Lance Armstrong was a seven time cyclist winner of The Tour de France before he was caught cheating and had his titles taken away. Like myself, many of you may have been disappointed when his story of using ban substances and methods broke. It’s been confirmed that he had been using illegal methods and substances during all seven of his victories. Armstrong went so long with no one knowing of his indiscretions which made the story such a shock; but how could he possibly be using steroids for so long without being detected?

Armstrong’s method of choice was ‘blood-doping.’ This method involves the injection of erythropoietin, otherwise known as EPO. EPO is a naturally occurring hormone, buried by the kidneys, whose function is to regulate red blood cell production. EPO stimulates bone marrow to produce more red blood cells. For this reason EPO is most commonly used amongst endurance athletes as a higher red blood cell count, which essentially means better oxygen transportation and therefore a higher rate of respiration. The faster the rate of respiration, the higher the level at which the athlete can work without utilizing the anaerobic systems which produce lactic acid and cause fatigue. (teachpe.com).

Armstrong however wasn’t the only athlete to be caught using EPO over the years. Athletes including boxer Shane Mosley, cyclists Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis, Hockey player Alexi Cherepanov, skater Claudia Pechstein, and race walk champion Alex Schwazer have all been found doping on EPO as well.

The problem with EPO is levels too high can potentially increase hemoglobin beyond a reasonable measure, which in turn can result in a heart attack or stroke and heart failure which will commonly kill you in your sleep. EPO’s non-fatal side effects include dizziness, flu-like symptoms, headaches, muscle pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, high blood pressure, rash and in some cases hyperkalemia (steroriod.com).

Over the years so many athletes were able to use EPO because it was so difficult to detect. People already have naturally occurring EPO levels in their bodies and often test gave false positives. After all of the allegations of EPO use new tests were put in place which made this drug easier to detect. To test for blood doping or EPO use, several times a year blood samples will be taken and compared against an athlete’s benchmark, looking for unexpected increases in hematocrit levels. The acceptable limit is now 50% for men and 47% for women (bikesplit.com).

Today there are still flaws in the new testing method being that athletes can use EPO as long as they have periodic testing and don’t exceed the accepted levels, however this is a step in the right direction to prevent continuous cheating.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/world-at-play/lance-armstrong-oprah-what-is-epo-blood-doping

http://mic.com/articles/23350/lance-armstrong-epo-a-timeline-of-other-athletes-who-have-used-blood-doping

http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/epo.php

http://www.steroid.com/EPO.php

http://www.bikesplit.com/bsa17.htm

The first time I’ve heard of such a thing, I was flipping through my television and stopped at The History Channel. I’ve heard of humans’ unintentionally altering weather through global warming before, but I’ve never heard of anything like this. I continued to watch; I was fascinated.

A process in which we can intentionally alter weather is called Cloud Seeding.  Cloud Seeding uses silver iodine to mimic the ice nuclei that allows for the growth of water droplets increasing participation in the projected area. According to science.howstuffworks.com there are three types of cloud seeding, Static, Dynamic and Hygroscopic. Static Cloud Seeding involves the spreading of silver iodine into the clouds providing a crystal around which moisture can condense. Moisture is already present in the clouds the silver iodine essentially makes the rain clouds more effective in dispensing participation. Dynamic Cloud Seeding’s aim is to enhance vertical air currents to encourage more water to pass through the clouds; it uses about one hundred times more ice crystals than Static. This type of Cloud Seeding is more complex because it depends on a sequence of events working properly. If one event fails it can ruin the entire process making it less dependable than Static Cloud Seeding. Hygroscopic Cloud Seeding importantly differs from the other two methods. It dispenses salts through flares or explosives in the lower parts of the clouds allowing the salts to grow in size as water joins with them (science.howstuffworks).

Cloud seeding began as a United States Military project. Records indicate attempts began as early as the 1830s but wasn’t successful until 1915. In its first occurrence, the purpose was to end a drought in San Diego; The Cloud Seeding was led by Charles Hatfield, an American ‘rainmaker.’ In result, San Diego had a seventeen day down pour that totaled twenty-eight inches. The downpour had unintended consequences and turned fatal washing out more than one hundred bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless (globalresearch.ca).

