Do you ever find yourself pointlessly scrolling through facebook on your phone when you should be doing something else, or getting lost in an endless world of clickbait articles, kitten videos and other mindless nonsense which the modern day has to offer? If your answer is no then you’re probably not human, and I don’t know how you’re reading this post. As countless journalists, comedians, cartoonists and that ranting drunk guy that was next to you at the bar last night have pointed out, we’re all hopelessly addicted to technology. But why is this, and can this really be considered an “addiction”?

how many of your friends are constantly looking at this?

The answer is that the intense compulsion to pick up your phone when you hear it buzz is driven by the neurotransmitter dopamine, the very same target of Ritalin, cocaine and a slew of other drugs. So yes, this addiction is does not only exist in our minds, but also very much so on a chemical level. As this article explains, dopamine is what drives the “wanting” part of our psyche. It is the thing that is released when our brain wants to tell us we have achieved our goal. In premodern times, this was a beneficial drive for survival. If killing a rabbit for dinner triggers a release of dopamine, then in the future you will go out of your way to do so in the future and get that natural high that signifies an accomplishment. However, when what we perceive as important (texts, facebook comments and that outfit Yeezy rocked at the VMA’s last night) become both ever less significant to what we actually need and increasingly easier to come by because of the internet, we find ourselves in a nasty predicament. Instead of putting our time into something worthwhile like a Neanderthal killing a rabbit, we flood ourselves with hit after hit of dopamine through meaningless banter which can be obtained with a mere click.

So, next time you’re about to click on the latest buzzfeed poll, stop and ask yourself if you really deserve the sense of fulfillment you’re about to gain; or if you’re just pushing yourself further into a lazy stupor with mind numbing instant gratification in much the same way as the neighborhood junkie. It is only once you realize that you’re tricking your body into thinking you achieved something significant with the click of a button that you can put your smartphone down and start working for your dopamine high and doing something worthwhile.

The Telegraph explains how this problem isn’t simply kids.  A poll of families finds that 70% of children believe that their parents spend too much time on electronics, as well.  Hypocrisy, as we all know, deters listening.  So in order to help discourage technological addiction, our generation must examine it’s elders doing so as well.  This extends to other countries as well.  The Telegraph reassuringly writes “One in five British teenagers believe that technology distracts their parents during conversation”(Bingham 1).  Clearly, technology is becoming an international problem.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10981242/Screen-addict-parents-accused-of-hypocrisy-by-their-children.html

Unfortunately, my family has a history of cancer.  Fortunately, the American Cancer Society recently published an article celebrating the regression of cancer!  The American Cancer Society gladly celebrated a nearly 20% decline in the overall risk of dying from cancer.  The article claimed the biggest progress was within middle-aged black males; who are statistically disadvantaged in terms of incidence and deaths from cancer.

Now, how can we believe such a broad statistic?  How does one measure all of these cases?  The American Cancer Society annually estimates the number of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States.  Using the most recent data on cancer fatality,incidence, and survival, the American Cancer Society  organizes this data.  This year, they collected and recorded 1,665,540 new cancer cases.  In 2014, they recorded 587,720 cancer deaths.  In men, half of all these cases were comprised of lung, colon, and prostate cancer; in women, breast, lung, and colon were amongst the most popular forms of cancer (American Cancer Society).  While these statistics appear depressing, relatively speaking, they are incredibly uplifting.  In the last five years, incidence has dropped merely 0.6% in men, and has stayed the same for women.  Deaths, however, have decreased by 1.8% in men (per year), and 1.4% in women!  In conclusion, cancer is just as abundant, but statistically less deadly.

