I have always been curious as to why there are more right-handed people than left-handed people. In addition, I am curious as to whether the results are caused by genetics, experience, or a combination of both. According to Live Science , approximately 90 percent of people are right-handed while only 10 percent of people are left-handed. But what is the reasoning behind this? I decided to research why there are more right-handed people than left-handed people to understand the phenomenon.

Researchers at Northwestern University have recently constructed a mathematical model that shows people are rarely left-handed due to a form of cooperation. Humans are social beings and tend to value cooperation, so they become righties as a form of conformity to a social norm. Apparently, the balance between cooperation and competition within a species is what to determine what percentage of the species is right-handed and what percentage of the species is left-handed. If humans were heavily more competitive rather than cooperative, we would see a ratio close to 50-50. This is why we often see lefties dominate certain sports, such as boxing or baseball, because they value competition over cooperation. Professor Daniel M. Abrams and graduate student Mark J. Panaggio constructed a model that concluded over 50 percent of elite baseball players are left-handed and over 10 percent of athletes in other sports are left-handed.  In terms of the causes for being right-handed or left-handed, Abrams states that genetics and environment both contribute to handedness. Even identical twins who share the same genes do not always have the same handedness.

There have also been instances where right-handedness was forced upon in certain situations, according to Scientific American. For example, some teachers would force their students to write right-handed rather than left-handed. I have also heard of ancient societies who believed being left-handed was a sign of evil which strongly encouraged people to learn to use their right hand.

There are many biological theories as to why more people are right-handed than left-handed. The Guardian provides several different viewpoints on the topic. David Colville believes that being left-handed is a recessive trait. Therefore, one in four people will have the left-handed gene, two in four people would share the trait, and one in four people would have the right-handed gene. However, human culture encourages the use of the right hand, so some left-handed people are trained to be right-handed and therefore the left-handed population is underrepresented. Another man by the name of Brian states that left-handed people had a slight starvation of oxygen on the right side of their brain in the womb. As a result, the left side of the brain became dominant at an early stage and dictated that the left hand would be the dominant one. The opposite would be true for right-handed people.

Image courtesy of http://www.handresearch.com/news/Menu_bestanden/brain-organisation.jpg

It does not seem that anyone has reached a definite conclusion on why more people are right-handed rather than left-handed. What we can conclude is that genetics and environment play a role in the determination of handedness. We could possibly do experiments where we take a sample of children from birth and attempt to train them to be a particular handedness, but there are too many unknown factors and possible confounding variables, such as genetics, that would effect the results of the experiment and not allow us to reach a definitive conclusion.

Sources Used:

http://www.livescience.com/19968-study-reveals-lefties-rare.html

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-4826,00.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-more-people-right/

Considering that we spend approximately 33% of our lives sleeping, the position in which we sleep must be important. I have a tendency to sleep on my stomach and often wake up with mild back pain. I feel strain on my lower back when I lay in this position, so I wanted to look into what sleeping positions are good and what sleeping positions are bad to avoid any possible physical pain in the future.

After doing research, I have concluded that sleeping on your back does damage to both your lower back and your neck. Having to turn your head to the side on your pillow causes unnecessary strain on your neck. If you can only sleep on your stomach, it is recommended that you use a soft pillow or no pillow at all in order to avoid putting your neck at an awkward angle. In general, you should avoid sleeping on your back if you are able to sleep in other positions.

In addition to sleeping on your stomach, sleeping on your back can also cause lower back pain. To avoid this back pain, it is recommended you put a pillow below your knees in order to elevate your lower body and facilitate the natural curve of the spine. Sleeping on your back can also cause sleep apnea which is when you periodically stop breathing in your sleep. This causes your sleep to be less sound and restful. On the other hand, I consulted with medicaldaily.com who said that sleeping on your back  is the healthiest position. There reasoning is that your head, neck, and spine are all aligned when you sleep flat on your back which results in the least amount of pressure added to your lower back and neck.

