A commonality in human diets are nuts, specifically tree nuts. It is widely thought that tree nuts such as walnuts, almonds, and cashews are good for your body and decrease health risks. That is why tree nuts are a commonality in human diets. Just how healthy are tree nut and what type of health benefits does it have for humans? Let’s find out.

Multiple studies have been published in this topic. The first study that I am going to discuss was published in Oxford University Press Nutrition Journal. This study was an analysis of 36 studies, observational and experimental, on the health benefits of nuts. The analysis of these studies found that people who ate the most nuts had a 15% lower chance of getting cancer than people who ate the least amount of nuts. But, the study did not find a noteworthy difference in the risk for type 2 diabetes.

This study is strong because it is analysis of 36 different studies, which include many people and extensive research. The combination of experimental and observational studies also make this study a credible one. One downside to this study is that 3^rd variables can come into play. The scientists who contributed to the study mentioned that while some studies that they included in their analysis tested for 3^rd variables such as diet and BMI (Body Mass Index), not all studies did. This can taint the validity of the study because 3^rd variables still come into play. Also, the scientists mentioned that it is a possibility that the people who ate the most nuts were just healthier overall. Therefore, the study can be credited as proof that eating nuts decreases health risks, but direct causation is not possible without further studies.

Another study that I am going to discuss was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on November 2013. This study included close to 120,000 participants. The participants answered a variety of questions about their diet at the beginning of the study, and then every 2-4 years during a 30 year follow-up period. The results of the study found that people who ate nuts everyday lived longer and had healthier lives than people who did not eat nuts every day. More specifically, people who ate nuts every day were less likely to die of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease than people who did not eat nuts every day. Also, those who ate nuts were 20% less likely to have passed away during the follow-up period than those who did not eat nuts every day.

This study is one that can be proof that eating nuts is healthy for a human and reduces health risk. The main reason being the length of the study and the number of people that participated in it. The study had close to 120,000 participants. Therefore, the study covered a wide variety of people and ruled out some 3^rd variables such as gender. Also, the 30 year follow-up period and all of the studies done during that period also make the study credible because of the extensive amount of data collected during that period.

In conclusion, the hypothesis that eating nuts can lower health risks is true. In the first study, a meta-analysis found that people who eat nuts had a 15% lower chance of getting cancer than people who ate the least amount of nuts than people that did not eat nuts. In the second study I talked about, a study found that people who ate nuts everyday were less likely to die of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease than people who did not eat nuts every day. Although some 3^rd variables are possible, these studies are still valid. Therefore, if you want to live longer, eat some nuts!

Sources:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352#t=abstract

http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/7/409

http://www.aicr.org/cancer-research-update/2015/06_24/cru_Analysis-Suggests-Nuts-Lowers-Cancer-Risk.html

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-nuts-linked-to-healthier-longer-life-201311206893

http://www.livescience.com/52895-walnuts-linked-health-improvements.html

http://www.allergysf.com/allergy-education/big-8-top-food-allergens/

http://www.medicaldaily.com/national-nut-day-2014-peanuts-tree-nuts-and-how-each-helps-your-health-307642

Kids with attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) have difficult lives. They have trouble focusing, their attention is almost always on two different things, and they are often very hyper. But, there are types of medication that can be taken to calm down the symptoms of ADHD, most commonly Adderall. These medications usually help the person with ADHD to be more focused and less hyper. But, there might be a downside to these medications. Scientists say that the medication taken for ADHD can harm their sleep. Is this a real downside to the medication and could it lead to new medication or, no medication at all? Let’s find out.

Multiple studies have been done on this topic. The first study that I am going to discuss was published in the scientific journal PubMed. In this study, a single blind comparative trial was done to test the hypothesis that children with ADHD are sleepy during the day. 34 children with ADHD, and 32 children without ADHD participated in a sleep study, followed by a sleep latency test. The results of the study found that total sleep time and sleep efficiency were similar with both groups, but children with ADHD were sleepier during the day than the children without ADHD. The results of the study also found that 50% of the children with ADHD had signs of sleep-disordered breathing, compared to 22% of the children without ADHD.

In my opinion, this study was done well. The scientists had a control group to compare the children with ADHD to, which makes it easier to understand the results. If this control group was not in place, then we would not know if children with ADHD had different sleep than children without ADHD. Although the study design was well, it did not mention a mechanism as to why children with ADHD are worse sleep than children without ADHD. It is possible that this could be due to the medication, or due to ADHD alone. Since there is no mechanism involved, this study does not answer weather ADHD medication harms sleep.

