, just for the environment’s benefit.  So for now, scientists and engineers can work towards building more fuel efficient planes. These planes could reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into our atmosphere because of burning jet fuel.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/how-bad-is-air-travel-for-the-environment-51166834/#eKyGTAQYcFTyWGrl.99

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html?_r=0

It is hard to find a person who has not heard about Ebola, this deadly virus has spread worldwide, through news and quite literally.  The Ebola virus is believed to have originated in a “traditional healer”  in West Africa.  This traditional healer had been dealing with bats which most likely gave her the disease, then she she died and the people who buried her had caught the virus from dealing with her dead body.  The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has done much research and tests which have shown that Ebola can only be transmitted if one comes in contact with an infected person’s blood or other body fluids.  In this sense it is very similar to how HIV/AIDS is transmitted.  And the researchers have declared that Ebola cannot be spread through air, water, or food. But many people are wondering, how long will it take before the virus has evolved enough to be airborne.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-we-be-more-concerned-about-the-potential-of-airborne-ebola

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Ebola-Virus-How-It-Spreads-FAQ-277662521.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

Ever since we were little, our mothers have pushed us to eat our vegetables so that we would grow up to be strong and healthy.  So now that we have a choice on what to eat, we still try to choose some fruits and vegetables to balance our diets and receive enough nutrients.  But even though we are eating what seems healthy, is it actually healthy if it is not organically made?  Many people argue the fact that organic produce is healthier than conventionally grown produce.  But why is this? And is it true?

Many studies done by universities, including Washington State, have done research that proves organically grown produce is not only healthier for the consumer, but for the earth itself.  Organic farms replace nutrients in their soil where they grow their products.  But industrial farms tend to just suck up all the nutrients from the soil without replacing any of them.  This causes the soil to erode and eventually turn into infertile soil oozing with chemicals.  Another way industrial farms negatively impact the environment is by all the pesticides they put in their produce.  The excess chemicals runoff from the farms into rivers which cause the fish to become infertile and the river ecosystem to die of the poison.

When consumers hear the word organic, they think “clean”.  Organic products have not been sprayed with any sort of pesticides or chemicals, so this gives them a natural look, feel, and taste.  Plus, added hormones, and pesticides are not healthy for the human body.  The food we consume should give us enough nutrients and vitamins without the help of hormones and added chemicals.  A study by Washington State University experimented with organic and conventionally grown strawberries to see which had more nutrients.  And in fact, the conventionally grown strawberries lost some of their vitamin content due to the added chemicals.

So in fact, it is true that organic produce is healthier for the human body, and for the environment itself.

http://www.grassrootsonline.org/news/articles/five-reasons-organic-food-good-you-and-planet

When we hear the word “Zombie” we think of gross dead people who have risen from their graves and want to eat our brains.  Popular movies and TV shows such as I am Legend, The Walking Dead, Zombieland, and World War Z have all dramatized and expanded on the Zombie apocalypse, making it a nation-wide interest.  And many people have actually come to believe that such an outbreak amongst humanity can occur.

The H1N1 flu epidemic was so contageous, and deadly, that it created a world-wide scare for many people that the apocalypse could happen.  There are in fact, some diseases that can alter the wires in the human brain, and make them act in an insane and barbaric manner.  One parasite called toxoplasmosa gondii, commonly found in rats, actually invades the brain and forces the rats to do reckless and barbaric acts.  Horrifyingly enough, half the human population actually has these parasites in their body already.  The parasites have not yet adapted to the human host bodies, and have not yet learned how to control the human brain.  But in the future the parasites could very well adapt and make us act like the infected rats.

Another commonly known disease is Mad Cow disease.  Originating in cows, it can be spread to any human who eats the infected meat.  Some side effects are changes in walking, hallucinations, stumbling, muscle twitching, seizures, and a rapid development of dementia.  Now none of these symptoms are violent in any way, but the virus can very easily evolve into something more violent.

So with the current diseases the world currently has, there will not be a mass chaos, full blown, zombie apocalypse.  But who knows, these viruses could very well adapt, and evolve into more violent versions, and humanity could actually face a wide-spread epidemic!

http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen_p3.html

Curse words and hatred run through our minds every time we hear the alarm go off in the morning.  We think to ourselves, “It can’t be 7am already?!”, as we dread getting out of our warm cozy beds and are forced to start another day of work.  Soon enough we’re in class and feeling super groggy and dazed.  Our quickest solution to getting over sleepiness is a big cup of coffee.  Not only is it delicious, but the caffeine gives us the energy boost we need to survive the rest of the day.  But the question here is caffeine addictive?

