We all have been through the trauma of dropping a food that we are so excited to eat on the floor. We also have all been through those five seconds debating whether to pick it up and eat it, or throw it away. The thought of eating it is due to the “5 second rule” that is drilled into our heads. “Oh you can still eat it, theres a 5 second rules” “Oh my god pick it up quickly! 5 second rule!” These are common phrases amongst people who see people drop something they are about to eat. Before you bend down and pick up what you dropped, think again. A recent study has shown that the 5 second rule is a myth and disproved. It just so happens that bacteria can transfer from a surface to food instantaneously.

http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/rutgers-researchers-debunk-%E2%80%98five-second-rule%E2%80%99-eating-food-floor-isn%E2%80%99t-safe/20160908#.WAj1WpMrLow

Researchers of the School of Environmental and biological Science at Rutgers University conducted experiments to test the truth of the 5 second rule. In the study researchers tested four different surfaces, stainless steel, ceramic tile, wood, and carpet. Along with the surfaces, four different types of foods were tested, watermelon, bread, bread and butter, and gummy candy. There was also four contact times, less than one second, five, 30, and 300 seconds. Two medias were used, tryptic soy broth or peptone buffer they aided the growth of Enterobacter aerogenes, a “cousin” of Salmonella.

http://kidshealth.org/en/kids/5-seconds.html

Multiple transmission scenarios were assessed for each food type, surface type, contact time, and bacterial preparation. The surfaces were fully dried before the samples of food were dropped and vaccinated with bacteria. There were 128 different scenarios that were repeated 20 times, leading to 2,560 measurements. Due to the moisture, watermelon turned out to attract the most bacteria. The gummy candy absorbed the least amount of bacteria. From the study we can tell that the more wet the food is and the longer the contact time, usually leads to more contamination of the food product. Here is a video of Dr. Oz testing out this theory!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160909112406.htm

So, is there really harm in eating food off the floor? It depends on the the factors of the situation including, what type of food, what type of surface, contact time, and even the type of organism that transfers on to the food. No matter the circumstance, when a piece of food falls on any surface, for any amount of time, bacteria will be transferred, but the amount and type that is, will be different every time. You can drop a gummy bear on a clean tile floor for one second and a minuscule amount of bacteria can be transferred that it can not even be harmful. But, is it worth the risk? To be safe and not be infected with unnecessary germs, do not eat food that has fallen on the floor, and disregard the 5 second rule.

In the spirit of Halloween, I have noticed that everyone tends to be a little on edge: with creepy clowns, scary decorations, and horror movies galore, everyone’s anxieties are elevated. This got me thinking: when people are scared or nervous, they exert a lot more energy than they would being happy, calm, or lighthearted. So I began linking the feeling with ones that are similar to physical exercise, which is scary enough on its own. Is it possible to actually gain any health benefits from watching scary movies?

According to The Telegraph, the University of Westminster in London, England permed a study where they had people watch horror/thriller movies, and noting the bodily reactions. After watching some of these movies, it was noted that the people on average had burned over 100 calories, which can equate a brisk walk on the treadmill.

So watching scary movies can in fact burn calories! But how?

When people are scared or anxious, their heart rates quicken, their breathing rates increase, and they sweat. When a person’s heart rate increases, it helps blood circulate much faster around the body and increases the amount of adrenaline in the body – a great example of this is when you’re watching a movie with a “jump scare” – a sudden, spontaneous, frightening scene. A jump scare is so sudden that it can make your heart rate spike instantly, and forces all of these processes to happen essentially all at once. That experience can be similar to a sprint on a race track – your heart is already pumping blood faster than usual because you’re anxious and excited, and once you start sprinting and exerting so much force and energy almost immediately, it causes the heart to react in the same way.

So this Halloween, if you’re looking for easy ways to burn off the extra calories from all the halloween candy you ate, a good solution would be to sit back and watch AMC’s horror movie marathon on repeat.

Photo source: here

Web source: here

During the past few years, people have coined a new state of being, not hungry, not angry, but hangry.  This term means that you are hungry and because you are hungry, you are angry about it.  In this definition, the hunger is causing you to be angry, but I’m not sure how scientifically accurate this is.  I am a frequent claimer of being hangry, often getting easily irritable when I have not eaten in a while, and I want to find out if there is any science behind the state of being hangry.  Is there reason why people become angry when they feel hungry?