Image courtesy of https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B57UPRBhy4I/hqdefault.jpg

The final position which is recommended by bettersleep.org is sleeping on your side.  If you put a pillow in between your legs, it helps diminish lower back and hip pain. Medicaldaily.com ranked sleeping on your side as the second healthiest position to sleep in. Just like sleeping on your back, sleeping on your side does help with pain in the lower back and neck. Unlike sleeping on your back, sleeping on your side also helps to prevent sleep apnea. That being said, there are negatives to sleeping on your side such as wrinkling of the skin. As a matter of fact, sleeping on your left side versus sleeping on your right side can cause a number of different issues. If you sleep on your left side, you can damage internal organs such as your liver, lungs, and stomach. If you sleep on your right side, you can increase heartburn. The positive to sleeping on your left side is it helps limit acid reflux and promotes better blood flow which is why doctors advise pregnant women to sleep on their left side.

Image courtesy of https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/7d/11/e77d11064ef4baa33c2ba887749cff39.jpg

It does not seem that there is a consensus as to which sleeping position is the best. Some doctors believe sleeping on your back is the best method for your back and neck while others believe sleeping on your side is the best way to avoid physical pain while preventing sleep apnea from taking place. Either way is an effective method for sleep as long as you do not position your limbs in an uncomfortable and unnatural way. One thing that is certain is that sleeping on your back is an unhealthy and ineffective way to sleep.

Sources Used:

http://bettersleep.org/better-sleep/sleep-positions

http://www.medicaldaily.com/sleeping-positions-stay-healthy-best-and-worst-ways-sleep-during-night-296714

Every kid who grew up watching Star Wars had their own plastic lightsabers and hoped of one day being able to use a real lightsaber. With Star Wars 7 coming out in a matter of weeks, lightsabers have been on my mind and got me wondering if lightsabers have been developed and/or if there is a possibility they will be made. Well, as of now there are no lightsabers that have been made, but there is progress being made in this field.

Image courtesy of http://img10.deviantart.net/d59e/i/2011/299/4/0/kalippe_lightsaber_by_jnetrocks-d4dyzpo.jpg

The first website I visited, physics.org, ruled out the idea of producing lightsabers for many reasons. The website came in with the perspective that the lightsaber blade would need to be produced by lasers which is where they ran into problems. One, there would be no way to stop the laser just a few feet away from the handle of the lightsaber while still allowing the blade to be used as a deadly laser. Second, the materials you would need and the cooling system that would need to be in the handle are too much for a person to carry around with them. Third, the amount of energy required for the laser would be too much for a battery-powered lightsaber, so you would need to be plugged in and the lightsaber would then be impractical. Fourth, your opponent could shield themselves from the laser with a mirror and reflect the laser back on you. The lasers would also pass through each other during a duel which would make the weapons less exciting. Finally, you could not visibly see the laser from a side perspective and the lasers would also be noiseless, making the visual and audio effects much less appealing.

This is what real life lightsabers currently look like. Image courtesy of http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/28/article-0-1A09D8CD000005DC-260_634x351.jpg

After consulting with other sources, it seems as if we are very close to developing a real life lightsaber. Professors from MIT, Harvard, and other US universities collaborated to discover that binding photons together in a new form might be the key to creating a lightsaber. Mikhail Lukin from Harvard told The Guardian, ” What we have done is create a special type of medium in which photons interact with each other so strongly that they act as though they have mass, and bind together to form molecules.” He does go on to explain that the molecules are deflecting one another and the way they behave is very similar to what is seen in the movies. The National Institute of Science and Technology along with the University of Maryland have made another breakthrough regarding the construction of lightsabers. By tweaking the binding process, they were able to have photons side by side and a specific distance away from each other which could help in the construction of a lightsaber. The problem lies in establishing the extreme environmental conditions to bind the photons and being able to sensor the capacity of the light in order to create a “standard candle” for the blade.

To summarize, a legitimate lightsaber has not been created up to this point but breakthroughs are being made. The idea might be a bit far-fetched and physicists are still skeptical of the idea, but the possibility of creating a real life lightsaber still remains.