The most recent usage of Cloud seeding was reported in China in 2008. The government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing.

Today, Cloud Seeding is controversial. Cloud Seeding may not be always successfully launch in its targeted and may cause the intended effects in an area different than the desired target area. Many ethical concerns arise in that activities conducted for the benefit of some may have an undesirable impact on others (ametsoc).

We may not have everything figured out when it comes to modifying the weather, but just the near discovery is progress among us. Millions of dollars are still being spent in research and testing to perfect weather modification such as Cloud Seeding.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2010plannedweathermod_cloudseeding_amsstatement.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

http://www.science.howstuffworks.com

As an avid diet coke drinker, I often hear from parents and peers how much worse for me diet soda is than regular soda. When I put Splenda instead of pure cane sugar on my food or in my drinks, I hear the same, that it’s worse for me. The rumor is that artificial sweeteners are worse for your body and give you more cravings? Is this true? And if so, why?

Today, society’s big time producers are under pressure to make healthier products. This includes less calories or if possible, zero. The calories from soda comes primarily from sugar so when producers take and the sugar, they create a zero calorie product. Sounds ideal right?

Well according to Business Insider’s Robert Ferris, diet sodas may actually be worse for your health and your waistline than ones with sugar. The most commonly used sweeteners are aspartame, sucralose, and saccharine. It turns out they might disarray with our bodies’ abilities to process the calories from authentic sweet things thus making it harder for us to metabolize the sugars we get from other sources.

Purdue University scientist Susan Swithers found in a meta-analysis of 26 health and diet studies that artificially sweetened sodas, unlike water, were often still associated with many of the same ailments common in people who drink sugary sodas, and may actually increase the risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes (BusinessInsider). Furthermore, Swithers says the trouble with artificial sweeteners is the same thing that makes them so popular, “they taste a lot like sugar and have few or zero calories. For example, the molecule for sucralose (found in products like Splenda), is extremely similar to the molecule for sugar. That is why it tastes eerily similar, it is tricking our bodies into thinking we are eating something sugary.”

On the contrary, CNN’s Jacque Wilson reports of a study conducted by the American Beverage Association, found that diet soda drinkers who continued to drink soda while on a diet lost more weight than diet soda drinkers who stopped. According to Dr. Jim Hill, a researcher on the study, the results weren’t surprising. Those who had to give up diet soda were relying on more willpower to stick to their diets than those who allowed themselves the small indulgence without the added calories, he says.

The data Swithers examines does not establish a direct cause and effect relationship between sweeteners and obesity, it simply sees a strong correlation just as strong as we see with regular soda. There could be other explanations.

A lot of studies suggest that over time whatever calories people think they are cutting with artificial sweeteners might just be returning to them in the form of poorly metabolized sugars from other foods but if they aren’t eating too many sugars from other foods, diet soda can be beneficial.

http://blog.foodnetwork.com/healthyeats/2013/04/23/food-fight-regular-soda-vs-diet-soda/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/health/soda-makers-cut-calories/

http://www.businessinsider.com/diet-soda-may-not-be-any-better-for-you-2013-7

Ever wonder why you get along so well with someone, or why you don’t? Or why you and your best friend are best friends? What makes you two closer than you and any of your other friends? Do you and your best friend consider each other sisters? Or brothers? According to studies you’re actually more similar to fourth cousins.

Often, best friends share a lot in common such as favorite foods, music taste and style. It turns out you share a lot more than that. According to a new study, you and your friends may share a high number of similar genes.

Researchers from the University of San Diego made the discovery after analyzing almost 1.5 million markers of gene variation from around 2,000 people. Pairs of unrelated friends were compared with pairs of unrelated strangers. The study found that, on average, about 1% of the genes of friends matched each other. “Friends with no biological connection had as much genetic similarity as fourth cousins or people who share great, great, great grandparents. (James Fowler)”

The focused primarily on four different senses and found that seminaries in genes affecting smell tended to be among the most similar friends. Scientist say it’s most likely because our sense of smell draws us to certain places. If you love them smell of candles just as much as another, this might draw you both into a candle shop frequently where it’s possible to have an encounter.