It turns out that the body does react to hunger in ways that could relate to and cause anger in people.  As described in this article by a senior research fellow at the University of Sydney, hanger (the state of being hungry and angry) is a real thing.  According to this explaination, the beneficial parts of what we eat will be decomposed into simple sugars, amino acids, and free fatty sugars during the digestion process, which are nutrients that the body needs to function normally.  As you get hungry, less of these nutrients are left circulating in your blood stream.  When these levels get too low the brain begins to panic and acts in ways to raise these levels. Glucose is a very important part of brain function, when glucose levels drop too much, the brain must react to fix this.

A drop in glucose levels can cause many things, one of them being controlling your temper. Controlling your temper takes a lot of energy from your brain, and when glucose levels are down, your brain does not have enough energy to control this all of the time.  It has been found that the people who usually suffer from your hanger are people that you care the most about because you are more comfortable around them and your brain does not see the need to use its last bits of energy controlling your temper.  This is all too accurate for me, as my mom and my best friends are the people who usually experience my hanger fits.

Another reason for hanger is related to the common stress response known among psychologists as the flight-or-fight response.  In the brain’s attempts to raise glucose levels, the body releases a lot of hormones, one being adrenaline.  This release of adrenaline can make you act as if you are in the presence of stress and are reacting in a way of fight-or-flight.  By choosing to take the fight route, you may be taking the actions of yelling at someone or showing a short temper to defend yourself.

After reading all of this information, I am happy to say that there is mechanism behind being hangry that directly relates being hungry and becoming angry.  This to me is great news!! Now the next time you snap at someone while hangry, you can simply blame it on your body’s response to being angry.  Not only will the person who you snapped at probably become less angry at you, but if your lucky they might insist that you get some food in you too!! Since there is a known mechanism to hanger, it is quite easy to figure out how to overcome it.  Make sure to be smart when trying to combat hanger though.  Some foods are better than others!  Nutritional foods are always the better option because they provide more nutrients for your brain and your body.  Although Snickers candy bars commercials may suggest otherwise, candy and junk food will not help your body in the long run, so fuel up on a healthy, nutritional snack and strike back against hanger!

Image Links:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/Communities/resized-image.ashx/__size/550×0/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-00-26/8865.AngryFace_5F00_Facebook_5F00_sentiment.jpg

http://twomomsandamouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/don2.jpg

http://www.katestrong.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dollarphotoclub_74097592.jpg

Everyone has that one friend who never knows when to stop. Well now that friend may just have a solution to their drinking habits. Scientists have created a tattoo that can tell you when you have had too much to drink.

The way they do it is by measuring the alcohol level in your sweat. Once the device that is tattooed on you senses the alcohol content it sends a signal to you phone which tells you if you are too drunk. Source

 picture source

This could greatly impact things like drunk driving, alcoholism, and overdosing. Maybe it could no more effective than a friend telling you when to stop. Regardless there should always be a designated driver.

One problem is that even though the tattoo device can tell you when you have had too much, it can not force you to stop. It is ultimately your choice if you want to continue drinking. I think this type of thing would help people who are trying to watch their alcohol consumption, who know they have little self control. However, it could be really expensive to get the device and many people who would benefit from it are in a lower class and may not be able to afford it.

It is almost guaranteed to be a discussion at every party or any other alcohol filled event; often in the form of a joke, “breaking the seal” is a dilemma that has been a problem for many. I have always been interested in the mechanism behind the correlation between alcohol and having to relieve oneself, I particularly was interested in studies examining their relationship.

Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much momentum behind getting a big study done to prove the “breaking the seal” phenomena. However an article from Thrillist, opened the conversation with a urologist about the potential correlation. The most reasonable explanation from the urologist is that alcohol itself is a diaretic, which causes people to need to go the bathroom more. However, most of the article talks in a hypothetical tone, without any concrete evidence supporting her beliefs.

As much as I appreciated the independent urologists input on the alcohols effect on the bladder, I would have preferred to examine the results of an extended study. This idea is perfect for a double blind procedure experiment. For example, there would be three randomized groups, one being the control, another the placebo group, and the third the actual experimental group. For the control, the scientist would simply observe the groups use of the bathroom without having them drink any alcohol. For the placebo group, they would be offered a non-alcoholic beverage that they perceive to have actual alcohol in it. Finally, the third group will consume regular alcohol. All three groups and the number of bathroom trips would be observed.

