Deciding whether to breast feed their newborn children or bottle feed them is a controversial issue and between mothers that has been going on for many years. Mothers want the best for their children, so they will pick the best option. So, what is better: breast feeding or bottle feeding? Which has greater health benefits on the baby and the mother?

According to the Oregon Health Authority, breast feeding is the healthier for your baby. Breast feeding leads to both short term and long term benefits for the baby. Some of these short term benefits include less infections, decreased risk of diarrhea, decreased risk of SIDS, and less likeliness of hospitalization. Some of the long term benefits include decreased risk of obesity, decreased risk of cancer, and decreased risk of diabetes. Oregon Health Authority also that there are health benefits for the mother as well such as reduced risk of cancer, easier weight loss, and even self-confidence.

However, Dr. Cynthia Colen from Ohio State University, states otherwise. She conducted her own experiment in which she studied 7,319 sibling pairs that were both breast fed, and 1,773 sibling pairs that had one breastfed and the other bottle fed. Colen measured the BMI, obesity, asthma, behavior, and academic scores such as vocabulary, math, and reading. Of the 8,237 children, breast feeding did have better results. Although, the scores among just the 1,773 siblings that had one breast fed and the other bottle fed, the results were close to 0, meaning that it could have been due to chance. Therefore, Colen believe that the 7,319 siblings who were breast fed resulted better because of other third variables such as economic status. I believe that Colen makes a great point in that this could be due to third variables.

Oregon Health Authority is able to provide direct health benefits of why they believe breast feeding is better than bottle feeding, while Dr. Colen is able to give evidence to believe that breast feeding may not be significantly better than bottle feeding (it could be due to chance). However, Dr. Colen is not able to provide clear and direct benefits of how bottle feeding is healthier for the baby and mother. More information would help strengthen Dr. Colen’s research and voice.

There have been so many times when I’ve come home from a long day and the last thing I want to do is take off my makeup then and there. I’m sure so many girls have struggled with the same decision and choose to wash their faces in the morning. We’ve been told its bad for us, and we are aware, but we do it anyway because we are too lazy or too tired. But why is sleeping with makeup so bad for us? What exactly does it do to our skin and face?

According to Dr. Schweiger, founder of the Clear Clinic, leaving your makeup on throughout the night exposes you to free radicals in the air. These free radicals breakdown the collagen on your skin, which then lead to fine lines. In addition, wearing makeup to sleep can clog your pores. This will make them appear bigger, and will also draw bacteria into your skin. This will cause acne to form. Wearing foundation will lead to these negative effects, and is primary and most important part of your makeup that you should take off.

Dr. Jeannette Graf, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, also agrees with the negative effects sleeping with makeup has on your skin. While leaving on foundation is the most damaging, not removing eye makeup is also bad for you. Mascara can clog the follicles and cause bacteria to get in your eyes. This can lead to serious irritation of the eyes and may even cause your eyelashes to fall off. Lastly, leaving lipstick on can lead to dry and chapped lips. This is probably the easiest thing to take off, so just removing it with a makeup wipe would save you one less problem.

Although you may be extremely tired when you come home late at night, think about these consequences and negative effects leaving makeup on will have on your skin. Taking your makeup off doesn’t take too much time, and taking off something is better than nothing. If it helps, you can always keep makeup wipes next to your bed, so you can easily grab it and rub some of it off!

Watermelon is one of my favorite fruits. Growing up, my mom always told me to spit out the black seeds because I wasn’t supposed to eat them. I never believed that a watermelon would grow inside of me, but I was curious as to why you couldn’t. Are watermelon seeds actually bad for you or is that just a myth?

According to the Huffington Post, there is some truth behind that lie. You shouldn’t necessarily eat them after cutting the watermelon open. You can eat them, but they have to go through a process called sprouting. Sprouting “removes compounds in the food that make it difficult to absorb all of its nutrients, increases nutrient density and makes the food easier to digest.” By sprouting the watermelon seeds, it also removes the unappealing black shell of the seeds.

Now that we know we can eat them, should we even eat them? Yes! Watermelon seeds are good for multiple reasons. According to Livestrong, they are a good source of protein, B vitamins, minerals, and fats.

Protein

Watermelon seeds are a great source of protein. With just one cup of seeds, you are getting 30.6 grams of protein. This actually makes up 61 percent of the recommended daily serving.