It’s important to keep in mind when reading these statistics that there are large sample populations.  While 1.4% may seem negligible to a college student, it is an incredibly large group of people.  For example, cancer killed 215.1 people per 100,000 people in 1991; whereas cancer killed 171.8 people per 100,000 in 2010 (American Cancer Society).  If you do the math, this subtle decreased has avoided 1,340,400 cancer deaths in the last five years.  While the progress seems encouraging, scientists are not satisfied yet; John. R. Seffrin, chief executive officer at American Cancer society writes: “The progress we are seeing is good, even remarkable, but we can and must do even better”(American Cancer Society).  The attitude reflects the utmost perservernece and determination, and I am thankful to live in such a determined and intelligent society.  Curious about cancer diagnoses based on location, I decided to view a geographic map of cancer diagnoses.  I wanted to find a correlation between size, or weather, and cases, but failed to do so.  I am from New York, where cancer.org estimated 107,840 cases for 2015 (cancer.org).  In Pennsylvania, there were an estimated 81,540 cases for 2015 (cancer.org).  Strangely enough, in California there were 172,090 predicted cases for 2015, while New Mexico only predicted 9,970 cases(cancer.org).  Between all of the variables, I was left without a final conclusion on environment, location, and susceptibility.

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf (if eligible on screen)

What we do know is that there is historically-encouraging progress.  Survival rates have increased from 49% between 1975-1977 to 68% from 2004-2010(cancer.org).  The second set of data (2004-2010) is six years, which is three times the length of the first set of data (1975-1977); clearly, survival rates are substantially increasing.

sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140107102634.htm

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf

The Mayo Clinic recently published a study which investigates the causes of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) in both athletes, and non-athletes.  CTE is a progressively degenerative disease, caused by episodes of brain trauma.  The Mayo Study, published in a December issue of Acta Neurologica, questions the causation versus correlation dilemma; In doing so, this study directly links amateur contact sports (non-professional) to the development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.

This study is revolutionary in that it is the “first study to use the CTE neuropathologic criteria established by the national institute of neurological disorders and strokes earlier this year to look for the incidence of the disease in nonprofessional athletes”(Mayo Clinic).  I believe this study is incredibly important because professional athletes aren’t the only ones that matter.  Children who are growing up at your local high school are just important.  And they deserve to be informed on the consequences of participating in after school activities such as football, or rugby.  While the NFL concussion scandal was highly publicized, I believe the brains of our youth are just as significant and should be treated equally in terms of publication the knowledge and advice behind science.  Out of 1,721 cases in the “Mayo Brain Bank,” there were 66 males with documented participation in physical contact sports.  72% of these cases reported CTE pathology; whereas, out of 198 men AND women without a background in physical contact sports, 0% were confronted with CTE pathology.  Is that enough to solve the correlation versus causation debate?  I believe so, however, I would like to increase the portions for reassurance.  Kevin Bieniek, a prefectural student in the Mayo Graduate School’s Neurobiology of Disease Program, explains “The 32% of CTE we found is surprisingly high for the frequency of neurodegenerative pathology within the general population”(Mayo Clinic).  Clearly, contact sports cause brain trauma, in non professional athletes.

As for professional athletes, we have all heard about the NFL concussion scandal.  This 1 billion dollar lawsuit, attempts to compensate players (financially) for their cognitive damage, or impairment.  This lawsuit examined the brains of 91 deceased NFL players, and shockingly, found CTE in 87 of them.  Recent deaths have included Pittsburgh Steeler Mike Webster, and all-star linebacker Junior Seau, who I grew up watching.  Due to the definite correlation between professional football and brain damage, judge Anita B. Brody made the final approval on the court case, in April.  Following the approval, the NFL released a statement to frontline which states “We are dedicated to making football safer and continue to take steps to protect players, including rule changes, advanced technology, and expanded medical resources”(NFL, Ibtimes).  For those of you who watch football, the changes are quite evident.  Each team has increased sidelined doctors and physicians, as well as the quality of medical care off of the field.  Additionally, the league has installed the defenseless receiver rule to protect helpless wide receivers from unfair, traumatic hits.  Lastly, they have increased their tolerance to helmet-to-helmet contact, often resulting in a concussion, or trauma, for one party.  While these rules work to limit and discourage unfair trauma, there are legal ways to get a concussion.  And while science advances, so does the physicality and strength amongst players.  If players continue to get bigger and stronger, rules such as a defenseless receiver or helmet-to-helmet contact, matter less.  Legal hits can still result in trauma, hence why 96% of deceased NFL players had CTE (Ibtimes).