However, with this potential experiment comes a slew of confounding third variables that would have to be addressed. The confounding third variables would most likely be, the individual’s bladder size, how much alcohol each person consumed, whether or no other liquids had been consumed prior to the experiment. Unfortunately, in this particular case some variables are seemingly impossible to eliminate for an experiment, perhaps explaining why not many experiments have been done on this dilemma.

Overall, I find the “breaking the seal” dilemma to be an interesting and relatable topic to many. It seems like a very reasonable thing to run a personal experiment on, but it’s an unrealistic idea to test scientifically. I can imagine the scientists having a hard time raising funds for this idea!

Image found here

Think of the most common name in the English language and you’ll probably think of mine: Hannah. There have always been at least one other Hannah at the very minimum. Six on my soccer team, four on my crew team, three in my English class, two on my dorm floor…and the list goes on. In high school people would call me by my last name to help separate all the Hannahs. Coming into college I thought it would be beneficial to have such a common name because its easy to remember: WRONG. Since I have arrived at here I have been called Bridgette and Caroline and I have even been referred to by my Crocs before some people were able to remember my oh-so-common label of “Hannah.”

I started contemplating what makes people name their babies the way they do. My mom always told me she loved my name because “when I named you Hannah it wasn’t popular yet.” Right.

We see a lot of different trends in baby names, some very unfortunete for the upcoming generations but definitely a lot of trends.  According to babycenter.com, my name has moved from #1 in 2000 as I was growing up (there were no specifics to the year I was actually born) to a whopping #30 now in 2016. There must be some sort of causation for the fluxuation in name popularity.

Popularity in name has been seen simply as trends. On one hand it is, and on the other it isn’t. Names are seen to be most influenced by various casual variables such as: the media, celestial themes, and royal birth announcements as described at colombia.edu. Names can also be influenced by the most obvious causal variable popularity. Therefore, overall, the arguement stands that name choice among parents depends heavily on social influences. In this instance its important to consider the third variables. Soemthing to think about are family traditions. Names chosen could simply be a creation of the past or in other words a personal trend which could overall link back to the social influences that started the trend within the family in the first place.

Something else to consider is sex/name relationships. Although some parents now see the connection between gender and name as obsolete, most focus on the sex of their baby before putting names to them. There has been a recent spike in gender neutral names but however when looking at sex and names specifically, there is a science behind it. Professors Adam Galinsky and Michael Slepian of Colombia Business School bring forth the idea that the causal variable in the catagorization of names under different sexes are the phonetics behind the names. Therefore, the dependent variable is the name itself. The phonetics of these names themselves, if being looked at as the dependent variable, are caused by the vibration of the vocal cords. The professors suggest that names find their masculinity or femininity through the presence or absense of a vocal cord vibration. Masculine names tend to be pronounced with a strong definition of vocal cord vibration such as Gregory, James, or William. Feminine names such as Heather, Sarah, or Tiffany lack that vibration and help differentiate between the gender specific names.

A good way to look at baby names are simply trends, however it is very interesting how names differ phonetically and bring about different feelings and associations.

http://www.babycenter.com/popularBabyNames.htm?year=2016

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/4198/yes-theres-now-science-behind-naming-your-baby

Growing up, my mother always kept her tomatoes on the window sill, but her ketchup in the fridge. I figured this was just because there was usually not enough room in the refrigerator to put the tomatoes. However it turns out that there may be an actual scientific reason for this than just hear-say.

picture source

Apparently, its be known for a while that putting tomatoes in the refrigerator takes away its flavor, even though technically they are kept fresher longer when refrigerated. Yet scientists did not know the mechanism behind it.

Basically if a tomatoes is kept under a certain temperature (68 degrees Fahrenheit) the genes that give the tomato its distinct flavor shut down. Once these genes are off they can not be turned back on. So unfortunately if you make the mistake of putting the tomatoes in the fridge, you can still eat them, but they won’t taste right. Source

According to The Post harvest Technology Center at US Davis, If a tomato is stored at under 50 degrees it wont only change the flavor but give it a mealy texture as well. Source
So basically, always keep your tomatoes at room temperature, unless you want a mushy tasteless fruit on your sandwich. If you do make the mistake of reinvigorating your tomatoes, use them for marinara sauce.

As a high school senior, my SAT tutor advised me to dress well for my upcoming September test, a strategy that I had never heard of before. Everyone has heard the term “dress for success”, but this term is largely associated with business and not school (i.e. going to a job interview). I did very well on my test that fall, and ever since have been interested to know why this works, or if it truly does. Additionally, I have dressed nice for tests ever since doing well on my fall SAT senior year.