B Vitamins

Watermelon seeds contain several B vitamins. The most important one is niacin, which has about 3.8 grams in one cup. This contributes to 19 percent of the recommended daily serving. Other B Vitamins include thiamin, riboflavin, folate, and pantothenic acid.

Minerals

Watermelon seeds contain several minerals such as magnesium, phosphorus, iron, potassium, sodium, and several others. By far, magnesium is the most important. One cup of magnesium contain 556 mg, which is about 139 percent of the recommended daily serving. Magnesium is extremely important because it helps your metabolism and blood pressure.

Fats

Lastly, watermelon seeds contain 51 grams of fat in one cup. Some of these fats include monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, and omega-6 fatty acids.

It’s funny to think that we once thought that swallowing a seed would lead to a watermelon growing in our stomachs! Net time you eat a watermelon, try sprouting them and eating them. Who knows, you make love them. Sprouting may take some time, but here’s how to do it!

As a college student, I definitely find myself taking more naps. It’s difficult getting the right amount of sleep while finding enough time to study. The solution is to take naps throughout the day, but napping the right amount of time is important to maintaining a normal schedule. So what is the appropriate amount of time to take a nap?

Leon Lack, a psychology professor at Flinders University in Australia, conducted a study in 2006 to answer this question. The study observed 24 people, each napping from a range of 30 seconds to 30 minutes. The participants in the study were observed after each individual nap and given different mental processing tasks. Lack found the 10 minute nap to be the most effective. After 10 minutes, it was obvious that the participants were more alert and awake. The effect lasted for two and a half hours. However, after the 20-30 minute nap, the participants were not as energized and remained tired up to 30 minutes after the nap. This study should specifically state when the participants took these naps. For example, if they took a 20-30 minute nap right after the 10 minute nap, the results could be altered because the body and brain is given insufficient time to recover between the naps. The time in which the participants are napping could intersect with each other meaning a 20 minute nap could potentially be a 30 minute nap if it was taken right after the 10 minute nap.

Although a 10 minute nap is the most effective nap, more or less time are also effective depending on what results you want. Depending on how long your nap is, your brain gives off different results through the different stages. According to WebMD, there are three general stage of naps, and each has unique benefits. A 10 to 20 minute power nap, also known as stage 2, is the most effective nap. This gives you a quick boost, and makes you feel more energized when you wake up. The benefits of taking a short power nap is that it increases alertness and improves learning skills. The second option is taking a 30 to 60 minute nap. This doesn’t give you as big of an energy boost as a twenty minute nap, but it helps improve your memory and decision making skills. When you take a nap longer than an hour, you hit the REM stage of naps. REM, also known as rapid eye movement, happens when we are in deep sleep. REM sleep activates your brain and allows you to dream. The significant difference between 60 to 90 minute nap and the others is that the other two stages are non-REM sleep.

While napping may have positive effects, napping may not be for everyone. Some people may have trouble falling asleep during the day, while other may have trouble waking up from naps too. According to Mayo Clinic, napping can have negative effects such as sleep inertia and nighttime sleep problems. Some people experience sleep inertia, which makes you feel extra tired when waking up from a nap. Others may have trouble sleeping at night and may experience insomnia.

Overall, naps are good for your health and maintaining a good schedule. It is definitely okay to take a nap once in a while, you just have to make sure you are napping for the right amount of time.

Every day at lunch I buy a bottled water. I can easily get tap water for free from the soda machine, but for some reason I am attracted to bottled water. Maybe it’s because it looks cleaner and healthier, which got me thinking….is bottled water better than tap or is it all the same?  

Before looking into the health differences between tap water and bottled water, I wanted to look into whether they differ in taste to begin with. Good Morning America decided to conduct their own taste test to find out if the audience believed bottled water actually tastes better. The audience was given different samples of New York City tap water, O2 (oxygenated water), Poland Spring, and Evian. Surprisingly, the study showed that 45% preferred New York City Tap Water, 24% Poland Spring, 19% O2, and 12% Evian. The majority believed tap water tasted better . This experiment is confusing because the article isn’t clear whether this was a blind test. If the audience knew which type of water they were sampling, it could totally interfere with the results and conclusions of the experiment. With that being said, I would not consider Good Morning American to be a credible source given the flaws that are in this experiment.

However, there are people that can distinguish the taste between bottled and tap. The French National Centre for Scientific Research conducted a study using “six different bottled mineral waters and six municipal tap waters.” 36% of 389 people from different parts of France could tell the difference. Because the majority cannot distinguish bottled from tap water, the study concludes “the currently high consumer demand for this beverage must be based on factors other than taste or olfactory perception.”