Growing up, I wasn’t allowed to play football for my high school because my brother got injured as a sophomore during tryouts.  At a young age, I was angry with my parents for not letting me tryout.  However, after reading the statistics on contact sports and CTE, I can do nothing but thank them.  Unless you’re going to be making millions of dollars, is the possibility of irreversble brain damage worth it?  Even if you are going to be playing at a D1 program, is it still worth it?  These are questions you must keep in mind for your little siblings and our youth; are contact sports safe anymore?  Clearly not, and people must spread the knowledge and statistics before they decide to sign their children up for tackle football.

worth it?

realistic?

sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202095439.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-concussion-lawsuit-settlement-what-frontline-cte-data-means-appeal-process-2104528

Earlier this year, SC 200 discussed the pros and cons of getting a flu vaccination.  As the winter is quickly approaching, I was debating getting a flu shot.  Encouraged by our class discussion which explained the different between causation and correlation, I decided to look at the feedback surrounding the 2015 flu vaccination.  The following article explains the science behind the flu shot, and specifically articulates how this years’ is different from others.

Dr. Jay Zimmerman, a primary care physician at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center states “There’s some reactiveness from one strain to the other and your body still sees it as a flu virus”(Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center).  In other words, the 2015 flu shot is designed to recognize (and fight) a variety of different flu strains.  As we all know, there is never simply one type of flu strain.  While the 2015 flu vaccine cannot possibly negate the effects of each different strain, it lessens each strains effectiveness through recognizing the virus.  Confused by the science, I began to question what exactly happens when a flu shot begins.

The science behind a flu vaccine is simple,  The flu vaccine injection forces the body to produce anti-bodies, designed to attack the specific flu virus. When the same anti-bodies are generated when one becomes ill, the body is able to easily recognize the anti-bodies, and consequently defeat the flu virus.  Additionally, the study suggests a seniority component.  According to the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, the “greater the number of years the flu vaccine is received, the more protected the person is from flu related illnesses”(Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center).  Being an indecisive, broke college student, I was reluctant to get a flu shot.  However, given the surplus of benefits including a building annual immunity; I am most definitely going to get a flu shot.  Additionally, the following article claims that flu shots also significantly reduce the risk of heart disease, and heart attacks.  Dr. Zimmerman advises that a heart attack can occur when a patient is severely fighting the flu, using dehydration as an explanation for rapid heart rate increase.  Lastly, Zimmerman reassures my decision to get a flu shot, as he comparatively writes “You are more likely to get sick from sitting in the waiting room or grocery store than from getting the flu vaccine itself”(Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center).

While the 2015 flu vaccine appears harmless, there are always exceptions.  Healthline discourages the 2015 flu vaccine from those who are allergic to chicken eggs, and those who have been diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome.  Both of these suggestions are logical.  The vaccine is made out of chicken eggs, which should generally discourage those with severe chicken, or chicken-egg allergies, to stay away.  Guillain-Barré Syndrome is a condition in which the “Bodies immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system”(National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke).  Obviously, simulating a virus in the immune system isn’t ideal for those whose nervous system may subsequently suffer.

attached above is a device used in order to combat the complications of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

I have concluded that I am fit for the 2015 flu vaccine, and I will be traveling to get one this week.

links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150924104434.htm

http://www.healthline.com/health/flu-shot-side-effects#GBS8

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/detail_gbs.htm

After watching the UFO video in class last week, I became intrigued about the possibility of life on other planets.  Rather than watching conspiracy documentaries, I found an article which offered a plan to discover, and investigate life on other planets.  The reason I selected this article is because of the engineers’  determination and perseverance; I’m tired of U.S. authorities lack of openness with the public, in regard to UFO sightings and alien possibilities.

Sara Seager, a scientist examining life on other planets, suggests we should use a technological contraption entitled a “starshade” in order to efficiently look for life on other planets.  The Starsahde appears “a seemingly crazy flower-shaped contraption designed to block light from a star, in order to avoid the stars’ glare and peer into the planets”(BBC News).  This approach attempts to act pro-actively towards a discovery, whereas the government in our class video merely rejects the possibility of aliens, lacking the ambition or determination of Seager.  The reason we must deter the brightness of the sun is because the sun is “ten billion times brighter than the earth”(BBC News).

