One of the most critical ways to determine categorize the seriousness of a deadly virus is to measure its ability to spread. The latest Ebola epidemic is a major issue in today’s medical news as the infectious disease continues to be transmitted to others which leads to the death of approximately seven out of ten people who has the virus. This statistic may install fear in a lot of people; however, there are lots of diseases that have high mortality rates as well for an example, rabies. If untreated, once the symptoms appear for rabies, it is a 100% chance that you will die from it. The real that should be accounted for is how proficient is the disease to spread. Unless you are bit by a wild or stray animal such as a stray dog or raccoon then the possibility of you getting rabies is quite small. This same concept can be applied to the transmission of Ebola from one person to another. From my research I believe that Ebola is not a risk to be concerned about for us in the U. S. from the sole reason on how it is transmitted.

The Ebola virus is spread through the air. There are two ways by air in which viruses can be spread and they are droplet transmission and airborne transmission. Airborne transmission transmits the virus through small droplets that float in the air beyond thirty feet. Through droplet transmission, virus is transmitted by large droplets that quickly falls to the ground and travels far less than airborne transmission. Ebola is spread by the means of droplet transmission and is limited to travel three to six feet. So unless you come in contact with the pathogen fluid from the infectious victim than you will not get the virus as shown below.

NPR states that viruses’ contagiousness is measured by R nought. R nought is a mathematical term that states the average of how many people who can catch the disease from one sick person during an outbreak. Ebola only has an R nought of two, Mumps have an R nought of 4, Mumps has an R nought of 10, and Measles has an R nought of 18 (The chart below shows a visual of the contiguous these diseases).

At first I thought that despite only having an R nought of two still could in time grow to a vast number, since in theroy the number of invectious is doubling. However, after looking further into this theory I have found this would only occur with countries that have poor health systems. Despite the transmission of the virus to the two health workers in Texas, that is and will continue to be a rae occurance due to the ineffeciency of Ebola and the safictication of the United States  healthcare system. In addition, our healthcare workers can quickly isolate victim before they become contaigious which is when symptoms occur.

In conclusion, the ebola virus is a very deadly disease, yet it is inefficent and wouldn’t preveil in a country with good health care such as the U.S. The only way to obatin the ebola virus is to come in close contact with someone that has it. The U.S. and many other countries can manage the virus effectivey. More contagious desisesase such as Measle, which is uprising today, should  be a greater concern.

Earlier in the semester we had a guess speaker come to talk to us. I do not remember his name but what he said really stuck in my memory that “if we stopped eating beef, we could drastically minimize emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. During the lecture we were shown a website that evaluates the result of the atmosphere after chosen additions at chosen levels. It amazed me that if we cut down on beef consumption would help our environment and after through research on the topic, I believe there should be some action on lowering the demand on beef products rather than invest all of our time on things such as, grasping the use of ocean when that is already catching when we can make a larger impact in other places.

I asked people how they help with the environment, I received answers such as recycling, turning off unused objects to conserve energy, and taking public transportation instead of driving. I responded “these is all good things but what if I told you that you can make a significant impact on global warming by ceasing to eat beef?” Each reaction to that question was similar, an endless stare, stating that they cannot do that, and that it was a lie followed by a laugh. These views is what a large part of the world would agree with especially in the United States. In fact, 586 million tons of milk and 59 million tons of beef are consumed today. Majority of it is consumed by the U.S.  Moreover, the demand of beef is expected to rise to 76% by 2050 and dairy products are expected to rise to 65%.

Based on a London-based study, production livestock causes 14.5% of the world’s total emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This large percentage is greater than the percentage of all emissions of transportation vehicles such as planes, trains, ships, cars, and trucks in the whole world. It also has a larger percentage than the percentage of the United States emission of greenhouse gases as a whole. Two categories cause the most emissions, they are the fertilizer and manure to maintain their grazing pastures which counts for 47%. The other category is when they exhale, burp, and fart which counts for 39%.

