For any of you who have grown up with a dog, you know how attached not only you get to them, but also how attached they get to you. Having a dog is like having a friend that you can always depend on to greet you like you are the best thing they’ve ever seen, to jump all over you when you come home from college, and to cuddle with you every time you sit down on the couch. Here is a picture of my dog, Belle. She is a 5 year old Newfoundland, and also basically a giant teddy-bear of a dog.

I’ve always thought it was incredible how she seemed to know when me or someone in my family was excited, upset, or angry, even if we weren’t outright expressing these feelings. Belle would always seem to sense and react to our moods. When someone is upset, she lays her head on their lap and seems to be looking into their eyes, and if someone cries she whimpers and licks their face. It is like she is a person showing empathy and trying to cheer you up. When someone is afraid, she is immediately on guard-dog duty. My younger sister used to be afraid of thunderstorms, and Belle would sit up tall right between my sister and the nearest window, as if she wanted her to know she was protecting her. When someone is happy, Belle runs to find the nearest toy that she can find, whether it is one of her chew toys or a stuffed animal from mine or my sister’s rooms, and she brings it to you like a present. She doesn’t even like to play fetch, she just is excited to go run and find something to give to you and show that she is excited too. After going home for Thanksgiving break and remembering how excited Belle was when I got home and how upset she seemed when I said bye to my family and to her, it got me wondering about how dogs can sense what is going on with the people around them.

When I began my research, I came across an article that posed a very good point. The article pointed out that dogs are meant to belong to a close knit family, just like humans do. Dogs, like humans, have a language of facial expressions, body language, and vocalization. If a dog grows up as part of a human family, doesn’t it make sense that the dog would adapt to their family’s languages?

One study that was done focuses on how humans read each others faces, and compared it to how dogs read humans faces. The study showed that humans and dogs both read the faces on humans the same way, first looking slightly on the left half of the face and then the right. What was remarkable, though, was what happened when the scientists showed a dog a picture of another dog. Instead of looking left to right like they did when observing a picture of a human, they first looked to the right and then to the left. The study concluded by saying that dogs have evolved to learn how to read human faces, and they do it in the same fashion that we do, enabling them to understand facial expressions extremely well. Certainly, correlation does not equal causation. There may have been a confounding variable, such as the way the scientists acted when each photo was pulled up. Although I think the study may have been more effective if there were no other scientists in the room with the dog and the photos, the results of this study are still worth looking at.

Many pets sit home for most of the day, just sleeping and lounging around when their owner is not paying attention to them. During all of the time your dog lays in the living room while you watch TV, or sits in the kitchen while you cook, it makes a lot of sense that he or she is also observing what you are doing. Since nearly every aspect of their life depends on their owner, a dog pays more attention to what their owner is doing than they may think. This is how a dog understands your habits or routines and, can see when you are happy or sad. They say that human communication is 90% nonverbal through body language and facial expressions, and only 10% verbal, so your beloved dog may understand you better than you think.

One thing we need to remember about dogs is that they have much more powerful senses than we do, so even if we cannot communicate verbally with our pets, they have other means of understanding. According to this article, dogs most important sense is smell, and their nose is anywhere from one thousand to one million times better than a human, and their sense of hearing is four times as strong. This is how our dogs can sense our mood other than obverting our body and facial expressions. When you are nervous or upset, your body naturally perspires,
and even if you don’t notice it your dog can. When you are afraid, your dog can smell adrenaline and will most likely react in your defense. Although dogs cannot understand your verbal communications, they do understand your tone of voice. Your dog will easily be able to tell if you are speaking in an affectionate tone or an angry one.

After learning so much about how much time our dogs spend thinking about what we are feeling, I can’t wait to go home and play with my dog. It is important to remember how every little thing we do around our dogs directly affects them!

“Practice makes Perfect”. One of the most influential, repetitive sayings in the world. The phrase is all to familiar with young students hearing it when they would study for their classes. It’d be heard by the athletes who would spend hours trying to refine and work on their game. I heard this all throughout my basketball career when I was a kid. My trainer would tell me that everyday I needed to get at least 50 shots up everyday in order to become better. Muscle memory he called it.

Muscle Memory can be described as the observation that various muscle-related tasks that seem to be easier to perform after previous practice. It’s as if the muscle remembers the repeated action so the same power and force is used in every action. The precision and accuracy of every motion is the same. So when my trainer told me to shoot 50 shots everyday, he wanted me to do so in order for my shot to remain consistent and develop. He would also have me shoot 2 feet away from the basket with one hand in order for me to emphasis using my legs on my shot and shooting at the top of my release. By doing this repetitively, I was able to incorporate muscle memory in order for my shot to remain consistent.

With that in mind, it’s crazy to think that “practice” can make someone perfect at something. No one is perfect, no one can be perfect. Thats the argument that can be made against the phrase. I came across an article where a research team lead by Brooke Macnamara of Princeton University analyzed the data of 88 research studies regarding the skills area of music, sports, education, and more. What was found was that there is a positive relationship between practice and mastery, but only 12 percent across all areas of expertise is practice varying the skill level. That’s too small of a percentage to believe that practice alone can make someone perfect at something. Macnamara would later go on to say, “Deliberate practice is unquestionably important, but not nearly as important as proponents of the view have claimed.” It was also noted that the percent of variation of skill level was different for each domain studied. It was found that with exercises and sports, 26 percent of individual differences was due to training, yet in the work area, less than one percent of variation of skill was due to practice. It was concluded that many other factors play a role in the expertise and perfection of an action that practice can’t just be it. One factor that can do so is age, for the developmental period for acquiring skills can be differ. So to say that someone who starts “perfecting” their skill earlier in their life will most likely be more advanced.

I then found another experiment that essentially backs up the point of the latter one. Zachary Hambrick, a professor at the University of Michigan says the deliberate practice is not sufficient enough to explain individual’s differences in performance. He argues that someone who doesn’t practice as much could still produce an elite level of performance. Hambrick and his team looked at 14 studies involving chess players and musicians. They monitored how their practice routine affected their performance. What they concluded was that the time spent practicing only accounted for 1/3 of the measurable skills differences for the musicians and chess players. The sliver lining in this experiment is “If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities, they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice”(Hambrick).

The definition of insanity was defined by Albert Einstein as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That may be true, but could you say the same for practicing? Well when you practice at something, you are doing the same thing over and over again, but you are expecting different results by becoming better at that action. I believe that practice and the repetitiveness of an action an result in an advanced ability. I also believe in the concept of muscle memory and how procedural memory can play a huge role in the perfecting of an action. However, I also believe that just practice alone can’t make one perfect at something. Even though the saying is older than our great grandparents, it doesn’t hide the fact that the statement “Practice makes Perfect” is wrong.

Works Cited:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/does-practice-make-perfect-not-nearly-as-much-as-you-think-9580402.html

http://lifehacker.com/5799234/how-muscle-memory-works-and-how-it-affects-your-success

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/practice-doesn-t-always-make-perfect/

http://www.sott.net/article/262018-Does-practice-really-make-perfect

My grandmother Meme, is a constant worrier. She would examine me every time I went out in the winter, feeling uneasy about my wet hair or lack of socks and exclaim the classic “oh sweetheart, I’m getting cold just looking at you!!” and I would always tell silly Meme that she was being ridiculous, although I have begun to think Meme was on to something. As I walk around campus I have seen some reckless college students dress completely improperly I find myself getting the chills and a heavy desire for my winter parka. Feeling cold has to be contagious.

Neuropsychiatrist Doctor Neil Harrison of Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Meme and I obviously all think the same way. As Harrison watched the movie Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, a film about Inuit legends in the Eastern Arctic Wilderness he found himself getting colder and colder. Harrison has worked for many years studying empathy and how humans can share and understand each other’s feelings. So he set out to see if the reaction people develop through viewing someone else cold was measurable.

Harrison created an experimental study with 36 participants who he had connect their right and left hands to a thermistor, a resistor dependant on temperature, with temperature sensitivity. Harrison had them watch videos, each 3 minutes in length, in which someone submerged their hands into either steaming hot or ice cold water. The thermistor registered that after watching the warm videos there was no change in body temperature. Although, after watching the cold videos, participant’s left hand temperature decreased by 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit. For the body to decrease by 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit is a statistically significant number, the significance of the difference can be seen when the body temperature is raised 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit because this is when an individual begins to sweat.  I wondered why there wasn’t a similar results from the warm videos,  Harrison believes that the experiment had only chilling effects because cubes of ice are more obvious to a viewer than rising steam. I felt the author should have also acknowledge the fact that the water could not be blisteringly hot and burn his grad students making the videos.

Harrison concludes that his participants drop in temperature is due to empathy and emotional contagion. Despite the continuing maturing understanding of empathy Dr. Mark Davis of Eckerd College asserts that empathy is what causes emotional contagion, or the mirroring of others’ behaviors and/or emotions. Harrison believes that a fair amount of workplace and personal success can be attributed to “ results from our ability to work together in complex communities – this would be hard to do if we were not able to rapidly empathize with each other and predict one another’s thoughts, feelings and motivations. I personally learned about emotional contagion as a captain of a lacrosse team: the moods of key or popular players dictated how successful a practice would be, how much effort the rest of the team would put forth, and how teammates would treat each other.  So when Harrison contends that emotional contagion is a part of our everyday life, I’m inclined to believe him.