Another study on this topic was published this November in the journal Pediatrics. This study was an analysis of previous studies that studied the link between ADHD medications and sleep to determine the effect ADHD medications have on sleep. A total of 9 studies were included in this analysis, involving 246 children. The results of this analysis found that children with ADHD that took medication took longer to fall asleep and slept for shorter amounts of time than the children who had ADHD, but did not take any medication.

The most common medications that are given to patients with ADHD are stimulants, the number of children who are given this type of medication is high, about 3.5 million. The studies that were analyzed have contradictory results. Some studies suggest that the use of stimulant medication in kids with ADHD can cause insomnia, but another studies suggest that the use of stimulant medication can help kids sleep better.

In conclusion, it is hard to tell whether or not stimulant medication to treat symptoms of ADHD can cause sleep problems. Some studies say that it can cause sleep problems, while other studies say that they can actually help kids with ADHD sleep better. More research needs to be done to determine the solution to this problem. Therefore, the jury is still out on whether or not to keep using stimulant medication, or to develop a new medication.

Sources:

http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/9650.html

http://www.taliahwaajidblog.org/rundown-adhd/

http://www.aappublications.org/news/2015/11/23/StimulantsADHD112315

http://www.livescience.com/52881-adhd-medications-harm-kids-sleep.html

https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disorders-problems/adhd-and-sleep

Being lonely can be a terrible thing. You have no one to talk to, no way to express your feelings, and everything gets bottled up inside. It turns out that being lonely can have even worse effects. Multiple studies say that being lonely can increase a person chance of getting sick. If this is true, you can add it to the long list of negative effects being lonely can have. Let’s find out if it belongs on the list or not.

There have been multiple studies published on this topic. The first that I am going to talk about is a study published in the scientific journal PubMed. In this study, 430 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) were examined to test the hypothesis that their loneliness attributed to poor survival.

The patients level of loneliness was determined by “The Mannheim Social Support Interview” which is a set of questions along the lines of, “who do you like to talk to and do things with?”, and “who would you talk to in order to make you feel better about yourself?”. This was done to determine the patients “social network”, which is basically who they talk and hang out with.

The results of the study found that patients with small social networks, or patients who were lonely, had an elevated risk of mortality. But there is a catch. The study found that the greater risk of dying did not have anything to do with how severe their CAD was, or how much stress the person had.

This study could be one that attributes positively to the hypothesis that being lonely can get you sicker. Although it does not directly test this hypothesis, (this study tested people that were already sick) it did suggest that being lonely could lead to an increased risk of dying.

The study design was well and it was done properly. It ruled out 3^rd variables by testing all of the participants on a variety of things such as activities of daily living, depression, income, smoking habits, and participation in religious activities. I believe this is a study that can be used as proof that being lonely can increase your risk of being sick, and can increase your risk of dying.

In another study published in the scientific journal PubMed, 823 older, dementia-free patients were studied to test the hypothesis that loneliness is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease. The patients underwent a baseline clinical evaluation which included medical history and a full neurological examination. The patients took this same evaluation for every year the study was done. The patients loneliness was determined by the de Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale, which assess things such as loss of spouse and low self-esteem.

The results of this study found that during a 4 year follow-up period, 76 out of the 823 patients developed severe Alzheimer disease, and lonely people’s risk of getting Alzheimer disease was doubled compared to people who were not lonely.

This study is definitely one that proves being lonely can increase the risk of getting sicker. The results proved the hypothesis, and the study design was well. This study also ruled out 3^rd variables with the extensive testing of the patient’s brain and the extent of their loneliness. Also, the 4 year follow-up period after the testing was done contributes to the validity of the study.

In conclusion, there have been many studies that try to prove that being lonely can make a person sick or increase their chance of dying, and I believe that the studies prove this hypothesis correct. In the first study, scientists found that lonely people with coronary artery disease were at higher risk of dying than the patients with coronary artery disease that were not lonely. In the second study, scientists found that a percentage of older people that were lonely contracted Alzheimer disease, and their risk for contracting it was double than the risk of non-lonely people contracting it.

So, if you want to stay healthy for a long time, you might want to surround yourself with a bunch of friends that you trust, and try not to feel lonely.

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17283291

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890922/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756979/

http://www.livescience.com/52888-loneliness-health-inflammation-viral-infections.html

http://jeanniepage.com/tag/loneliness/

http://chrisguillebeau.com/the-opposite-of-loneliness/

The skin is one of the most vital organs of the human body. It does many things that keep us alive and protects us from things such as bacteria, blood vessels, nerves, and organs. The skin can also have diseases too, and there is one called psoriasis. Psoriasis is when your immune system is overactive, and causes skin cells to be produced faster than normal. New skin cells are pushed to the surface, but the body cannot shed these new cells that fast so they become dead skin cells and stack up on each other. These dead skin cells then form thick, red itchy flakes on the surface of the skin. I’m not going to include a picture because it is not pretty.