So why does cows produce so much greenhouse gases when cows have been eaten for centuries. The answer to that is because of the growing number of productions of cows. The increase has called for an improvement in feeding tactics. Thus, the industry moved from use of natural grass for feeding they resorted to adding perennial ryegrass seeds, manure, and fertilizers to efficiently grow grass in larger quantities and in shorter time periods. The ryegrass seeds is a third variable. I believe so because the ryegrass prevents other other plants from growing, it lacks nutrition, and it cows cannot digest it. The undigested grass then ferments in the cows’ stomachs and combines with microbes to produce gas.

Our world is torn on this subject. It surprises me that we the people are ignorant to the major cause of global warming or maybe we are not ignorant, but instead maybe we are just ignoring. The government do not want to make changes with meat consumption because they fear of backlash from society. However, I the government is worried more so about the political aspect of making change rather than the benefits for the environment.

In conclusion, something needs to be done to lower the emotions from our livestock. I do not think we can make people cease to eat beef because for one it goes against the rights of people. Secondly, there are 852 million people malnourished; thus, we cannot take away a food source when there are so many people who are hungry. In addition, 75% of the emittions from cows comes from developing countries. Therefore, I do not have any absolute solutions to the problem other than try to find away lower the amount of greenhouses coming from the cows as well as find substitutes for the manure and fertilizers used to grow their food. Since controlled experiments have been done, I do not believe there reverse causations can occur. The greenhouse gases does not because the cows cause the gases, but there may be a third variable which is the perennial ryegrass seeds.

Since I was little I always know studies have been down on animals. As I grew older I learned that many scientific advances that I take for granted today are available because of the sacrifices of animals. The sacrifices that we made of them not by choice. Lots of people are animal lovers and in some religions animals are worshiped, yet we use them in harmful experiments that limit their lives and make them perform things that they normally would not do. Thus, I decided to do research on how many people think it is right to use animals for experiments and how many people do not. Please take the poll below so I can see how others feel about the topic.

http://goo.gl/heUFvR  (To take the poll)

http://goo.gl/Eh8mUi  (To see the results)

This question has been debated for a long time. Both sides have good arguments to support their views.  One argument for animal testing is that through their experiments, scientist have been able to create lifesaving cures and treatments.  In fact, nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has been found through the experimentation on animals says “The California Research Association.” Some of the most notable discoveries through animal experimentation are the finding of insulin through removing the pancreas of a dog. Another discovery is advancements in childhood Leukemia well as testing the effectiveness of a Polio vaccine. Another argument for experiments on animals is because some studies that need to be done but are not ethical for humans; thus, in order to complete studies that could potentially save the lives of humans animals need to be used as living, whole body substitute. In addition, some animals are close in DNA as humans so to spear the life of humans they are used instead. For an example, Chimps have 99% of the same DNA that we have and mice are 98% genetically similar. Another argument is that animals benefit just like we do from being tested on vaccines because if we do not find effective vaccines than animals will also catch diseases. Other arguments for experiments on animals include  that animals do not have rights so it is tolerable, that animals make better test subjects than humans because they do not leave as long, and there are regulations that make sure the animals are treated correctly and scientist themselves treat them humanely so they would compromise the experiments. Moreover, 90% of biomedical scientist believe that it is acceptable to experiment on animals.

Those were some pretty good arguments; however, the arguments against experimentation on animals have good points as well. One argument against experimenting on animals is that they are inhumane. Some of cruel experiments include depriving animals of food and water, giving animals wounds, making them inhale toxic cases, and giving them disease such as cancers and aids. Shampoo companies even use animals as test subjects to observe effects of their products which can give animals, skin irritation. Another argument against experimentation on animals is that today there are substitute experiments that can be used for scientific discoveries such as studying cell cultures in petri dishes, using small doses in humans if they fear it might do them harm, or use artificial human skin. Alternatively, scientist are artificial organs with skin cells to stimulate real human organs. Other arguments include that animals differ from animals so tests are not reliable, the drugs that pass with animals are not guaranteed safe, and some tests may deceive us on how effective treatments are. For an example, Aspirin is hazardous to some animals yet, it is beneficial to us.