Though I do think, based on the evidence, that there is a correlation between seeing someone cold and being cold, I think more studies are needed. In Harrison’s experiment the only information he gave about his participants is that they are healthy and between the ages of 19 and 26. As someone researching the topic I was unaware of gender, ethnicity or lifestyle. The study also fails to mention, on multiple varying websites used to search the topic, if the study was randomized. I purpose a new study that looks into the variables that Harrison ignores. I feel that the most important variable is age, it could play a serious role into how much emotional contagion affects the body. This could mean that a slight cold that gave a perfectly healthy 20 year old participant a quick chill could give a 83 year old women with a deteriorating body intense shivers and cold sweats. Another possible study design could explore if there is a difference effect from watching a video of someone experiencing extreme cold and then being right in front of someone that is experiencing cold. By having a study designed in such a way researchers could explore if being a close bystander leads to greater emotional contagion. A final possible study design would be to alter where you are taking the temperature of a person. You could take it orally or rectally to see if the hand does not properly represent body temperature.    All of Harrison’s experiment participants were marked perfectly healthy.

Despite the obvious need for more studies to find its extent, it does seem like empathy influences body temperature. Although Meme, Doctor Harrison and I seem to be the only people that these cold effects bewilder.  I have never experienced a Penn State winter that upperclass go on about, but it has been rumored that many young fools battle 3 feet of snow in flip flops and shorts. I hope that you have a hat, gloves and wool socks for the chills those students are going to send you.

I am 23 years old. I am pretty much done with binge drinking to the point that I don’t remember how I came home. But you know, I’ve been there. I’ve been carried home before. Once, I woke up and thanked God for waking up in my bed. Or, I had a roommate who always managed to get home really drunk. She would casually walk in and just pass out on the sofa. I feel like we just knew we had to go home and somehow made it; human instinct is super impressive. Apparently, it might be something else that guided us or enabled us to come home.

Featured in the video is how dogs have 300 million olfactory receptor cells to see the world, tracking the past and predicting the future.

Featured in the video is how homing pigeons use their sense of smell to map their way home.

As we are also an animal, of course, we can do the same. Lucia Jacobs, a UC Berkeley psychology professor, conducted investigations where humans were blindfolded to navigate themselves by smelling scents. This was the first ever testing of such experimental study. “What we’ve found is that humans have the capability to orient ourselves along highways of odors and crisscross landscapes using only our sense of smell,” said Lucia Jacobs.

Her data included two dozen study volunteers. They were blindfolded and had headphones, in which made them concentrate on their sense of smell. The room was a 25-by-20 foot room with gridded floor and had 32 containers placed around the room that diffused different scents. These containers also worked as location markers. When the volunteers first walked into the room, they had to walk in circles; then, on a specific grid, they inhaled a combination of two fragrances. Then, they were walked in circles again. After being disoriented, they were asked to find the starting point where they inhaled the two fragrances. On average, the volunteers were able to orient themselves within 90 seconds.

The result was surprising. No one thought this was possible. This was never tested, because no one questioned it before. I am sure there are more things our olfactory system can do. Like how smelling certain scents bring back memories that are associated with them, I question if scents could be used to alter our memories as well.

Japanese food is now popular in all over the world, and the style of eating Japanese food is pretty special, because people eat raw fish in the Japanese restaurant!

Before I learned something about Japanese culinary culture, I think all the fish and meat should be eaten after it is cooked. However, in the Japanese restaurants, we can see Tuna, salmon, clams, scallops, yellowtail, halibut, flounder, squid, gizzard shad, mackerel, sea bass, and snapper are among those that are commonly consumed in their raw states. What’s more, there are lots of Japanese restaurants all over the world nowadays, and Japanese sushi culture is getting into people’s daily life.

People like Sushi, but have you ever wondered if the sashimi you’re scarfing down is safe? The first few times I went to Japanese restaurants, I had avoided raw seafood in my sushi because I had never tried to eat anything without being cooked. Also, I don’t know what is actually safe and what is not. If anyone asks me whether raw salmon is OK to eat, I will say it depends. But there are several threats that people who love raw fish should concern.

When consuming raw fish, there are several threats that we should look out for: First, the fish may not be fresh. Second, the fish may be rotten and there are many bacteria in the fish. However, those two threats are easy to be noticed because when the fish is not fresh and rotten, it usually carries a noticeable stench. The biggest threat is the parasites, which are hard to be noticed. And this is the reason we cook meat and fish to begin with. Because high temperature kills parasites, which are generally different kinds of worms. According to some experiments, worms are found in salmon, mackerel, Pacific rockfish, jacksmelt, halibut and flounder. And the worms do a lot of damage to human body, sometimes they can live in your body for a long time without causing you to have any side effect, however, sometimes they can bring some really bad consequences like causing people have stomachaches. A source I found online claimed that: “Tapeworms, however, can linger in your body alive for quite some time and grow as long as 20 feet.” (Erman,2015)

The hygienic standards of farmed raw in the U.S., the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Japan are set very high, and they are generally safe to eat. Because most fish in those areas are living in cold water, and fisherman catch those fish in the cold temperature. Cold can not only kill worms but also keep fish fresh before it getting into people’s stomachs. Also in some big and famous Japanese restaurants, the chefs would like to use frozen fish before serving them raw to customers.

However, our environment is getting worse and worse, and the oceans and seas are as clean as before. Humans like us are destroying the living environments of those fishes, and it is hard to imagine that what will happen if we eat the raw fish which was living in the polluted sea. We can never know what environments that the fish have been living in. We should keep the oceans clean in order to make our enjoyment of raw fish better and safer.

Reference: Erman, A. (2014, February 13). Sashimi: Is it Okay to Eat Raw Fish? Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.organicauthority.com/sashimi-is-it-okay-to-eat-raw-fish/

In a multitude of movies and tv shows, everyone has heard the words “You’re getting sleepy”, and seen the other person be “hypnotized” and made to do something because their mind is being controlled by another individual. In present times this theory has been applied to helping those who are unable to quit a bad habit such as smoking for example. “Hypnotherapy or medical hypnosis” has been known to be a “controversial treatment for physical and psychiatric ailments”(Beattie-Moss). This treatment has been tested and experimented since the 18th century. Since then, many scientists have gone back and forth trying to prove and disprove the ability of putting patients into the so called “trace like state for healing purposes” (Beattie-Moss).

Illustration depicting a sign with a hypnotherapy concept.

Hypnotherapy has been used as a tool by certain therapists believing in its healing ability to help patients “break negative patterns of behavior, as with mass habit-control programs”(How Stuff Works). Hypnotherapy does this by releasing“deep and entrenched personal problems…addressing phobias…bringing underlying problems up to the conscience level”(How Stuff Works). This area of hypnosis has been a tool that has been utilized by law enforcement to “fill in details of a case” that a witness believes they cannot recall. In addition, both medical professionals and spiritual leaders profess how they believe hypnotherapy to aid and in some cases cure subjects for their illness, ailment, or an addiction that is hindering them. In terms of evidence however, most is purely anecdotal forcing a lot of the studies relating to this topic to be inconclusive or not strong enough of a verdict to eliminate the possibility that chance is controlling the outcome of the study.

Melissa Beattie-Moss, wrote an article for Penn State in regards to the credibility of this theory. In her article, she details how a psychology professor at Penn State, William Ray researched “hypnosis as a tool to better understand the brain, including its response to pain” through the use of a “variety of EEG studies”(Beattie-Moss). Ray detailed his findings stating  “In the 1950s, reliable measures of hypnotizability were developed, which allowed this research field to gain validity. We’ve seen more than 12,000 articles on hypnosis published since then in medical and psychological journals. Today, there’s general agreement that hypnosis can be an important part of treatment for some conditions, including phobias, addictions and chronic pain”(Beattie-Moss). In today’s society many experimental studies have been performed on the effectiveness of hypnosis on weight loss and smoking, being as those two issues seem to be plaguing the largest amount of people.

A recent study was conducted to look at the difference in the effectiveness of one’s ability to quit smoking by means of hypnosis. The study took 93 females and 93 males and used a combination of “hypnosis and aversion treatments”(Empowerment). After the conclusion of experiment, the subjects were brought in for a “3-month follow up” and at this examination it was clear that “86% of men and 87% of women” were able to quit smoking. This study along with 632 others were accumulated to conduct a meta-analysis on the “71,806 smokers who reported” on their ability to either quit or not. In conclusion those who conducted the analysis stated that use of hypnosis was “more than 2 times greater than self-care methods(books and support groups) and nicotine gum, and 3 times greater than physician intervention)” (Empowerment). These studies along with a multitude of others, reiterate the similar finding that hypnotherapy does have a positive impact in enabling those struggling in their lives to break strong addictive behaviors such as smoking, and can help them with other emotional, mental, and physical issues.

The American Psychological Association, explains how hypnosis “can create a highly relaxed state of inner concentration and focused attention for patients, and the technique can be tailored to different treatment methods, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy”(American Psychological Association).  Since the mid to late 19th century, hypnosis was utilized in many fields and forms as a means of controlling a person’s pain, such as army surgeons during the civil war before performing amputations on patients.(American Psychological Association). Therefore, even more “recent studies have confirmed its effectiveness as a tool to reduce pain.” (American Psychological Association). Hypnotherapy in this case is scene to extend to the physical sense by allowing a patient to be relieved from a tremendous amount of pain. Guy H. Montgomery, PhD, has tested his hypnosis theory by conducting an experiment on the “effectiveness of a 15-minute pre-surgery hypnosis session”(American Psychological Association). in a “clinical trial with 200 breast cancer patients”. His findings, published in the Journal of National Cancer Institute in 2007, explain how patients receiving the treatment “reported less post-surgical pain, nausea, fatigue, and discomfort…also the hospital saved $772 per patient…due to reduced surgical time [by way of] less of the analgesic lidocaine and sedative”(American Psychological Association).