Why am I talking about Psoriasis? It is because scientists speculate that severe levels of Psoriasis could lead to heart disease. In this recently published study, scientists collected in-depth cardiovascular and metabolic data in 60 participants with mild to severe psoriasis. All of the participants were relatively young with low cardiovascular risk.  The results found that the severity of a person’s psoriasis was correlated to the amount of inflammation in the blood vessels.

This correlation is key to the hypothesis is important because inflamed blood vessels increases the risk of having a heart disease. This study was done well and correctly found a correlation between the severity of psoriasis and the inflammation of blood vessels. I think that this study could have been stronger if it included more participants. There are 7.5 million people in America that are affected by psoriasis, so 60 participants is too small to represent everybody in America with psoriasis. Also, it is possible that psoriasis could have different effects on the blood vessels in different people such as people of different genders or race. The study did mention that they were 28 men and 32 women studied, but did not mention the races of those people.

In another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, scientists set out to find a similar correlation, whether there is a link between the severity of psoriasis and myocardial infarction. Myocardial infarction (MI) is otherwise known as a heart attack. In the study, scientists collected data from a control group of 556, 995 patients, ages 20-90 that either had a diagnosis of psoriasis or never ended up being diagnosed. The results of the study found that 11,194 heart attacks in the total control group, and 2,431 of those heart attacks were of people diagnosed with psoriasis. The scientists concluded that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for MI, and that an MI is most common in younger people with sever psoriasis.

This study also found a positive correlation between severe levels of psoriasis and heart problems. The study did make the correlation stronger because of how much data was collected, the ranges of gender and ages of the participants, and the huge number of participants. Although it did make the correlation stronger, we cannot say that correlation equal causation in this case because it was only an observational study. The scientists only look for a link, they did not look for the cause of that link. An experimental study to find the mechanism of this correlation, and to find out why or what exactly causes psoriasis to lead to heart problems could be quite challenging considering the actual cause of just psoriasis is still unknown to scientists and doctors.

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/52433-psoriasis-blood-vessel-inflammation.html

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/psoriasis/news/20100315/psoriasis-linked-to-heart-disease-cancer

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/10/08/ATVBAHA.115.306460.abstract?sid=17117208-3360-4a69-8357-821efab18e5c

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=203598

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/understanding-heart-attack-basics

http://www.spinalhub.com.au/what-is-a-spinal-cord-injury/your-skin-after-spinal-cord-injury/what-does-skin-do

https://www.psoriasis.com/what-is-psoriasis

https://www.psoriasis.org/cure_known_statistics

http://www.truthinsideofyou.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bigstock-Heart-Attack-4863606.jpg

In everyday life, stress is a thing that will certainly come as a given. For pregnant women, enormous amounts of stress are possible, especially if she already has other kids. These high levels of stress could potentially damage the unborn child in way not known to the mother. According to study, scientists say that high levels of stress in pregnant women can cause coordination problems when their child reaches late childhood/early adolescence. Is this really true? Let’s find out.

In this study, published just three days ago, scientists set out to find if there was a correlation between stress during pregnancy and motor development of the children in their late childhood. To find if there was a correlation, the scientists followed 2,900 Caucasian pregnant women. When the women were 18 months pregnant, they were given a questionnaire which asked them about stressful events that happened during their pregnancies so far. The events asked about included financial hardship, loss of a close friend or relative, and separation or divorce. The participants completed the questionnaire again when they were 34 weeks pregnant. For the second part of this study, the children of those mothers were studied and tested on their motor development and coordination at the ages of 10, 14, and 17 years old. These tests assessed ten different types of movements of the human body including the child’s hand strength, distance jump, walk along a line heel to toe, and stand on one foot. The results of the study found that the children who were born to mothers who experienced more stressful events during their pregnancies scored lower on three motor developments tests than those children who were born to mothers that experienced little to no stressful events during their pregnancies. The scientists say that this correlation may have to do with the development of cerebellar cortex, which is a part of the brain that is developed later in pregnancy process and controls motor outcomes.