The first article I read, a college life op-ed, features a discussion in which the blogger muses at how she frequently wore sweats when testing in high school, but upon going to college, she became familiar with the concept of dressing well on test day. The author explains that many of her peers believe that dressing well can help them improve their test results, and so she has bought into the concept. While the article does include several quotes from students at Georgetown, Boston College, and Vanderbilt, all of which provide their own takes on dressing to flatter or dressing for comfort on test day, it does mention that the article is not based off science. In fact, the author of the 2014 article notes that she could not find a true scientific study that proved a correlation between dress and test results.

http://www.sparqvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/150609-Eindexamen-ANP-9810385.jpg

A recent New York Times article on the matter provided far more scientific validity and credibility. It introduced a concept known as ’embodied cognition’ that shows a concrete correlation between the clothes one wears and their performance on tests. Despite not being able to find a mechanism for the difference, the results gave researchers reason to believe that the clothing we wear can have an effect on the way we think and perform academically.

The entire concept of embodied cognition revolves around the fact that clothing affects how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us. Even more generally, embodied cognition states that we think with our bodies and not just our brains. We think of a person as more congenial if they are holding a warm drink versus a cold drink, for example. Teachers who dress more professionally garner more respect from their students, and women who dress more masculine at interviews are likely to be treated with more respect (Blakeslee). So, scientists designed experiments to help discern whether or not the way we dress truly does affect our psychological processes.

In the first experiment, a group of undergraduate students were randomly assigned to wearing either a doctor’s coat or a painter’s coat. They were given a test in which they had to look at two seemingly identical images side-by-side and point out the four minute differences between them as quickly as possible. Researchers found that those who wore the doctor’s coat found more differences faster. This was a randomized trial because there was no logic to who was given the doctor’s coat and who was given the painter’s coat. Additionally, it was a placebo trial. As the article revealed, both the painter’s coat and doctor’s coat were the same coat. Each trial was done individually, so they were not to know that there was no difference between the painter’s coat and the doctor’s coat were identical. The test subjects acquired different attention spans based on their clothing. This is embodied cognition at work.

In another similar study, test subjects had to complete a test in which they had to notice incongruities between a word on the screen and the words meaning (i.e. the word green shown in red letters). Those in a lab coat found twice as many incongruities than those wearing street clothes.

As the article briefly mentions, this finding parallels the psychological concept known as priming. I’m currently learning about priming in Psychology 100; it is a two-step process in which introducing someone to one concept can make them quicker to react and recall a second. The example my Psychology teacher Dr. S. used was when she said the word pair and asked us to write it down, everyone spelled it as such. Later in class however, she said ‘apple’, ‘banana’, and then pair again, but many of us this time spelled it ‘pear’.

The findings of these studies are very interesting, but they do not confirm without a doubt that dress affects test performance, as one writer tried to assert. The subject field of less than 100 was simply too small. I think a larger randomized control trial in which one group dressed nice and another did not would garner very good results and would reject the null hypothesis, showing that dressing well increases test performance. There are many ways that the test could be performed, but they would need to pick randomly from a large field to limit the effect of confounding variables. One group could dress well while another dressed down (depending on what the decided criteria for “dressed up” meant) and scores could be compared that way. Similarly, a study could be done in which all students take a test in dressed down clothes as a baseline, and then take the same test with similar difficulty again in nicer clothes and see how the tests compared. However, time could be a confounding variable here as students could be more likely to do well.

It is difficult to say, with the studies on hand, whether or not dress affects test performance. However, studies as of now point toward yes, and I think that we are only a few well designed experiments away from confirming this.

I take a nap almost every day, sometimes I wake up really refreshed and ready to go to my class, but other times I wake up feeling more tired than when I went to sleep. This got me wondering about if it was the amount of time I was asleep, or if my drowsiness after a nap was more because of how deeply I was sleeping.

The American Heart Association  describes how our brains are very active during sleep. Normally one would think that this would be a time for our brains to relax and chill, but actually chemicals in our brains determine how well of a nap or good night sleep we will get. This will in turn help determine how awake we will feel after waking up. These chemicals are called neurotransmitters and act on different neurons in the brain to determine what stage of sleep we will be in. Different foods and medicines ingested before sleep can influence these neurotransmitters and change the balance of these signals. For example, caffeine can stimulate some parts of the brain which can create insomnia, antidepressants can hinder the REM cycle of sleep, and alcohol which is used to help people fall asleep keeps that person in a light sleep and can awakened easier rather than if they were in a deeper sleep.