“Understanding the exact mechanism behind hypnosis may require decoding the workings of the unconscious mind. While it may be near-impossible to arrive at that knowledge”(Beattie-Moss) strides have been made to utilize hypnosis as a tool to better many lives. Hypnotherapy has been gaining scientific backing since the early 18th century and continues to prove its effectiveness in the majority of studies it is used in. The positive momentum behind this controversial therapy suggests that this is not the end of its popularity, and that it will only continue to be tested and utilized by many.

Works Cited:

I recently went to a hair salon here at Penn State to dye my hair and had a terrible experience that ended up destroying my hair. Before this incident, I always washed my hair every night when I showered. Now, my hair is too brittle and ruined to shampoo it every day…says the hair stylist. So, was it bad that I used to shampoo my hair that often? Or does it all depend on the person and their specific hair type?

            Well surprisingly enough, WebMD is the first website I looked at for an answer. The article stated that, “Experts say there’s no single answer to how often people should shampoo. You may not need to do it as often as you think. It usually comes down to personal preference.” However, there are certain reasons as to why one should or should not wash their hair every day and the article continues to state, “The experts agree: Only a small group needs to shampoo daily, like those with very fine hair, someone who exercises a lot (and sweats), or someone living in very humid place, Goh says.” So really, it all comes down to what an individual’s hair is like.

Okay… then what is shampoo made of and how does someone determine how he or she should treat their hair? The Chemists Corner was helpful when answering these questions. Although the majority of shampoos are make up of 70-80% water, each shampoo has a different make up with different amounts of certain ingredients, but in general all are, “cleaning formulations made up primarily of chemicals called surfactants that have the ability to surround oily materials on surfaces and allow them to be rinsed away by water. While there are numerous types of shampoos the majority are low viscosity, solution formulas delivered from a plastic bottle. Often they are marketed towards different hair types or conditions.” Determining how much you shampoo is truly a preference, on how your hair feels and reacts to the amount of washing, but it is also important to take into consideration that healthy hair also includes natural oils from your body that should be left in your hair for period of time to allow growth and strength, and you will personally be able to feel and see when these oils become too profound. Again, each person produces a different amount of bodily oils so you must determine that individually.

I did not find any formal experiments testing how often a person should wash their hair because every person’s hair is different and all conclusions would be drastically different. However, in the comfort of your own home, you can always conduct your own experiment super easily to find out how your hair personally takes to shampoo. Pay attention to the ingredients in the shampoo you use, and record how much you use and how often you shampoo. Then, after using a certain shampoo for a certain amount of time you will be able to compare what your hair feels like and alter you shampoo usage and which shampoo you use according to your preference.

It would be rare to sit down at a restaurant and not be faced with two small shakers filled with pepper and everyone’s favorite, salt. Salt is a white crystalline substance that  is used for seasoning or preserving food. Salt somehow makes everything taste better. However, when is too much salt harmful to the body?

One of the most common reasons people tend to lay off the salt is because of its risks in raising blood pressure, or hypertension. Salt boosts blood pressure because it makes your body hold onto water and the extra water that is stored in your body is what causes this increase. The human body is amazing, and one of the most interesting aspects of it, is the way that blood gets pumped throughout the human body to give it the energy and oxygen that it needs. As the blood moves around the human body the strength of the pushing pressure on blood cells explains the concept of blood pressure. As a result, if this pushing is too strenuous  it leads to heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, death and disability. Not only can an excess amount of salt cause cancers of the stomach as well, it can also increase and worsen asthma symptoms. However, if used and consumed in moderation, salt can be beneficial to humans, but only in small amounts such as 1g a day, which equivocates to a pinch of salt.

In a 2015 survey titled “New Survey Names and Shames UK’s ‘Saltiest’ Family-Friendly Eateries and Warns of a New Generating of ‘Salt Addicts,'” studies show that over a quarter of meals surveyed contain 2g or more of salt per meal – which is the maximum amount of salt intake recommended for a whole day. The survey conducted included 218 children’s meals from 23 different eateries, and the results on the saltiest meal are as follows:

• Burger King Kid’s Veggie Bean Burger with Small Fries: 4.6g salt per serving
• Hungry Horse Pic ‘n’ Mix Large Ham (2 slices) with Mashed Potato & Baked Beans: 4.2g salt per serving
• Loch Fyne Seafood & Grill Bangers & Mash with Gravy: 4.0g salt per serving
• Beefeater Mr Noisy’s Bangers and Mash with Peas & Gravy: 3.9g salt per serving

As you can see, all of these restaurants, or fast food joints use an excessive amount of salt. This explains the reason for the constant craving of salty fast food when you’re on the run, or in need of something tasty. The amount of salt put into these foods is unacceptable and can potentially be causing many to gain weight, and to become very sick while also running the risk of raising blood pressure along with many other harms to health. The graph below shows example of the meals given to children in restaurants that have high salt content and low salt content. It is interesting to see different brand names that we are all familiar with on a graph talking about how bad these specific products are for children. Salt tastes good and the High Content examples sound better than the Low but by lowering salt intake, many can maintain a healthy lifestyle.

A study conducted at Harvard Medical School supports the claim that too much salt intake is harmful to the human body, however it also poses a different opinion. Statistics seen in the study state that, 40% of deaths were linked to the sodium intake that occurs in individuals under the age of 70,  the average sodium intake for humans was nearly 4,000 mg a day, there were be a drastic change (1.65 million fewer) in the amount of deaths worldwide if the average sodium intake was closer to 2,000 mg a day, and finally, the reduction of sodium intake would prevent about 10% of cardiovascular related deaths.

The reason that this study is so significant is because its findings also uncover reasons as to why cardiovascular disease rates were high among those with low sodium intake, which is less that 3,000 mg per day. The medium of salt intake where most Americans fall into is between 3,000 and 6,000 mg per day. Robert Shmerling, M.D. states that the reason for this “could be that people with high blood pressure, other cardiovascular risk factors, or cardiovascular disease are usually advised to lower their salt intake. Their higher than average rates of cardiovascular disease and related deaths could then be erroneously linked to their lower salt intake.” In the third report done comparing sodium and another substance, potassium intake, with high blood pressure. The correlation concluded from this was that the higher the sodium intake, the higher the blood pressure, and the lower the potassium intake, the higher the blood pressure.

On the contrary, although salt intake is most commonly perceived as a hard endpoint, meaning that it is well-defined in the study protocol, definitive with respect to the disease process, and require no subjectivity, it can be brought to a consumers attention that just because salt is seen to cause high blood pressure, it may not in-fact be life threatening. High blood pressure is something that us as consumers associate with heart attacks in our minds, but it’s not a guarantee. In some people it might even be normal and not life-threatening, meaning it isn’t a hard endpoint.

In conclusion, in more cases than not, salt has caused high blood pressure. A good way to avoid the health risks of salt intake, would be to prepare your own food homemade, so you know the ingredients being put in, and you can control the amount of salt that is consumed. The FDA is also doing its part in its aim to prevent one million heart attacks and strokes over the next five years. The FDA and the FSIS are promoting their efforts to identify chances where in they can make a different, and reduce sodium in food to ultimately put more control into consumers’ hands.

Throughout history and present within our contemporary popular culture, the idea of the existence of a paranormal dimension persists. Before we begin to really dissect and construct an experiment, however, it’s important to define what exactly the paranormal entails. For many, the paranormal entails a dimension of phenomena that simply cannot be explained by science. Quintessential paranormal activity, for example, would include hauntings and the perception of ghostly presences. For our purposes, we are going to restrict our scope of the term paranormal simply to the presence of ghostly phenomena. However, I digress. Is it possible to recreate ghostly experiences? Are paranormal experiences primarily a reaction to forces little understood yet easily explained? Is there any possible way that we, as a scientific diet, could test the hypothesis that paranormal activity is merely the result of the body’s reaction to various atmospheric, environmental, or biological factors?

In order to enforce a clinical approach and hue to the study we wish to complete, I believe that there are a few variables that would have to be held constant in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ghostly apparitions can indeed be recreated by available devices. One variable I would hold consistent would be the environment. I would conduct the experiment in a clean, uncluttered environment with a clinical and stoic decor. So often, people associate ghostly apparitions with disheveled and decrepit environments.

Seeing as ghostly apparitions often are reported to elicit a physical reaction, an observational study where certain subjects are exposed to a range of physical stimuli, and other subjects would be exposed to another set of stimuli, and, finally, a control group would be introduced to the environment and would be offered the same devices, but without any physical stimuli.

I have plenty of confidence that paranormal activity such as ghostly apparitions can be explained through various scientific channels. Already, scientists have found evidence that sounds registering in flow frequencies between 7 and 19 Hz can induce fear within an individual, and, in my opinion, fear is the commonality that unites all paranormal phenomena. However, perhaps the scary encounters are more inexplicable than I would like to believe.

It is one of the hardest conversations to have, and is unfortunately on the rise as one of the most modern diseases. Anorexia Nervosa is a type of eating disorder. People who have this disorder have an irrational fear of gaining weight. The ways in which they cope with this fear is to drastically limit the amount of food that they eat and become harmfully skinny. Anorexia Nervosa can apply to any type of person. The sample size for a lot of the studies conducted regarding this serious issue are administered over a large sample size of people.

Many people have written blogs about eating disorders and how they affect humans. I wanted to take a different approach and write about the way that the brains of those who develop an eating disorder work. It has always interested me to think about the different parts of the brain that trigger these degrading and hurtful thoughts in the minds of young struggling teens. A website I discovered talks about the personal experiences of those who have dealt with the struggles of having an eating disorder, Eva says “It’s like having somebody in your head telling you that everything you do is wrong, like you can’t please it no matter what you do. If you go for a walk, you’ve not walked far enough. If you eat a lettuce leaf you still should have not had it. It’s like nothing you can do is good enough for it.” Although extremely unfortunate, these are the thoughts of many that struggle with the same problem, Anorexia Nervosa.

