I went to a small college in North Carolina called Warren Wilson where alternative medicine wasn’t all that alternative. There, I was introduced to Kombucha. I actually got to see the live cultures that go into making this powerhouse of a drink, and it was pretty cool. Kombucha is made by fermenting black tea and allowing sugars to feed on it. This creates the live culture, which is home to millions of bacteria. The finished product contains these live cultures and acts as a probiotic along with having certain acids that can help digestion, and stuff like that! There isn’t much out there as far as the scientific method goes for proving these beneficial effects of Kombucha. Most of the “evidence” comes from anecdotes. However, when weighing the benefits against possible negatives (and there aren’t many negatives aside from the weird taste), then I think that giving it a try couldn’t hurt. But how can we tell if this is actually helping, or if its just a fad?

Dr. Axe  writes about 7 specific benefits to drinking Kombucha:

1. Detox: Kombucha possesses properties that help cleanse the body. Although there hasn’t been extensive research on humans yet, a study on rats showed improvement of kidney-liver function and improvement in hypercholesterolemic conditions.
2. Digestion: One of the primary uses of Kombucha is to regulate the bacteria in your stomach. It is thought that Kombucha will fill up the space in your stomach with good bacteria, and prevent the buildup of bad bacteria. Probiotic properties are among the benefits of Kombucha drink. These bacteria can also help us digest our food.
3. Energy: Kombucha also has iron, vitamin B, and small amount of caffeine which work together to energize the body. Iron is able to provide more oxygen in the blood, which results in more engery and ease of blood flow.
4. Immune Health: The body is filled with what Dr. Axe refers to as free radicals. These are byproducts that float around in our bodies as a result of different reactions that happen on a daily basis. Apparently they aren’t harmful until they become out of balance with the antioxidants found in our bodies. They can hurt your DNA and healthy cells, however, Kombucha has the antioxidant DSL can fight cell damage.
5. Joint Health: Kombucha possesses elements that help preserve collagen in the joints, and all over the body. This gives joint support, and can prevent wrinkles and skin damage.
6. Cancer Prevention: Dr. Ax provides some support for Kombucha’s ability to help fight cancer, and there are certainly elements such as the antioxidants and certain acids that couldn’t hurt. However, I couldn’t find any other research that really gave any credit to this statement. It may be a soft end point type of “solution”.
7. Weight Loss: Again, there isn’t enough evidence to say with any certainty that Kombucha causes weight loss. However, it has ingredients that lend themselves to weight loss in other scenarios, so why wouldn’t it be the same in Kombucha? Acetic acid has been shown to help burn fat, and can be found in Kombucha.

After reading all of this, I realized that perhaps the most significant element in Kombucha (and the most researched) is the probiotic one. Probiotics are live cultures that live within our body. They are beneficial to our health and important in balancing things such as digestion. A lot of probiotic products work to mimic these naturally occurring microorganisms.

An interesting fact that I found was that if probiotics are marketed as a dietary supplement , the do not need FDA approval. 

When I was introduced to probiotics and Kombucha in particular, I was subject to confirmation bias. If the people making and marketing this product said that it was all natural and would help balance my stomach bacteria, I really believed it! I’m not saying that it will definitely work or not, but again I think that the potential benefits outweigh the (almost non-existent) negative effects.

image 1

As some people say, pets are life companions. No matter what, they will be there for you even when you are sad, mad, or sick. Every time I’m sad I hug my dog and she definitely makes me feel better. My best friend has a cat and she does the same. Overall, every one I know has an special attachment to their pets no matter if these are fish, cats, turtles, or dogs. In general I believe that they make you feel better and happier since they give a sense of companionship and make us feel understood.

I did some research about the extent in which our pets can help us. I found a study published on the American Geriatrics Society Journal that determined whether pet company can cause us any physical or psychological effects.

My dog

Scientists decided to make a longitudinal study for a year, that included 995 participants who were 65 years or older. The study started with 1500 participants randomly taken from the Ontario Ministry of Health data base. Only 995 participants were followed up during the period of time of the study. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about the type of pet they had or if they didn’t had any, their sex, education, income, leaving arrangement, health status (physically and psychologically) and asked them about any major event that has occurred in their life on the past 12 months (since this may affect them emotionally). Researchers controlled the confounding variables that could affect the results in any way. The null hypothesis in this case would be that the ownership of pets does not affect physical and emotional health. The alternate hypothesis is that the ownership of pets prevents the physical and emotional health deterioration of an older person.

Since many of the participants could not be followed up due to death or other situations, scientists ruled out those who were no longer part of the study. Later they compared the data recorded in 1995 with the one recorded a year after. Reverse causation had to be ruled out because of the time factor, meaning that it is impossible to compare the data collected a year after the baseline data and get results. The study had to be either causal or affected by a third variable. Chance on the other hand, can never be ruled out.

Scientists wanted to see if the ADL’s (Activities of Daily Life) of the people with pets indicated different results than the ones who did not have pets.  They found out that the physical condition of people who did not have pets had decayed more than those who did. The table below shows the results:

Figure 1

Scientists said it is likely that old people deteriorate at a lower rate when having pets due to the fact they need to be active in order to take care of them. After this, they compared the data for those who had cats and dogs with the data of those who had other animals as pets. The found out a correlation between cat and dog owners and high ADL score (physical).

Furthermore, scientists found out through statistical analysis that there was not a direct cause between the emotional well being of an individual with a pet or the absence of it. However, they did find that people had a tendency to give social support when having pets. Figure 1 below shows the results.

Figure 2

This results demonstrate how the psychological well being of the participants influence on their ability to react on crisis situations. Scientists found out that people who have pets will have a much better reaction towards bad situations than those who do not.

According to the National Center for Health Research there could be two possibilities, either people who are healthy will be prone to have pets or people who have pets are healthy. Also a German study indicates that having a pet can deteriorate health since they will not have enough time to take care of themselves because they are taking care of their pets.

Even though, many scientists and journalists do not find a clear correlation between health and pets, they believe there is one. To conclude, the study indicates that the alternate hypothesis that pets can make an impact on the physical and emotional health of a person is true. However, this can be due to chance and only relies in a group of people that belongs to the same region (Ontario). I think that there should be replication and meta-analyses in order to know if the results are accurate or can be due to a fluke.

Have you ever just looked up in the dark grey skies and watch as the sky lights up with a one-billion-volt electric shock and wonder, how is this possible? What is lighting exactly, and how does it form? According to the National Weather Service, your odds of being struck in your lifetime, based upon the average age of 80, is 1 in 13,000. That being said, are your chances of getting struck by lightening more if you are of a specific gender? My research on this topic are four-fold and through this particular blog post I hope achieve in answering all of the said questions. Personally, my hypothesis is the same as the null hypothesis, that there is no direct correlation to which gender is more susceptible to a lighting strike.

What is lightening?

Now that we know how lightening forms, let us take a look at what lightening is exactly. Is it really God smiting us humans on Earth? Science seems to disprove this theory. Lightening, according to National Geographic, is caused by an imbalance of charged particles within the cloud and has the ability to reach temperatures five times that of the sun’s. It also has the potential to strike Earth and cause many natural phenomena such as; snowstorms, forest fires, and even volcano eruptions! Who would have thought!? Luckily for us, the most common type of lightening doesn’t even hit the Earth. It usually transfers from one cloud to another. However, National Geographic, says that Earth is struck by lightening at least 100 times a day, making it a very common and naturally occurring event.

How is lighting possible?

Before we get into how many individuals get struck by lightening, let us take a look at how it forms. Lightening is much like getting shocked by your door handle when you reach to grab it. It all has to do with the build up of positive and negatively charged atoms. However, instead of building the static up through your feet and through your body, is builds up through the bottom of the cloud to the top. For there to be lighting there must be a thunderstorm. A thunderstorm is the vertical movement of water vapor from the surface to the air. At a certain height above the ground, a cloud will form when the temperature cools to the dew-point temperature. What exactly is the dew-point temperature? It is the temperature at which the air becomes saturated and water vapor condenses back to it’s liquid state. According to planet-science.com, as the cloud builds, the increase in height means a decrease in temperature. This makes the cloud at the top have frozen ice crystals, and the bottom to have rain drops (assuming the base of the cloud is above freezing levels). Due to the upward motion of air and water vapor and the natural down drafts of the thunderstorm, it causes the liquid water and ice crystals to bump into one another creating static electricity. This can be equated to the same as sliding your feet along the rug. Then after all of electricity has been built up within the cloud, the heavier negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud. While the negatively charged particles sink, the positively charged particles rise to the top because they are lighter, respectively. Then after enough static electricity has been built up, a huge shock – lighting – is created. This is ultimately like touching the door handle after you have rubbed your feet along the carpet.