Sources Used:

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=59

http://www.zdnet.com/article/scientists-make-the-star-wars-lightsaber-possible/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3254040/We-one-step-closer-building-lightsaber-Scientists-figure-light-particles-stick-together.html

Alcohol is a common topic in American culture. Obviously, overconsumption and/or abuse of alcohol is unhealthy for anyone and should be avoided at all costs. However, does moderate consumption of alcohol provide some health benefits?

We have all heard the saying that “a glass of red wine a day keeps the doctor away.” This saying might have some merit to it. According to Web MD, adults who consume between four and six alcoholic drinks, a drink being 5 oz. of wine or 1.5 oz. of 80 proof liquor, are 20% – 44% less likely to develop a fatal ballooning of the aorta, the largest artery in the body. This would support the common statement that red wine is good for your heart. The Harvard School of Public Health states that it makes biological sense that alcohol would have a positive effect on cardiovascular health. Moderate amounts of alcohol raises levels of high-density lipoprotein which have an association with more protection against heart disease. Alcohol in moderation has also been linked to greater sensitivity to insulin and enhancing factors that influence blood clotting. In addition to a healthier heart, there is some evidence that moderate alcohol consumption may be healthy for your kidneys. A presentation at the National Kidney Foundation showed that people who consumed less than a glass of wine per day were 37% less likely to develop chronic kidney disease. That being said, studies cannot prove causation and other factors could cause these results. For example, the people who are consuming alcohol might be have higher socioeconomic status and therefore eat healthier and have a better-functioning body.

Image courtesy of https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8nAtkMneYNBERtp8Lpxm9kLV6tw=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4093476/DRINKS_STANDARD_MEASURE.jpg

Image courtesy of http://teresenielsen.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54fd89cec88340147e155b94d970b-800wi

Alcohol has been accused of causing many types of cancer such as mouth, liver, and larynx. The National Cancer Institute has concluded that consuming three and a half or more drinks per day can double or even triple your risk of developing head and neck cancers. And apparently, 3.5% of cancer deaths in the US are thought to be caused by alcohol. I do not see how one could confirm this causation with certainty, and I feel that the texas sharpshooter problem could be a possibility in this situation. People are always looking for new causes to cancer and negative effects of alcohol, and they might have a drawn a false or exaggerated conclusion. On the other hand, alcohol is thought to lower the risk for kidney cancer and Hodgkins lymphoma. Overall, alcohol can be very dangerous especially for the increased risk of developing life-threatening cancer.

The message that I would takeaway from this blog post is that moderate consumption of alcohol, which is 1 drink per day for women and 2 drinks per day for men, is acceptable if alcohol has already become a part of your life. But one cannot get to the point where they are abusing alcohol or the consequences could  be life-threatening. If you are not already consuming alcohol, continue to avoid the temptation and do not start drinking. Although there is some evidence that moderate amounts of alcohol could provide some health benefits, it is not worth the risk to being drinking.

Sources Used:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20140814/amount-alcohol

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-full-story/

Climate change has become one of the largest problems that our modern world faces. People are changing the way they lives their lives in attempt to preserve the environment. However, I hear some people claim that climate change is a myth and should be of no concern to modern day society. I am baffled by the fact that there is uncertainty in this issue yet so many people are making such strong efforts to combat these issues. Because of my confusion, I wanted to look deeper into whether or not climate change is a legitimate problem for humanity.

NASA claims that climate change is happening and humans are most likely causing the changes. One piece of evidence that the Earth is warming up is that the sea levels have risen 17 centimeters, or 6.7 inches, in the last century, and the rate of the last decade has nearly doubled compared to the last century. The global surface has risen in temperature since 1880. In fact, twenty of the warmest years have occurred since 1981 and ten of the warmest years have occurred in the past twelve years. Another common piece of evidence is the ice sheets and glaciers melting at an alarming rate. NASA obtained data which found that Greenland has lost between 150-250 cubic kilometers of ice between 2002 and 2006. From 2002 to 2005, Antarctica lost approximately 152 cubic kilometers of ice. All of these trends are alarming, but the most worrisome aspect of these statistics is that negative change is happening at an increasing rate. The rate of change being so high seems to support the hypothesis that humans are contributing to these changes in climate through an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Image courtesy of https://seacat.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/global_climate_change_policy_and_budget_review-1.gif 