An observational study was conducted at Cambridge University called the “Eating Attitudes Test.” This test reported on the development of a 40-item measure that has to do with the symptoms experienced in patients with anorexia nervosa. The purpose of this study is to develop and confirm a rating scale that may be useful in dissecting the attitudes and behaviors found in those with anorexia nervosa, and to also use the information concluded from this study as an index or resource to help the score, diagnosis, and study of this specific eating disorder. The scale that was used, EAT, is presented in an easily administered and scored manner. EAT is a 6-point, forced choice, self-reported format. The subjects  of this experiment are 2 groups of female anorexia nervosa patients and female control products, along with female obese, clinically recovered patients, and male subjects as other ways of validating the information. Scientists developed 35 pre-liminary items that closely reflected a wide range of the types of attitudes and behaviors that could be found in those who were reported anorexic. The subjects were instructed to choose whether the item applied ‘very often’, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ or ‘never’. Patients would receive a score of 2 if they responded in the extreme anorexic direction, a score of 1 for the similar but not as extreme response, and no score was given to those who responded with a non-anorexic reply. The graph below shows the scores of these questions represented by mean on the y axis and the type of person on the x axis.

The reason I am sharing this study with you is because it scores and clearly displays that the attitudes, behaviors, and thoughts of those with an eating disorder are drastically different than those who do not struggle with the disorder. This is an indication that something needs to be done, and scientists must get to the bottom of it. Anorexia nervosa affects both the body and the mind. As previously stated, I have always had interest in the way the brain works when it comes to eating disorders. Mechanisms that could be used to prevent this type of behavior vary. For example, one could see a doctor for help.

“Neuropsychological and structural brain changes in anorexia nervosa before and after refeeding” is another study that was conducted at Cambridge University. This study specifically dealt the brain appearances of 46-in patients with Anorexia Nervosa compared with 41 normal weight controls. The way that these images were obtained is through Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI. In-patients were separated by sex, age, intelligence and education, and the study was based on who could gain at least 10% of their body weight back, if they completed this task the in-patients were retested and rescanned, along with the controls who retested on similar instances. The Anorexia Nervosa patients showed poor performance on the measures of attention, memory, and visuospatial ability, flexibility and learning. Following the treatment, or refeeding of the in-patients, the only improved tasks that the Anorexia Nervosa had were those assessing attention. Studies state that the MRI’s show that copious anorexics had “enlarged lateral ventricles and dilated sulci on both cortical and cerebellar surfaces, but no dilatation was evident for the third and fourth ventricular measures.” Although some improvements were found on the data after the study was conducted, there were still differences that remained between the two types of patient. The results of the study explain that, “the relationships between morphological brain changes and cognitive impairments were weak. Lower weight, but not duration of illness, was associated with poorer performance on tasks assessing flexibility/ inhibition and memory, and with greater MRI ventricular size.”

Knowing a little bit about how the brain of an anorexic works, in comparison to a normal weight human is educating in that it allows scientists to study the part of the brain, or some of the causes of the deformation in the brain, to try their best to help these struggling patients. Anorexia is a major problem that many face today and the earlier it is treated, the better the chances someone can recover it. If anorexia is left untreated it can lead to and result in starvation, and serious health problems such as bone osteoporosis, kidney damage or failure, and heart problems, which can cause death as an extreme result.

Flu shots are common around this time of year. Left and right, you see displays and posters encouraging you to not forget to get your flu shot. I have yet to get a flu shot this year and I have maybe only gotten one a couple times in the past, but I have never gotten the flu (knock on wood). With cold season approaching and the urge for flu shots increasing, I began to wonder if we really need to get flu shots.

Image from westvalleyurgentcare.com

Many argue and speculate that the medical industry often searches for profit rather than having the prime intention of healing people. It is highly recommended to get the flu vaccine every year. The flu vaccine is very controversial as many people are speculative of its necessity.

A study done in 2011 looked at data on the flu vaccine between the years 1967 and 2011, discovering that the flu vaccine was only about 60 percent effective in people aged 18-65. The Center for Disease control reported that deaths from the flu in a single flu season have varied from 3,000 to 49,000 people.

But, those who are at greatest risk for infection are the elderly and the majority of the deaths are in the older age group. The vaccine is said to only protect “about 2/3 of the people who take it.” Other factors that can determine who will catch the flu include age, immune system, and personal life.

Many people believe that getting the vaccine actually causes them to get the flu. But, it is impossible for the vaccine to cause the flu as it is made to prevent from it. Many people may believe they get the flu but actually catch another virus that is circulating. “An increasing number of researchers, academics and doctors are questioning the scientific basis for an influenza vaccine at all.”

Image from eriklundquistmd.com

Many vaccines also include toxins making them risky. In a meta-analysis study it was discovered that on average, “one out of 100 adults that are vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 unvaccinated adults.” In determining whether to get the vaccine or not, these numbers are very close and getting vaccinated versus being unvaccinated have a small difference in risk. Many also push getting the vaccine to protect elders who are more susceptible to the virus as well as those with weaker immune systems to prevent them from catching the flu. Overall, it is for the sake of protecting the majority of people in the end by vaccinating everyone the can.

As college students, we live in an environment where we are more susceptible to various viruses and diseases. But, we also have stronger immune systems compared to other age groups. In the end, it is up to the individual to determine whether to receive the flu vaccine or not. When getting the vaccine, there is still a 40% chance of possibly catching the flu. One must way out the pros and cons of getting a flu shot to determine if it is in their favor. It is a controversial topic that must be left to the individual to decide if getting the vaccine is more risky than possibly getting the flu.

America has always been advertised as the home of the brave and the land of the free. Along with this advertising comes the expectation of an equal chance at the American dream. The class system in America has allowed both of these things to happen but only in theory. The idea behind the class system in America is that anyone can move up on the socioeconomic ladder granted that they’re smart, hardworking, or talented enough. This kind of system sounds pretty fair to most people which is why America has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. But I can’t help but ask if the class system in America is really as just and fair as everyone perceives it to be?

The idea of social stratification (or, at least, the knowledge that social stratification existed) emerged with the arrival of Portuguese explorers in India about 4,000 years ago. The Portuguese explorers were shocked to find that the indigenous peoples of India separated themselves into subgroups and only associated with the people within their own subgroup. “The many prohibitions on interaction led the Portuguese explorers to call the subgroups casta— a Portuguese word meaning “pure” or “something that ought not be mixed”.” (Lisa J. McIntyre, Pg. 196-197). This is where the concept of stratification systems emerged. In the caste system, mobility between different levels of the stratification system is impossible. You are born into your caste and then die in your caste. This same concept is prevalent in the estate system. But these stratification systems were more compatible with past times. The emergence of the class system in America came about around the same time as the industrial revolution and looks to be the most fair stratification system in the world. The harder you work, the higher up in social standing you climb. But that belief has been recently questioned.

Estate system.

Class system.

Caste system.

The Moore and Davis theory says that there is no social stratification system truly equal. They claim that inequality is present in every single stratification system or else there wouldn’t be people who have more than others. Branching off of this idea, the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics goes on to explain why class systems are unequal. “We also examine whether the likelihood of attrition [Attrition definition: the action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure] is related to past instability of such behaviors–earnings instability, propensities to migrate or to change marital status, and so on,” (The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics, abstract). What the Michigan study is trying to say is that the reason individuals tend to belong to the lower levels of the stratification system is commonly due to the social standing of their parents. That means the reproduction of social structure is heavily correlated with the social standing of an individual’s past generations. This study had a very large sample size of 4,800 families and they meticulously accounted for third variables such as family dynamic. They even followed these families after the kids got older and created their own households. I would say that because of the large sample size, different demographics had to have been well represented. The sample size was also large enough to draw an accurate conclusion about the reasons behind the social standing of different people. A sociologist named James Loewen wrote an essay talking about how high school textbooks mislead students to believe that the class system in America is completely equal and that where you are in this particular stratification system is a direct result of the hard work of that particular individual. But what Loewen points out is that rich parents are able to afford certain health care and educational opportunities for their child which helps them to excel in life as well as increase their chances of staying higher up in the stratification system. However, poor parents don’t have these kind of resources available to them which puts their children at a disadvantage as well as keeps them lower down in the stratification system. Loewen got his information from 12 well-known high school history textbooks as well interviews with multiple high school teachers. His essay does not go into detail about the population or the demographics of the schools he visited so it is uncertain whether his conclusion is truly accurate. After finding many studies supporting that the class system is actually unequal, I tried to find other studies that argue that the class system is, in fact, equal. But It was hard to find any studies that strongly supported that argument. This leads me to believe that, if a meta-analyses was to be preformed on the many different studies supporting that the class system is unequal, we would run into a file drawer problem. It is possible that only studies agreeing with the inequality of the class system are being published and the studies disagreeing with the inequality of the class system are being kept in the “file drawer”.

Amount of people in a population belonging to each social strata.

So what do these studies mean for the citizens a part of the class system in America? Even though there are legitimate studies supporting the inequalities of the modern-day class system, I still believe that hard work positively pays off in most situations. There are definitely variables to be considered when it comes to poverty in America but I have strong hope that the people who want better will be willing to overcome the statistical obstacles in their way. My mom has a pretty amazing story of her working herself from the bottom to the top of the class system. It was hard, stressful, and landed her in a lot of debt, but she made it and she’s happier than ever. I understand that this story is purely anecdotal evidence and should not be taken as concrete evidence that the class system is fair but it is a story that supports my opinion. After all, if the class system was truly unequal, we would never hear about the inspirational success stories of people going from rags to riches. Ultimately, I believe that your situation is what you make it.