How many people are struck by lightening?

To my surprise, a large amount of people are struck by lightening each year. Somewhere around 2,000 people are killed worldwide every year. Of the 2,000 people worldwide, 31 are struck and killed in the United States according to the National Weather Service’s 2006-2015 study. May not seem like much, but when they break it down to the odds of it happening to someone you know, it seems more likely. Based on their calculations, those odds are 1/1,300 people.

Just because you are struck by lightening doesn’t mean you will die. Even more people survive lightening strikes then actually die. However, their symptoms may be severe and forever lasting. Some side effects are; memory loss, dizziness, and memory loss. Of course there a number of other possible life threating side effects. With all the above said, are men or women more likely to be the victim of a lightening strike?

Who is at a higher risk for getting struck?

Surprisingly, it seems men are more likely to be struck by lightening than women! According to popsci.com, 648 people were killed by lightening between the years 1995-2008. Of those 648, 82% of them were men! Crazy, right? Well not really. The answer to this is quite simple, and actually makes a lot of sense. It was thought the cause of this was due to extra iron in the male cranium, or the conductive properties of the male hormone, testosterone. Unfortunately, this wasn’t necessarily the case at all. According to the article on popsci.com, and a study done by Peter Todd, a behavioral psychologist from Indiana University, it might just have to do with that fact that men are less willing to stop what they are doing for lightening. This being a possible third variable, Todd seems to think that the difference has to do with the natural “risk-vs- reward” process that has been genetically encoded within our biological being for thousands of years. Todd further explains that us women are naturally more inclined to stay back and care for their offspring, or themselves. Where as for men, they seem to have this natural attractions for one upping another male to be the alpha, or to potentially show off their courage to attract a female. This being said, this urge to impress comes with the younger male than their older and wiser male counterparts.

To conclude…

It seems my hypothesis may have been off, but not by much. I was simply researching to see if men or women have something within them that causes one or the other to be more susceptible to a strike (I.e. extra iron in the body, hormones, or bone structure). I was able to conclude that men aren’t necessarily more susceptible, but are more likely to be struck by lightening than a woman, not because of chemical makeup, but because they are less understanding of the consequences that they are facing. In conclusion, men seem to be more likely to be struck by lightening, but are by no means more susceptible than their female counterparts.

Sources-

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/lightning-profile/

http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/natural-world/2012/06/what-causes-lightning.aspx

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/are-men-or-women-more-likely-be-hit-lightning

Photo one: Link 

Photo two: Link

Photo three: Link

Growing up, my parents have always been complete opposites when it came to raising me. My mom was always the “good parent”, the one that I loved to come to whenever I messed up and needed her help. Bad test grades, phone calls home from my teachers, and anything else along those lines always went to my mom because she was extremely forgiving and kind whenever I messed up. My dad, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. If he found out about a bad grade, I couldn’t leave the house for a month. He would sit front row at my schools concerts and give me his critiques right after they were done. Waking up early every Saturday morning to do math problems with him was a weekly routine, and I would get scolded if I got any wrong. He always told me that I would appreciate him doing all of this in the long run, but even now, ten yeas later, I still go to my mom with everything because she was always kinder and more understanding than my dad. This made me think: does being harsh on your children help them or hurt them in the long run?

According to a an observational study published in the Social Science and Medicine Journal, harsh parenting has an extremely negative effect on not only adolescent physical health, but on adolescent body mass index as well (ScienceDirect).

Why?

According to Thomas J. Schofield, author of the article and head of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Iowa State University, parental harshness lowers our self esteem and self image and increases our stress levels. The scariest part is that it carries into our adult lives as well, affecting us even when we don’t live with our parents anymore. These results were also consistent with a meta-analysis that was published in 2009, describing multiple studies showing this exact thing. We can hope that there is no file drawer problem going on since so many studies have been published on this topic, giving us accurate results, especially since many of them have the same results.

There is likely a correlation between harsh parenting and a high BMI due to stress or emotional eating. According to this article, emotional eating stems from childhood, where most of us learn to associate food with comfort (Body For Life). For example, if a baby is crying, a mom would give it a bottle, or if a child falls off a bike he or she is given candy so that they’ll stop crying. When a child is being screamed at by a harsh parent, they turn to food to make themselves feel better; in turn leading to higher BMI and even obesity. I believe that this is incredibly dangerous because obesity, which is already such a big problem in the United States, could be prevented in cases like this if parents knew how to raise their children without pushing them over the edge and causing them to turn to food for comfort.

Low self esteem, something that is definitely prevalent in a child when they are constantly being put down by a harsh parent, is actually what causes adolescent physical health to be compromised. Just like stress causes us to be more susceptible to getting sick, low self esteem, which can cause constant stress and worrying in a person, does just that. Just as physical health is compromised, mental health is extremely affected as well. Low self esteem can cause people to self harm, want to fix their appearance with cosmetic surgery, or even worse, can lead to suicidal thoughts and actions.

That doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t discipline their children at all, though. There are obviously many positives to disciplining children, like teaching them respect and how to be good people, but all of that can be done in a way that doesn’t hurt them in the long run. Parents can be strict without being harsh and abusive, giving their children a good life minus the low self esteem, high BMI, and many other problems that harsh parenting causes.

Sources –

1. Source 1 – Study
2. Source 2 – Meta-Analysis of Data
3. Source 3 – Emotional Eating

Picture Sources –

1. Picture 1
2. Picture 2
3. Picture 3

This might sound weird but I take pride in being left handed. Probably because we are a rare species of humans. Especially when only two other people in my family are also. They are both on my father’s side of the family; my grandfather and one of my male cousins. I see it as a novelty. Don’t get me wrong, it definitely used to get on my nerves in middle school when I would write my notes in pencil and the lead you leave a big smudge on the side of my hand and smeared letters on my paper. But I really do love it about myself. Makes me feel special. It got me to wondering the differences between being either left or right handed?

I didn’t realize that only about 10% of the population is left handed. We live in a predominately right handed world. Which apparently can have subtle Dr. Ronald Yeo, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas- Austin says that during fetal development that hand dominance is determined pretty early. So does genetics come into play when it comes to an individual being either left or right handed? Well apparently genetics are only 25% responsible, according to Yeo. However, it does run in families but its not as dominate as height and intelligence. This makes sense to me because there such a small group of us in my family who are left handed. It makes me wonder the likely hood that my kids, when I have them, will be left handed. There even seems to be a lot of theories about what determines a persons writing hand is. Many experts feel that it is really a matter of chance. One theory in particular that I found interesting is from a British study that found that super-stressed women who are pregnant can cause a fetus to touch their faces with their left hands more than their right hand. This website suggests that our internal workings and fine motor skills prove that a lot of our anatomy is not as balanced as we assume it to be. Gina Grimshaw, who is the director of Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, says that more people that are right handed use the left side of their brains, which is where language is processed. However, that does not mean that left handed people use the right side of their brains. What I’ve found from talking to people is that when they were little they wrote with one hand but then their parents corrected them and conditioned them to write with the opposite (mostly from left to right handed). But that is more along the lines of cultural norms and superstition.

So it seems that there really is no way to determine why people are left handed or right handed. It can be looked as a matter of one or the other.

Photo Sources:

http://realites-paralleles.com/2014/02/do-users-interact-with-their-mobile-devices-with-their-dominant-hand/

Sources:

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20961805,00.html

http://www.livescience.com/17009-left-handedness-ambidexterity.html

People often underestimate the importance of water consumption; sometimes, people overdrink water. During my time in college, I’ve realized that I rarely drink water, and prefer beverages with higher calories, but beforehand, I consumed a lot of water to lose weight. Specifically, I drank at least 8 bottles of spring water a day. My mother, however, warned me that too much water, especially when drinking fast, can be dangerous. While water has healthy advantages, for instances such as weight and hydration, we should be aware of how much water we consume. Drinking less water and drinking too much water both have detrimental outcomes. But what exactly happens when we do these things?