In conclusion, I believe that using animals as experiments is inhumane. It is hypocritical for us to use animals as test experiments. This is abuse and it is similar, but to a lesser extent, to Nazi experiments on people. Animals have rights and we need to protect them. As I said in the beginning I since I was a child I have known animals to have been experimented on. However, these experiments that I were taught was of a chimp going to space and a sheep, a duck, and a rooster in a hot air balloon. Those experiments back then were amusing, but what I know today is not. 87% of the studies did not randomize their control animals. In addition, 86% did not use double blind placebo trials. Moreover, only 59% of the studies even stated the studies’ hypotheses and the amount of animals’ features used.Not to mention that, 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. So if you haven’t taken the poll please do so now and check out what other class mates think.

http://animal-testing.procon.org/

Sharp, Tim. “The First Hot-Air Balloon | The Greatest Moments in Flight.”Space.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2014.

I have a very bad habit and no it is not smoking, drinking, or drugs. My bad habit can be found in everyone’s kitchen at home and dorm here in State College. Microwave addiction, well it is not really an addiction of a microwave but I do have a need for my food to be extremely hot when I eat it. Almost everything I eat I put in the microwave. Not to cook it but to heat it up. It is so bad that even when having a pizza delivered I go straight to the kitchen to warm it up. My family always make fun of me for it but it may not be that funny because my small problem today of having to eat hot food may turn to a bigger problem down the road from using the microwave too much.

I decided to do some research to see how microwaving food may be effecting my body. One negative of using microwaves is that the water molecules in the food and the microwave quickly revolve in high frequencies. As a result, the food gets warmed up from the molecular friction. The molecular composition of the food then changes which reduces the nutrients in the food. Another negativity with heating food in the microwave is that carcinogens are formed in the food once you heat plastic covered food and food inside non-microwave safe plastic containers in the microwave. In addition, microwaves are bad for you because they can change your heart rate due to the radiation frequency produced by microwaves. The 2.4 GHz radiation instantaneously causes dramatic changes in to your heart rate. Moreover, a Swiss clinical study has found that microwaves can change the makeup of your blood. The study has found that the eight individuals in the study consumed microwaved mile and vegetables had their blood changed as a result. The study has also found that the individuals’ red blood cells have diminished, yet their white blood cells and cholesterol has increased.

I have also found other evidence that supports that microwave ovens are not harmful to human beings. The cancer research UK website has stated that microwaves are not radioactive, will not cause cancer, nor harm you in any way if you follow the instructions for use. A modern microwave oven in good condition only effect the nutritional value of your food if you over cook your food. It can be healthy to use a microwave to cook your food if you use a little water so you will not overcook it.

In conclusion, I believe that it is safe to eat food heated in the microwave. There are some exceptions but that is only if you do not follow directions. Sitting in a chair is safe for you but if you do not use it properly it can be potentially harmful; the same goes for microwaves. For myself, I will continue to use microwaves to heat up my food but I just have to be mindful that I am not overcooking my food and reducing its nutrients. Also, I have to be cautious of non-microwaveable cookware. From the study who provided is not strong enough to change my views on microwaves because the study was two small, it wasn’t mentioned if the test subjects were random, and there were no mention of a control group.

Something that many of us had in common despite where we are from, background, color of our skin etc. is that we wore diapers when we were younger. We all know someone who has kids who wear them. We have been taught that babies need them and we will probably use them on our children as well. However, there are many harmful effects of babies wearing disposable diapers.

From my research I have found that diapers are laced with dioxins because they many diapers are bleached with chlorine. The World Health Organization has stated that dioxins can cause developmental delays, damage immunity, hormone interference, and certain cancers. Another disapproval of diapers is that they release volatile organic compounds or VOCs into the atmosphere which harmfully effects the atmosphere as well as cause neurological problems, eye irritation, and reduces immunity. Moreover, diapers receive disapproval because it contains sodium polyacrylate or SAP. SAP was once used in tampons, but was removed for causing Toxic Shock Syndrome, yet it is still used in babies’ diapers. SAP is also known for causing skin irritation and staph infections. Diapers not only have a negative effect with babies, but it also has a negative effect on the environment. Disposable diapers does not break down for approximately 500 years. Thus, landfills are filled with disposable diapers far older than the oldest person on earth. And that also means that all those diapers you had when you were younger didn’t disappear; in fact, they are still here and will continue to be once your baby is in diapers and their baby in diapers and at least three more generations of diapers will have passed before your diapers will decompose.