Which leads me to my next question, if there seems to be no comparable difference in taste between tap and bottled water (in this case tap water is preferred), then is it actually worth buying bottled water? Is it actually healthier? According to the Mayo Clinic, tap water and bottled water are “comparable in terms of safety.” Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates tap water. Even though they are regulated by two different administrations, they use similar practices and procedures to ensure safety.

Katherine Patton, a registered dietician and certified sports dietician, states, “While (filters) can reduce exposure to (harmful) elements, it doesn’t necessarily mean bottled water will be better for your overall health.” The CNN article emphasizes the different procedures and laws put in place to make drinking water safe such as The Safe Drinking Water act of 1974. Just because bottled water appears fancy and expensive, doesn’t make tap water cheap and dirty. In fact, “In the U.S., tap water is already treated to remove particles, chemicals and bacteria. During the process of treating public water, chlorine is added as a disinfectant, and fluoride is added for its dental health benefits.”

I think it’s safe to say that tap water is just as good as bottled water. It is usually free, and it seems to taste just as good, if not better, as bottled water. While there are still some developing countries that lack clean and healthy tap water, but the United States makes sure that the water we are consuming is regulated. So overall, I give tap water a thumbs up. You could be saving yourself a dollar or two every time you buy bottled water for lunch!

Ever since I can remember, my family ate dinner together at least 5 times a week. There were some nights where it was hard because we were all really busy, but my mom always stressed the importance of family dinners. This got me thinking, besides having a good time and sharing stories about our day, do family dinners actually benefit us?

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), conducted a study suggesting family mealtime matters. The study was a telephoned survey consisting of 1,003 teens ages 12 to 17. The study found that teens who had family dinners 5-7 times per week were 1.5 times likelier to have a better relationship with their parents compared to teens who have family dinners 2 times per week. The study then found that by not getting along with their parents, they were 4 times likelier to have used marijuana, twice as likely to have used alcohol, and 2.5 time as likely to have used tobacco. While this seems to be a reliable source, I have some doubts based on the conclusions of this study. The study suggests that having infrequent family dinners leads to bad relationships with parents, which then leads to alcohol and drug use. I disagree with how they try to link a direct connection between family dinners and alcohol/drug use. The statistics based on teens having bad relationships with their parents can be due to many other factors besides family dinners, which makes me question the conclusions. According to Anne Fishel , Professor at Harvard Medical School, family dinners   improve young children’s vocabulary. “Young kids learned 1,000 rare words at the dinner table, compared to only 143 from parents reading storybooks aloud.” In addition, she explains the nutritional benefits of how children are 35% less likely to have eating disorders and 12% less likely to become obese.

However, there are many complications in determining whether family dinners actually create these positive outcomes. For example, these positive outcomes can be a result of third variables or other factors. Just because we see a correlation between positive effects and family dinners doesn’t mean that the dinner caused the effects. Cornell University states, “It could be that the type of parent who implements frequent family meals has other resources (i.e., more time, money, communication skills) and this is what really drives the positive outcomes highlighted above.” Money or more time, as mentioned above, could be third variables that are leading to both good behavior in children and frequent family dinners, which makes it seem as if one causes the other. With that being said, these outcomes could be due to reverse causation. Children with good behavior are engaging in family dinners, meaning that children lacking these qualities are fleeing from dinner with their families.

Another thing that contributes to this problem is that it is so hard to even define a family meals because it is unique and different to every family. For example, does everyone in the family need to be present? Can the television be on? Can cell phones be used at the table? I agree with this study because without a consistent definition of a family dinner, it is hard to determine the actual effects.

The benefits of family meals is a very controversial topic, but this is a perfect of example of how scientists and research may be misleading. Studies such as CASA and Anne Fishel suggest that family dinners lead to benefits for the body and brain, but there is still so much gray area and questions to be answered. Regardless, you can never go wrong with a family dinner! Family dinners are times to spend with your loved ones and share both the ups and downs of the day.

Here are some things you can do:

1. Make the effort and aim to have at least three family dinners a week
2. Set a specific time
3. Turn off television and discourage technology at the table
4. Encourage conversation and sharing stories

Picture from Google Images

Last summer, my family went on vacation to Cancun, Mexico. On the last day, my sister got a minor jellyfish sting. She heard that pee helps ease the pain of the sting, so she asked me to pee on her leg! After much contemplating, we decided it wasn’t worth it if we weren’t completely sure that it was going to work. So, does urine actually help a jellyfish sting?