Image courtesy of http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/files/2010/10/nasa.jpg

On the other hand, the co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, claims that ‘global warming is the greatest scam in history.’ He also describes the science as ‘invalid,’ but does not go into any further detail. He bases most of his views based on the research of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists. According to the research, there is no significant evidence that global warming is happening or that carbon dioxide is a serious greenhouse gas causing global warming. Coleman is supported by Princeton University’s William Happer. Happer puts emphasis on the fact that carbon dioxide has been disguised as a harmful chemical compound when in reality it is a natural and essential atmospheric gas.

Image courtesy of http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/assets_c/2010/11/globalwarmingdenier-flickr-credit%20bvcphoto-thumb-480xauto-1902.jpg

The problem I have with Coleman’s argument is that he makes these bold claims and provides no specific evidence or explanation to back it up. NASA, a reliable source, offers specific data that supports the hypothesis that climate change is happening due to carbon dioxide emissions from people. After consulting multiple other courses, it seems that the opinion of climate change occurring makes up the overwhelming majority. Because we cannot manipulate the independent variable, which in this case is carbon dioxide emissions, we cannot conclude that carbon dioxide emissions coming from people cause climate change. The best we can do is accept the correlational pattern between carbon dioxide emissions coming from people and the warming temperatures of our planet. If we begin to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions and see a drop or a lower increasing rate in temperature, then we will be closer to concluding that global warming is human induced. After my research, I believe that people should be concerned about the changing climate and should make efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

Image courtesy of https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/de/66/54/de6654852b39ac02a0df274d86da7aaf.jpg

Sources:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?_r=0

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-real-heres-why-some-americans-still-have-doubts-1877323

Since I have arrived at college, I have built up a desire to go the gym a few times a week to lift weights. I have never been a huge weight lifter, but it serves as a nice way to reduce stress and fill up free time I have at night. I do have concerns about lifting weights though. Multiple older people have told me to not lift heavy weight because it will wear you down physically in the long run and I will regret it. The best example is my grandfather who exercised a ton his entire life up until 10 years ago when his body began to breakdown. Now, he can barely leave the house and ride in the car because he is physically broken down. I wanted to investigate into this issue to see if lifting weights will actually have a negative impact on my physical capabilities in the long run.

Image courtesy of http://smartonlinesuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/arnold-schwarzenegger-bodybuilding-outside-arm-300×273.jpg

I will begin with the cons of heavy lifting. One problem is that the lifting weights can cause a temporary spike in blood pressure. If you have high blood pressure as it is, weight lifting can be very dangerous. Another problem is that people who attempt to lift too much weight and/or use improper form are likely to suffer from joint damage. This sounds like the cause for the effects my grandfather is currently having with his physical capabilities. To conclude, people often battle through pain and continue to lift weights which is a horrible idea. Pain implies there is something wrong with your body, and you should lay off the weights until the pain goes away. If you are not smart about weightlifting, which many people are guilty of, you will suffer the consequences in your joints.

Image courtesy of http://crossfitwilmington.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Broken-lift.jpg

There are rebuttals to the points stated above. Apparently, weightlifting causing joint pain is a common misconception. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Rheumatology found that 43% percent of people found a reduction in knee joint pain after performing weight bearing exercises. This is because the muscle around the joints increase in strength and provide more support in these areas. In addition, weightlifting has actually been found to decrease both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. According to the American Heart Association, you only need to lift weights 2-3 times a week to start to see positive results. Furthermore, weightlifting has the lowest injury rates of any other sport. Another common myth is that weightlifting stunts growth. In reality, the only possible way weightlifting can stunt your growth is if you let the bar fall on you and it damages your growth plates. Overall, it seems that all potential problems with lifting weights can be avoided if you respect the weight room.