The Advantages of Water Consumption

Glass of table-water. From gamebirdexpert.com

Water, of course, is essential to everyday life. If you’re familiar with the term, “Drinking water is good for you,” here’s why. Water has zero calories, and a fair consumption of it helps with our health. Because our body has a great amount of water, it helps maintain our body fluids. The more water we drink, the more our digestive systems improves. The best thing about consuming water is that it controls our calorie intake. Many people, of course, may use water as a way to lose weight. While water does not have a miraculous effect on our body mass, it contributes to calorie intake reduction. According to Penn State researcher Barbara Rolls, with water, you can reduce your calories instead of increasing calories with a soft drink. Water’s effects on the body, overall, are very necessary to have a healthy lifestyle.

The Effects of Drinking Less Water

What happens when we have less water to consume? One word—dehydration. When we do not drink as much water as we should, it can effect our bodies in various ways. Our bodies can retain water, especially if we consume high-calorie beverages more than we drink water. This is a result of what we call water retention.

Since water retention is due to lack of exercise and poor dietary habits, the best way to prevent this is to, obviously, drink more water. As stated before, drinking water helps with maintaining our body fluids, but less water consumption can retain water in our bodies instead of using water to release fluids from our excretory systems. We have to drink water to maintain the functions in our systems. Without water, we can become dehydrated, especially if you lose body fluids more than you consume it. Drinking less water can also increase the likelihood of high-calorie drink consumptions. Sodas, juices, and flavored drinks are more unhealthy compared to water.

Drinking Water TOO Much?

While drinking less water is dangerous to the body, overdrinking is also detrimental. Typically, a person is expected to drink at least 8 cups of water a day, but many studies have pushed this statement aside. When we consume too much water in our bodies, this results in water intoxication (Note: this only occurs when you drink water fast). In addition to this, too much water can affect your blood volume and you can also damage your kidneys due to excess water in your excretory system.

How Much Water Should We Actually Drink?

Instead of drinking less and overdrinking water, there should be a balance of how much you consume in our diets. The amount of water we consume will contribute to reducing calories, and keeping our internal systems clean and functional. So, drinking water consistently and not too much, as well as keeping a balanced diet is the most effective way of staying healthy, and the best way to prevent water retention and intoxication.

There’s nothing wrong with water! It’s just how you drink it!

I’m just like any other 22-year-old girl who fell in love with vampires when Twilight hit center stage. I will say when I was about ten years old that my aunt made me watch Interview with a Vampire with her (lots of movies that were scary to me at the time actually) except for this one I didn’t think it was scary. I thought vampires were pretty cool, for the basic reasons; immortality and psych-kinetic powers. Even though Ann Rice set the ground work for me with my fascination with vampires, Stephenie Meyers sent my teenage self into a whole other world. Her vampires are different than the traditional vampire and she caught a lot of flack from people because of it. Personally I thought she brought something new to the creature and she made a ton of money while doing it so all the power to her. I won’t get into all the differences, but one characteristic that lines up is some type of reaction when exposed to sun light. For traditional vampires they blow up, and in Anne Rice’s case, they turn to ash. Essentially, they die. Whereas Meyer’s vampires skin reflects off the sun and sparkles in the sunlight. This is where I had my epiphany moment. Traditional vampires condition with the sun can be thought of as having a sun allergy, times a million.

My Husband

You’re probably wondering where the heck I’m going with this. I’ve been seeing a dermatologist this summer due to a allergic skin reaction I was having to a medication that I was taking. My symptoms were red spots on my inner arms, inner thighs, and chest. These spots would be irritating and very itchy, and since I scratched them, they spread to up around my neck. She was rather puzzled by this because of how they developed she and her colleague were not quite sure how it developed. When She found out that I was on a biologic medication that for an autoimmune disease I have, we both came to the realization that being on a drug like that compromises the immune system. That was a piece of the puzzle for her so she did some more tests on pieces of my skin. In no way am I comparing myself to a vampire but I thought it was an interesting correlation. Even though it may sound crazy for someone to be allergic to the sun, its very much so a medical condition.

The general scientific term for a sun allergy is called “Photosensitivity”. This is caused by having a have a skin reaction to sunlight that is caused by a disruption in the immune system. This mostly happens when the skin is exposed to the sun. The areas of the body that have been seen to get affected the most from sun-exposure are the “V” of the neck, the back of the hands, the outside surface of the arms, and the lower legs. This reaction can sometimes look like tiny blisters, a rash, or even a skin eruption, but that is a rare occurrence. Excluding the back of my hands, my skin has reacted in those areas. Doctors do not know why this happens to some people and not to others but there is evidence that suggests that some sun allergies are inherited genetically. Some common types of sun allergies are; Polymorphous light eruption (PMLE), Actinic prurigo (hereditary PMLE), Photoallergic eruption, and Solar urticaria. Here is a site that talks more about sun allergies.

This is roughly what my chest looked like.

From looking at some of these I can rule out a couple of them but I won’t self diagnosis myself because that leads to unnecessary anxiety. I know I won’t blow up in the sunlight like a vampire or even sparkle (I’m not that cool), but I do know that, at least for some people, vampires and humans seem to have that in common. Even if its on a basic level for humans.

Photo Sources:

http://twilightsaga.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire

http://moviemorlocks.com/2010/03/05/feel-the-burn/

http://www.sunallergyhelp.com/tag/sun-allergic/

Sources:

https://www.drugs.com/health-guide/sun-allergy-photosensitivity.html

http://www.medicinenet.com/sun-sensitive_drugs_photosensitivity_to_drugs/article.htm

I don’t think I know anyone else that loves Orca Whales as much I love them. I truly believe they are my spirit animal. It all started back in the 90’s and early 2000’s when the Free Willy franchise was on VHS and I had a prop necklace of a Native American riding on the back of a Orca that the protagonist of the movie was given to by a Native American man. Native Americans in the Pacific North West call them Blackfish believe that the Orca whale represents great power and to see one in person is a significant omen. The whale in those movies was Keiko, and his story deserves a whole post of his own. Jumping forward into the future my love for them began to grow all over again when the mistreatment of Orca whales became a trending topic in the Media. Sea World was put on the front page again when in 2013 CNN premiered a documentary called “Blackfish”, which highlighted the captivity of killer whales in Sea World and other marine life parks. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. The first time I watched it I was crying so hard that I was glad that my roommate had decided to go out that evening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film)

I believe that everything in life happens for a reason. After watching this film I reflected on the fact that the first time I went to Disney in Orlando I wanted to visit Sea World. I wanted to see the Killer whale show. But on the day we decided to go, the park was closed. In that moment I was disappointed and really sad. But that small shred of disappointment would pale in comparison to the regret I would feel as a young adult for endorsing not only a show but an entire corporation that damages the psyche of such a beautiful and intelligent creature. It’s one of the many examples where man has completely disregarded another life. A life that, in my opinion, is lived to fullest more than some human lives are. This may make me sound like a crazed animal rights activists, but one cannot simply know about these animals and not feel a passion for being their voice when they have truly been wronged and displaced; all for the entertainment of man.

I feel that it’s important to give a prime example to back up the the points that I am going to cover that prove why Orca Whales do not belong in captivity. I will be providing perspective from a book by David Kirby called “Death at Sea World: Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity” that I read that highlights Sea World, the science behind Orca’s complex social skills and what in their biology made them evolve that way. The star of this post is a bull Orca  that has been in the business since he was baby and since growing up in a concrete pool gave him no stimulation, he has evolved into a psychological ticking time bomb that can only end in violence. His name is Tilikum.

http://www.seaworldofhurt.com/features/30-years-three-deaths-tilikums-tragic-story/

Tilikum is a 12,500 pound, 22 feet in length Orca whale (making him the largest Orca in captivity) that was captured in 1983 as a young whale, separating him from his pod. Orca whales travel in pods. Within these pods the whales have complex social skills which is reflected in how they interact with one another. One thing that I find most interesting about their family dynamics is that the male Orcas never leave their mothers side. from the time of birth till death they are within the vicinity of their mothers. The females in their societies are dominant and children are taught things and disciplined by the mother. One way that scientist have really seen their social interaction is when they hunt together as a pod. These families can be made up of at least 20 whales and made up of three generations; the grandmother, the mothers, and the children of the mothers. Day by day they work together strategically to lure their prey exactly where they want it before attacking and sharing their kill. A lot of the teaching that is done with the younger Orcas is very hands on, especially when it comes to hunting. When they are not hunting for food they are interacting with one another by playing, which sometimes includes tossing a live animal in the air and catching it, and jumping in and out of the water. Scientist have found that they are able to have such elaborated social lives because they have a part of their brain that humans do not. The area that is part of the Paralimbic region is more elaborated and larger than that of humans. This is where they are able to process complex emotions and thinking. It is because of this that they have evolved into having such dynamic social groups.