There are five stages of sleep: stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. When this cycle is over (when REM is completed) the cycle continues back to stage 1 and starts over. On average, one complete sleep cycle (from stage 1 to REM) lasts about 90-110 minutes. As the night progresses and a person is asleep for longer, the REM cycle lengthens in time, and the amount of time spent in deep sleep decreases. On average, people spend the majority of their sleep in stages 1, 2, and REM.

Obviously sleep is important to people just for their own sanity, but sleep is also necessary for health and survival. In a study done in rats, who generally live about 2 to 3 years, rats who were sleep-deprived only lived for about 3 weeks. Additionally, the rats who were sleep-deprived showed evidence of a weaker immune system. Without sleep, we are cranky, may not be able to remember things, and cannot function properly. In another study done on rats, the neurons that are used during the day with stable emotions and social interactions are decreased during deep sleep. This shows how sleep helps regulate these hormones and can lead to optimal social interactions and emotional stability while awake.

While all this information I found helped me to understand why sleep is so important, I was still curious as to how sometimes I wake up more tired than when I go to bed. Normally, that happens when I sleep for a really long time, like when I wake up at 12 or 1 in the afternoon. During naps, however, I haven’t been able to figure out what is the optimal amount of sleep in order to wake up feeling refreshed. Throughout my research, I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily the amount of sleep a person gets (of course that is important too) but it is the quality of sleep. The best sleep is one the completes an entire sleep cycle. If a person wakes up mid-cycle, they are more likely to feel fatigued and drowsy when they wake up. Completing a sleep-cycle is the optimal amount of sleep of a nap. You can complete as many cycles as you have time for in a nap, but the most important part is waking up at the end of REM rather than in the middle of a cycle. There is no real way to control this, because we cannot really control when we wake up.

https://www.sleepassociation.org/patients-general-public/what-is-sleep/

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/sleep/how-much-sleep-do-you-need.htm

Snapchat has taken the world over slowly but surely. From being something that no one ever really talked about, it is now a world phenomenon. People from all over the country are pouring in stories. Even companies are using the hell out of it to market their products and services. It is an app where the user can send a picture or video lasting up to 10 seconds. Just 10! Why is that such a big deal?!

A YouTuber that goes by the username of Mashable explain a lot of different reasons why people like Snapchat so much. I found this really interesting, and I think you will find some of the facts fascinating too!
Here is the video…
Why we love Snapshot so much!
1. Simplicity. It is so simple, we just take a picture or video and send it. Vine is so complicated, people edit things, and make overnight hits. Here we just take a candid video and send it out to whomever.
2. People get to be themselves. Since people’s pictures or videos are going to viewed for 10 seconds (or less) they can do whatever the hell they want to do. They can make whatever face they want to make. After the time is over, the picture or video has disappeared forever.

3. The most interesting fact I got from this is how Snapchat lessens the stress about performances on social media. To explain, when you put a picture on Facebook, we always like to see who liked it, and how many people liked it. If we don’t get as many likes, we might get self conscious about the picture. On Snapchat, no one knows how many followers you have. They have no clue how many views you are getting.

I am going to the topic about how we crave for attention on these social media sites. People put videos and so much content out their for the world to see. I feel like its because we want the world to know what we are doing. We want the world to know how hard we are working.
I think it would be interesting to see a study of how avid Snapchat users handle their lives with no Snapchat. I find this so interesting because I am obsessed with Snapchat. I am that one friend who posts 30 posts a day! Last year I had to delete it (to focus on school work more) and it was really hard for me. It was weird not talking about my day to a camera, or just sharing things to the people who followed me. Last week I decided to do it again. It wasn’t that bad. I felt weird the first day, but after that, I just didn’t care! I didn’t care what people were posting, I didn’t care to tell people what I was doing. The little things really don’t matter!
But anyways you follow me @Reetud2 I put out great motivational and funny content. (Haha btw I swear I look better in person, that picture was a while ago)

So after that shameless plug, lets get into the observational experiment. I want to have 30 avid Snapchat users. They should be posting about 20 pictures/videos a day. Them using the app is the x variable, which we are then going to manipulate. And hey lets say (from my example) that the y variable could be that people after not being so attached to the app, start to let go, and not care about what their close friends are doing on a daily basis. (now yes, these people do still have other social media platforms, but Snapchat is the only one to really tell you what people are up to 24 hours of the day. I would just then observe what you happen. Would they have withdrawal symptoms like I had last year. Would they crave the need to share a picture of their lunch with the world? Or would they just stop caring. The time for this would be a week. Believe me, that’s a long time. The biggest thing I would want to see out of this is obviously how they dealt with it, but also if people event want to go back to the app. I personally am debating myself, I just don’t see the need to see what other people are doing.