According to most scientists, the answers is no. In fact, applying urine to a jelly fish sting can actually make the pain worse! Jellyfish stings occur when you touch one of the jellyfish’s many sting cells called cnidocytes. Cnidocytes have organelles called nematocysts that contain venom. Jennifer Ping, a physician at Straub Hospital in Honolulu summarizes that the pH of urine can cause the nematocysts to swell and release more venom, which worsens the sting. She also suggests that only after the nematocysts have been removed may the urine sooth the wound, only because urine is warm. However, urine is not necessary because warm water will do just as well.

                                                 Cnidocyte of a Jellyfish

Dr. T. Glenn Pait, a UAMS Specialist and neurosurgeon agrees with Jennifer Ping. He states, “Despite what anyone tells you, do not apply vinegar, urine or meat tenderizer to the affected area.” So what do we do if we get stung by a jellyfish? Dr. T. Glenn Pait suggests that the best thing to do is to rinse the area with salt water. Do not use freshwater! Salt water will deactivate some of the sting cells, while freshwater may reactivate them. He also suggests to use something like a credit card to remove the cells.

Because there are so many different types of jellyfish, and each person’s urine is at different levels, there is no precise evidence that urine is effective in easing the pain of jellyfish stings. As mentioned by Rob Brouhard, “Depending on the person — and whether he or she is dehydrated, diabetic, on a protein diet, or dealing with myriad other conditions — urine may or may not be about as good as fresh water.” As we already know, fresh water can reactivate the nematocysts and make the sting worse, so urine is just as bad if not worse than freshwater. In fact, Brouhard confirms that “urine contains so much fresh water that stranded folks can drink their own urine to survive.” Essentially, applying urine to a jellyfish just as painful, if not worse, as applying freshwater.

                                     Peeing on a jellyfish sting

Peeing on a jellyfish: myth or fact? Myth. “I think [the myth] gets perpetuated because it’s something that is funny, yet believable,” says Jennifer Ping. So you might ask, why is this so believable and where did this rumor come from? Apparently, it all started out with an episode from Friends! Monica got stung by a jellyfish and Chandler pees on it, which ends up making Monica feel better. Next time you get stung by a jellyfish and your friend volunteers to pee on you, save yourself the embarrassment and don’t do it!

Sleeping is one of the best things in the world and I absolutely love it! I have not once questioned sleeping, but I have wondered, why do we dream?

Activation-Synthesis Theory

There are many theories of what goes on in our brains when we dream. In the 1970’s, J. Allan Hobson and Robert McCarley proposed what is known as the Activation-Synthesis Theory. This theory states that dreaming occurs because the brain is trying to process the neural activity that goes on in our heads. Circuits in the brain stem are activated during REM sleep, which trigger parts of the limbic system that deal with emotions and memories. The brain tries to make sense of these signal which activates dreaming. 

Cognitive Theory

Another theory is Calvin Hall’s Cognitive Theory. Hall believed that dreams were caused by our conceptualization of our experiences. This theory insists that dreams help us process what we think of ourselves, what we think of others, and what we think about our environment. This was one of the most important theories about dreams that was ever made.

The Last theory is Sigmund Freud’s Wish Fulfillment Theory. This theory suggested that we dream because of our desire to fulfill things that we wish we could have or do. Dreaming is somehow a way to escape from reality, and take advantage of our wishes and wants.

In addition to these theories, there is the general theory that dreams occur because it is a way for us process the information that goes on in our day to day lives. Dreaming leads others to believe that it is sort of like a break, In which we can release stress and gather our thoughts.

Why we dream is one of science’s most puzzling questions. Scientists are continuing to search for an answer and hopefully they will get to the bottom of this soon!

As I was sitting in math class the other day, I saw the girl sitting next to me playing with a horoscope app. She noticed me peaking, so she asked me, “What’s your sign?” I told her Aquarius, but then I thought, what does this really mean? Do our zodiac signs actually influence our personalities?

In order to analyze if they mean anything, we need to understand the astrology behind zodiac signs and how they came to be. Stars exist in many different sizes and are allocated in many different regions, called constellations. When you connect all the stars within a constellation, the stars appear to make the shapes of different animals and objects. There are approximately 88 constellations, but the sun only passes through 12 constellations. The sun forms a circle once a year, called Ecliptic, and the Ecliptic is made up of 12 portions that are equal to 30 degrees each. These 12 portions are split up into different time periods, which correspond to our birthdays. Therefore, our birthdays are used to determine which zodiac sign we belong to. Each zodiac sign has its own set of unique traits and talents. For example, Aeries are supposed to be energetic and brave, while Taurus are said to be romantic and patient.