Orcas are separated into two main groups called Resident and Transient Orcas. Transient Orcas are native to the Pacific North West and Resident Orcas are native to Washington State, British Colombia and Alaska. Both of these groups are distinct in their food patterns which is the only real distinctive difference between them, i,e fish for Residents and marine mammals for Transients. Other differences between these animals are the structure of their dorsal fins and the saddle patch (grey spot on back) on transients is more forward on Transients. something that is common for all Orca ecotypes, including offshores, which are a least common and smaller form of the Orca species, is the fact that these creatures can live as long as human, and in some cases even longer than 80 years of age. Here is a video where you can get a sense of the hunting elegance of some Killer Whales teaching young ones on how to hunt and kill a male elephant seal

http://captivecetaceans-tragicallysad.blogspot.com/2014/09/is-tilikum-transient-or-resident.html

From the area of Iceland that Tilikum was captured and the characteristics of the whales that are in that area, he is more than likely a Resident Orca, who just like his counterparts is in need of his mother, social interactions, swimming hundreds of miles a day, and doing something as basic as hunt for his own food. Instead, he is reduced to floating in a pool that is too small for him to live in and be spoon fed fish that is filled with medicine that go against his natural genetic makeup. Since he was captured Tilikum has killed three people that have gotten to close to him and the two trainer incidents happened 20 years apart from one another. The Dawn Brancheau case became the turning point in history when it comes to questioning the ethics behind having such a majestic animal like the Orcinus Orca in captivity. It can be looked up anywhere, that there is no record of a Killer Whale harming a human in the wild. They are just as curious about us as we are about them and are known to come up to boats to interact with humans and be playful. Another scary thing that the documentary pointed out is that since Tilikum is a bull, he has been the main contributor to their breeding program. Since there is a history of aggression with this Orca, does it make sense to develop an entire breeding program around him? No. But to a corporation bent on making money at all costs, in that case, they don’t care. Now, there isn’t much scientific evidence on this, but on the outside, its disturbing to think that this whale is used as a sperm bank, one cannot help but wonder if his aggression will be passed down to his offspring. Here is a link to Tilikum’s “family tree”.

I could go on and on about this topic but I highly encourage anyone who is interested to read the book I mentioned above, and watch the documentary as well as others about these beautiful creatures.

Source:

Kirby, David. Death at SeaWorld: Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity. New York: St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.

Being a female in the modern society, I have been around multiple “health and beauty” trends since I was little. A very popular one at the moment is wearing waist trainers while exercising, doing everyday business, etc. in an effort to lose weight and get body shape that society currently wants. I personally have been curious in trying these items, but I wanted to ask myself – are these things actually safe?

So what exactly are waist trainers? They’re essentially modernized corsets. The biggest difference between waist trainers and corsets is that waist trainers are being used to lose weight and improve physique (specifically to reduce inches on someones waist), whereas traditional corsets were used to give the appearance of the hourglass shape in order to look more feminine and improve posture.

How do you use them? You wear them the same way you wear a corset – it surrounds your midsection, and depending on what type you get, you can get more traditional ones that are tied in the back or more modern ones that are either zipped or clipped together in the front.

How often do you use them? As often as you want. Some people only wear them while working out or doing physical exercise, and others will wear them all day, every day no matter what they are doing. It truly depends on your personal preference.

Physical repercussions? Almost exactly the same of that experienced with traditional corsets. According to Women’s Health, overuse of waist trainers can result in bruised ribs, bruised organs, and breathing problems. It’s been known (through every generation of corset-wearing) that wearing corsets too tight for too long can make it very hard to breathe and even cause some people to pass out. Think of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie: a woman is wearing a corset pulled too tight and she passes out from not being able to breathe – into the ocean – and that that is a very real health concern for people that continuously wear these items.

If they are so bad to use, why do people keep buying/wearing them? In part, it is because some people feel the need to reach that “societal standard” of beauty by any means necessary, even if it hurts them in the long run. Another large part is celebrity endorsement of these items. As shown in Women’s Health, the Kardashians are known for relentlessly endorsing and supporting these items. Due to their wealth and status in the world, they are very influential to the impressionable youth – if they see very famous celebrities wearing them, they will want to wear them too.

In the end, it appears that waist trainer is not a terrible idea if you are careful about it. While it MIGHT not hurt to try it safely, the most effective (and usually the safest) methods are healthy dieting (not avoiding eating) and living an active lifestyle. It may not be easy at first or even at all, but it’s better than to seriously risk hurting yourself using dangerous shortcuts.

Web source: Here

Photo source: Here

you smoke cigarettes ? EW! thats gross ! you will get cancer! you will die! stop smoking these cancer sticks! you smell horrible!

My fellow smokers, we all heard these phrases shouted at us, whether it was a parent, a friend, or a foe.  TV ads hurling facts at us, signs and billboards requesting us to quit as if quitting is easy. In this post, i will talk about my failed experience in quitting smoking and why I think smoking (while fully aware of the negative consequences) is a good habit.

Smoking, to me started as a social trick, when I came from Saudi Arabia to a small Penn State campus called Penn State New Kensington, I didn’t know anybody and had a rough time trying to make friends, so as a way to meet people, I figured i would go out with the smokers and light  one up and therefor seizing the opportunity to make friends. after that, my relationship with nicotine started and is still going on despite me trying to break up with it.

Smoking, is a phenomenal process, the minute i twitch the lighter and reach it to the cigarette, from the moments I huff and puff on it, till the moment its done and is discredited. my veins are rejuvenated, my brain focuses more than usual, my life made slightly better. no matter what I was going through, I knew for a fact that a cigarette could make it OK to say the least. nicotine is proven to have (effects) whether good or bad, it is a component that many people risk their lives for its sake. it is such an important part of my life, it is the thing thats always there for me, its the thing i can depend on when the going gets tough, when im stressed, or relaxed, a cigarette is sure to better whatever state of mind i was in. my love affair with nicotine became solid whenever I tried to quit it.

when I tried to quit smoking, the first two days were alright, i didn’t feel anything, on the third day, i started to momentarily phase out, on the fourth day, I was flat out depressed, on the fifth day, i was enraged. my mood became so horrible and my actions interpreted how bad I was feeling. I became rude and disrespectful and got into numerous fights and arguments, I also started eating more than usual. I became so angry and sad that I said, you know what? lung cancer cant be as bad as this, so I ran to the store and with a huge smile on my face, asked the cashier for Marlboro red 100’s and went outside to light up and voila, my brain became happy again. and my lungs got the long awaited choke i was yearning for.

Smoking is horrible, and for all of what I said, you should be discouraged from ever trying to smoke, because your life will never be the same, but for the mean time, Im still huffing and puffing away, enjoying cigarettes while knowing at the same time my lungs are getting blacker by the day, my heart slowly catching up.

After learning of the possibly devastating affects of scientific fraud in Tuesday’s class I was faced with a question.  Why does scientific fraud happen?  An article written by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky in the New York Times digs into the background of some of the largest scientific frauds of the century.  On average a scientific publication is retracted every day due to misconduct.  A whole two percent of scientists admit to manipulating their data to reflect the results that they wanted.  Now that two percent may not seem like a lot, but just remember that millions of scientific publications are posted by researchers a year.  If you still are not concerned with those numbers, just know that these publications are not just in some smaller local publications, articles have been pulled from the world’s best journals including The Lancet, Science and Nature.

Unfortunately, as the stakes reliant on this publication get higher, so do the problems with misconduct.  A paper was published in December of 2015 with the claim that one’s opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage could be changed after having a conversation with a gay person for 20 minutes.  When the article was published skeptics believed that the results appeared too good to be true and in fact they were right.  The retraction was requested by Donald P. Green, a Columbia political scientist, after his co-author Micheal J. LaCour failed to produce raw data.  In this case, the topic was bursting with the opportunity for a lot of press with an relevant and popular topic, and attention-grabbing research, not to mention being published in a top news journal.  It was the perfect formula for a success, if the science was done properly, however in this case and in many others, it was not.