If we were able to effectively limit the glare of the sun, scientists would also be able to identify, and evaluate the gases, and chemicals in each planets’ atmosphere.  Consequently, we would be able to tell if life on another planet is contributing to the subsequent gas or chemical transmissions in their immediate atmosphere.  To find aliens, we need to build a giant parasol explains how the prescence of certain chemicals indicates life, or lack of life.  For example, “Without life-planets or photosynthetic bacteria-we would have virtually no oxygen, which is why oxygen is one of the most promising so-called biosignatures” (BBC News).

Additionally, there have been other scientific advancements that may help to effectively identify life on other planets.  The James Webb Space Telescope is set to come out in 2018.  Such innovation will help examine the atmospheric chemistry in “greater detail”.  Picture if we could use the starshade in order to block light while simultaneously using the James Webb Space Telescope in order to zoom in and evaluate the logic behind the placement of each atmospheric chemical compound!?  While this process is extremely difficult, researchers have found success with simulations in the desert, using sustainable components (lamp, starshade camera).  Unfortunately, NASA cannot launch the started until 2026, so for now, fellow students and I will need to wait.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150429-will-we-find-aliens

I decided to blog about an article commenting on the increase in marijuana use, from 2001 to 2013.  During this time period, use and abuse both increased exponentially .  The JAMA network claimed that marijuana abuse increased from 1.5% in 2001, 2002 to 2.9% in 2012,2013(JAMA Network).  While you would assume most of this use stemmed from college students like us, it did not.

From 2001 until 2012, adult use has nearly doubled.  When I first read this, I was surprised.  However, if you think about it, it makes sense.  In 23 states, there are now medical marijuana laws.  Within four of these states, there are recreational marijuana laws, thus, meaning essentially anyone can legally purchase and ingest marijuana.  While use nearly doubled, increasing from 4.1% to 9.5%,this article focused on the statistics which reveal increases in certain ethnicities.  The study found that here was a large increase in individuals from the ages of 45-64.  Also, they found a large increase within Hispanics, blacks, and low-income individuals (JAMA Network).

Lastly, we must consider that medical marijuana use is expanding by the second.  In 2000, no one would have predicted the legal nature of marijuana in 23 states,  Following this logic, in 2020, medical marijuana and recreational marijuana may be increasingly available.  We must educate our citizens on the chance of dependence, as overall use is most likely increasing, exponentially.

The following website illustrates the changing culture of medical marijuana.  This site offers a variety of different medical accommodations, for negative-health related symptoms.  Using terms such as “medicine” to reduce “anxiety” or health-related “pain,” this site offers medical marijuana in a legal, open way.  I believe we must educate our population, before medical/recreational marijuana is legal in a majority of states.  If we are able to increase legal, medical distribution while decreasing the percentages of addiction and dependence, I will be impressed.  If such occurs, I can confidently say I will approve of the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana.  I fear, however, that the increase in users will continue to grow, in congruence with the increase in marijuana dependence/addiction.

Weed Maps helps users find nearby dispensaries.  I was incredibly impressed with this search engine; it’s essentially a Google maps, for medicine.  Given our vast advances in technology, if we could ensure ONLY medicinally-cleared patients, medical marijuana will be an ethical and efficient way of practicing medicine.

sources:   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151021114956.htm

http://medicalmarijuana.com/

https://weedmaps.com/

A recent study shows that ADHD medications (stimulants) aren’t as dangerous as our society assumed.  In order to investigate the effect of medications such as Adderall, Vyvanse, and Ritalin, on the heart, researchers compared the effect of such drugs between patients with heart disease, and without heart disease.

I have ADD, and consequently need to take ADHD medications.  These medications are stimulants, and thoroughly combat the negative effects of ADHD.  I am always worried, however, that they are a tax on my heart.  In order to further investigate the possibility of such consequences, this study observed 44 children between the ages of 6-18 at Cincinnati’s Children Heart Institute Kindervelt Neurodevelopmental and Educational Clinic.  These children (with heart disease) were given ADHD stimulants, and their results were compared to those with similar heart disease, who did not take ADHD stimulants.  In order to observe the biological differences, this study used an electrocardiogram, also known as an EKG.  For those of you who have not had one, it’s the process where they hook up a lot of wires to you and examine everything about your heart rate.  The results of the study surprised me.  They proved stimulants were safe, and the most effective way to combat the side effects of ADD, or ADHD.  I was incredibly surprised that the ingestion of stimulants didn’t worsen their heart conditions, or make it more likely to acquire such cardiovascular diseases.  While such drugs have been proven to be “safe,” it’s important to read the directions and precautions on your prescription.