What do you guys think about Snapchat and how it has changed this world? What do you think about people’s obsessions with the app?
COMMENT AND ALSO LEAVE ME YOUR USERNAME!

When most people think about food and weather they have traumatizing flashbacks of their parents shoving all of the food in the fridge into their mouths because the power went out from an approaching hurricane. This has happened to me on several occasions. Weather can affect not only what type of food we are buying before a superstorm but also what food we will eat in a restaurant on a sunny day. This is an example of weather directly affecting our food in a supermarket.

In my opinion weather most definitely affects which restaurant I eat at and what I choose off of the menu. If it’s raining out most people would go for something warm like soup or coffee, while if it’s hot outside people will choose a cold item off of the menu. Whether we realize it or not, the weather outside is directly affecting our choice of food. 

Experiment:

In this study that I found online, scientists tested the effect of 17 different types of weather with the demand for certain food products in a restaurant. The null hypothesis in this experiment was that weather does not affect the food choice of customers while dining. The alternative hypothesis in this experiment was that weather does affect the food choice of customers while dining. To test these hypothesis the scientists created two sets of data. One set was based on a restaurant which the data was divided into breakfast, lunch and dinner. The second step for the first set was dividing the items on the menu based on if they were cold or hot. The second set involved the weather variables that could be experienced. The scientists recorded 22 different types of weather. Both of the data for each data set were collected for 50 weeks on a daily basis. The two data tables were emerged for the final analysis of the experiment.

Results:

The results for the effect of weather factor on different types of items on the menu were that the weather directly affected the individual sales on certain items. For example there was a dramatic increase in the purchase of Belgium Waffles on the data table when the weather was changed. The results for the effect of weather factor on the restaurant as a whole were that weather directly affected the total sales of the restaurant. Both of these variables proved the alternative hypothesis to be correct.

Some limitations of the experiment was that the restaurant was only from the south east region of the United States. To further the experiment it would need to have multiple cases of different restaurants that experience different weather variables than the south east. Another limitation was that the data table only called for weekly analysis rather than hourly. To further the experiment it could use hourly analysis to become more distinct on the immediate effect of weather change.

tandfonline: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15378020.2016.1209723

picture: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hurricane-irene-food-pigging-out-on-the-stockpiles/2011/08/29/gIQAk0O8nJ_story.html

When my brother and I were children, my parents would always take us to the pond and we would feed ducks little pieces of bread. Even in my own backyard we would feed birds tiny pieces of bread as well. However, after scrolling through my Facebook feed and seeing a video about why ducks and certain birds should not have bread, I was really concerned about this. I never knew that this innocent act was affecting aquatic birds across the nation.

This was taken at the Santa Monica Pier in 2010 and was posted on this website 

The null hypothesis will be that the bread does not affect the waterfowl birds at all and the true/proven hypothesis is that feeding birds stale bread can be very harmful due to various reasons. This article online created by The Canal & River Trust of the UK stated that “20% drop in the number of people feeding the waterfowl birds,” and that waterways should be clear from any human foods. The Humane Society of the United States online states numerous reasons for why people should not be feeding waterfowl birds because it can cause death. It is extremely dangerous to give the birds certain foods because the bird can develop a condition called “Angel Wing.” Just observing the name of condition, one can predict that it could lead to a death, since when one thinks about an angel that person most likely thinks of heaven. To sum it up, when the bird develops the angel wing, the bird simply cannot fly. If the bird cannot fly, it affects its way of life. For example, the bird cannot fly south for winter, the bird cannot fly away from certain predators, or the bird cannot fly out of a situation it is in.  Therefore, the bird cannot reproduce as well.

When my brother and I would feed the birds we would throw the little stale pieces of bread on the ground and the birds would come and eat it. However, where you throw the bread could be where a bird had defected. There are numerous diseases a waterfowl bird can develop when being fed human foods. In this article created by the World Organisation for Animal Health, it displays the common infection only within ducks, geese and swans called Duck virus enteritis (DVE) which is a “contagious infection.” This disease causes the birds to weaken and the virus is seen within the liver, spleen or kidney tissue. In this article  created by USGS National Wildlife Center it explains another disease birds can develop called Avian botulism. The disease is caused by decomposing vegetation and warmth and this causes the birds to not be able to fly. 