Now while one may be forced to jump to the conclusion these so-called distinguished scholars are all in the blame there is another factor that is attributing to this pattern of dishonestly and misconduct.  Some believe that the subject of Science and the non-stop pressure to have the news-worthy breakthrough is what causes trained professionals to venture down this road of fraud.  The entire scientific community thrives off of “the next great idea” and one of the most daunting things that scientists face in publication is their impact factor.  This is referred to how likely the studies conducted in a specific study are likely to be referenced in future publications.  Citations are the few measuring factor in this equation so the more that one article gets the more impactful it is.

One of the most shocking facts I discovered  while researching scientific fraud is that the top journals that I mentioned earlier in my post like Nature and Science actually retract more papers despite having higher impact factors than other journals.  A possible theory to explain this attempts to correlate the prominent-like factors that these journals exhibit with the more precise examination of the articles due to the assumed increased awareness in its readers.  So in short, they believe that the typical reader for these types of journals are reading the articles more thoroughly than a leisurely reader therefore increasing the likelihood of identifying mistakes.  Another hypothesis is that due to the desire for journals to stay on top of hot/relevant stories the turn around for publications is under a much larger time crunch. As they want to publish the pieces while they are still relevant shortcuts in editing and proofreading may be taken.  

From whichever few you look at it from, fraud and misconduct is a huge problem in the scientific community.  Articles, journals, even scientists are being corrupted by the overbearing incentives to publish the next best thing.  Unless there is a change in that process it seems as if journals will continue to retract papers for a long time.

I don’t know about you, but my foot always falls asleep. I even think it gets more sleep than I do. Growing up, I am sure at some point in your life you have experienced the numbness or pins and needles, and said the expression “my foot is asleep,” but what does that personification really mean?

The science behind a body part falling asleep is actually pretty simple. How Stuff Works explains the concept in a very understandable way. Basically, by putting too much pressure on one particular part of the body, such as a foot or an arm, you cut off all pressure from the brain. Therefore, signals cannot be sent to and fro, causing nerve impulses to get all messed up.

Did you know though, that this annoying sensation actually saves you? A 5 minute tingling in your foot will not kill you, but all of this pressure also cuts off pathways from the arteries, causing lack of nutrients . The burning tingling sensations actually save you, because if the “sleeping” was to go on for more than a few minutes, there could be serious nerve damage as a potential threat. 

The technical medical term for a limb falling asleep is “paresthesias.” If this is happening too frequently, there are probably medical concerns around it. A few minutes or even hours won’t cause dramatic harm, but days can cause permeant damage to the nerves. However, the only way this could possibly happen is if one is unaware of the tingling signals. For example, if a person is passed out or under the influence of drug and alcohol for too long of time, they are at risk for permanently cutting off all blood flow to their arm.

Not to scare any fellow college students, but according to this article, one drunk women passed out on both legs and waited too long to get treatment, and ended up losing both bottom calves. Another man, a got permanent nerve damage from passing out over a whole day from heroine.

So lesson learned here, the next time your foot falls asleep, instead of cursing the word, be thankful that your body is warning yo and saving you from permanent damage.

So much emphasis is placed on kissing. How important is that first kiss? Will the culmination of your first date end with a kiss? Will the kiss be gentle or hungry and passionate? In a blooming relationship, the kiss just may be more celebrated than sex itself. So, what’s really in a kiss? Are there any benefits to kissing? This blog is meant to call attention to the documented, physical benefits of kissing, independent of the (emotional) romantic benefit.

In an article published by Psychology Today, the author explored a study performed at Arizona State University by a professor, Kory Floyd. In this study, they sampled 52 married or cohabiting couples. The researcher assigned approximately 26 couples to the experimental group which were assigned to kiss more frequently and for longer periods of time than usual. The other 26 couples in the control group were given no instructions for kissing, nor did they know the purpose of the experimental (blind control). The lab assistants were also ‘blind’ to which couples were the control participants and which couples were the experimental participants in order to eliminate any possible bias while compiling the data. Therefore it was a double blind experiment.

At the end of the study, the experimental group said they felt less stress and greater contentment in their relationships. Physical lab tests showed a decreased level of (bad) cholesterol then their baseline levels. The control group displayed no such benefit.

According to another article, kissing boosts immunity as well. A Dutch researcher, Remco Kort performed a study on 21 couples. They filled out a questionnaire, provided saliva samples before and after a kiss, and then ate yogurt with markers to count the number of bacteria transferred. They found that couples that kissed frequently shared similar gut bacteria compared to individuals that kissed infrequently or not at all. Kort concluded that it was healthy to kiss because it exposed you to a greater variety of bacteria, which would increase physical resistance. In other words, kissing is similar to taking a probiotic that would boost your immune system.

In conclusion, is kissing good for your health? Well I wouldn’t go around kissing just anybody. After all the threat of communicable disease still looms over you. Also the results seem to revolve around couples, not random hook-ups. Physically, there seem to be many benefits to kissing. So couples keep smooching, just be sure to get a room!

Works Cited

Whitbourne, Susan Krauss, Ph.D. “The Kiss of Health | Psychology Today.” Psychology Today. N.p., 24 July 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Lim, Jillian Rose. “The Health Benefits of Kissing – Men’s Journal.” Men’s Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Image

Filthy Inspiration

Roommates can often be a conflict in college. My roommate certainly is. He is one the messiest humans alive and just has no regard for personal hygiene. I would not describe myself at the most organized person but I have SOME sense of organization. While I could go on about how disgusting I find him, that is besides the point. After witnessing the filth that my roommate has had to live in, I wondered whether or not a person’s health could be affected simply by whether or not they come back to a clean room every day. In other words, does cleaning your room make you healthier?

Stress

Having a clean room actually has numerous health benefits. One of the benefits is reducing stress and anxiety. Coming home to a room or an entire house full of clutter and disorganization can create a subliminal to do list in your head. With this constant list in your head you may always feel busy and thus feel more stressed. According to a study by the Personality and Social Physiology Bulletin, women who described their homes as cluttered often were more depressed than women who described their homes as restful or restorative. They even contained higher levels of Cortisol, a hormone related to stress. Constantly having a mess to clean or a project to finish can be detrimental for a person’s mood. It can even negatively affect a person’s ability to sleep.

Diet

Another way that having physical order in the place you live is by affecting the way you eat. People who worked in an organized area for 10 minutes were twice as likely to choose an apple over a chocolate bar than those who worked in a messy area, according to a study by the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Since messiness and cluttered work spaces cause stress, the brain will want to relive some of this stress, and one way the brain may do this is by seeking comfort foods (like chocolate). Having a neat work space or living area will cause you to make healthier diet choices which can further help with weight loss.

Commitment 

Another aspect of being clean is by having an organized schedule. People who have organized schedules tend to stick to them, reducing the level of chaos that is in a typical day. This can apply to the gym. Those who have pre-determined exercises and workouts when going to a gym will stick to them and stay committed to the workouts over a long period of time. People who just go to the gym and hop on any machine that is available will have a erratic workout and will most likely not stick to it. Another way to be organized and improve your health is by setting goals. This can tie into scheduling. People who set goals in the gym will often work harder and longer than those who just lackadaisically workout.

Conclusion

Being clean and reducing the amount of clutter in your home or you work space can substantially improve health. Better sleep, less stress, and the likelihood of making healthier decisions are only some of the health benefits of being neat. If my roommate were to clean up his side of the room, I would be curious to see how his behavior would change. Perhaps he would seem happier and would not be so inclined to yell at his friends online about some unimportant video game while I try to sleep. One can hope.