Image courtesy of http://www.muscleandfitness.com/sites/muscleandfitness.com/files/styles/full_node_image_1090x614/public/Arnold-Lift-Heavy.jpg?itok=d6RPHXfX

My research shows that lifting weights is healthy for you as long as you use proper form and don’t let your ego get in the way. My concern is that it seems many people do not know how to properly lift weights. I believe gyms should start putting greater emphasis on proper weightlifting so that the unhealthy aspects in the long run are limited.

Sources:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/expert-answers/weightlifting/faq-20058451

http://www.muscleforlife.com/weightlifting-joint-problems/

http://dailyburn.com/life/fitness/weightlifting-myths-debunked/

http://stronglifts.com/weight-lifting-myths-debunked/

It seems that the United States is in the direction of legalizing marijuana nationwide. Many states have begun to legalize it in the past few years, and more continue to join. I hear a lot of positive remarks about this trend, but I believe my sources of information contain bias. I wanted to do my own independent research and analyze both sides of the debate to develop an opinion on this current issue.

Image courtesy of http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f9nyco05-um-ww_mfbuo9q.gif

I will begin with the positives to legalizing marijuana. One positive is that the legalization would create jobs and have a positive impact on the formal economy rather than the illicit market as it currently is. In addition, states could put a tax on marijuana purchases and create more tax revenue for government spending. Another common argument is marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes. For cancer and AIDS patients, marijuana helps relieve nausea and increase appetite. Moreover, if you were to compare the effects of marijuana compared to alcohol and marijuana, you would find that marijuana is less addictive and better on just about every health metric. Lastly, the results of prohibition had an overall negative impact on American society by increased legal trouble, money moving into illicit markets rather than the American economy, and most importantly not stopping alcohol use. Many people see marijuana as a similar situation and believe legalizing it would only help American Society.

Image courtesy of http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1423507/thumbs/o-114234299-570.jpg?1

Image courtesy of http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f9nyco05-um-ww_mfbuo9q.gif

On the other hand, there are many negative effects associated with marijuana use which is the primary argument against the legalization. For example, marijuana negatively effects cognitive function, short-term memory, coordination and balance, and can even produce hallucinations and delusions. Driving under the influence of marijuana is also becoming an issue as the number of fatal accidents has tripled in only the last decade. I cannot imagine the legalization would assist in dropping the number of fatal accidents and deaths. Furthermore, marijuana use increases the users chances of depression and anxiety. And if someone smokes marijuana on a regular basis, they are likely to operate at a lower intellectual level most if not all of the time. The effect that marijuana has on mental well-being does not seem worth legalizing.

Personally, I do not have enough information on the scientific validity of marijuana being used medicinally. If the science is valid, I do believe that people over the age of 18 should have access to medicinal marijuana. However, I do not believe marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Legalization would not diminish marijuana use and we should not be encouraging this type of behavior as a country. Using marijuana simply allows the user to escape reality, and that is not a healthy way to live. Alcohol and tobacco might be equally as bad, if not worse, but they are so engrained into our culture that they would be impossible to remove at this point. Also, just because alcohol and tobacco are worse, does not mean that people would be better off if marijuana was legalized. Marijuana should only be legal in situations where it would have a positive impact on the user.

Sources:

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/6-powerful-reasons-new-york-times-says-end-marijuana-prohibition

http://www.mjlegal.org/essayspeech.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/04/03/should-the-united-states-legalize-marijuana-n1817690

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

A common debate in American Society today is whether or not the drinking age should be lowered from 21. Some people argue that a majority of people, especially those in college, will drink alcohol anyways, so the drinking age should be lowered to avoid legal conflict and perhaps take the “thrill” away from drinking. On the other hand, others believe that people are not mature enough to handle the responsibilities associated with alcohol consumption until the age of 21. As a college student, I wanted to look deeper into this issue and analyze the effects of consuming alcohol prior to 21 years of age.