I think that this study is an exceptional one because of how detailed and diligent the scientists were. The scientists did an experiment where they measured the same thing multiple times, which eliminates errors. In this case, the researchers gave the questionnaire to the pregnant women twice, and studied the children with the same test three times. Although the study was done diligently, the room for error in this study comes from the efforts of the pregnant women and their children. When given the survey, it is possible that the pregnant women inaccurately stated the number of stressful events they experienced over the course of their pregnancies. Also, the children given the tests could have not given their best efforts in the motor skills test, which would botch the results. The children could have gotten fed up from doing the extensive test three times in their lives. Also, children at the age of 17 usually don’t do things they don’t want to do, so they may have just gone through the motions of the tests instead of giving their best efforts.

In another study published in science direct, the meta-analysis referenced a study done on animals that found the same correlation. In this study, Rats and Monkeys went through various amounts of stress during their pregnancies, and their offspring was exhibited delayed motor development.  This study does show the same correlation, but it shows it in animals, not humans. We most likely will never know if pregnant rats and monkeys go through the same pregnancy process as humans, so we cannot say that this study is just like the previous one, but it does make the correlation stronger.

Undoubtedly, undergoing stress is a bad thing for pregnant women, let alone any human. There have been studies that have determined that there are many other effects stress can have on unborn babies, and these studies are just another reason to believe that pregnant mothers should avoid stress at all costs if they want to have a healthy baby.

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/52473-stress-during-pregnancy-teen-coordination-problems.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151014084812.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462448

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/sfri-sdp100715.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378378202000750

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282873739_The_Impact_of_Maternal_Gestational_Stress_on_Motor_Development_in_Late_Childhood_and_Adolescence_A_Longitudinal_Study

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01381/stressed_1381281c.jpg

http://uncovermichigan.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Mom-pregnancy.jpg?itok=SFPonytI

As college students, stress is at an all-time high for some students. With midterms, studying, getting little sleep, and having almost no free time can weigh heavily on a student. But, when this transfers into the adult world, these high levels of stress could become dangerous. When entering the job world, the levels of stress are typically even higher, and a new study suggests that higher levels of stress increases your risk for a stroke. Is this really true?

In this meta-analysis study published last week by scientists from China, scientists collected data from different studies on the relationship between high stress jobs and the risk of stroke. The studies collected included more than 130,000 people who were studied form a range of 3-17 years. To clarify how much stress each job had, they were arranged into 4 groups; Passive jobs, low-strain jobs, high-strain jobs, and active jobs. (In this case, by strain, they mean stress) Between 11-27 % of the people in the study were considered to have high-stress jobs. The results of the meta-analysis found that people with the high strain jobs had a 22% greater risk to have a stroke than those with the low-strain jobs. The risk for stroke for women, (33%) is higher in women than in men.

I think that this study could be counted as an effective one in examining and determining a correlation between jobs with a high stress level and the risk of a stroke. One thing that the meta-analysis did mention is that it is not the high stress job that directly increases the risk for stroke, it is the habits that may result from the stress that comes from the job. These habits could include eating unhealthy foods, smoking, and lack of exercise. So in this study, correlation is not causation. There are third variables present that cause the higher risk of stroke, not the actual high stress of the job.

In another study published in the Journal of Neurology, scientists collected data on the mental health well-being of 20,627 stroke-free participants, ranged from ages 41 to 80 years old. During the follow-up, 595 participants suffered a stroke. The results of the follow-up found that the participants with an increase in psychological distress had an 11% increased risk of stroke. This is also another study that was done properly and is legitimate because it was a large population base. This is another study that can add to the proof that there is a correlation between high stress job and the risk of stroke.

In the future, one might want to avoid getting a job that may cause high levels of stress. Obviously, high levels of stress in not good for the human body because it can take a heavy toll on the brain. But, in the future, if one has a job with high stress, one could be at risk for a stroke, and that is something to completely avoid.

Sources:

http://www.livescience.com/52482-high-stress-jobs-stroke-risk.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/job-stress-risk-of-stroke/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/852736

http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20151014/job-stress-tied-to-stroke-risk-study-suggests

http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2015/10/14/WNL.0000000000002098

http://www.neurology.org/content/70/10/788.short?sid=562d2ac0-3133-456e-91f2-3ccd29bdecd6

http://tvnewsroom.org/newslines/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/People-With-High-Stress-Jobs-H.jpg

http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-14-at-1.10.05-PM.png

In the last blog period, I did a post questioning whether drinking wine in moderation is beneficial for a human’s body. The main focus of the post was resveratrol, which is one of the main antioxidants found in red wine. I mentioned a few studies where researchers found benefits of drinking wine in moderation, such as reducing the risk for dying of a heart disease and increasing the body’s ability to create insulin. In this post, I am going to dive even deeper into the question of drinking red wine.