Sources: 

https://undecidedthebook.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/saxbe-repetti-pspb-2010.pdf

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/9/1860

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2011/348293/

Picture Sources: 

url

url

url

I am utterly obsessed with animals of all kinds, but especially dogs.  Loving dogs is something I believe a lot of us can relate to!  I always ask find myself wondering what the life of a dog would be like, specifically when I am stressed out of my mind running around doing a million things at once, while my sweet pups are snoozing away in their dog beds.  For as long as I can remember, I have always been fed the same fact time and time again that a day in the life of a dog would be much different than that of a human for obvious reasons, but also because they apparently only could see things in black and white or grey-scale.  Even as a child, I always had a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that animals could only see black and white and grey considering they are anatomically pretty similar to humans and other animals that see a whole color spectrum.  Needless to say, that idea never sat well with me and I never truly entirely believed it.

image

Apparently I was right to not believe that because scientist Jay Neitz and a handful of Russian Scientists have proved otherwise.  Jay Neitz carried out a variety of simple studies to see if dogs could actually see in color or not.  It turns out there do have a much wider array of colors that they are capable of seeing, but they still cannot see the entire color spectrum that humans do.  The Russian scientists took the reigns shortly after that, using a test involving eight dogs and four differently colored pieces of paper that were placed in front of a locked boxes with food in them.  The null hypothesis in this case would be that dogs strictly only see in grey-scale and nothing more.  Whereas, the alternative hypothesis would be that dogs have a much large color spectrum than we ever knew before. They wanted the animal to make a connection between a color and a reward for picking that color, therefore they continuously put the dark yellow colored piece of paper in front of the box containing not normal dog food, but a piece of meat.  By doing so repeatedly, the dog was able to mentally comprehend that dark yellow paper meant meat and any other color meant regular food. After all, what pup wouldn’t want the meat over the normal dog food?  I found the study even more well conducted when I noticed they checked for a very important confounding third variable of it the dog was choosing that paper due to the actual association with seeing the dark yellow color or because of the brightness of the colored paper itself.  This factor could have really skewed their data which is why it was crucial for them to test it.  The Russian Scientists decided to put a very contrasting color of dark blue as a choice and a light yellow color as a choice to prove if the dogs choices were color based or light based.  The dogs still picked the yellow paper which meant that it’s choices were most definitely colored based.  Their results proved that the dogs most definitely could differentiate between certain colors because they made color based decisions more than 70 percent of the time.  Along with the experiments of the Russian Scientists, an experiment by the University of Santa Barbara in 1989 ran an experiment regarding dogs vision.  Through the tests run on the three dogs, they discovered that dogs have two color-sensitive cones in dogs’ eyes that actually allow them to see in color and not strictly black and white.  There is a chance that this conclusion could be false positive or be due to chance but since there has a been a variety of studies on this topic that all deduce the same results as well as an electroretinography test that proved the cones existence, it is unlikely that these results are due to chance and thus the null hypothesis can be ruled out.  This certain article even expressed the idea that dogs could most likely be given a full sighted color spectrum like humans, but no one has tried it at this point in time.

image

I am not sure why, but something about knowing dogs can see the world in a colorful and vibrant way makes me a little happier inside because dog’s bring so much happiness and color the world on their own, I’d hate if they could not see it for themselves.  I’m starting to think living a dog’s life is sounding better and better.

Recently one of my friends declined the tylenol I offered her for her headache because “it can make you a bitch.” Naturally, I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about and she proceeding to explain that something in tylenol can have an effect on the empathy you feel for others. Even as she began to explain herself more, I was still not believing it. After this encounter I had the idea to research this topic for one of my blogs. As a hit the search button on google, a large amount of articles popped up discussing this exact topic. To my surprise, there were actual studies performed on the subject.

I found that there is a theory that Acetaminophen, a component of thousands of drugs across the globe, including tylenol, can have some mental and psychological effects on its users. Some believe that this drug can cause people to feel less empathetic than they usually would towards other people.

As I shifted through the different articles, the same study was mentioned in almost every one. I found the study which was conducted by professors from Ohio State. The study explains that the theory that Acetaminophen decreases the empathy that one feels stems from the idea that the pain one feel for others is closely linked with the pain that one personally feels. The science behind this is that personal pain and pain for others activate two of the same parts of the brain. 80 college students participated in this study. The study was a blind placebo trial, so the students either received Acetaminophen or did not, and they did not not where they were taking the drug or the placebo. After this step of the study, the students were told stories in which people underwent some type of pain. Following the stories, they were asked different questions on how they felt towards the people feeling pain. Those who had not taken Acetaminophen reported to feel more empathetic than those who did.

I think that the conductor of this study did a good job at making sure the study was as ethical as it possibly could be. Whenever testing drugs on humans, it is important to take preventative measures. The study explains that the students were informed on all of the risks included in taking the drug and were told what and what not to do if they decided to participate.

Overall I think that this is an interesting theory that seems to have some legitimate evidence to back it. I hope to see the furtherance of the study because it is regarding such a popular drug and if true, would be affecting a large quantity of people. 

Ever since I came to Penn State I have been sleeping next to my phone. I need to charge it next to me and I’ve been wondering if this is something that affects my sleep in any way. I have noticed that easily distracts my roommate and me prior to going to sleep. It has become a reason for us to stay up late. For this reason I wanted to do some research and see if it actually has an effect on my hours of sleep or the quality of my sleep.

I found a study by the National Sleep Foundation, about how sleep and other disturbances may affect the quality of sleep of a person. So the question here is: Does technology affect the quality of sleep of a person? Reverse causation needs to be ruled out because this is a longitudinal study meaning that scientists needed to wait and follow up the participants in order to see the effects that technology had on their sleep. On the other hand, this can be causal, also due by chance or have a third confounding variable that affects the x and y variables in some way.

Image 1

According to a study conducted, technology has an effect on the sleep  of an individual. There were 420 participants involved in the study who where randomly chosen but needed to be eligible for them to be on it. Scientists determined eligibility through a questionnaire that asked for personal data such as education, employment, age and gender, caffeine usage. They decided these factors or confounding variables needed to be controlled as they could affect the sleep of an individual. This is the reason why they determined a certain standard for the participants who could be involved in the study and the ones who couldn’t. The 420 participants where divided into four different groups depending on their age:

Image 1

Eleven questions were given to them asking about how the lack of sleep affected their daily activities. Depending on their group age it involved questions about how their lack of sleep affected their academic performance, intimate relations, or other activities that may be influenced by age. The results are shown in the data below.

Figure 1

Scientists later decided to conduct research about how the quality of sleep of a person may be affected by technology through beta waves. Confounding variables such as the amount of caffeine used by the participants were controlled. Table 1 (seen below) is a linear progression that suggests a correlation between the use of technology prior to sleep and difficulty falling sleep, maintaining sleep or having un-refreshing sleep. Scientists compared both passive and interactive technological devices. These were the two arms of study that later on were analyzed to determine which of them had a greater impact on sleep. The passive devices were TV, music players and others that did not require too much cognitive abilities of the participant. On the other hand, interactive devices involved cell phones, computers, and games.

Table 1

The results indicated that passive devices did not significantly affect the quality of sleep of the participants. However, interactive devices demonstrated a negative effect on sleep. Scientists found that cell phones, video games and computers were the technological devices that most affected the participants. The probability that it was due to chance was .03, .0001, .049 respectively. It is unlikely that the results were due to chance but it can never be ruled out, there is always a possibility.

Furthermore, this is an observational study. Scientists had to wait and see the effects technology had during and after the participants slept. They believe that interactive technology had a negative effect on sleep. They also determined that most people use their technological devices an hour before going to sleep. This was one of the main causes of them not having a good night sleep. However, meta-analysis would be the best thing to figure this out and know what is going on. Science can always prove things, but scientists cannot be totally confident about the results they find. Even though, this is a reliable study and may change the cellphone habits of many people it would need replication to make sure the conclusion is accurate.

To conclude, it is controversial whether the use of cellphones affects the quality of your sleep but people have reasons to believe it may. It would be recommendable and rational to check on your habits in order to take care of your health and sleep.

Water is everywhere.  It takes up about 70% of the Earths surface and makes up 60% of the mature human body.  All organisms drink water daily in order to survive.  Humans were blessed with the intellectual ability to filter water, have running water, and bottle water to drink wherever.  Focusing specifically on the bottled water, one can go into a grocery store and see a multitude of brands of water.  Many of them having different prices, and some claiming to be “better” than others.  But isn’t H2O in one bottle the same as the H2O in the one next to it?

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), apparently not.  I always thought that when the label on the water said, “purified” or “spring water” it was just for marketing purposes.  It turns out its actually referring to the process the water went through before becoming bottled.  The six types of water the EPA listed was distilled, spring water, purified, sterile, mineral, and drinking water.