First, I will begin with the pros to lowering the drinking age. From a psychological standpoint, lowering the drinking age would allow people in the 18-20 year range to drink in safer, more regulated environments while taking away the thrill of binge drinking. An article in the Huffington Post estimated that 90 percent of underage drinking is done by binge drinking. Teenagers get a thrill from binge drinking because the drinking age forces society to view alcohol as forbidden. Breaking the rules only entices teens to drink even more. The founder of Choose Responsibility, John McCardell, says that the legal drinking age does not even diminish the amount of alcohol consumption among young people. As a matter of fact, the legal drinking age pushes underage drinking underground into more dangerous and less regulated environments. In other words, the drinking age of 21 is only making drinking more dangerous for young people. The law is clearly ineffective and should be altered in order to eliminate a large amount of legal trouble.

Image courtey of http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_srOhGcGHvik/S9qH7BgAR1I/AAAAAAAAD84/3l01PB_HQ4E/s800/mclovin.jpg (Fake ID from the movie “Superbad”) 

Now, I will discuss the cons of lowering the drinking age. The most concerning consequence of consuming alcohol below the age of 21 is interference with the brain’s frontal lobe development. The results could include dangerous risk-taking behavior, reduced decision making ability, depression, suicide, and violence. I do not see the purpose of promoting activity that would damage brain development amongst millions of teens across the nation. Also, studies have showed that when the drinking age is 21, those underage tend to drink less through their low 20s and those who wait to drink until the age of 21 tend to drink less as adults. Chuck Hurley, the executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), explains that 900 more teenagers per year would die if the drinking age was lowered to 18. When certain states attempted to lower the drinking age back in the 1970s, death rates skyrocketed from 10% to 40%. After the drinking age was raised again, the fatalities began to fall. There is clear evidence that drinking is a dangerous activity that causes death, and lowering the drinking age would result in more deaths among teenagers.

Image courtesy of http://healthresearchfunding.org

To conclude, this issue has two sides to it. One, the law is ineffective and difficult to enforce. Second, drinking underage is dangerous and harmful to brain development. Even though this is not a successful piece of legislation, I do believe the drinking age is most appropriate at 21. If the drinking age of 21 saves lives, I do not see how you could possibly justify lowering the drinking age.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-on-lowering-the-drinking-age/3/

http://drinkingage.procon.org/#background

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/us/legal-drinking-age/

https://star.txstate.edu/node/1704

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink

The New England Patriots have been making a lot of news in the world of sports over a potential cheating scandal that took place in the AFC Championship game last year known as Deflategate. The New England Patriots were accused of deflating the footballs below the NFL standards in order to give them an advantage over the Indianapolis Colts. I have my own opinion on this topic, but I have never developed my opinion from much of a scientific standpoint. Now, as I prepare to watch the NFL season opener between the Patriots and the Steelers, I plan on investigating this scandal to see if the atmospheric conditions of the game could have caused the low pressure in the footballs.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry and the ideal gas laws understands that gas molecules move less rapidly in cooler temperatures. The footballs were adjusted to the lowest permitted PSI before the game started in the warm conditions of the locker room. The game started at 52 degrees and dropped down to the upper 40s later in the game. Afterward, the referees checked the pressure in the Patriots’ footballs and found that 11 of 12 were two PSI below the permitted amount. Given the ideal gas laws I mentioned earlier, it is plausible that the atmospheric conditions of the cold and rainy weather caused the footballs to drop below the permitted PSI, especially since the Patriots started with the footballs at the minimum PSI allowed.

Another important thought to keep in mind is that footballs are known to be permeable. In other words, footballs lose air pressure throughout the course of the game. Therefore, we could safely assume that the footballs would be below the required pressure if the Patriots started at the lowest pressure allowed. We would not even need to include the weather conditions to make that conclusion.

Now there is clear evidence that the footballs could have been deflated below the standards throughout the course of the game. However, could the weather and the permeability of the footballs cause the footballs to drop 2 PSI? According to calculations that a science teacher posted on Reddit, the maximum amount the pressure could have dropped in the footballs throughout the course of the game is 0.7 PSI which is significantly less than the claimed 2.0 PSI. Another source shows that the pressure should have only dropped 0.4 PSI. The calculations are too far from the actual value to assume that the atmospheric conditions caused the footballs to deflate 2.0 PSI throughout the course of the game.