As I said, resveratrol was the main focus in my last post and it is still going to be a focus in this post. Resveratrol is an antioxidant found in the skin of red grapes, which is the main ingredient in red wine. The antioxidant is also found in peanuts and berries. It has been linked to protect the human body against certain kinds of diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

In a study published the Journal of Neurology, scientists set out to examine the safety and effects of resveratrol when given to people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. The scientists did a randomized, double blind control trial where 119 patients were either given 500mg of resveratrol once daily and the others were given a placebo for a period of one year. Data was collected by brain MRI’s and blood samples. The results found that the safety measures of resveratrol had little difference between the drug group and the placebo group. Some patients that received the treatment had a decrease in body fat and weight loss. The study also found that “patients with the Resveratrol treatment had increased brain volume loss, but this is not associated with cognitive or functional decline.” (R. Scott Turner)

This study is not one to count out because it was done properly, and it was a randomized double blind control trial with no errors. It effectively proved that resveratrol is safe and tolerable if taken by people with Alzheimer’s disease.

In another study published by Nathan L. Price, scientists examined the effects of resveratrol in mice. It is believed in the scientific world that resveratrol acts positively on the SIRT1 gene, which controls the function and longevity of cells. In the study, scientists examined two types of mice, some with the SIRT1 gene and other without the gene. They found that mice without the SIRT1 gene did not get any health benefits from the dose of resveratrol, while the mice with the SIRT1 gene did gain health benefits and improved the health of the mice by increasing their life span. Their life span was increased because of the activation of the SIRT1 gene. This study is another win for resveratrol, but could be criticized. This study was done on mice, like most studies done on this topic. It is possible that if this same study was done on humans, the outcome would be different. Therefore, there is no way to tell if resveratrol could increase the life span of a human because the study was not done on humans, but it is a step in the right direction towards proving the benefits of resveratrol on a human.

The obvious downfall to resveratrol is the amount of damage that drinking wine can cause to your body. Drinking alcohol can do many harmful things to your brain and body, such as developing an addiction, damage to your liver, and can damage your skin but making it dry out over time. Because of all the negative effects that alcohol has on your body, scientists are beginning to develop resveratrol tablets. Therefore, human can get all of the benefits of resveratrol without drinking alcohol and putting themselves at risk of all the damages alcohol can do to a human’s body.

Drinking wine can be good and bad for you, but it’s amazing that with the science we have today, we can get the benefits of the main antioxidant in wine without even drinking the wine and that is fascinating.

Sources:

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/resveratrol-supplements

http://www.neurology.org/content/85/16/1383.full#sec-23

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/resveratrol-the-hype-continues-201202034189

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(12)00143-X

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-examines-red-wines-anti-aging-ingredient-resveratrol/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/resveratrol-does-provide-anti-aging-benefits-study-shows/

http://www.grandparents.com/health-and-wellbeing/health/drinking-alcohol

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-resveratrol-diet-ineffective-20140512-story.html

http://nutrientjournal.com/trans-resveratrol-increases-testosterone-animal-study/

Cannabis, also knows as marijuana, is a drug that is illegal for recreational use in all but four states in the U.S; Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, and Oregon. If caught with the drug or selling the drug in any states but the previous 4, a person could receive fines and possible jail time. It usually has a negative connotation to it because it is illegal and it can have negative effects on a person health. But, it also has huge benefits for people that are sick and have certain diseases. What exactly are the benefits? What exactly are the risks? I decided to blog about it

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists provided a comprehensive view of all the studies done on positive and negative effects of marijuana to a human’s health.

First, I will talk about the benefits of marijuana. In a study published by John C. Merritt, scientists found that marijuana use in patients with Glaucoma decreased intraocular and blood pressure. Glaucoma is a disease when your eye undergoes extreme pressures (intraocular pressure) and can sometimes lead to patients losing their eye for good. Merritt analyzed data in 18 patients and found that after 60 to 90 minutes of the marijuana being in the system, the intraocular pressure decreased. This study also showed that while intraocular pressure decreased, heart rate increased, which can potentially be a bad thing for the human body. Also, I was unable to obtain the full journal so it is unclear how many patients were studied, how much cannabis was used, and how the data was obtained.

Now, lets talk about the negative effects of cannabis.

In a study done by Mia Hashibe, a control study was done where 1,212 people with cancer and 1,040  without cancer were interviewed with a questionnaire which basically asked them, “how much marihuana have you smoked in your life?” the results of this study found that there were positive associations with cancer and smoking marijuana and there were no positive associations cancer and smoking tobacco. Therefore, smoking marijuana can lead to cancer in some instances. Although, the scientist did say that the evidence is not strong and it is almost immeasurable. This study found a link between smoking marijuana and cancer, but the study could have been done better. The study was a survey given to random people so the people that took it could have lied about their use of marijuana, or the people who picked the participants of the study may have been biased toward a certain gender, age, or race.