According to Professor Nicholas Christakis of Harvard University, the reasons for us being drawn to those who are genetically similar to ourselves include us being thrown together with people with similar interests in sports clubs or at university. Most of the time, we notice the similarities in things we do or like, we don’t notice how similar in physical structure we look to our best friends most of the time. “We actively seek out those who are like us – even if we are unaware of the underlying genetics. For instance, thin people may stick together, unaware that each member of the group lacks genes that make it easy for others to pile on the pounds. Similarly, people might choose to terminate friendships with people whose weight status differs from their own (Christakis).”

Although we don’t know how we choose our genetically similar friends, these studies show you that you and your best friends are actually a lot closer than you think.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/07/14/friends-share-similar-genes/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1348051/Best-friends-forever-gene-Its-DNA-say-scientists.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/15/you-and-your-friends-share-same-genes_n_5587187.html

Everyone is attracted to different people and has their own preferences; however there is no denying that certain people are attractive no matter what your ‘type’ is. Take Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt for example, they’re attractive and there’s no denying it. But why are they so attractive? What is it about people that makes them irrefutably gorgeous?

Upon researching this topic I’ve come to many sources that say were attracted to genes that that will make the best match for us. But what exactly does that mean? According to business insider, it’s those who are fertile, have good genes, and whose immune system complements ours. By mating with someone who is healthy and has good genes, we can pass those genes down to the kids we have with them.

Yes people are attracted to different things, but what we look for generally tends to be the same focus. Our bodies and brains have been tuned to spot these genetic traits through physical features in the face and body. Clear skin, symmetric faces and clear eyes are among three top factors of highly attractive people.

Judith Langlois, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin concurs that symmetric faces are a key factor in what makes people attractive. Around the world, facial symmetry is considered a sign of beauty. The face must be average in terms of position and size of facial features. She conducted a study in which she showed an infant pictures of women rated on attractiveness by college students. The photos were in a slide and the time was recorded of on long the baby spent looking at a photo before he looked away. In the end, the infant spent the most time looking at the faces thought to be most attractive by the college students showing attractiveness can be collectively recognizable.

Symmetric faces are a general coconscious when it comes to beauty. “If you choose a perfectly symmetrical partner and reproduce with them, your offspring will have a better chance of being symmetric and able to deal with perturbations,” evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill told LiveScience, referring to offspring having a better chance of survival.

So is there actually a science behind beauty? According to sources the answer is yes! People want and are mostly attracted to good genes for reproductive health.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-makes-someone-sexy-2013-2#ixzz3GoHKVRMM

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/enigma-beauty/#page=3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/17-facts-about-human-sexual-attraction_n_3817941.html

47,XYY Syndrome, also known as Jacob’s Syndrome, XYY Karyotype, XYY Syndrome or YY Syndrome is characterized in males by having two Y chromosomes, XYY, in contrast to the ‘normal’ XY set found in most males. It’s a common belief that having this extra Y chromosome is prone to make one more violent.

TV shows such as CSI: Miami, Criminal Minds and Law and Order have all aired one or more episodes in which a killer’s behavior is an outcome of an extra Y chromosome. These popular television shows are thought be a large contributor to why many believe the extra Y chromosome to be dangerous.

Published population surveys were done by The American Psychologists Association. The APS divided males into four groups: newborn males, normal adult males, and adult males in institutions for the mentally ill, and criminal males. “The frequency of XYY males was .13% for newborn and normal adult males, .70% for mentally ill males, and 1.93% for criminal males. Although XYY males are only a small proportion of perpetrators of violent crimes, their significantly higher frequency in the criminal population provides strong presumptive evidence for the association of an extra Y chromosome with aggressive behavior. Since Y chromosome is the male determining chromosome, the XYY genotype may be seen as highlighting the association between maleness and aggressive tendencies (psycnet).”