Secondly, feeding the birds does not only causes certain diseases it can also causes aspects like overcrowding and different behavior in the birds. If there is overcrowding in certain parks, this can lead to unsanitary measures and of course feeding the waterfowl birds causes different behavior since it can make them lose their ability to even migrate. 

We can conclude that feeding waterfowl birds human foods can lead to a negative measures. This is a negative correlation because the more human food we give them, the less waterfowl birds there will be. If we try to stop the human race from feeding these waterfowl birds human foods, the natural cycle will continue and we will save more birds day by day! 

Sources Below: 

“It’s Not for the Birds!” RSS. Kind News Magazine, Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2016. <http://www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/kind_news/2015/02-03/feeding-ducks-and-geese-can-be-harmful.html>.

“Department of Environmental Conservation.” Stop Feeding Waterfowl. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7001.html>.

“Avian Botulism.” USGS National Wildlife Health Center –. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. <http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/avian_botulism/>.

“Keeping Our Ducks Healthy | Canal & River Trust.” Keeping Our Ducks Healthy | Canal & River Trust. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. <https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-campaigns/keeping-our-ducks-healthy>.

As Andrew always tells us in class, cell phones can be detrimental to a student’s grade, but how do cell phones affect students in other ways? With all this new technology, I feel like people are losing the art of communicating and destroying relationships with friends. What I mean by this is that people are starting to not be able to talk to a person without looking at their phone. We can txt and call people with our phones but people are starting to become bad at real time talking face to face.

As I was researching this topic, I cam across an article on Time.com saying how cell phones are starting to affect peoples relationships. This article talked about a study done by Psychology of Popular Media Culture were they asked couples how they felt about their partners cell phone use. They found out that the more a person was dependent on their phone, the less their partner felt that the relationship would work out. So now we are starting to see how phones are affecting us out of the classroom.

Now when it comes to talking to people, I think everyone is guilty of looking at their phone at least one time while having a conversation. As it turns out, that is extremely detrimental to your conversation and relationship with the person you are talking to. A study was done at Virginia Tech where they picked 100 people to have conversations with random people. The people would talk for ten minutes each, but half of the people had to talk about a boring a tree while the other half had to talk about a momentous moment in their life. Then the researchers studied how many times people looked their phone.

As you could have guessed, the people with the tree conversation looked at their phone more than the other group. The researchers asked the person who did not go on their phone how they felt about their partner being on their phone and they said that they felt disconnected. These people did not feel that their other partner was interested in their conversation and was said to feel that their partner did not care what they were talking about. You may think that only going on you phone for a few seconds during a conversation isn’t hurtful, but this study shows how wrong you would be.

The creation of cell phones was a momentous step for technology and has created a lot of good in the world. You can now talk to people across the world, find out news from anywhere, and so much more. There are so many pros to having a cell phone that many people forget the cons. Cells phone have made us too dependent on them and are affecting our everyday lives. Kids stop learning to spell and just use spellcheck on their phone, they distract us in class and even on dates, and simply just take up too much of our attention that we could be spending on other things. In my opinion, we value our phones too much and should cut back our usage on them.

Phones are a great invention and have helped so many people since they were invented, but we are starting to overuse them. We are using them in classes, which affect our learning ability, and we are also affecting our personal skills and relationships when we over use our phones. All you have to do is put your phone down and enjoy the time you are spending with a person or in class.

Side note… A Samsung phone exploded in one of my friend’s classes the other day and disrupted the class while also sending the student to the hospital. Watch out!

http://time.com/4311202/smartphone-relationship-cell-phone/

http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/science-explains-exactly-how-your-phone-is-ruining-your-relationships.html

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/reply_to_a_cell_phone_story_complaint/

For years, parents and families have argued the validity of using vaccines for their children. There seems to be a stigma associated with vaccines, in that they can cause autism in children. And while some parents may think this way, there are others who think vaccines are the best way to prevent diseases in children. Because of the clear disjuncture on the subject, vaccines have become a very controversial topic in today’s society. I’ve been interested in this topic for a while, so I would really like to research more about it and find out for myself if vaccines can cause autism in children.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, an article they published stated that vaccines are not a cause of autism. They further stated that in a study eight different types of vaccines were given to a number of children. Based on the study, it proved that the vaccines were extremely safe. You can read about the specifics of the study here. But to sum it up, the study was a case-controlled study that examined 256 children who had autism and 752 children without autism. They also pointed out a few third variables that could be the answer to the hypothesis. The study concluded by saying vaccines did not cause children to develop autism.