The studies that I mentioned contrasted each other. one found that smoking marijuana found great health benefits for people with glaucoma, but the other study showed that smoking marijuana could lead to cancer. I guess to answer my question in the title, a lot more studies must be done and the other studies that have already been done must be analyzed more. In my opinion, Cannabis is good and bad for you. What do you guys think?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/what-science-says-about-marijuana.html?_r=0

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1402309

http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/marijuana-on-main-street/medical-marijuana-research-web

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/marijuana-legalization-map/

It seems like nowadays, the only things trees are good for are shade, watching the leaves fall, and a source of paper. The other day, I was thinking, “there must be another benefit for trees besides using them for paper and shade.” I decided to Google this topic and in fact, trees could possibly have another benefit to humans. Scientists say that forests and urban areas filled with trees are beneficial to a human’s health.

There have been multiple studies done on this topic. The first study I am going to talk about was published in February 2013 by  researcher Geoffrey H. Donovan and other scientists. Donovan set out to find whether a major change in the environment has effected mortality rates in people with cardiovascular diseases. The change in the environment that was tested was the loss of 100 million trees due to the Emerald ash borer, a forest pest that has the ability to attack and kill ash trees. To test his hypothesis, Donovan and his team did an experiment where they collected ash tree data from 1990-2007 from counties in 15 states in the U.S where Emerald ash borers were found. They also collected mortality data from people with cardiovascular diseases from the National Center for Health Statistics. The results of the data collected found that mortality rates were increased in people with cardiovascular diseases in counties where the Emerald ash borer was attacking and killing trees. Therefore, the loss of trees in these counties were killing people, and the presence of trees has major health benefits.

Although this study has clear and correct results, there could be criticism of it. The main one being, are there any third variables that could have effected the results? The higher mortality rates could have something to do with the temperature of the county that the trees were lost, or it could have something to do with the amount of exercising of the people in the counties studied. Another criticism of this study is, how do we or the scientists know that the presence of the Emerald ash borer alone did or did not effect the mortality rates? Possibly, the borer may carry a virus that could cause higher mortality rates.

The second study I am going to talk about was published in April 2007 by a team of scientists in Tokyo, Japan. In this study, the scientists set out to measure the effects of being in a forest on the human immune functions. The scientists specifically focused on the natural killer (NK) cells in the human immune system. These cells reject tumors and virally infected cells in the human body. Twelve adult males were selected to spend a 3 day trip in 3 different forests. On the first day, the twelve males walked in a forest for 2 hours in the afternoon. On the next day, the subjects walked in a forest for 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. After the trip, the scientists measured the subjects blood, and found that 11 out of the 12 subjects showed higher activity in NK cells then before the subjects went on the forest trip. This is yet another study that proves being in an environment where trees are prevalent has positive effects on a human’s health.

These two studies that I mentioned are just two of thousands of different studies done by scientists around the world. In fact, there have been so many studies done that prove being near trees have health benefits to humans, that it is becoming common knowledge of humans all across the globe. In these multiple studies, the overwhelming evidence and results suggest that being near trees does have health benefits to humans, and there have been little studies that disprove it.

Sources:

Washington Post

http://www.emeraldashborer.info/faq.cfm#q3

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ruwit/gdonovan.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379712008045

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/natural_killer_cell.htm

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049369/trees-are-good-for-your-health-and-this-tool-shows-exactly-where-cities-should-plant-them

http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/rising-temperatures-affect-forests-carbon-storage-role-study_265.jpg

Have you ever drove past a huge field or open area and saw very tall objects that look like a pinwheel? Those are called wind turbines and they are used as an alternative source of electricity. They are used to create “clean electricity” which essentially means that no greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. There are many benefits to wind turbine energy such as no air pollution, sustainability, and cost efficiency.

Wind turbines convert mechanical energy from the wind into electrical power. Think of how a wind turbine works as the opposite of how a fan works. A fan uses electricity to make wind, while a wind turbine uses wind to make electricity. They have three main parts: the tower, the blades, and the nacelle. The tower is the long post that connects to the ground. The blades connect to a central hub, called the rotator, that allows them to spin. The nacelle is located on the back of the blade and contains the generators. When the wind is strong enough, it will result in the blades spinning, which then activate the generators on the nacelle and generate electricity. The electricity then travels to a transformer, which transforms the energy into the appropriate voltage for the electrical grid. Below is a detailed look on the inside of a wind turbine.