However, some people is for the use of disposal diapers. Their argument is that they have absorbent gels which can engross large amounts of liquid without becoming soaked. As a result, babies feel less discomforted for a longer amount of time once their diaper is wet. Another argument made is that disposable diapers attracts the liquid into the gelled layer which keeps the liquid away from babies’ skin. Consequently, babies’ skin are less subjected to contact with urine and stool. Also, some diapers are more breathable by letting more air to the babies’ skin. Additionally, some contain a skin protector ointment barrier for the babies’ skin.

In conclusion, I believe that other alternatives should be taken into consideration because of the fact that it take so long for disposable diapers to break down. However, the benefits for protecting the babies’ skin in great. The use of cloth diapers can be a good alternative to disposable diapers and more cost effective as well.

Growing up I use to watch cartoons and during one an elephant was scared of a mouse. Back then it didn’t occur to me why would a big animal as an elephant be so scared of something as small as a mouse. My curiosity today is what motivated me to do some research behind the topic. What I found is very interesting. The first question that needed to be answer was if it is even true that elephants are scared of mice. Please take a minute to watch this clip of results from a TV series called “Mythbusters.”

As you can see from their experiment they found that it is plausible that elephants are indeed afraid of Mice. From what I can see their experiment seems to be well conducted and direct causation occurs or that the elephants that they used are scared of the mouse due to chance. It cannot be reverse causation because mice being afraid of the elephant cannot cause the elephant to be afraid of the mice.

So the next question is why? From research I found out that elephants are scared of mice like the “Mythbusters’” experiment suggest; however, it is not really the mice that the elephants are afraid of. Okay, that sounds a bit confusing so to clarify, in actuality it is the quick movements and sound of the mouse, yet not being able to see the mouse which the elephant is actually afraid of. This is due to elephants having a great sense of hearing but poor sense of sight. When mice move quickly and make noises that elephants cannot see it signals danger to the elephants. I believe this theory makes sense because if for an example it is a lion or another predator animal is stalking the elephant and the elephant can hear it but cannot see it then it will install fear. Thus, since elephants cannot see the mouse it infers that it could be a predator. From my perspective this goes this theory goes with a lot of different animals including humans because although we can defend ourselves we would still have fear if we can hear something and can only see its swift movements but cannot see what it is. This video from an ABC special supports this theory.

From this video I can see that they tried to see if all the elephants would be afraid. None of the elephants appeared to be afraid so we can see that sense the elephants can see the mice at eye level rather than on the ground as in the Mythbusters experiment then the elephants would not be scared. Another thing that can be the reason why these elephants were not scared and I think should be strongly thought about is that these elephants are trained not to panic and be scared. If one of these elephants were to get scared or panic it would transfer those same emotions to the rest of the elephants and there would be a tragic disaster at the circus. In addition, as the man mentioned in the video mice are normally seen around the hay that they feed the elephants so maybe they are used to the mice, on the contrary, in the wild mice may tend to stay away from the elephants so they do not usually cross paths.

In conclusion, yes elephants are not actually scared of mice they are afraid of not being able to see the mice but knowing something is there. In fact, an elephant would be scared of a bird or even a squirrel under the same circumstances. This hypothesis is plausible but not confirmed. The elephants in Mythbusters were scared of the mice yet the elephants from the ABC special were not.

http://www.livescience.com/33261-elephants-afraid-of-mice-.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKEZbR7DkKc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXiMs65ZAeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqaxF-CKt0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Xzy25-Ouc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVaVp12WI0A

If you are sick how far are willing to go get better. There is new controversial medicine on the market that consists of another person’s fecal matter. Fecal transplants can save people’s lives of those who suffer from a digestive order called clostridium difficile colitis or C. Diff. C. Diff occurs when the balance of bacteria, both good and bad, are disrupted in your stomach and intestines. As a result, clostridium difficile bacteria excessively grows to harmful levels and releases toxins that attack the lining of their intestines. Having this condition cause infectious diarrhea. In fact, 14,000 United States citizens die each year from this infectious are disease.