But according to genomiceducation, one large problem with these studies was ascertainment bias; if you look for something, it is often there. Because these men were already judged to be ‘abnormal’ by society, finding XYY chromosomes seemed like an easy explanation for behavior difficulties. But sometimes things are just a coincidence (genomicseducation).

In reality, there is no evidence that XYY leads directly to criminal behavior or violence. That is good news because approximately 1 in 1000 men are born with an extra Y chromosome.

http://www.xxyysyndrome.org/csinotice.html

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1974-21318-001

When you think of an all American, many imagine blond hair, blues eyes and fair skin; At least you do now. With America today being 63% white, 12% black, 17% Hispanic and 8% other (kff.org), Scientist have a very new image of what the Average American will look like by the year 2050.

As a biracial person myself I get asked at least once a day from a stranger, “Where are you from?” or “What are you?” People look and wonder because what we see, and curiosity speaks volumes about our country’s past, its present, and the promise and peril of its future. As well as the features of many biracial people disrupt normal expectations (National Geographic).

In 2000, the Census Bureau began allowing people to begin to check off multiple races. In the same year 6.8 million Americans were more than one race. Ten years later, the number jumped by thirty two percent making it one of the fastest growing categories (National Geographic).

Similarly, The Wall Street Journal reported a few years back that 15% of new marriages in 2010 were between individuals of different races. This number is more than double what it was twenty-five years ago (Huffington Post).

As for how this looks moving forward, studies have repeatedly shown that young people, especially those under 30, are significantly more amenable to interracial relationships. As a population composed largely of 20-somethings, our generation is primed and expected to play a major role in populating this projected future America. That goes double if you live in a Western state, where people intermarry at higher rates; Hawaii is winning at the moment, with four of ten new marriages identifying as interracial (The Wall Street Journal).

So will the appearance of the average American be so drastically different by 2050? I guess we’ll just have to see for ourselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/national-geographic-changing-face-of-america-photos_n_4024415.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/changing-faces/funderburg-text

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/

“The average path length between two nodes in a random network is equal to ln N / ln K, where N = total nodes and K = acquaintances per node. Thus if N = 300,000,000 (90% of the US population) and K = 30 then Degrees of Separation = 19.5 / 3.4 = 5.7 and if N = 6,000,000,000 (90% of the World population) and K = 30 then Degrees of Separation = 22.5 / 3.4 = 6.6. (Assume 10% of population is too young to participate.) (Watts, D.J.; Stogatz, S. H.).”

Yes, this is a formula to calculate the six degrees of separation averaging at 6.6. A ‘degree of separation’ is a measure of social distance between people. You are one degree away from everyone you know, two degrees away from everyone they know, and so on (theguardian). The Six Degrees of Separation is widely spread by pop culture but is it in fact true or just a myth?

Primetime set up an experiment with the University of Colombia to test if and how quickly random people could connect to a third individual. Sixty thousand people from one hundred-seventy countries took part in the experiment;the project was carried out online. In the experiment, each participant was assigned a random person around the world which they were to link via e-mail without directly emailing it to that person. Essentially, they were to connect by creating a human chain. To proceed the participant would e-mail someone they know then ask that person to continue the links by e-mailing someone else they know. The objective is to eventually send an e-mail to someone who knows the assigned person personally, completing the chain. Of the hundreds of chains that have been completed, the average number of links has been six, supporting the six degrees of separation theory (T.Berman abcnews).

Another study done by Microsoft showed similar results. In this study, Microsoft studied records of thirty billion electronic conversations among one hundred-eighty million people in various countries. The database covered all the Microsoft Messenger instant-messaging network in June 2006. Microsoft looked at the minimum chain lengths it would take to connect one hundred-eighty billion different pairs of users in the database and found the average length was 6.6 stages, and that seventy-eight percent of the pairs could be connected in seven steps or fewer (theguardian).