Think of how a wind turbine works as the opposite of how a fan works. A fan uses electricity to make wind, while a wind turbine uses wind to make electricity. There are two types of wind turbines, horizontal-axis, and vertical-axis. Horizontal-axis wind turbines usually have two or three blades. The horizontal-axis wind turbines are placed with the blades facing into the wind. Vertical axis turbines are placed the same way and look similar to an eggbeater. Wind turbines can be placed in large farms on in bodies of water. Usually, multiple wind turbines are installed at once in the same area, which is called a wind farm. Wind farms are cost efficient and provide bulks of electricity to the electrical grids.

Sources:

Live Science

Energy.gov

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work

At some point in your life, you have probably seen big blue panels on top of houses and thought to yourself, “What are those things?” The objects that you saw are solar panels. They are used as an alternative source of electricity to power homes and businesses. There are many benefits of having solar panels power a home or business. The biggest benefit is the low cost. There is no monthly fee for electricity. The only cost is the purchasing and installation of the panels. After that, no more payment is necessary. Another benefit to solar panels is that it does not create any greenhouse gases, which harm the atmosphere.

A solar panel works by allowing particles of light, or photons, to break electrons free from atoms, which results in a flow of electricity. The particles of light come from the sunlight that is directed at the solar panels. A solar panel is made up of multiple Photovoltaic (PV) Cells, which convert sunlight into electricity.

The PV cells are imbalanced, double silicon layered in order to conduct electricity. Silicon is used because it is a semi-conductor. Therefore, it has similar properties to metal and can insulate electricity. Silicon atoms are put together to create two types of silicon, n-type (negatively charged) and p-type (positively charged). N-type silicon contains spare electrons, and p-type silicon is missing electrons, which create “holes”. When the two types of silicon are combined, an electrical field is created.

When the photons in the sunlight hit the silicon layers in the PV cells, the electrons are knocked off from the atom. The electric field created by the double silicon layers then push the free electrons to the metal conductive plates on the side of the PV cell. Then, the metal plates transfer the electrons to wires, which then transfer the electricity to an inverter. The electricity made by the PV is called direct current electricity (DC). An inverter inverts direct current energy into alternating current electricity (AC), which is needed to power all of the appliances in homes and businesses. Finally, the electricity flows through a breaker box, which then provides electricity to all outlets in the building.

Sources:

Live Science

Solar World USA

Physics.org

Pure energies

http://www.hope-project.org/energy/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-solar-panels/

http://www.solarenergybase.com/how-do-solar-panels-work/

Check out this picture of a dress:

What colors do you see? Black and Blue? White and Gold? This picture might look familiar to you because it was a huge trend all over the U.S a couple of months ago. It was all over social media and the news, with everybody debating over what color “the dress” was. When people saw the picture of this dress, some perceived the dress as black and blue, and others perceived the dress as white and gold.

Many scientists looked into why exactly people see the dress as different colors. The scientists determined that it is because of how the brain perceives color in daylight. A neuroscientist who teaches at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, named Bevil Conway, conducted a study where 1,401 people were given a survey which showed the photo of the dress and were asked to answer what color they saw. 313 of the people studied had never seen the photo before. Of the 1,401 people, 57% saw the dress as black and blue, 30% as white and gold, 11% as blue and brown, and 2% as something else. Older people and women were more likely to answer that they perceived the dress as white and gold, and younger people were more likely to perceive the dress as black and blue.

Another group of researchers from Giessen University in Germany asked 15 people to look at the picture of the dress on a screen under controlled lighting. The participants were asked to change the color of a disc to match up with what they saw on the screen. The study concluded that the colors that people saw are the same colors that are found in daylight.

These studies prove that the dress could be either set of colors, depending on how your brain perceives the picture. If a person sees that the dress is black and blue, the brain is assuming that the picture is being viewed under a yellowish light, similar to the color of the sky when it is dusk. If a person sees that the dress is white and gold, then the brain is assuming that the picture is being viewed under a blueish light, similar to the color of the sky during the daytime.

Therefore, the color of the dress is both black and blue or white and gold, depending on how your brain perceives the picture. It is possible for a humans brain to see the dress as different colors because the quality of the picture is very poor. The actual dress is black and blue, as seen here.

Sources:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/cp-tpo051215.php

Live Science

Science Direct

New York Times

USA Today

Before I start, I want to remind everyone that you must be 21 or older to consume alcoholic beverages. No one under the age of 21 should consume an alcoholic drink because it is illegal.