Fecal transplants itself however, is not a new discovery. Fecal transplants actually began on animals that had severe diarrhea. It wasn’t until 1958 when doctors started to perform the transplant in humans. Lawrence Brandt, a surgeon at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, stated that his performed fecal transplants were a success of curing his patients in a few days’ time.

Standard treatment today includes long term use of antibiotics, gastrointestinal surgery, and use of chemotherapy drugs. But with this new “Frozen Poop Pill” is an alternative treatment that could be less painful as surgery, less time consuming as antibiotics, and just as effective as any other option that is available today. The “Frozen Poop Pill” contains the good microorganisms of a healthy donor’s stool that when ingested will restore your digestive track back to normal.  The microorganisms can only survive less than six hours once collected; thus, they are frozen to be preserved. Age was not a factor because the study found that the pill worked on individuals from eleven to eighty-nine years old.

A doctor named IIan Youngster performed a small study of 20 individuals. The study included giving the twenty individuals with C. Diff disease two frozen fecal pills for fifteen days for a total of thirty pills. Over the course of the experiment fourteen out of twenty patients recovered from the diseases and four more recovered after another implementation of pills. The last two people; however, did not recover, which is believed to be because of poorer health. The experiment was 90 percent successful reported in the “Journal of American Medical Association.” They performed the study for the second time of a group of twenty one individual and the results were conclusive to the first.

These two studies were the only two that I have found on the pills and they are both by the same group. But what I have found is that although the studies show a success, there is still a battle with the FDA to get the drug approved for usage. In order to become approved, the pills have to have come from a known individual of the patient or the doctor which means it will be hard to mass produce this pills.

In conclusion, I think this idea sounds interesting; however, I believe it will take a while before it will ever get approved. I say this because for one with the FDA’s process of getting approved standing in the way, it will be too much time and money to produce these pills for patients. Secondly, I believe it will take a while before it will ever get approved because as Dr. Hohmann states, “there’s always the possibility that unknown infectious agents could be transmitted this way” such as blood borne disease for instance, Hepatitis C. In addition, more research needs to be done with larger groups of people. Maybe even double blind placebo trails; conversely, it would be difficult because the pills are noticeable because they are transparent. The pills have to be transparent because need to be acid resistant in order to make it to your intestines which only comes in transparent and has to have its transparent. Thus, more research and is needed as well as solutions to mass producing before this idea of the future can become the reality of the present.

http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2014/10/13/20551/As-Frozen-Poop-Pills-Shown-to-be-Effective-in-Study-FDA-Policy-in-the-Spotlight/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/11/355126926/frozen-poop-pills-fight-life-threatening-infections

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/pills-frozen-poop-fight-killer-disease?mode=topic&context=39

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/explainer-what-c-difficile

When you are born, you are given all the brain cells that you are ever going to have with that being said we need to be more conservative about them because once you lose them you can never regenerate them. Since it is coming close to the weekend I wanted to post this to make you think a little more about the decisions you make as a college student.

So yes we are all independent now and is exposed to lots of new things. Drugs and alcohol is a major problem in campuses in the U.S. Drugs and alcohol can be found anywhere and this is alarming to think about for many reasons but one in particular would be since your amount of brain cells is limited, how does these substances affect your brain cells.

First, alcohol has not major effect on the brain if you drink occasionally. Even if you go hard one night and get a nasty hangover it still will not have an effect on your brain cells. However, regular habits of drinking a lot and hangovers will cause some of your brain cells to die. When you wake up with a bad hangover and have a high fever can be deadly and if you survive it can still leave your brain in critical condition. In fact, 10 minutes of a fever at 106 degrees Fahrenheit kills about 50 million brain cells.

Second, I want to talk to you about is weed. Weed has been found to kill brain cells too. More and more people are starting to smoke weed because it is readily available, it is a cheep buzz that relaxes you, and people try to fit in with the crowd. However, you should think about what are the effects on your brain the next time someone offers you a puff of weed. Ask yourself am I in college to build my knowledge or am I here to smoke and lose it?