Distilled Water- Water is boiled and the steam from this is condensed then bottled.  All possible contaminants, microbes, and natural minerals are eradicated.

Spring Water- Water is collected as it streams up from an underground aquifer.

Purified Water- Water must meet the standards of the US Pharmacopeia to be considered purified.  It must not contain more than 10 ppm of dissolved solids, can’t contain microbes, and any other contaminants must be absent.

Sterile Water- Water must also meet the standards of the U.S. Pharmacopeia to be considered sterile.  It must be microbe free.

Mineral Water- Ground water that is unaffected by humans and naturally consists of at least 250 ppm of dissolved solids.

Drinking Water- Water that is safe for human consumption, and may or may not contain added disinfectants such as fluoride or chlorine

The next question that is now presented to a newly educated water bottle consumer is, “Which type of water is the best?”

http://www.cravebits.com/brief-history-bottled-water/

As far as taste goes, water does in fact have different tastes depending on how its treated.  The process of distilling water removes all foreign entities from the water, including natural minerals which gives water some taste.  Therefore it tastes very flat and any of the natural minerals that can be nutritious are eliminated, although it will definitely be free of contaminants.  Sterile water is in the same boat.  Purified water is free of contaminants but also can lack some natural minerals.  Spring water may or may not be purified so there has been instances in which spring water has had contaminants in it.  The National Resources Defense Council conducted a study over four years and tested 1,000 bottles per brand.  Approximately 22% of the brands tested for chemicals that were higher than state requirements in at least one of their respected samples.  Drinking water may be the best bet as even though it can come from a tap, many times it has added disinfectants such as fluoride or chlorine.  Fluoride especially is vital for dental health in children.  Chlorine can give it an off-taste but if refrigerated over night that can be eliminated.

Last but not least, mineral water.  I personally think its ridiculous to pay double the amount for a bottle of fancy water, but I am ignorant to any possible health benefits they have.  A confounding variable in determining the healthiness of mineral water is the fact that it can vary in what/how many minerals it contains.  Depending on where its from, it could contain good minerals like calcium, zinc, iron, magnesium, potassium, nitrate, sodium, sulphates, and bicarbonates.  Although the exact amount of each one is unknown for each bottle.  Another confounding variable is the amount of minerals the body actually absorbs.  The amount of minerals is so non-substantial that the amount the body absorbs is almost undetectable depending on the person.

http://texas-wholesale.com/Drinks_Water_FIJI-WATER-0.5LTR-24CT-.html

Personally, I’m sticking to the store brand purified water.

Animal assisted therapy is becoming an increasing trend to help heal people.  Trained dogs visiting hospitals, nursing homes, and various other places, what’s not to love?  The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, along with many other children’s hospitals, provides a program in which trained dogs will come and visit sick children.  From being a patient there I am familiar with the concept of therapy dogs and recognize their impact on me.  Therapy dog owners can go around to different rooms and inquire whether or not the child is up for a dog visiting.  Some dogs even have their own information card for the patients to look at and collect.

There are many reasons that the hospital supports this.  First off, it provides light hearted fun in an otherwise very stressful environment.  Having a dog to pet, or lick your hand can easily relax the child and put them in a happier state of mind.  Those being visited are currently away from home and typically in a scary and uncertain position.  There is a high correlation between the visit of a therapy dog and a child’s stress level going down.  Secondly, a therapy dog visit is usually a complete surprise, so, it has an even greater effect on the child’s instant happiness boost.  There is also a strong correlation between a child’s happiness boost and a visit from a therapy dog.  Also, in general, happier patients tend to have less painful experiences.  Many patients who have dogs at home will be even more comforted by the sight and touch of a friendly dog. 

Now, they don’t just let any dog stroll up and go into children’s rooms.  There are lots of restrictions and stipulations.  All dogs and owners must be evaluated and trained properly.  There are a few national and even international dog therapy organizations.  Many hospitals require the dog to be registered at a branch of one of these organizations.  For example, for Therapy Dogs International the dog must be registered with them and must also pass a specific evaluation to ensure that she reaches their standards.  Along with this evaluation, many hospitals require an evaluation of their own.  It may depend on what state they are in or the hospital’s individual policies.  Along with the certifications for the service animal, these evaluations may include tests such as an FBI finger print scan, a child abuse background check, and other research into the owner’s background.  As a pet therapy owner, you must be able to commit to a few hours each month.  Those times depend on the location that they are visiting.

So do animals, and specifically, therapy dogs really work?  What is the psychology behind it? Studies have shown that the presence of a therapy dog calms a person down quite a bit.  For example, a person’s heart rate and breathing goes down.  Overall, it relieves stress.  A recent study showed that stress hormones in a person’s blood were reduced immensely while petting a nice dog, and specifically one that the person knows personally (Corner).  The reason that dogs are still visiting children’s hospitals is because people have noticed the effect on the patients.  It is certainly not having a negative effect, only positive for those who choose to participate.  One could say there is a meta-analysis to prove this because of the combination of all the positive results for this topic.   In this case the x variable would be the therapy dogs and the y variable would be the child’s happiness.  The hypothesis that therapy dogs increase patient’s happiness has been proven time and time again.  This link discusses a study done in an Italy children’s hospital where therapy dogs were introduced.  They found that the children had good interactions with the dogs and that they seemed to be more at ease in their current environment (Caprilli).

According to National Geographic dogs and humans have always had a rather special bond which is why dogs are so comforting to humans.  Additionally, dogs are rare animals who do not possess an inherent fear of humans.  This article also explains how after the Sandy Hook shooting, some children finally opened up either to a dog, or with the comfort of a dog (Fiegl).  Another interesting point brought up is the idea that dogs notice our emotions and recognize how to work off of them. Dogs aren’t the only animals that are doing great things for people’s mental state.  Here is an article explaining different ways that other therapy animals are being used and helping people.    This seems to be considered a soft endpoint because it seems to help influence patient’s happiness, which, in turn, could lift the patients spirits which may aid to a quicker recovery process.  Although there is a strong correlation between the two, it is not completely definite.  All in all, it is true that therapy dogs can help children lower their stress during hospital stays.

Bibliography:

Caprilli, Simona, and Andrea Messeri. “Animal-Assisted Activity at A. Meyer Children’s Hospital: A Pilot Study.” Animal-Assisted Activity at A. Meyer Children’s Hospital: A Pilot Study. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Children’s, Nationwide. “Dog Visit Program.” Nationwide Children’s. N.p., n.d. Web.

Coren, Stanley. “Health and Psychological Benefits of Bonding with a Pet Dog.” Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Fiegl, Amanda. “The Healing Power of Dogs.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Hospital of America, Children’s. “Gerald B. Shreiber Pet Therapy Program.” Children’s Hospital of America. N.p., n.d. Web.

PsychToday. “Does Animal-Assisted Therapy Really Work?” Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Rodriguez, Kerri E. “Service Dogs and PTSD – OHAIRE.” – College of Veterinary Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

“Therapy Dogs International.” Therapy Dogs International. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Picture:

http://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/styles/16_9_small/public/shreiber-pet-therapy-canonical.jpg?itok=rGGgEV_Y

  As I skim through my notes and study for another class exam this week, the colourful highlights suddenly allowed me to recall a statement made by my high school Psychology teacher—highlighting notes doesn’t help you to learn things at all. This is a statement I personally don’t want to admit with because I always highlight my notes. Now I have the chance to explore whether this is true or not by myself.

  An article suggested that although highlighting notes are common practices, it is actually a worse learning technique. The article explained the reason behind it as highlighting notes interferes with reading attention. It drives away people’s attention to the portion that is highlighted instead of the whole content. The article also suggested that it is better to interpret the whole content instead of jumping around with single phrases. To me, it sounds reasonable. I know I always read the highlighted part in my notes first, but sometimes those highlighted notes formed as fragment which doesn’t make any sense to me before I read the whole sentence. I actually wasted a lot of my time by just rereading notes over again.