Alcohol usually has a negative connotation to it, because it is considered as a depressant, it causes people to make irrational decisions, and is unhealthy if consumed often. Is there an alcoholic drink that could be beneficial to a human’s health? Scientists have found the answer to this question, red wine.

Multiple studies show that a glass of red wine a day is healthy for your heart and may help prevent heart disease. In a study done by Copenhagen City Heart Study, 13,285 men and women were observed in order to find out the benefits of drinking red wine. The study found that “patients who drank wine had half the risk of dying from coronary heart disease or stroke as those who never drank wine.” (Szmitko 2005).

Red wine contains antioxidants, the main one being Resveratrol, which is found in the skin of  the red grapes that are used to make red wine. Resveratrol “increases the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol) and protects against artery damage.” (Mayo Clinic). Studies on the effects and benefits of Resveratrol have been done on animals, mainly mice and pigs. The results of the studies on the mice reveal that the antioxidant can protect them from obesity and diabetes. The results of the studies done on pigs reveal that Resveratrol increased the body’s ability to create insulin.

Although studies prove that the antioxidants contained in red wine have benefits, there are many stipulations that result of these studies. One argument that debunks red wine being healthy is that not many studies have been done on humans. Because humans are not often studied, it is not certain that the red wine could have the same benefits to humans as it does with animals. Another stipulation is that you cannot drink to much wine. Excessive drinking of alcohol can cause damage to the liver. Your liver can process moderate amounts of alcohol, but when you drink to much, the liver struggles and takes a long time to process all of the alcohol. Drinking too much alcohol also increases your risk of high blood pressure. If you choose to drink wine, the recommended serving for men is 1-2 glasses a day and only 1 glass a day for women. The rule of the that doctors usually say tot heir patients is, “a glass a day keeps the doctor away.”

In conclusion, red wine is healthy for your body, as long as you drink it in moderation. Although most of the studies on the benefits of wine have been done on animals, the studies that have been done on humans is conclusive and clear. If people want their heart to be healthy and their risk of heart disease to decrease, they should think about drinking a glass of wine a day. It keeps the doctor away!

Sources:

Mayo Clinic

Yale New Haven Hospital

Alcohol and your liver

American Heart Association Journal

During my Junior year in High School, I took a course titled Physics 1. It was an introduction course and it covered everything from circuits and batteries to the acceleration of gravity. In my opinion, the most interesting part of the course was Astronomy section where we learned how big our universe really is. It got me thinking, Earth cannot possibly be the only planet with intelligent life. Do Aliens exist?

One piece of evidence that can lead us closer to discovering alien life is the fact that there has been evidence of water found on different planets other than Earth as well as multiple moons. NASA Chief Scientist, Ellen Stofan, stated “I think we’re going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth within a decade, and I think we’re going to have definitive evidence within 20 to 30 years.” Here, you can find a video of a panel of NASA scientists speaking about water in the universe.

NASA recently released this graphic below, which shows the results of their research into which planets and moons in our universe have evidence of water.

The evidence provided above is vital to the progress of discovering alien life because intelligent life must have water to survive and thrive in their habitat. We know that because humans and animals on Earth must have water in order to live.

As to the actual being of aliens, many different theories exist. Citizens around the world have claimed to seen aliens or evidence that aliens have set foot on Earth. Common phenomena include crop circles and UFO’s. Crop circles are patterns that are made in crop fields by flattening certain parts of the crops in the field. Theories suggest that aliens make these patterns with their spaceships when they are on Earth. Alien spaceships are commonly referred to as UFO’s, or Unidentified Flying Object.

While there has been evidence and indications that might lead to the discovery of aliens existing on other planets in the universe, nothing has been proven yet. The fact that there is water on other planets could mean that there is alien life, but it is not certain. The fact that there have been claims of UFO’s being seen could mean there is alien life, but it is not certain. Based on this research and evidence, we cannot yet say that Aliens exist among us.

Sources:

CNN

NASA graphic

Youtube video

Crop Circles

NASA Article

Hello, my name is David Bond and I am currently a freshmen here at Penn State, majoring in Journalism. I am from West Chester, PA, which is about a three hour drive from State College. During High School, I was a four year member of the Football and Track & Field teams. I also follow sports a ton and could probably name 100 people that are currently in the NFL.

I took this class because It was required of me to take a Natural Science course. During orientation, my advisor suggested that I should take this course because it was often described as “a science course for non-scientists.” I thought it would be an interesting course, so I added it to my schedule. I am not planning on being a science major because I believe Journalism entails all of my skills and interests. I like writing about things that I am passionate about, and sports are a great example. Here is an article about why Journalism is the best job ever.

Here is a picture of me playing Football during my senior year season.