IMAGES:

https://socl120.wordpress.com/category/social-class/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Indian-caste-system-and-how-does-it-work

http://www.slideshare.net/jbradfo4/stratification-and-inequality

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22007058

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-williams/is-the-sarah-palin-phenom_b_127521.html

I’m sure that if my title grabbed you and if now you’re reading this blog post, there is a solid chance that you are looking for some type of reassurance that you should go out tonight instead of staying in and starting to study for finals, or write that final paper that has been lingering over your head since the beginning of the semester. By no means am I saying that you should ignore all of your academic obligations just to go have fun with your friends, however, people often forget the importance of reliving stress. When you find that you have had a stressful week, it is important to find time to let yourself relax and relieve the build up tension. Depending on the person, you might choose to do this by curling up in bed with a cup of tea and a good book, by going for a run, or by going out to a party with your friends, really just whatever you enjoy doing.

As I discussed in my previous blog, “Keep Calm and Don’t Stress,” chronic stress can be harmful to both your mind and your body. Aside from the obvious short term mental effects stress has on you, extreme stress can have long term effects on your health such as a weakened immune system, high blood pressure, joint and back pains, and many others. That is why it is very important to make sure that you don’t let stress take a toll on your body or your mind. As young adults at a university with rigourous and demanding course loads and time consuming extracurriculars, we can not afford to be preforming at any less than 100%.

Nearly everyone experiences stress at some point. It is difficult, however, to say exactly what the best way to relieve built up stress is because everyone handles things in very different ways. According to a poll done by the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, 14% of people make use of regular exercise to cope with stress, 18% reported talking to friends or family; 17% said sleeping; 14% said watching movies or TV, 14% said eating and 13% said listening to music. Although what you choose to do to help release stress is primarily based on preference, many of these methods are proven to have a positive effect on both your mood and on your body.

One popular method that many people turn to in order to reduce their stress levels is exercise. Aside from having overall benefits for your health, it also has some results that help melt away your stress. According to an article from the Mayo Clinic, there are a few reasons why exercise relates to decreases in stress levels. One reason is that physical activity makes your brain produce more endorphins, which are the body’s feel-good chemicals. Another reason why exercise is good for someone who has high stress levels is to simply take your mind off what you were stressing about. You may find that a few miles on the treadmill or a fun game of tennis will clear your mind by refocusing on the task at hand. A third reason why exercise has proven to be one of the most effective methods of relieving stress is that it improves your overall mood through encouraging self-confidence, relaxation, and helping you to get a better nights sleep.

Like I said, everyone handles things in different ways. Maybe you aren’t someone who enjoys working out, so back to what I said earlier; maybe you should go out instead of studying! One article that outlines various ways to de-stress says that one way is to make time for fun and relaxation. In order to prevent yourself from a stress overload, it is important to give your mind a break even when you have a lot on your plate. If you never stop worrying about all of the things that you need to get done or all of the responsibilities that you have, you are bound to snap at some point. So, if you go out one night instead of pulling an all-nighter maybe it isn’t the end of the world. You may also choose to curl up on the couch and watch your favorite movie, or to spend time with your friends. What is important is that you make time for yourself to unwind.

Smoking hookah may look a lot more cool and safe than smoking a cigarette, but the reality is that it is just as harmful. Hookah smoke contains all kinds of toxins that cause cancer just like cigarette smoke.

The following is from the Mayo Clinic:

• Hookah smoke contains high levels of toxic compounds, including tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens). In fact, hookah smokers are exposed to more carbon monoxide and smoke than are cigarette smokers.
• As with cigarette smoking, hookah smoking is linked to lung and oral cancers, heart disease, and other serious illnesses.
• Hookah smoking delivers about the same amount of nicotine as cigarette smoking, possibly leading to tobacco dependence.
• Hookah smoke poses dangers associated with secondhand smoke.
• Hookah smoking by pregnant women can result in low birth weight babies.
• Hookah pipes used in hookah bars and cafes may not be cleaned properly, risking the spread of infectious diseases.

It is clear that there are plenty of risks with smoking hookah and it should not be viewed as a safe alternative to cigarettes. Just like with cigarette smoking, it takes a while to do studies on how it will effect the body, because it takes years for the side effects to occur and trends cannot be spotted until then.

It would be worthwhile to do a study comparing cigarette smokers with hookah smokers and see how they differ overall years down the road. The study would need to have people that already smoke either hookah or cigarettes to participate but not both. It would probably be unethical to get someone to smoke hookah that did not before for the study and it would definitely be unethical to get someone that did not smoke cigarettes before to smoke cigarettes in the study. Other confounding variables could be alcohol consumption, exercise, and other physical differences but in a large enough study the randomness of the trial will account for these differences.

In reality this would be a tough study to pull off and track for all these years. The only way to look at future data would be to look at hospital records and see the amount of smokers who have certain kinds of cancer compared to nonsmokers, but even then there might not be enough people that have only smoked cigarettes and not hookah or only smoked hookah and never smoked cigarettes.

The mayo clinic of course is not the only source that says hookah is harmful. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another highly regarded source says, “Similar to cigarettes, hookah smoking delivers the addictive drug nicotine and it is at least as toxic as cigarette smoking. While many hookah smokers may consider this practice less harmful than smoking cigarettes, hookah smoking carries many of the same health risks as cigarettes” (CDC).  Clearly hookah smoking is dangerous, despite many high school and college students thinking that it is safe and a lot different from cigarette smoking.

It’s interesting where the idea that hookah is safe came from? It seems like a lot of people share the belief that it is harmless. In a survey of people in three hookah lounges in Southern California, 57% of people did not think smoking hookah was harmful to their health, with the reasons for that varied.

Another concern was that the 43% of hookah smokers that knew it was harmful, still participated anyway. “Socializing with friends appeared to outweigh health concerns” (Science Daily).  People see smoking hookah as something fun to do as a group, which is why it’s a lot more popular with high school and college students than cigarettes.

The bottom line is that if someone will not smoke cigarettes because of the risks and dangers associated with it, then they also should not smoke hookah.

I consider myself a happy person. I am optimistic, outgoing, and always in the mood to brighten someone’s day. Is it because that is what I was taught as a child or is it because I was born in the summer? Research has shown that the month you were born can affect your overall behavior and health.

An article published on Daily Mail talks about how research has been done that proves that the season of birth affects the way the body functions. Professor Douglas McMahon used mice to prove this hypothesis. McMahon took mice and exposed them to various amount of light. He expose some to 16 hours, which represents the summer, and 8 hours, which represents winter. He studied how this exposure to light affected the function of the mouse by exposing all of the mice to pure darkness. He found that the mice exposed to “summer” light were able to function normally and keep a routine in complete darkness, but the mice exposed to “winter” light had a hard time adjusting and coping to the change. McMahon said that these reactions by the winter mice were similar to those with seasonal affective disorder which is a form of depression that occurs due to the lack of life around fall and winter. This study proposes the possibility that the amount of light a newborn is exposed to could affect their mood as they age. There are also many theories behind the timing of birth. One says that those born in the winter have more allergies because they do not have the extra exposure to Vitamin D, which helps a human’s immune system. Vitamin D also helps with bone growth, and researchers found that children who had higher amounts of vitamin D in their blood were taller on average than those born in winter months.  Another theory is summer babies are more at risk for nearsightedness, because the extra exposure to sun at a young age can cause issues with the development of the eye. Some say that summer (or spring) babies that have extra exposure to sunlight and are exposed to more longer, summer days are more likely to stay up later than the winter babies who have only experienced shorter, darker winter days. An anonymous study found that summer babies also are less clever because they are exposed to more pesticides than winter babies which affect the development of the brain. Although these theories seem realistic, they are not scientifically backed up so they cannot be proven true. Many scientists have put in time in effort in studying how birth month affects personality. Most of the explanations are explained using zodiac signs. Every horoscope is different, and the personality traits are dependent on the four elements (water, fire, earth and air) that your zodiac contains.

A study done by Swedish researchers looks at a wintertime heart disease and who it affects. They came to the conclusion that babies born in summer months (April-September) are at greater risk of death of this disease because of their lack of exposure to winter days and temperatures at an early age.

The month in which you were born does not affect your destiny, but there are some advantages/disadvantages that babies born in winter and summer experience. One should not plan the season of birth for their child based off of these findings, but they should be aware of and prepared for the possible risks that they may encounter.

Do parents have a favorite child?

Many children grow up with another sibling. In these families with multiple children, do parents have a favorite child or do they love their children equally?

Researchers from Pennsylvania State University conducted a study in which they interviewed 388 families once a year for three years. The families consisted of parents that were married who had two siblings that were four years apart or less. The parents were asked about how the children were doing academically and it was found that 48 percent of parents considered their oldest child most capable academically, whether or not the child was actually the smartest. 33% of the parents considered the youngest the most intelligent and 19% favored their children equally.

Jeffrey Kluger, author of “The Sibling Effect: What the Bonds Among Brothers and Sisters Reveal About Us”, says “It is my belief that 95 per cent of the parents in the world have a favourite child, and the other five per cent are lying.”

Since parents may lie when being interviewed or given a survey because they do not want to seem like they favor a child, researchers have found more findings by conducting observational studies.

British professors David Lawson and Ruth Mace published a study in which they watched 14,000 families. Their results showed that parents may actually have a favorite child. The younger siblings received less care and the older siblings were fed more. 65% of mothers and 70% of fathers showed that they preferred one child over the other.The older siblings also had higher IQ’s.