The average college student drinks about three cups of coffee a day.  Some of you would think this to be very minimal, but three could lead to four cups, which could lead to seven cups, and so on.  People may ask “so what?” but too much caffeine has been proven to be somewhat addictive.  Like other addictive drugs, people who drink caffeine regularly can become mildly dependent on it.  Caffeine is a stimulant which effects the central nervous system, so that is why we feel a boost of energy after consuming it.  There are also some withdrawal symptoms if you are a regular coffee drinker and stop taking caffeine abruptly.  These symptoms include headache, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, depressed mood, and a difficulty in concentrating.

Sure, caffeine withdrawal can be unpleasant, but in no way is it as painful as other addictive drugs withdrawal.  And there have only been a few rare occasions of caffeine overdoses leading to death.  In these cases, the victims had taken caffeine supplement pills.  The amount of caffiene they had consumed with these pills would be the same as drinking six gallons of coffee.  In other words, it is almost impossible to overdose and die because of caffeine.

Because of the mild withdrawal effects, and low probability of overdose, most health experts would not categorize caffeine as addictive, but more of a “dependence”.

resources:

How Much Coffee Does America Drink?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/caffeine-myths-and-facts

Every college student strives to find the best method for them to concentrate and study.  Some focus on the location of studying, like a quiet library, or a little private nook.  But studies have shown that a major factor in concentration and focus during studying is music.

Music can be a distraction to some, but the right kind of music can help you relax.  Music with a high tempo and words often clouds the brain, and makes it hard to retain information being read.  Music that has 60 beats-per-minute puts the brain in a “bright and breezy” frame of mind.  In this state your thinking and creativity are said to be easier. Classical music ,such as Mozart, are in this category.

The Center for New Discoveries in Learning is an organization that has been researching and performing studies to try to find ways to help kids excel in their schoolwork.  They conducted an observational study by having students listen to classical music by Mozart (with 60 beats-per-minute) while doing homework.  The students reported feeling calmer while studying, having the ability to study longer, and having a higher retention rate.  

But if classical music is not your thing, there are other types of music that can increase your concentration level as well.  Low-key sounds from nature (such as waterfalls, rain, ocean waves) also keep your brain engaged at a lower, subconscious level.

So if you want to increase your level of focus and concentration during study sessions, give listening to some classical music a go!

Resources:

The Mozart Effect How Music Makes You Smarter

http://uncc49er.com/622/music-can-help-you-study/

Starting in the 1950’s, technology around the world had advanced enough to send satellites and rockets into space.  The Soviet Union officially started the Space Age when they launched Sputnik, humanity’s first satellite, out of Earth’s atmosphere and into space.  This launch sparked a race between different nations around the world to see who could explore space the most.  The space age is when people really started to wonder and become curious about forms of life outside of Earth and the phenomena of Aliens was created.

Many of us are intrigued by the fact that there could potentially be life outside of our solar system. Earth’s tilt, orbit, and proximity to the Sun are all contributing factors as to why life is possible on this planet.  Our proximity and tilt towards the sun is what causes seasonal changes and different temperatures.  So if any of those factors were to shift or change in the slightest bit, seasonal change would occur around the world and a domino effect would take place after that. Who knows what would happen to Earth’s life cycle if our fragile planet’s natural motion was altered!

With that being known, scientists have hypothesized that if there was another star (like our Sun) with a planet orbiting it in such a way that Earth does, then that planet’s environment could potentially host forms of life.

For a long time NASA and other scientists debated if there were forms of life on our neighbor planet, Mars.   Satellite images and pictures taken from robotic spacecrafts have shown that there may be life there.  The pictures contain figures and images of water and foot prints on the ground.  But these images are often blurry and could be explained by many different things.  In addition to inefficient photo evidence, the conditions on Mars are not life friendly. Mars’ average temperature is a chilling -81 degrees Fahrenheit.  This is because distance from the sun directly correlates with temperature, so the farther away a planet is from the sun, the lower the temperature is.  Despite the numerous facts against life being possible on mars, some people still argue that no human has ever landed on Mars, so how could we know for sure?

Do you believe there could be life on Mars? Or in a distant galaxy?

Resources

What Is The Space Age?

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/life-on-mars.html