  But is this statement actually the truth? Is highlighting really less effective than we think it is? To answer this question, I found out a study called, “Reading Skill, Textbook Marking, and Course Performance”. A consent form were sent to the students, introduce the content of the study and make sure all participants agree before participated in the study. The study was done on 479 students in two Introductory Psychology courses about highlighting notes. The students were given a reading test and a study-habit survey to complete. Researchers also collected their text books, to see if they rented books that were previously highlighted by other students or a plain one. The findings showed that low skill readers tend to have more reliance on highlighting notes and highlighted more notes than high skill readers. Also, low skill readers have a higher tendency to read the marking that was done by a previous student on the rented text book. After I look through the study, I found out contained a p-value less than 0.01, which means that the correlation between the reading performances and the highlighting are strong enough to reject the null hypothesis, so it is less likely to be a fluke. However, there are also several limitation in this study. The population of the study were only limited to the Introductory Psychology class. Also, it failed to control the third variables. Reading skills can influence points not only through the amount of the highlighting, but also other elements as well.

  To make the statement much more reliable, I tend to seek more studies that are related to the discussion. I found out a study that conclude the opposite, and decide to compare those two studies to see which one is more reliable. The study involved a total of 184 students who participated in Psychology courses. The students were randomly distributed to either highlighting or non-highlighting groups and were given the same reading. A questioner were given after the reading. The study came up with the conclusion that highlighting notes can be beneficial under some conditions, especially when there are massive contents needed to be study in a short period of time. However, it was also mentioned that some students think it actually doesn’t have that much of a benefit. Another thing I need to mention about this study is that beside highlighting or not, the researchers also assigned them to mass condition group which they were ask to revise the text immediately after reading the first time, and spaced condition groups which they were asked to participate some activities before revising the second time. So there were two separate correlations addressing at the same time in this study. The conclusion of the effectiveness of highlighting among those two types of reading is that it has more benefit on the mass condition group than the spaced condition group. I think this means that highlighting notes would help people understand more things in a short period of time.

  Arguments are going on both sides on this topic, and both of the studies are well addressed. What I think is that the second study only mentioned highlighting are much effective when you started cramming, but didn’t talk about the others. So it is most likely that highlighting notes isn’t really effective on studying. Now, I know that someone would have the same feeling as I do right now after seeing this conclusion, since we always highlighted our notes and now it already became a habit. I think it really depends on your habits of learning, and highlighting notes are just one of them. Maybe you can explore more learning tips that helps you to improve your score instead of just highlighting. One example would be stop cramming before exams. Like Andrew told us in class, do not cram everything before the last minute of the deadline, it would be a disaster. Finally I would like to say don’t just focusing on highlighting, there are other methods too, and I would like to share some learning tips to everyone:

• flashcards
• ask questions to yourself, the process of creating a good question is also a way to absorb the knowledge (the same thing as Andrew suggest as to create exam questions)
• visual illustration
• sticky tab

When exercising there are a considerable amount of things to decide, whether to lift weights or run for twenty minutes, what parts of the body to improve, etc. These choices lead to everybody choosing relatively different types of exercise, but what seems to be common throughout the majority of “fitness enthusiasts” is the fact that they all listen to music while going through their respective routines. Now this always interested me as a fellow gym-goer at PSU because when for example one is on a treadmill (with no upper body restrictions) it almost seemed strange to me to just run and listen to music, so I began doing what anybody would do and I started watching Netflix while running. Initially I never saw it as a big deal, I even thought it would make running for twenty minutes go by faster than if I were listening to music. However a few days in I started noticing that I could not produce the same results (time on treadmill, distance run) as I could prior to the switch from music to Netflix. Due to these lacking performances I switched back to listening to music while running and instantly saw my results return and even improve prior to my running with Netflix. This made me genuinely wonder if music does something to the brain/body to make it more durable, ease pain, or uplift mood during times of physical or mental stress.

Courtesy of (http://bit.ly/2eMmxAZ)

To first find this out we have to look at a how music affects the brain, and how something like physical exertion affects the brain and body. Over the decades the effect of music on someone’s brain has been studied somewhat extensively, mainly because many want to know the benefits it can bring when it comes to overall brain power. In The neurochemistry of music , doctors Mona Lisa Chanda and Daniel J. Levitan research and write about the effect music can have on the brain when it comes to emotions, healing, and etc with a genuine discussion of how it can have purpose within the field of medicine. Early on in the study it is stated that music can have a strong effect on emotions, with the ability to evoke a wide array of feeling from fear to even emotional arousal. Stating that there are cases in which music has been linked to dopamine, meaning that in some cases it can be considered a strong stimuli.The study goes on to say that though there can be direct emotional response, no information can be deemed conclusive do to the lack of control within each experiment conducted. However what I took away from it is that though it can not be concluded how music affects our minds, there are signs it does in fact elicit some emotional/physical response.

The next thing to determine is what effect exercise/physical exertion has on the mind of humans. It is hard to determine what exactly happens within our brain when we run, play sports, push ourselves (not literally), etc. What I have decided to do is take an element of what I feel when I run everyday and research what response the brain traditionally has to it, pain. Whenever I run I tend to go about ten to twelve minutes at a consistent pace before I begin to start feel my body getting tired, and by this I mean soreness in my legs or possibly cramps around my body. This is where I feel having music is truly crucial, considering that I tend to doubt myself far more without music somewhat jeering me on to keep running. Now I understand that this is completely subjective and others may differ on the value of music in their running, but I still think it is interesting because I believe there are a number of runners who feel the same towards music as I do (due to large numbers of runners I see wearing headphones).

To shift the focus back onto this minor pain one can feel while running, what we really need to look at is ways that this pain can be pacified because that can show how perhaps music plays into this whole idea of creating stronger durability within myself and perhaps other runners. However because nobody has tested these two things together we will have to look at how the brain diverts minor pains within the body, the specialists from Health.com give ways in which one can mentally divert attention from pain. The part of the list I would like to focus on is distraction and repetition of mantra because these can be two key parts to what music is used for during a run. Supplying a steady calming rhythm while also providing a subtle distraction from what you are doing, almost putting your body on autopilot.

This idea of distraction is the key idea in all of this, in an article written by Joe Brownstein he writes about a trial in which distraction was used upon participants whilst they were in slight pain and the results were that there was less discomfort due to said distraction. While I think the pain is a different type when running I think it creates the same service as distraction for pain as in the trial, and though I understand it isn’t full proof evidence by any means I think there is a definite connection between music and minor pain relief.

In conclusion I would like to state that though in my mind music is a clear mental and physical strengthener, there has been no strong research to conclude whether it can truly assist in way of durability whilst running. To perhaps have some evidence one could conduct an experiment on two randomized groups of individuals, giving one music and the other nothing, and simply test if there is a strong difference within the results of how long one group can run compared to the other. However at this point in time I am not sure if that is valuable or interesting to anybody but me, but perhaps in the future it could have greater implications in running and sports in general.

Citations:

Chanda, Mona Lisa, and Daniel J. Levitan. “The Neurochemistry of Music: Trends in Cognitive Sciences.” Accessed October 5, 2016. http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(13)00049-1.

Gardner, Amanda. “How to Use Thoughts to Control Pain – Health.com.” Health. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20655874,00.html.

Brownstein, Joe. “Distraction Reduces Pain, Study Finds – Live Science.” LiveScience. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://www.livescience.com/18361-distraction-reduces-pain.html.

Lowering the drinking age is an idea that has been proposed since the day it was put in its current place in 1984 (Huffington Post). To younger people, it seems like an awesome idea that allows them to freely do what they likely already do, but without need for sneaking around or the possibility of arrest. To older people, it seems like a terrible idea that would put drunken teenagers all over the roads and make the country a less safe and less moral place.

In America, alcohol has become something of a taboo subject, as is often the case when something is outlawed. It makes people want to do it. Most European countries have a drinking age of 18 or less, yet their young adults are often noted for their moderation as compared to Americans. According to the Huffington Post, Europeans are around alcohol their entire lives, with many having a drink at dinner from a young age. This destigmatization is a main component of the reason you see less alcohol related deaths in Europe than in America (WHO). Drinking is not a big deal and thus is more controlled. Alternatively, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) claims that the raised drinking age has been responsible for 900 less fatal car accidents involving alcohol per year (MADD).

Personally, I agree that the main reason for underage binge drinking in this country is the stigma associated with alcohol. If we were to adopt a more European approach to alcohol, with a focus on drinking in moderation, perhaps the death tolls would be lower and there would be more responsible young people.

References

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thrillist/is-it-time-to-lower-the-d_b_9633254.html
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf
http://www.madd.org/underage-drinking/why21/history.html

Picture

https://w-dog.net/wallpaper/party-youth-alcohol-alcohol/id/285404/