As much as I hate to break it to you, the meaning behind zodiac signs aren’t real. Astronomers have been studying the sun and the constellations for decades. However, ancient astronomers failed to understand the theory of precession. Precession is the movement of the earth spinning on its axis caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon on Earth. Because of this, the location of the constellations during ancient times is different from the position we see them today. Around 600 B.C, the point which marked zero degrees through 30 degrees was considered, but that point is not the same today. Pedro Bagaranca states, “Over the past two-and-a-half millennia, this wobble has caused the intersection point between the celestial equator and the ecliptic to move west along the ecliptic by 36 degrees, or almost exactly one-tenth of the way around.” Putting two and two together, the constellations no longer correspond with our birthdays because they have moved. So if you’re an aeries, you might very well be a Taurus! Therefore, how can you be energetic and brave if you’re really supposed to be romantic and patient? Exactly.

Results of Carlson’s experiment

Shawn Carlson, a physicist at the University of California, conducted a double blind test to prove that zodiac signs do not reflect our personalities. He recruited 30 well known astrologers and asked them to match the personalities of 116 people with their zodiac signs. As a result, they were only right about a third of the time. Carlson states, “Their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis”

John McGervey also examined the significance of zodiac sings. He performed a study and examined the correlation between zodiac sign personalities and occupations. He examined 6,000 politicians and 17,000 scientists to see if people within each profession fell under the same zodiac sign. Again, it was all random and there was no correlation.

Ask Mark Mayberry claims, it all comes down to what we want to hear. We all want to desperately believe in the magic of zodiac signs because we are fascinated by the thought of astrology and its tie to personalities.

So, what if your personality does match your zodiac sign? If you feel that you’re funny and clever just like your zodiac sign says, then awesome! But chances are that anyone else can also posses these traits even if they do not belong to your zodiac sign. In reality, it can all be due to chance!

Tickling is a sensation that we have all experienced. Some of us love being tickled, but others absolutely hate it. Some of us are extremely ticklish, yet some of us barely feel a thing. The tickling experience is different for everyone, but I’ve always wondered, why can’t we tickle ourselves?

It’s all thanks to our brains! There are two important parts of your brain that control tickling, the somatosensory cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex. The purpose of the somatosensory cortex is to process touch, which then sends a signal to the anterior cingulate cortex. The anterior cingulate cortex then processes that touch and determine whether it was a pleasant feeling. According to Blakemore, a researcher at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, “both these regions are less active during self-tickling than they are during tickling performed by someone else, which helps to explains why it doesn’t feel tickly and pleasant when you tickle yourself.”

Another problem with tickling ourselves is that our brain is too smart for us! It can predict when we are going to touch ourselves and even if we try, we don’t feel the same things when we touch ourselves compared to when others tickle us. We can’t trick our brains! As Chris Gayomali states, “Your ‘unexpected’ touch, no matter how cleverly you disguise it, is almost always expected – and that’s largely a good thing.” Our brains need to be able to detect when someone else is touching you versus yourself. Imagine if every time you accidentally touched your leg, you freaked out because you though someone else was touching you.

Many scientists have attempted experiments in order to see if it is possible to fool our brain into tickling ourselves. Jennifer Windt, who works at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany, gathered a group of expert lucid dreamers and performed her own studies. Because these lucid dreamers can control their own actions when they are dreaming, Windt had them attempt it, yet none of them could.

Another interesting experiment I found was one conducted by George Van Doorn, a psychologist at Federation University in Australia. As shown on the picture to the right, Van Doorn had a participant sit at one end of a rod, and an experimenter at the other. They both had foam at the end of the rods, and whenever one of them moved the rod, the foam would lightly stroke both of their left palms. The participant had on googles, which were connected to the camera on the experimenter’s helmet. The purpose of this was to create a “body-swap” illusion in which the participant would see from the experimenter’s perspective and feel as though it was the experimenter who was touching him or her. However, not even this worked. Van Doorn mentions, “The self-tickling lost out every time, even when including visual delays to make sure the brain wasn’t just adapting to the illusion.”