So why do parents seem to favor the first born child?

Researchers propose that it might be that the parents have higher expectations for the eldest child. Another theory is based on Darwinian logic and states that the firstborn is favored more because it absorbs a lot more parental time and energy. Parents would want to protect that invested time, and therefore devote more care to the firstborn. Parents may also favor the oldest child because a study by Brigham Young University found that parents perceive that the less-favored child to be twice as likely to use alcohol and drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parents-biased-toward-first-child_55a3d771e4b0b8145f730667

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/favorite-child-affect-sisters-brothers/story?id=30294681

http://mom.me/in-the-loop/7778-parents-really-do-have-favorite-child/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sibling-effect-parents-favorites-birth-order-counts/story?id=14627020

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094371,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/8943106/Why-all-parents-have-a-favourite-child.html

The U.S Department of Energy estimates that the U.S uses 100 quadrillion btus (“quads”) of primary energy per year.  Since we use 100 quads of energy there should be 100 quads of waste from the energy if it is all being used efficiently.  The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the average American produces 1,130 pounds of trash each year.  Each po und of trash contains 4,500 btus and with over 307 million people that’s 1.6 quads of energy in our trash.  Also 6.5 million metric tons of sewage are produced each year.  The energy conversion is 10,000 btu/dry ton so that adds on another .1 quads.  The total solid waste is about 1.7 quads of energy (1.7% of all our energy use).  Solid waste only contributes to wasting a very small percent of the total energy wasted.  Another contributor is industrial waste.

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has estimated that with the United States wasted energy it could produce 96 GW of electric power.  With a 25 percent fuel-to-power generation efficiency that is another 11.4 quads wasted.

In 2008 the U.S generated 3,806,611 GWh (Gigawatt Hour) from fossil-fired thermal power plants.  On average these plants operate at 33 percent fuel efficiency so for every 1 unit of electric power generated 2 units of waste heat were throw away either in cooling towers, rivers or streams.  2 times 3,806,611 GWh of wasted heat comes out to be 26.4 quads of energy gone.

Lastly transportation wastes accounts for 20 quads of waste since we get about 30% of useful energy out of fuel (cars get more useful energy than larger ways of transportation such as trains, ships and long haul trucks).  Add up all the wasted energy and you get 60 quads of waste energy for 100 quads of primary energy.  This is a huge amount of energy that could really benefit us if we could recover some of it.  Getting this waste out of the system should be a priority for our nation. One way to do this would be use less downstream energy.  This would include lowering your thermastat, carpool/ ride a bike, living in a home the right size for you, etc.  Another way to cut the energy waste down would be switch to alternate fuels like nuclear over c02.  Insulating your home and recycling is another way to cut down on wasting energy.

The U.S Department of Energy estimates that if energy efficiency is improved, national energy use could be reduced by 20% in 2020.  Improved energy efficiency would bring economic benefits to both the consumer and businesses.  Right now the United States leads the world for the country that wastes the most energy.  The U.S government and agencies should focus on this problem more since it will be beneficial for the whole nation.  By making a more efficient power grid much less electrical energy will be lost when moving through the grid.  Also using nuclear power plants to power things instead of C02 power plants since nuclear plants’ energy can be controlled more, is stronger, and do not release emissions.

Sources

Click to access TDEnergyEff.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/02/22/america-the-worldwide-leader-in-wasting-energy/

http://grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/

It seems like almost everyone today is making a conscious effort to eat healthier if it’s in their price range.  Healthy food costs more while the dollar menu at McDonalds still persists, and  America is the only nation with an over weight poor.  So what is organic food and what does it have to do with our class?

What is organic food?  

In 2002, the USDA introduced new regulations that allowed products to be labeled organic.  The food must contain 95-100% certified organic ingredients to use the USDA’s organic label.  The regulations were meant to minimize consumers exposure to toxins and support sustainable agricultural practices, so citizens could be better informed as to what they are actually putting into our bodies.  Organic Valley offers the following six reasons one should eat organic food:

1.  Nutrient density
2. No persistent pesticides or synthetic fertilizers
3. No synthetic growth or breathing hormones
4. No antibiotics
5. No GMOs
6. Animal care

Why is it more expensive?

The purpose of organic farming is to farm the natural way without the influence of modern day chemicals and toxins, but it costs more.  Fox News lists ten reasons why organic food is more expensive and below I have listed a few:

•  No chemicals=more labor
• Hire cost of fertilizer for organic crops
• Better living conditions for livestock
• Organic food grows slower
• Government subsidies- In 2008, $7.5 billion in subsidies for non-organic food and $15 million for organic

So, what’s this have to do with our class?

The organic food market interests me, and I wonder how does it relate to the tobacco industry back in the 50s or what’s going on today with climate change and sugary drinks?  Non-organic, unnatural, processed food is obviously unhealthy and makes people gain weight which contributes to a plethora of other health issues, but the “conventional, processed, unnatural” food industry is a multi-billion dollar industry.  I highly doubt they initiated the organic trend, so who did?

Before the beginning of “industrial agriculture” all food was organic.  According to Eco Tipping Points, the idea of organic food came into play in the early 20th century as an alternative to the “advances in various technologies such as biochemistry (the creation of nitrogen fertilizer), creation of the internal combustion engine, and development of hybrid seeds.”

Experienced, knowledgable, and morally sound farmers were always skeptical of the toxins.  Scientists and researchers spoke out and advocated for natural/organic food, but it wasn’t until 1989 that the public truly heard them.

Whole Foods describes February 25, 1989 as “Alar Sunday.” Researchers finally were able to broadcast to the public and announce that Alar, a synthetic growth toxin commonly used on apples, caused tumors in lab animals and could potentially cause cancer.  It was then the organic food industry really took off.

As it was with tobacco and sugary drinks, knowledgeable people had a gut feeling something was up with “industrial agriculture”, but the public didn’t get behind them until it science proved they were in harms way.  What does that say about us as a public?  Are we unable to listen to others unless it is proven and told to us that we are being directly affected?

It makes me think of climate change. 99% of the scientists who study climate change say that it is happening and is due to human behavior, but the thing about climate change is that no scientists can prove it for sure, without a reasonable doubt.  They can’t inject a monkey with copious amounts of tobacco or feed pesticide to mice to show people that they actually do cause cancer.  All the computer simulations in the world can’t physically and experimentally prove that climate change is happening.  We only have one earth.

It worries me to think that corporations have such little genuine interest for the public good.  The tobacco industry hid their evidence that smoking caused cancer and unhealthy food companies don’t want you to get healthier unless you’re buying their “reduced fat” product.  The corporations who benefit from the fossil fuel industry will do anything to create doubt within the public to convince them that climate change isn’t happening so we keep buying their cars and pumping gas.

Scientists need to become better communicators…or we, as a public, need to become better listeners and learn how to critically think.

“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.”

-Stephanie Seneff, PhD

            That’s right, you read correctly. In just 10 years, the rate of autism will increase from 1/150 children to 1/2…or so MIT senior research scientist Stephanie Seneff says. Seneff has concluded that Autism is directly related to the consumption of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a well known and commonly used herbicide used to kill weeds and other pest plants. Seneff claims that children with autism exhibit biomarkers that indicate the presence of excessive amounts of glyphosate, including “…zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder” (Seneff). The most recognized means of glyphosate consumption: GMO’s. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, and many every day foods are being genetically modified. So does the consumption of GMO’s directly result in an increased chance of autism? This blog will disprove that claim by maintaining that correlation does NOT equal causation and exploring the ever-changing standards for autism.

            Seneff claims in her original report that “the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity”. (Seneff) The two may very well mimic each other, but again this does not identify any direct causation between the two. The rise in glyphosate use does increase at a similar rate as the rise in autism. Both are steadily increasing. However, this does not mean that the two are related in any way. If Seneff is basing her claims on the correlation of graphs, she could also state that an increase in the amount of homelessness in New York City could be increasing autism, or that the steady rise in natural disasters is leading to the similar increase in the rate of autism.

 These are graphs analyzing the changes in homelessness, natural disasters, and autism. Look pretty similar?

            Again, we cannot assume two things correlate based on similar behavior. Showing their similarities does not exhibit enough proof to show a relation. Correlation does NOT equal causation.

            What constitutes the diagnosis for autism has been changing and expanding for decades. More and more forms of autism are being recognized and established. Tara Haelle reported in Forbes magazine that: “the diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list of symptoms, thereby widening the definition of autism” (Haelle). If you think about it, if the basis for what defines autism is increased, there will obviously be more cases of it. Say there were 10 kinds of autism in year X, and that resulted in 100 diagnoses’ of ranging types of autism. But then in year Y there are 20 types of autism identified, and that results in 200 diagnoses’. Obviously the chances of having autism increase by a large amount. Theoretically if what constituted autism remained the same within the timeframe that the consumption of GMO’s has been increasing, there would not be an argument that they correlate. If there were a clear and rigid standard for autism that did not change over time, the consumption of GMO’s would increase without the similar increase in autism, erasing the link between the two. The ever-increasing basis of classifying autism feeds directly into Seneff’s argument that this growth is associated with the rising consumption of GMO’s. But this is so only because hundreds of new disorders are falling under the broad category of autism, showing two similar patterns that are actually unrelated.

            If you are debating on whether to believe Dr. Seneff’s report, just remember that genetically modified organisms and autism correlates, but that certainly does not mean there is any causation between the two. Also, there is an ever-changing standard for what defines autism as time goes on, which is what is increasing the chances of autism, not GMO consumption. In summary, correlation does NOT equal causation in this case.