Learning about these effects on your brain cell by abusing alcohol and weed made me very curious. So curious, that I decided to look at other drugs that kill your brain cells that people may use and/or abuse most importantly with us “College Kids.” The information that I found was astounding, we are the future and as the future doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientist, technology designers,  etc. we need to be more aware of the risk we are taking by taking drugs and alcohol.

Coming to college I have learned that  Adderall is a drug that can make you smarter or study smarter, something like that. It is now one of the most major drugs taken on campus. If you have 4 exams this week, take Adderall and you will focus more and do well on the tests. That is just one of many scenarios why one will find a necessity to take the drug. Adderall is so easily available on campus that someone can even get it at the substitute for it. If you guessed the library then you were right. I watched a video in high school were kids randomly asked another kid for Adderall in one of the isles in the library and that same kid sold them some. But what I did not know but I found in my research is that Adderall actually kills brain cells over time if abused.

Other drugs that has effects on your brain cells are steroids, nitrous oxide, and ecstasy all kill your brain cells.  Inhalants such as inhaling paint, whiteout, and I even heard about huffing coolants from central air units also kills your brain cells. In addition, PCP causes lesions on the brains of rats, and , methamphetamines causes effects to your brain similar to the effects of Alzheimer’s disease, and ketamine is linked to the death of neurons. Moreover, Xanax or Valium used over time kills blood cells and can even cause dementia, cocaine kills cells that cause pleasure, and cigarettes and tobacco products cause white blood cells to attack brain cells.

In conclusion, I believe that students should try to better evaluate the risk of taking these drugs and alcohol because it is not just the short term affects that should be of concern but also the long term affects, more specifically with the brain. From my research these substances are dangerous when abused and have a correlation with the killing of brain cells.

Gloom. “List Of Things That Kill Brain Cells: The Death of Neurons.” List Of Things That Kill Brain Cells: The Death of Neurons. Mental Health Daily, 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

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 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.

“Sex” it is a part of human nature. Without sex all of us would not be here. To some it can be magical and to others a quite disappointment but studies have shown that people should have sex every day.

Today society desires and revolves around sex with most music, television shows, movies, and other entertainment promotes sexual promiscuity. From my research I have found that frequent sexual intercourse has many positives to it. For one sex helps with a person’s self-worth. For an example, if a woman is tired both mentally and physically after working, taking care of the children, cleaning the house, and preparing dinner day in and day out; then sex will help her to feel more appreciated. Same goes for if a man comes home from work after working a double, sex will help him feel more appreciated as will. Thus, sex every day is both stimulating for both men’s and female’s self-worth.

Another reason is you can turn arguments into love with sex every day is because you relationships and it is hard to find time for one another sometimes. So to have sex and to give each other one on one attention is beneficial to a relationship.

In addition, sex helps to relieve stress. All the worries you may have are temporarily disappeared when in the bedroom. Sex takes your mind off these things such as work and bills and transforms into positive sensations. Without question I am sure that lots of people would choose having sex to release stress over hitting a pillow to relieve stress and definitely over keeping the stress in.

However, a study done on sheep by the University of Sterling shows that too much sex can cause a decrease in sperm count in male sheep. This side effect can subside all the other positives in individuals. For an example, some people with an already low sperm count may think twice before having sexual intercourse every day.

In conclusion, I feel as though people should have sex every day because there are lots of good benefits that come along with it. For a college student the decrease in stress is definitely worth it. Also, I believe it is good form of exercise which may be good for someone without excess to a gym. Not to mention the fun out of having sex so I would suggest others to have sex at a higher frequency.

In 2012, A twenty-two year old Virginia girl named Lauren lifted a car off of her father. Her father had jacked up his car while he was fixing it; however, the jack had slipped and the car pinned down on him. Lauren spun into action and with superhuman like strength she lifted the car of him and performed CPR and saved his life.