For example, Adderall suggests users should refrain from use if they have high blood pressure, glaucoma, severe anxiety, depressions, seizures, etc (drugs.com).  This study doesn’t mean one should disregard such instructions, however, it shows the relative safety of healthy patients taking ADHD medications.  In simpler words, I am more at ease taking my prescribed ADHD stimulants; knowing that people with heart disease can ingest them, without experiencing decreases in health.

sources:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151005080122.htm

http://www.drugs.com/adderall.html

A couple of nights ago I watched the democratic debate.  A couple of the candidates, specifically Bernie Sanders, emphasized the importance of tackling global warming.  If I recall correctly, he claimed global warming was our biggest national security threat.  After seeing a few Facebook statuses mocking the drastic nature of such a claim, I did some investigating.  Within my investigation, I once again, was surprised by capabilities of science/technology.

The article I’m going to focus on analyzed the impact of global warming.  It focused specifically on “tipping points,” or sudden regional climate shifts (University of Southampton).  The evidence provided 41 cases of these drastic changes, including the following environments: sea ice, permafrost, terrestrial biosphere, and snow cover.  Immediately I wondered, how can one monitor climate changes?  Interestingly, these scientists used the 5th intergovernmental Plan on climate change.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change essentially processes specific climate information, including everything from the emissions of greenhouses gases in a specified area, to the affect of their emissions on a human population.  This organization has an enormous responsibility, as they must explain everything about a climate through statistical analysis.  Through using this data, experts have concluded that global warming has contributed to unpredictable tipping points.  Professor Sybren Drijfhout, from the Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, claimed that anticipation of tipping points has become increasingly “uncertain”(University of Southampton).  Additionally, experts have realized that these unpredictable climate changes are incredibly likely to occur.  Given the uncertain and frequent nature of these tipping points, should we be concerned?  Unfortunately, the answer is yes;  these abrupt changes have residual effects.  For example, shifts in sea ice may influence ocean circulation patterns.  Just as a shift in vegetation may influence a neighboring location.  Max Planck, co author from Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, illustrates the residual effect of these occurrences as he writes “A collapse of permafrost in Arctic is followed by a rapid increase in forest there”(Planck, University of Southampton).

While the picture above may not directly affect your life, conceptually, it does.  If global warming can cause unpredictable severe weather changes, it will eventually find its way into our life.  Martin Claussen, co author of “Scientists identify climate ‘tipping points’ ” reiterates pursuant advice, writing “The majority of detected abrupt shifts are distant from major population centers of planet, but their occurrence could have implications, over large distances”(Claussen, University of Southampton).  I am concerned because our major industries are increasingly damaging the environment, thus, increasing our chances of becoming affected by a large geographical or environmental shift.  We must cut down pollution in order to avoid pictures similar to above, affecting large cities or populations of citizens.

sources: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151015084348.htm

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/united-nations-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-chahttp://www.bing.com/images/search?q=collapse+permafrost&view=detailv2&qpvt=collapse+permafrost&id=5C337BD6CFE5AED3225B7396910ACF6C160C01B5&selectedIndex=0&ccid=8zoxxoLE&simid=607992517454924080&thid=OIP.Mf33a31c682c44c8d98f05ad59f99defbH0&ajaxhist=0nge-report-published

NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) provides evidence that liquid water flows on Mars, today.  This article once again, reiterates the mind-blowing intelligence and innovation within the field of science.  Upon reading this title, I wondered how in the world they could come to this conclusion through satellite data.  Using an imaging spectrometer, MRO was able to detect signatures of hydrated minerals on slopes where unidentified streaks are seen.

John Grunsfeld, astronaut and associate administer of NASA, enthusiastically wants to follow the water in search of life.  How cool would that be?