Link to original report: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

0
0
1
589
3363
Penn State University
28
7
3945
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

For the past few years, I have been a person that regularly checks my “Daily Horoscope App” for a fun little activity within my day. I never put a lot of stock in their sayings, however my best friend is an avid horoscope reader and believer. She likes how they can “predict” the happenings of her day and have been a fun source of information for her when she is curious about why something is happening. My best friend Andrea and I have the same birthday, so we by default have the same astrology sign, so naturally we have compared our days with the horoscopes we receive and we have realized that usually they apply to one of us more than the other depending on the day, or are so general that we try and fit the app’s predictions to correlate with what is currently happening in our lives. This inconsistency prompted me to consider whether or not astrology had any scientific backing, or if it was just something made up.

Pedro Braganca, a write for the website Livescience makes the clarification that “The science behind astrology may have its roots in astronomy but don’t confuse these two disciplines”(Braganca). Braganca goes on to explain how the “position of the stars in the sky”(Braganca), is the representation of astronomy, but the “determination of their alignment” (Braganca) and how a person perceives the significance of their alignment does not have any backing in science or actual astronomy. The interpretation of the alignment is how astrology is defined and where our horoscopes come from. One gets his or her “sign” from where the sun aligns with a particular constellation on the day of their birth according to Braganca. However, the characteristics that are associated with a person’s personality and characteristics that people usually attribute to a specific sign are not proven by astrology, they are simply interpretations that have been repeated over time and are now associated and descriptions of a person based on when they were born and which sign they fall into.

The University of California, Berkeley developed a worksheet for students to go though and determine whether or not astrology truly has a scientific backing or not. It begins with a basic definition of what Astrology’s “basic premise” is, and states that is is based on the understanding that  “heavenly bodies — the sun, moon, planets, and constellations — have influence over or are correlated with earthly events”(Berkeley). It then forces one to try and understand or justify how these “heavenly bodies” are able to predict, foreshadow, and foretell events that will happen in the future though a scientific explanation. The worksheet then addresses one of the main criticisms of astrology, the ability of one’s horoscope to he so “generalized” and vaguely worded that it could have many multiple meanings and be made to fit any person’s daily life (Berkeley).This aspect of astrology makes it almost impossible to test if astrology truly can accurately predict anything since people manipulate their horoscopes to fit their situation. Minimal tests have been executed, but Berkeley details that “In the few cases where astrology has been used to generate testable expectations and the results were examined in a careful study, the evidence did not support the validity of astrological ideas” (Berkeley). Due to the lack of supporting evidence, inability to do a large amount of tests, and variety of interpretations, it is hard to place scientific backing in the validity of astrology.

Despite these last two strong stances in opposition to the factuality of astrology as a science, the online website astrologer, is dedicated to informing people about the truth and science behind one’s horoscope and zodiac sign. It details that astrology is unique and displays “problems being tested using the scientific method” for reasons such as “its difficulty to obtain accurate objective data, isolating the huge number of variables, replicating each person’s unique conditions, and lack of hard statistics” (Astrologer.com). They claim that these shortcomings make it difficult to perform sufficient tests and conclude accurate evidence, which allows scientists to dismiss its value. Thus, leaving people to only see the “flawed tests and experiments” conducted in the past, which does not allow the public to understand that one can truly put stock in their horoscope and look to it as a form of guidance from the “heavenly bodies”.  

In conclusion, despite the complaints of those who believe that astrology has true meaning and scientific backing, I find it hard to dismiss astrology’s inability to be proven through the scientific method and lack of legitimate testing. Astronomy is a true science that explains the placement of everything in our solar system and alignment of planets, stars, and constellations; however it does not explain the implications or interpretations one gathers from the alignment or placement of the “heavenly bodies”. Due to this important distinction I find it almost impossible for astrology to truly be a science and be able to honestly predict events or a person’s characteristics.

Works Cited:

Astrology: Is it scientific? (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist  

Braganca, P. (2007, October 23). Astrology: Why Your Zodiac Sign and Horoscope Are Wrong. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.livescience.com/4667-astrological-sign.html   

Why it is unacceptable to dismiss astrology as rubbish. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm

As college students, we all know what it is like to be stressed and filled with anxiety. Whether you’re swamped with three exams in a week, managing to fulfill a position in a club or a professional setting or even having two big papers due for two different classes, there’s just always something going on. I stumbled across the topic of aromatherapy and I was interested in how that might affect a person’s mood and way of life. Studies show that aromatherapy really can do wonders with healing your state of mind and nourish whatever tension your life is bringing you.

Aromatherapy is “the practice of using the natural oils extracted from flowers, bark, stems, leaves, roots, or other parts of a plant to enhance psychological and physical well being”. I believe that aromatherapy can benefit different aspects of a person’s life because of the positive way that these scents can affect our bodies. Not many people believe in the art of aromatherapy. Each scent triggers a sense of peace in our bodies that help relaxes or ease the pain of a stressful day. Different scents do different things and tends to have different therapeutic properties because of their varying chemical compositions. Some scents are scientifically proven that they can help aid and cure symptoms of illness.

According to University of Maryland Medical Center, aromatherapy has be proven to have treated conditions such as alopecia areatea (hair loss), agitation (including agitation related to dementia), anxiety, constipation, insomnia, pain, headaches, itching, and psoriasis. The chart on the left that I found shows therapeutic uses for some essential oils.

There are a couple of articles that I found that show aromatherapy being a cure to anxiety and depression in cancer patients. In this particular article, researchers in Japan (2009) conducted a small trial of 12 patients who have breast cancer found that aromatherapy massage helped reduce their anxiety. In 2007, a UK trial tested whether or not adding aromatherapy massage to the usual treatment for cancer patients would reduce their anxiety and depression related to their chronic illness in people that had advanced cancer. 280 patients participated in the study and they all had anxiety/depression due to their cancers. Half of those patients had the usual treatment (supportive care). The other half had supportive care and the additional aromatherapy massage. The researchers found that the patients who had the additional aromatherapy massage in their supportive care were less anxious and/or depressed for up to 2 to 6 weeks after the massage but showed no difference at 10 weeks. However, further research needed to be conducted and researched to support my hypothesis.

So I searched up an American study (mentioned in this article) that was published in The Journal of Palliative Medicine in 2004 that researched 42 people who had advanced stages of cancer. They were separated into 3 groups. The first group of people were given weekly massages over the span of 4 weeks. The second group was given massages that used only lavender oil for therapy. Group 3 had no massages at all (control group). The result of this experiment was the patients in groups 1 and 2 were sleeping well and showed less depressive symptoms than those patients in group 3, who weren’t getting much sleep and had depression.

I wanted to make sure that the previous study wasn’t just an outlier study so I went and looked ahead at a study that shows how the extract of lavender can reduce a person’s stress (overall). This study involved studying patients in the intensive care unit. They were randomly put into four groups. Correlation coefficients were calculated to look at the relationships between stress response and health measures.

Group 1: were told that they would receive the aromatherapy treatment and received the therapy while doing the task; experimental group

Group 2: told they would receive aromatherapy but they did not; tested the placebo effect

Group 3: not told anything about aromatherapy but still received the treatment; purpose was to test if aromatherapy really works even with the patient being unaware that they are receiving it

Group 4: were not told anything about aromatherapy and did not receive the aromatherapy treatment (control group)

In this study, the results were a little confusing to me because of it disproves the theory that I was suggesting where aromatherapy can cure stress. Each group was given a test to take after given the treatment (if any) they were assigned to. It was mentioned in this study that the effects had no differences between the groups with any of the following characteristics: age, gender, race, level of physical activity, weight, height, physical symptoms, smoking, caffeine, and alcohol consumption, life stressors, and year in school. Group 3 had high levels of stress before taking the test than the rest of the groups. Groups 1, 2, and 4 showed a great increase in stress levels. Only 27.4% of the patients tested on correctly identified the use of lavender essential oil for stress reduction.

However, only the purest, most natural, and highest quality of essential oils can effectively heal one’s illness (so maybe in that last study, the experimenters were using the wrong type of essential oils). Synthetic oils won’t work. Not only can aromatherapy alter a cancer patient’s emotional health, but it can also cure common conditions such as burns, chest congestion, dry skin, earache, eye strain, athlete’s foot, headaches, herpes, weak immune system, nausea, insect bites, joint pain, insomnia, muscle pain, nerve pain, poison ivy, PMS, sore throats, tooth pain, pimples, asthma, and even warts. Now we wonder how this affects different demographics. Are the results different in girls versus boys or does aromatherapy work better for white males rather than hispanic females? Well, because aromatherapy mainly affects our sense of smell and has an antiseptic property that has the ability to eliminate microorganisms that cause disease, it shouldn’t work more for one race than for another, or one gender rather than another. Although, not many studies have been tested to prove this theory.

I, myself, after doing all this research have recently purchased and used essential oils in my life to keep myself more calm during finals week and other stressful weeks that college life seems to throw at you. Personally, I use an oil diffuser that sprays a scented mist throughout my room whenever I study, lounge around, or sleep. I’ve seen improvements in my mood from when I started using my oil diffuser. It helps me concentrate more on my homework and relaxes me before I head to sleep at night.

When introducing myself to people and telling them that I am from Los Angeles, I always get asked the same two questions a large percentage of the time; “why did I come here?, and am I ready for the winter?” After getting asked that questions so many times and hearing repeatedly how I am “going to die” during the winter, or maybe even the fall due to the unfamiliar drop in temperatures. I began to think about how sick I will probably get of the cold and snow, and how I will desperately miss my 60 degree winters. While thinking about this I started to actually get a little homesick and sad which led me to further researching whether or not weather depression is actually a real illness. Seasonal Affective Disorder, is ironically known by its more common acronym “SAD”. Which “According to Dr. Joseph V. Pace, Chief of Psychiatry at the Alaska VA Medical Center, SAD is defined as “recurring depression with seasonal onset and remission.” (Hans) Dr. Pace details how in places where it is dark for a good portion of the year, for instance, where he resides in Alaska, that their lack of sun can have a negative effect on one’s mood; “low vitamin D levels…can correlate with depression”.