Because science is after all curiosity, there are many scientists who insist that there must be a way to trick the brain. After researching this topic, I did find that there is an exception to this theory. The answer is not yet crystal clear, but for some reason people who suffer from schizophrenia have the ability to tickle themselves. With the ongoing studies and increasing interest on this topic, I can’t wait to see what scientists discover in the near future!

We’ve all heard so many stories about ghosts whether it’s from our friends, documentaries on discovery channel, or even our own experiences. When I moved into Tener Hall a few weeks ago, I heard people in my building talking about the “Tener ghost.” The story consists of a student at Penn State who committed suicide by jumping off the 8^th floor. Since then, the building has been said to be haunted which got me thinking, do ghosts really exist?

After doing some research, one of the many interesting articles I came across was Benjamin Radford’s. He made a very good argument when it came to the existence of ghosts. He says, “Personal experience is one thing, but scientific evidence is another matter.” The problem with the existence of ghosts is that there is no scientific evidence that proves that such phenomena exists. There have been numerous stories and reports of people who claim to have seen ghosts, yet scientists have not been able to accumulate enough, if not any, scientific information. The things about ghosts is that there seems to be to  many “types of ghosts.” Radford himself examines many ghost stories and finds many contradictions within them. For example, people have claimed that ghosts can appear and go through solid objects, yet others have seen ghosts opening doors or picking up solid objects. Logically, it cannot be possible for both of these cases to occur. It must be one or the other.

Infrared Motion Detector

According to Brian Dunning, ghost hunters use many equipment to detect ghosts. Some of this equipment includes infrared motion detectors, particle detectors, EMF meters, cameras, audio recording gear, dowsing rod. But with all this technology, ghost hunters have not been able to find scientific evidence that prove ghosts exist. However, others claim that people have not been able to find scientific evidence because we do not have the adequate technology. But this cannot be the case! Radford states, “Either ghosts exist and appear in our ordinary physical world (and can therefore be detected and recorded in photographs, film, video and audio recordings), or they don’t.” There are so many videos on YouTube of people who claim to have caught ghosts on camera, but if it’s that hard to catch them on camera, then these videos and their ghosts cannot be real. Not to mention that with all the video effects and technology we have today, anyone can create a video which makes it appear as if a ghost was caught on camera.

So if ghosts don’t exist, then why do people believe in them? Christopher French, head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at the University of London, had much to say about this topic. He believes that those who have stories and claim they have seen ghosts, have truly seen shadows or heard noises that have lead them to believe otherwise. Christopher justifies these stories by something called sleep paralysis. During sleep paralysis the body is essentially paralyzed, but a person may experience some hallucinations. An article based on sleep paralysis states, “It is estimated that somewhere around 1 in 5 isolated sleep paralysis experiences are accompanied by dream-like hallucinations, almost always manifesting in negative or frightening forms, projected on the hallucinater’s actual physical surroundings.” French basically believes that the idea of ghosts is all part of our imagination and that part of the reason we want to believe in ghosts is because we fear what might occur after death. He states, “Most of us desperately want to believe in life after death – and the idea of ghosts, however scary, seems to offer support for such a notion.”

After gathering all the evidence that I could, I came to a conclusion just as Benjamin Radford, Brian Dunning, and many others have also come to. Either ghosts don’t exist and ghosts stories are simply part one’s imagination, hallucinations, or misunderstandings, OR ghosts do exist, but ghost hunters are not succeeding at finding proof. People have been on the hunt for ghosts for centuries, and I’m sure it will continue for many more. Who knows, maybe we’ll never know the truth, but at least we can get some good entertainment out of it!

Hi everyone! My name is Isabel and I’m from Yardley, Pennsylvania. I’m currently in the Smeal College of Business and I plan to major in Accounting. I really enjoy playing and watching volleyball, so I will definitely be attending the Penn State Women’s Volleyball games.

I’m taking this course for a couple of reasons. The first is because I don’t enjoy science. Science has always been my worst subject! I have never been interested in science and my grades always seemed to reflect that. Second, this course is specifically designed for non-science majors. As a business major, I found that this class would be perfect for me because I am still fulfilling my GN credits, while learning about science in a unique way.

I do not plan on majoring in science because like I said, I have never been interested in the subject. However, I think this class will get me thinking more about science because of the various interesting topics we will be talking about such as, “Could a zombie virus exist” and “Are animals gay”. I look forward to learning new things and discussing interesting topics in this class!

I’m Puerto Rican, so here is a beautiful picture of Puerto Rico!