While such fantasy is intriguing, we must remember that Mars is a frigid world with a thin atmosphere.  Any life on this planet would most likely be microbial.  Grunsfeld’s idea to follow water in search of life led to the discovery of a pattern.  These downhill flows prove a recurring slope.  Additionally, hydrated salts were only observed when seasonal features were widest.  Grunsfeld’s conclusion was that observed dark streaks are involved in a hydration-forming process.  In other words, water plays a vital role in developing the streaks observed on NASA’s MRO.  In order to definitively investigate such conclusions, Lujendra Ojaha from Georgia’s Institute of Technology conducted a high resolution imaging science experiment.  In order to cross reference all twelve sites (which showed streaks), Ojha paired the site images with mineral mapping.  Furthermore, Ojha realized that signatures of hydrated salts at multiple locations were caused by hydrated minerals called perchlorates.  These are mixtures of magnesium perchlorate, magnesium chlorate, and sodium perchlorate; which confirms the makeup of water.  I am excited to hear this news; it is the first time perchlorate has been identified from orbit.  Such news proves a stride in technological advancement (considering we have never recognized perchlorate before) and consequently generates curiosity about the next step.  Will we further investigate the formation of these sites?  And how will we be able to further investigate?  Will we need more scientific advancement or do we have the tools to definitively investigate this matter?

sources:

1-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150928094114.htm

2-http://gizmodo.com/what-sorts-of-life-forms-could-actually-live-on-mars-1733458742

Paraplegia can be defined as the loss of motor or sensory functions in areas of the body normally coordinated by neurological segments.  These losses are usually caused by neurological damage within the spinal cord.  Until recently, such condition offered a series of obstacles, with little to no solution.  The probability of being able to walk, was zero.

On September 23, 2015 history was made; A man with complete paralysis (paraplegia) in both legs, walked.  Amazed by the title of this article, I investigated immediately.  How could science solve neurological damage to the spinal cord or nervous system!?  To somebody with little to no background in scientific knowledge, the explanation seemed very logical.  First, the experimenters used an electroencephalogram based system (EEG).  This system took electric signals from the participants brain, and coordinated them to travel down to electrodes placed around the patients knees.  Repeating such pattern, the patient was elevated off the ground (roughly 5cm) and repeteadly tested.  After twenty visits, the patient began to independently walk with their legs suspended above the ground.

Dr. An Do from the University of Califronia, Irvine described this scientific achievement as “restoring intuition.”  I found this explanation incredibly moving towards the field of science in general.  Metaphorically speaking; say paraplegia was a failure to start, the tires being our legs.  Following the logic of the electroencephalogram based system, these experimenters essentially jumpstarted a body!

Attached below, you will find a video of this great scientific accomplishment.

If scientists can replicate the results of this study on other patients, our society will be able to significantly improve the life of those disabled by spinal cord injuries.  While living in a wheel chair is incredibly inconvenient, it is equally unhealthy.  Forcibly sitting in a wheel chair has proven to lead to a variety of medical complications including: osteoporosis, heart disease, respiratory illness, and the formation of pressure ulcers.  I sincerely hope that this recent success will spread amongst patients who are inconvenienced by this horrible condition.

Sources:

1-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150923213931.htm

2-http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/paraplegia

3-http://www.massdevice.com/paralyzed-california-man-re-learns-to-walk-via-computer/

4-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBAeR-Z0EHg

5-http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/12/1/80

Pennsylvania has an elevation of roughly 1,100 feet above sea level.  This will pose relevance, as this article applies to our lives.

Recent research has linked the thin air of high elevations to increased rates of depression.  While such correlation may seem negative; high elevations have also proven to decrease the prevalence of attention deficit disorder, commonly known as ADHD.  In Utah, the average state elevation is 6,100 feet.  The rate of ADHD patients is 50% lower than sea-level states! The trend continues in Salt Lake city, where the elevation is 4,300 feet, and ADHD rates are 38% less than sea-level states.

After reading these statistics, I wondered; how can this be?  Hypobaric Hypoxia is a condition caused by the lack of oxygen in the air, at a high elevation.  In order to combat the adversity of this geographically-stimulated side effect, the body produces higher levels of dopamine.  Ironically, decreased dopamine is associated with ADHD.  Consequently, as ones’ elevation increases, the risk of acquiring such a disorder diminishes.  Douglas G. Konde, assistant professor psychiatry and senior author of this study, labeled hypoxia as an “environmental stressor.”  However, in this case, altitude provides protection.