To summarize, the balls could have been deflated below the required PSI throughout the game, but not 2.0 PSI. Something happened from the time the referees measured the pressure in the footballs before the game to the time the pressure was measured after the game, and the weather was not the reason those footballs were under inflated. There is a lot more to this story and a lot of fingers to point, but I am only looking from Deflategate from a scientific perspective. The bottom line is that the weather did not cause the footballs to deflate 2.0 PSI and some form of a cheating was done by the New England Patriots.

Image courtesy of http://www.wmtw.com

http://www.buffalobruises.com

Sources:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/deflategate-patriots-football/40975001

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/science-is-all-like-ooh-ooh-we-can-explain-deflate-gate-with-our-magic/

http://www.wcsh6.com/story/weather/2015/01/20/inflate-gate-weather-roll/22065861/

http://www.wmtw.com/image/view/-/30885296/medRes/1/-/maxh/460/maxw/620/-/8wxkxnz/-/-Deflate-Gate-0120-jpg.jpg

http://www.buffalobruises.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/so-heavy.jpg

After staying in East Halls for just over two weeks, I have realized the importance that air conditioning has on quality of life and sleep. Box fans are not powerful enough to counteract the outdoor heat and I find myself struggling to go to sleep and stay asleep. Also, I found myself struggling to stay energized and pay attention during class time. I figured my sleeping patterns were causing my inability to focus in class, so I decided to research the effects that sleeping in hot conditions has on the human body and determine whether or not it would be a worthy investment for Penn State to install A/C in the dorms.

The most detrimental result to sleeping in the heat is less REM sleep. REM sleep is the most restful sleep stage and important for normal brain development. In other words, REM stimulates the regions of the brain involved with learning. One study also concluded that REM sleep affects learning of certain mental skills. Like I said earlier, students living in the dorms are forced to sleep in buildings without air conditioning. As a result, the first few weeks involve many nights of light sleeping and little rest. We, as students, cannot achieve our full potential in the classroom when we are not given healthy environmental conditions for sleep because we do not receive enough rest to prepare our brain for the day and our memory capacity is limited. If the University wants to squeeze every bit of potential out of its students, air conditioning for the dorms would be an investment worth looking into.

Sleeping in hot conditions also has possible side effects on people. For example, people can lose control over their blood pressure and regulation of glucose in the body. For this case, the short term effects of abnormal blood pressure could be headaches, blurry vision, blackouts, and dizziness. Although the physical effects of the sleeping conditions are not long term, they certainly diminish the quality of life for the students.

The primary argument against my proposal would be that the weather is not hot enough throughout the year for air conditioning to be a worthy investment. However, students are in the dorms all year around even if they are not as crowded during the hotter months. Also, the evidence I have presented shows that students are not getting the most out of their educational experience under these conditions. Even if we suffer through the heat for only one month out of the year, that one month can have a large enough effect to drop a letter grade in multiple courses. To conclude, Pennsylvania State University should invest in air conditioning for all of the dorms on campus to optimize the students’ educational experience and well being.

Image courtesy of www.howsleepworks.com                                               Non-REM sleep vs. REM sleep

Image courtesy of gmcblogs.files.wordpress.com

Sources:

http://theconversation.com/too-hot-to-sleep-heres-why-11492

http://www.dreamtrap.net/articles/importance-of-deep-sleep-and-rem-sleep

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/understanding_sleep.htm

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/high-low-blood-pressure-symptoms.html

Hi I am Zach Barone and I am from Pittsburgh, PA. I am a freshman at PSU and currently a business undecided major.

I tested out of a lot of the recommended classes for my major and had to take a lot of Gen Eds as a result. When it came down to choosing my last class, I noticed that I did not have any credits for a Natural Science Gen Ed, so I scrolled through all of the science options. I read the description for this class and looked up Andrew on Rate my Professor, and my decision was made. The description made it seem like the class would not be an overwhelming amount of information for someone who is not in the field of science, and Andrew received fantastic reviews on Rate my Professor. I do not dislike science, but I definitely do not have a passion for science and do not want to make a career out of it.

Click here  to see a website that I made for a project during my junior year of high school.