So is the six degrees of separation true? Mosty. Studies on average showed people were connected on average 6.6 degrees proving the formula and studies to be almost exactly six degrees and true.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/aug/03/internet.email

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2717038

“Can Money Buy Happiness?” has been such a cliché question over centuries but really, can money in fact buy happiness? No one seems to have a definite answer. When surveying college students the average response was yes. According to comedian Tosh.0, “Money doesn’t buy happiness but it buys a jet ski, and you can’t frown if you’re on a jet ski.”

When exploring the matter research typically showed the same results; whoever said money can’t buy you happiness was wrong. However, there are stipulations. The research generally shows that money can buy you a certain amount of happiness depending how you spend it.

According to an infographic from Happify, money can buy us a certain amount of happiness conditional on how you choose to spend it. For instance, we get happier over time when we’ve bought experiences, like a vacation, but less happy when we’ve bought things, like a new watch (Business insider). Studies commencing from Happify showed that 57% of Americans felt spending money on experiences that would bring them closer to another, were unique, or were to make a good memory, would make them happier than buying “stuff.”

Economists claim the matter is a bit more complicated saying that your happiness levels rise with your yearly income up to $75,000. After this amount is reached wealth has no impact on our regular happiness rate, yet more income can improve the satisfaction of ones day to day life (Business insider).

A study done at the University of California at Berkley agreed concluding, “It’s all about directing our purchasing power toward experiences that jibe with who we think we are (Forbes).”

Despite this evidence there is a possibility of reverse causation; the fact that people who are more likely to give money to charity or go on vacation are just inherently happier people by character. Studies were done and agreeable to the fact that regardless of whether money makes one happy or happiness attracts money, it’s all dependent of how it’s being spent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/05/04/can-money-really-buy-happiness-well-maybe/

http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/blogs/can-money-really-buy-happiness

http://www.businessinsider.com/money-can-buy-happiness-2014-4

“So like, if you’re a vegan what do you eat?” Is probably one of the most frequently asked questions a vegan gets. But really, what is it they eat? And why go vegan in the first place?

You may be aware that veganism isn’t just a diet; it’s a lifestyle. It’s a lifestyle of not only abstaining from animal products you consume, but any animal product at all such as makeup and clothing. However, many people aren’t choosing to go vegan for the lifestyle, but for the health benefits. A study done in 2008 by the Vegetarian Times showed one million Americans have taken on a vegan diet.

The health benefits are countless. An overwhelming majority of studies show vegans are thinner than non-vegans, and stay thin. Most diets show weight loss while on them, but once you stop and hope to retain your new weight, it’s almost impossible. Veganism makes it easier to stay thin being that it’s not a diet, it’s a way of life. Vegan foods are less calorie dense and lower in fat than animal products, and because all plant foods contain zero cholesterol, eating that way allows us to shed weight in a sustainable way (Oprah).

It’s also been said that vegans have an increase of energy. Most say they sleep better, have better skin, and have improved nails and hair. But what’s most valuable is the belief that a vegan diets increases your antioxidant intake which has been proven to help fight certain types of cancer.

If you’re not convinced to go vegan yet, do it for the environment! Growing plants takes much fewer resources than growing animals thus reducing the toll on the environment.

Still not convinced? Do it because all the cool kids are. Bill Clinton, Natalie Portman, Carrie Underwood, Ellen DeGeneres, Usher, Mike Tyson, Anne Hathaway, and Ariana Grande are all among celebrities who have adopted the fad of the vegan diet!

Sources:

http://www.aarp.org/food/diet-nutrition/info-02-2011/9-pros-and-cons-to-going-vegan.2.html

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/vegan.htm#why

http://www.americanvegan.org/vegan.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/why-vegan-is-the-new-atki_b_114464.html

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america/

Hi SC200! I’m a first year business major at Penn State and am required to take a science. My counselor had highly recommended this class for me. My counselor had informed me the work wouldn’t be too strenuous, the professor is awesome and this class could be fun as well.

I’m not planning to be a science major for a few different reasons. Firstly, I’ve never had a passion for science. Also, most things in science are not absolute which  I don’t like. And although there are many cool concepts to science I just cant see myself doing it for the rest of my life.