Some have nicknamed this form of depression with the term “Winter Blues”, disvalued by Dr. Pace in his article, there are many symptoms that can be attributed to this “mood disorder” (Hans) such as; “increased appetite, weight gain, sleep loss, decreased energy and lack of motivation” (Hans). The cold weather invites one to not leave their comfortable, warm, and often solitude surroundings, which lulls them into a depressed state of hibernation for the winter. Coming here from California, I wondered if my lack of winter tolerance would hinder me in obvious ways such as leaving me freezing when it was 50 degrees outside when everyone else was contemplating wearing a short sleeve shirt. However, I never thought about how it would detract from my want to go out and see my friends, go to class, and opt to eat the easy mac in my room rather than venture to the commons for a salad. The more and more I began to think about my life come winter and research what provokes Seasonal Affective Disorder, began to wonder that if the areas of the U.S. that were hit hardest during the winter had a significant amount of the population plagued by this disorder.

In an article written for boundless.com, it is stated that “Although experts were initially skeptical, this condition is now recognized as a common disorder, with its prevalence in the U.S. ranging from 1.4 percent in Florida to 9.7 percent in New Hampshire” (Boundless). The lack of “natural light” that one is exposed to on the east versus the west coast, is substantially less due to the fact that where I am from in Southern California, it is typically 75 degrees and sunny for majority of the year, whereas here in State College the season of winter engulfs the area for a many months. In addition to looking at the differences between the extensiveness of SAD in more sunny and dreary places, I looked at how my findings correlated with suicide rates in places severely impacted by winter. CBS news created a list of the “Top 10 states with the highest and lowest suicide rates”(CBS News), and after looking at the list, I found a correlation between states with the highest suicide rates having some of the worst winters. For example, in addition to being the largest state, Alaska, has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. “In 2007, for every 100,000 Alaskans, 21.8 died by suicide”(CBS News).  With 6 months of darkness per year, Alaska is a state that perfectly exemplifies the conditions in which one would begin to suffer from SAD.

For those suffering from this mood disorder, there are many ways in which one can get back to feeling normal. For instance, New York Times journalist Richard A. Friedman M.D. cited Dr. Rosenthal’s; “a professor of clinical psychiatry at the Georgetown Medical School”(citation); findings in his book “Winter Blues”(Friedman) to acknowledge that “Light is a nutrient of sorts for these patients”(Friedman). Having bright and/or natural light exposure early in the day can work to cure patients. In addition to light therapy, other additional treatments include melatonin sentiments and antidepressants. Overall, Seasonal Affective Disorder is a serious mood disorder that has side effects ranging from weight gain to suicide. Thus, through my research I think that “winter depression” is truly a serious issue harming many people.

Works Cited:

Boundless. “Seasonal Affective Disorder and Jet Lag.” Boundless Anatomy and Physiology. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Web. 5 Sep. 2015 <https://www.boundless.com/physiology/textbooks/boundless-anatomy-and-physiology-textbook/the-endocrine-system-16/endocrine-system-diseases-disorders-and-clinical-cases-163/seasonal-affective-disorder-and-jet-lag-817-8611/ >

Friedman, Richard. “Brought on by Darkness, Disorder Needs Light.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Dec. 2007. Web. 5 Sept. 2015.<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/health/18mind.html?_r=0>

Petersen, Hans. “Mental Health.” Mentalhealth.va.gov. 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 5 Sept. 2015. <http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/featurearticle_jan25sad.asp >

“20 States With the Highest Suicide Rates.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive. Web. 5 Sept. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/suicide-20-states-with-highest-rates/22/ >

Everyday one experiences things that are pleasurable or pleasing to  their senses, but why does one have a preference for one thing or person over another?  What arouses us to like certain people or things, and how do we develop this understanding of what or who we like and/or are attracted to? After examining different viewpoints and analyzing my experiences, my hypothesis is as follows, that the dopamine levels in our brain that control the feeling of pleasure we get are affected and influenced by our perception of what others will think and how they will perceive what we find pleasurable. In an article written about Paul Bloom, a Psychology and Cognitive Science professor at Yale University, the writer Ted O’Callahan detailed his theories about how we decide what is pleasurable to us and came to the conclusion that “It’s easy to miss the complexity that underlies pleasure”(O’Callahan). According to Bloom’s book, How Pleasure Works, “Pleasure is affected by deeper factors, including what the person thinks about the true essence of what he or she is getting pleasure from”(O’Callahan). After reading over O’Callahan’s article on Bloom’s research, I was prompted to consider how our perception of the world around us and our experiences play a role in how we feel the arousal of pleasure.

Bloom uses the example of Wine experts and how when they are not given all the information, rely on only what they are told to come to the conclusion on whether or not they like or dislike the wine they are tasting. When told they were drinking an expensive bottle of wine they raved over its flavor and richness, the experts “rated” the bottle “as worth drinking”, but when the label was switched to a “lesser quality brand”(O’Callahan) few rated the wine with the same esteem. Our sense of perception of how good a product should be or how attractive someone is, is often affected by our experiences and the opinions of those around us. When brainstorming blog ideas, I received a picture from my best friend in a group chat of 10 girls. It was of a boy that she had recently begun seeing and wanted to know our opinion. That text message prompted me to examine when I had done the same thing or something similar regarding other decisions I had made about my likes and dislikes.This forced me to realize that it is more than possible that some of the things I find pleasing, people I like, or activities I find pleasurable are not unaffected by the bias of those around me.

An article in Time Magazine by Maia Szalavits examines and explains David J. Linden’s understanding of “How our brains make fatty foods, orgasm, exercise, marijuana, generosity, learning, and gambling feel so good”(Szalavitz) in his book The Compass of Pleasure. Linden discusses the correlation between dopamine,pleasure, and addiction; which steers away from Bloom’s sociological and psychological theories on pleasure. Szalavits further explains how “Dopamine actually is what underlies the feeling of pleasure because we also know that if you ask people to report on about how much pleasure they’re getting from eating [or other pleasurable experiences] it matches the [level] of dopamine response”(Szalavitz). Linden’s understanding of pleasure points to how “the role of dopamine” in our brain decides what we find pleasing, which includes “both liking and wanting”(Szalavitz) what we feel we do. He also examines how painful things can be viewed as “pleasurable” in our minds, i.e. “chili peppers-lots of people enjoy then and they are a little painful”(Szalavitz). I believe this is why we get gratification or pleasure from pleasing others. There is a parallel between the pain of eating a chilli pepper and shaping our idea of pleasure based on what someone else prefers. We are giving up what we truly pleasure which can be seen as painful, to experience the enjoyment of making someone else feel good or pleased.

There are numerous factors which affect and determine what we find pleasurable and shape our preferences. After self reflecting on my own life and reading the research of both Bloom and Linden, I believe that what we truly find pleasurable depends upon whether we are thinking about what we like or what we want, and how our experiences and the opinions of others have influenced our preferences and desires. Once we know what we would like or want to happen, then our pleasure is aroused by the coming events which are reflected by the dopamine levels in our brain.

Work Cited:

O’Callahan, Ted. “Why Do We like What We Like?” Yale Insights. 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. <http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-do-we-what-we>.

Szalavitz, Maia. “Q&A: How Pleasure Works | TIME.com.” Time. Time, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. <http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/26/mind-reading-how-pleasure-works/>

When you think of Antarctica, you think of its wide open, white lands. The landscape is barren with little to no vegetation. There are no buildings dotting the landscape, the only thing you see is the wildlife and cold desert of the southern hemisphere. Being on average the coldest and driest continent you would almost imagine it to be one of the few places that isn’t being drastically altered by human activity.

Unfortunately the impact humans have made on the environment have even descended into the windy ice shelf of Antarctica. Antarctica is very important in ground for science on behalf of its clean water, fresh air, and uninhabited lands. This place allows scientists to study the changes in the earth’s environment and the negative impacts that even other scientists could have left there.

As if it wash’t bad enough that trash has that has been put on the ice and is now melting dispersing the waste into the marine environment. The pollution and exhaust that has transpired there has eaten away into the ozone creating a giant hole in the ozone layer above its landmass and has been dwelling there for the past 30 years. This hole was produced through chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFC’s) chemicals that have been used since the 1930’s through things such a refrigerators and cans of aerosol spray. These CFC’s have polluted the troposphere and has now even leaked as far as the stratosphere where ultraviolet light breaks apart these gasses releasing chlorine (which is the ultimate destroyer of our ozone. The chemicals that have been whisked into the air have become very harmful to the environment and need to continue being monitored.

Global warming is another big impact. In the Maritime Antarctic lakes have shown signs of being the fastest response to regional climate than anywhere else in the world. The climate change is directly effecting the environment in Antarctica making the ice shelves to break off and melt, which starts to deplete the land mass and causes the sea levels to raise (which can really force some issues with low-lying regions all across the globe. Not only is the land being destroyed but all of the life there is as well. Many species originating from Antarctica are now becoming extinct and extra effort has to be spent on preserving the natural habitat.

There needs to be better alternatives for our energy resources.There have been many plans to help change the environment, but not enough action. If something isn’t done to change the contamination (that we humans created in our system) then there could be even greater difficulties for our species to overcome.