You can look up many more stories similar to this one. So why can these people gain this supernatural strength? What is a scientific explanation for these stories? The hypotheses that some people came up with is that fear enhances our physical and mental capabilities.  For instance watch this video and take this guy as an example:

He outran a hippo, which is the leading killer of humans in Africa. Out of fear his physical capabilities allowed him to outrun a hippo which can run up to about 19 mph. This is the same idea of what gives people the strength to lift cars off of children. The reasoning behind it is that our body naturally restricts our physical capabilities to lower the chance of use gaining an injury. Thus, we can only use about 65 percent of our body’s physical capabilities. On the contrary, fear enables us to bypass this restraints and use around 80 percent of our physical capabilities. This hypotheses holds true to many people because all the stories in comparison has individuals who have fear and then fulfilling an unbelievable feat.

Although this hypotheses sounds to be true, there is no factual data to support it. Therefore, there are contradicting views that disagree with the fear conclusion. Yes, it is true that our bodies restrict our physical capabilities; however, we cannot control fear so we cannot just turn fear on and pick up a car in a split second before it crushes someone. Also, one more major objection to the fear hypotheses would be since fear increases our body strength only about 15 percent then it would be impossible for let’s say a 100 pound women to lift a 3,000 pound car off of a child. With that being said this stories might be nothing more than just stories. I’d like to hear what my fellow classmates think and what do you decide… Does fear make you superhero or are these stories something to tell your children to let them know it is okay to be scared?

Wise, Jeff. “Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped Child.” Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Sussex Publishers, 4 Nov. 2010. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.

“Hysterical Strength.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.

Are you one of those people who have a good dream yet when you wake up you cannot remember the dream or only parts of it? Don’t worry you are not alone, lots of people experience this. Dreams are something that we do not really have that much information about. In fact, the brain itself is mostly unknown to us. Thus, we do not know why we forget the dreams, but since we do not entirely forgot the whole dream and the lost parts seem to come back to us as the day goes leads to the theory that we lost the ability to access the memories of the dreams once we awake.

Dreams are often are about your feelings and thoughts majority of your dreams have some meaning to it which is corresponding to your thoughts and feelings. Thus, you can manipulate what you will dream about through your thinking right before you go to sleep.

Nightmares are not just dreams that scare kids but also adults. Watching scary movies before bed can induce a nightmare because that is your lasting thoughts of the night and tends to be your thoughts over the course of the money which is usually about two hours. Therefore, your dreams will be impacted by the movie. Also, nightmares can be induced by stress, traumatic events, and your feelings. Research has found that people who are sensitive, trusting, and more emotion are usually likely to suffer from recurrent nightmare.

“Common Questions About Dreams – International Association for the Study of Dreams.” Common Questions About Dreams. International Study of Dreams,Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Super Earth

What 16 new super earths? Yes, it is true astronomers have found 16 new “Super Earth” planets with one of them being capable of sustaining life because it falls in orbit around its star in a safe habitable zone in the same way that our planet does.

What does this mean? It means that we may not be the only planet that has life on it. I am not saying that there are aliens like the ones that you see on movies out there on this planet. But what I will say that it could be organisms such as bacteria, hosts like worms, or small insects like the ones that we find here on earth. If this “Super Earth” has water on it then it could be possible that it may contain organisms similar to fish. Wouldn’t it be cool if the planet contained the same organisms as ours, how could science explain that? I hope that some of these answers be explained during my life time. As the technology advances as lots of the other post proves by my fellow classmates, it shows that we are getting closer to answering some of the questions that scientist have spent their whole lives trying to answer.

But, these planets are far away and getting to them would be an ultimate challenge. I think our earth should be considered “Super” it is unbelievable and just like we have questions for planets that we have never seen. We also have questions about our magnificent planet that we all call home.

“16 New Super Earths.” Space.com. Purch, Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Human Calculator

After reading a post of a fellow classmate about superheros it actually brought back a memory of a television show that I had watched called Stan Lee’s Super Humans. This gave me an idea about this post. We may not have people like superman, spider-man, or the incredible hulk; nevertheless we do have people with extraordinary supernatural powers. What I have to share is not about actual superpowers like strength but instead is about super intelligence. One in particular would be a man named Scott Flansburg.  He is in the Guinness’ World Records for having the fastest speeds of mental math.