In order to further examine this correlation, the national Survey on Children’s Health conducted a survey.  In 2007, they visited 94,642 households.  They found 73,123 children with mild, moderate, or severe ADHD (ages 4-17).  The same study was conducted in 2010, this time, they interviewed 372,689 households and found 40,424 participants were diagnosed with ADHD.  Through geographical analysis, they concluded that for every one foot increase in elevation, health care providers lowered their chance of diagnosing a patient with ADHD by .001%!  Such statistics demonstrate how an increase in sea level deters the probability of acquiring ADHD.  Additional examples include North Carolina where the average elevation is only 869 feet above sea level, and an incredibly large 15.6% of the population appears diagnosed with ADHD.  North Carolina is opposite Nevada, where the average elevation is 5,517 feet above sea level, and merely 5.6% of the population suffers from ADHD.  Such statistics make a compelling argument for strategically starting your life.  Will informed citizens foreshadowing reproduction begin to relocate to higher altitudes?  Or will this data go unnoticed in a society where ADHD provides a large amount of obstacles to those affected.

For those of you who are not familiar with how ADHD is treated, their are two different categories of medications prescribed.  One are stimulants, which accelerate the heart and speed up neurotransmitters.  The others are non-stimulants, such as Concerta.  In the following study, 325 medicated-ADHD students were interviewed, based on their symptoms.  A large 48% complained of at least one side effect.  These symptoms include an abnormal loss of appetite, sleep problems, and mood swings.  Stimulants appeared to effect patients psychologically, as the majority of them reported mood disturbances.  Non-stimulant patients reported digestive discomfort, ranging from nausea to gastrointestinal problems.  The reason I brought up the complications of medications is in order to stress how inconvenient having ADHD is.  In our competitive society, academics and education are becoming increasingly competitive.  In order to combat the negative effects of having a learning disability, many citizens have to unhealthily depend on these medications.  However, what if people used this article in order to strategically reproduce in a high elevation? Thus, lowering the chances of their offspring growing up with ADHD.  I believe this is an incredibly interesting field of science, and I am excited to see if there is a continuously decreasing trend of ADHD diagnoses in high elevations.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150407210834.htm

http://psychcentral.com/lib/side-effects-of-adhd-medications/

Everywhere I go, I see someone with an electronic cigarette.  Whether I’m outside the library, or at a party, someone always seems to be smoking an electronic cigarette.  Oftentimes, I observe (young) kids blowing out what appears to be a ground-level-cloud, out of their mouths.  My original perception of e-cigarettes was positive, they’re supposed to help people quit nicotine, right?  Despite contrary input from peers, friends, I was reluctant to believe that their is anything beneficial from exhaling large volumes of smoke.  Clueless about the logistics surrounding electronic cigarettes, I began to investigate.

First, I questioned the target audience.  I am from New York City , where you (now) have to be 21 or older in order to purchase cigarettes.  Here in Pennsylvania, I’ve seen kids as young as 15 smoking electronic cigarettes.The University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences explained such discrepancy through marketing loop holes.  Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is struggling to regulate electronic cigarettes.  Until they are regulated, electronic cigarettes are not subject to regulation laws such as: age limits on sale, taxation, and other labeling requirements.  The lack of age requirements enable extremely young children to purchase these devices, and share with their friends.  Additionally, electronic cigarette companies have created a multitude of flavors, which works to attract young children who often find themselves in a vulnerable, experimental stage in life.  Lastly, these devices are allowed to be advertised on television, similar to regular cigarettes forty years ago.  This loophole obviously works to attract a younger audience, through the promotion of flavors, appearance, etc.

Look at the marketing strategy used by this company. They are allowed to ruthlessly promote unhealthy products in 2015. What separates these adds from the Camel cigarettes adds fifty years ago?

Regardless of their increase in popularity, are electronic cigarettes helping adolescents quit smoking normal cigarettes?  The study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Science proves the answer is no, in fact, they are increasing the amount of children smoking nicotine.  Over a one year period, 700 adolescents’ (ages of 16-26) revealed their smoking habbits.  38% of all electronic cigarette users admitted to  regularly smoking non-electronic cigarettes, whereas merely 10% of non-electronic cigarette users admitted to smoking non-electronic cigarettes.  These statistics were consistent among a variety of categories including: race, socioeconomic status, occupation.  Such data proves that the nicotine delivered through electronic cigarettes, over time, encourages a tolerance.  Furthermore, children are increasingly transitioning from electronic cigarettes to regular cigarettes, in search of a higher nicotine dose.  The  argument that people lower their nicotine dosage (within their electronic cigarette) in order to help quit cigarettes is completely refuted by these statistics. Clearly, electronic cigarettes increase your nicotine tolerance, until adolescents graduate to more harmful cigarettes.

While we have learned about electronic cigarettes counterproductive results, I continued to wonder how unhealthy they are compared to regular cigarettes.  In search of an answer, the American Physiological Society (APS) exposed mice and human cells to cigarette smoke, and electronic cigarette smoke(with, and without, nicotine).  Nicotine in both electronic and regular cigarettes proved extremely harmful; its’ pulmonary effects resulted in the loss of lung function, produced acute lung inflammation, and decreased endothelial cells within lungs.  Given electronic cigarettes barred equally destructive results, how are they a better alternative?  Additionally, nicotine-free electronic cigarette solutions contained acrolein, which damages the lungs by attacking essential cells such as endothelial cells.  With or without nicotine, electronic cigarettes find themselves in a web of negative health effects.

Growing up, I was required to take a series of health courses.  From late middle school into early high school, these courses largely focused on puberty, drugs, alcohol, sexual intercourse, and CPR.  Granted health was mandatory in order to graduate, every student needed to participate to a certain extent.  The Center for the Advancement of Health was determined to find the effectiveness of such teachings, specifically on teenage sexual behavior.

Did the countless sexually informative videos actually deter teenage sexual intercourse, or rather, did they encourage such behavior through exposure?  The findings were surprising; generally, those who received sex education in school were incredibly reluctant to begin intercourse at an early age. Males were an astonishing 71% less likely to engage in sexual intercourse before the age of 15, while females were 59% less likely.  African American females reduced their chances of having sex by the age of 15, by 91%! Clearly, health education was necessary in deterring sex amongst children under 15.  While deterring underage children from having sex, its important to keep in mind that one day they will probably engage in sexual intercourse. Following such logic, what affect did health class have on children once they decided to engage in sexual intercourse?  Did the majority use protection?

Surprisingly, the study showed education had no effect on whether females used birth control.  In fact, males were 2.77 more times likely to rely on females birth control, for their first sexual intercourse.  Such statistics prove concerning; are classes teaching guys to irresponsibly rely on women for sexual protection?  Deterring sexual intercourse before age fifteen is important, however, protection for both genders should be emphasized(as sex is inevitable).  Claire Brindis, interim director of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco, explained that most health classes are designated to answering questions pertaining to sexual peer pressure, and additionally, distinguishing true versus false aspects of mythology.  In addition to distinguishing what’s true, false, I believe these programs are failing at emphasizing the importance of protection; for both men and women.  When I took health class, I remember they emphasized a minimum of two types of protection, one for the man, one for the women.  Obviously, most adolescents disobey this rule and only use one form of protection.  The statistics above show that young men are becoming increasingly reliant on female contraception methods, consequently proving that they are not using their own form of protection.

While education is important towards deterring premature sexual action, Science Daily finds that the more important correlation lies between socioeconomic status, and sexual intercourse.  In analyzing how a school is run, the study was able to account for all predictors of sexual activity.  This study claims analyzing socioeconomic factors such as deprivation, can be correlated directly to sexual intercourse tendencies, statistics.  For example, if an economically deprived individual is placed within affluent sexual education, they will be more hesitant to act impulsively.  On the contrary, if an affluent individual is placed within an economically deprived sexual education, they may be encouraged to act impulsively.  Such correlations provide accurate to school systems similar to mine.  Since I grew up in a wealthy school system, they discouraged sexual intercourse through sophisticated, mandatory health courses.  However, it’s hard to explain what deterred inappropriate or premature sexual activity.  Was it the socioeconomic status of the area, or was it the information presented in the mandatory health courses?  While the first article praises sexual education, without sufficient socioeconomic abilities, classes wouldn’t exist.  Clearly, the ability to sustain and practice safe sex, is correlated to the socioeconomic status of ones’ school district.