You can ask Scott to add five 3-digit numbers and he can do so with ease before you can even punch the numbers into your calculator. He can also replicate this supernatural talent with division, times tables, and other math problems. Scott travels to different school taking to children, give lectures and speeches to adults at conferences, appears on talk shows to talk to everyone in the world.  There is no real explanation for Scott’s gift; however, he tries to teach others that they can calculate like him (not at the same rate of speed).

Click on this Washington Post article to see if toy can add like Scott.

Strauss, Valerie. “A Real “human Calculator”” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 21 Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

“Scott Flansburg The Human Calculator® | Global Ambassador of World Maths Day.” Scott Flansburg The Human Calculator. Web. 19 Sept. 2014

One of the biggest controversies in not only the scientific community but in also across the whole world is have we really been to the moon.  On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and ten others traveled and walked on the moon. However, twenty percent of Americans think that the whole thing was a lie. If you ask me I do not know what to believe, but contradicting evidence shows that maybe those twenty percent of Americans may be correct.

One reason that the landing on the moon is believed to be a hoax is because of the impact of landing of the lunar module. The controversy with the impact was that there wasn’t one. This would be highly unlikely because the moon’s surface is covered with dust. Thus, the impact of the module should have left some sort of crater or visual evidence that it has landed. My question that I would like to have answered by NASA, who were in charge of this space expedition, is how could there be footprints of the astronauts on the moon but not any visual impact of a module with thrusters landing on the moon?

Another reason the landing on the moon is believed to be a lie is because the photos that the astronauts took of the earth were lacking stars. But wait how this could be possible if I can look up at the sky and see thousands of them, but in their photos from the moon I cannot even see one. What makes it even more impossible for them to have not seen the stars from the moon is that there is no clouds on the moon so stars should be even more visible than viewing them from earth past its atmosphere.

VIEW FROM MOON LACKING STARS-IMAGE FROM HE MOONFROM THE MOON

VIEW OF STARS FROM THE SPACE STATION

My last reason why the landing on the moon is believed to be a fake is because of photos of the waving flag that the astronaut’s had planted on the moon’s surface. If you look at the photo of the flag, it appears to be waving and blowing in the wind. How could this be possible if there is no wind on the moon? The answer is because it can’t be possible.

I believe that there may have been one way to discover if this visitation to the moon was the truth or not. My idea would be as simple as looking through a telescope. If technology grants us the capabilities to see planets in distant galaxies, then we should be able to simply view the flag that the astronauts posted on the moon. Nonetheless, this idea may no longer be feasible due to an extended elapse of time.

Fox, Josh. “10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax – Listverse.”Listverse. Listverse, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Have You Ever Wanted To Travel To Space?

It is my dream to one day travel to space, how about you? Although many of us in this class do not have any aspiration to be a rocket scientist or have another dream other than being an astronaut, there are other options to be able to leave this planet and explore the unknown.

Space tourism have taken 40 years to become possible starting at a price of around $12,000 in 1964 to a jaw dropping $50 million today. So for me my dream of traveling to space has to go on hold until I hit the lottery. However, a space tourism company called Virgin Galactic is willing to take any healthy person into sub-orbit for $250,000.

A duel plane flies the actual space aircraft to a certain height and then releases it. The space aircraft then falls and boosters on the back propels the ship upwards until it gets to the ideal point for orbit.

I encourage everyone to take a look at what Virgin Galactic has to offer, although it may not be in many of our budgets today; on the contrary, it may be on one of our to do  list for the future. Not to mention those who are not sure what they want to do in the future may take an interest in this growing field of profession.Click Here to check out Virgin Galactic’s website it has cool videos and additional information about training, cost, the history behind it as well as brochures.

(I) I am taking this course to fulfill my requirements for my major and also because I heard good things about this class and Andrew.

(II) I am not planning to be a science major because I love money and I think I can gain more money in the business field. Well it’s not all about money to me; it is also, about helping people. I know I can help more people in the science field, but I think there are people who need help financially and that are the problems that they are aware of. I may can’t discover a cure to their disease but I can help people who are not sure how they are going to survive financially after they retire.