Where does this misconception of vaccines causing autism therefore come from? An article from the California Department of Public Health might have a few answers.  There is a common myth that vaccines contain mercury, also known as thimerosol. According to the article however, science has found no direct correlation between mercury in vaccinations and autism. Additionally, over 23 case studies have been conducted over the past few years and every single one has come to the same conclusion: that vaccines do not cause autism.

So, if vaccines don’t cause autism, what does then? An article published by Science Alert may have a few answers. The article mentions many variables that may point to an answer for how autism develops. These variables include the type of surroundings a child is currently in, heredity traits the child may receive from the family, and how the  child’s brain may mature. Something I find interesting is that there is no mention of vaccinations at all in these three examples of confounding variables. There, of course, are many other confounding variables that could also point to an answer as well.

I would like to perform a meta-analysis to determine other confounding variables that could lead to an answer that deters from the misconception that vaccines cause autism. I would probably conduct an observational experiment and examine a random number of children, some with autism and others without. I would compare different variables, like age, gender and other confounding variables.

These experiments conducted by the scientists seem to be very legitimate, and provide enough information that clearly demonstrates that vaccines do not cause autism. I think vaccines are an extremely beneficial thing, and something that we as a society should be lucky to have. Vaccines can save so many lives, and prevent children from developing potentially life-threatening diseases.

“Strive to be the very best version of yourself that you possibly can”, a phrase that we’ve all heard countless times and in countless different ways.  This quest to achieve the unattainable, pushing ourselves to constantly improve until there is no possible way to reach the next level.  And as we get further and further up the ladder, it becomes harder to travel less distances.  So is it possible to ever create the best version of ourselves?

Dictionary.com defines perfection as a level of refinement that surpasses what could possibly be improved upon. If we assume this to be the accurate definition of the word, it stands to reason that there could be two possible conclusions on reaching perfection.  1) The level that we can’t pass is arbitrary, and thus we are the ones that define when we reach it.  2) That level is never attainable because the goal posts will always move. I think both have a reasonable base to stand on and that they both warrant more discussion.

 Picture source

The first possibility is that the person assessing perfection is the only one that is capable of defining it in that situation.  In which case, when a person feels that they are unable to make themselves any better, no matter how much effort is put in, then they have theoretically reached perfection.  Now an issue exists here of bias, because people always think more highly of themselves then the rest of society does.  This article from CBS points to the fact that a large majority of people rate themselves as “above average”, which is stastically impossible.  Obviously not everyone can be above average, because then the average would be raised and people would be below it.  Clearly a lot of people have trouble in finding faults in themselves, and that makes the idea of rating yourself as perfect sort of bunk.

The second idea assumes that perfection is an ever moving destination, similar to the concept of infinity in math.  You can get closer and closer, but every time you do it’s value moves further away.  This is the fallacy called moving the goalposts, which is when you demand more and more to come of a situation until the original goal is no longer the same.  In the case of perfection, people expect more change to occur then is reasonably possible.  Whether it’s personality traits or body-shape, people are always going to expect more then can happen.  This study, while not directly related to the idea of being perfect, shows that by changing the way we tell people to think about their weight loss program the less likely they are to have unrealistic standards for the result.  This same idea could be applied to the concept of perfection, where people think that they can make massive improvements in a small amount of time, but in reality it takes an incredible amount of refinement to make even the smallest changes.

I do believe that a person can reach the 1st criteria of “perfection”, a point of refinement where they deem themselves unable to go any further.  If this happens, they have made the perfect version of themselves.  However, the 2nd idea of perfection is unattainable.  People are much quicker to point out faults in other people, and as a result there will always be something to critique.  For someone to be perfect in the general consensus of the world would be a level of refinement that doesn’t exist.  This isn’t to say that you should stop attempting to make yourself a better person, but just understand that there will always be some things you can’t improve upon.

With LGBT coming out day happening last week, I began to wonder if people are born liking a certain gender, or if their environment in which they grow up in has an effect, making them act and become a certain way. I personally have a few friends who are openly gay and have talked briefly about this topic with them. I have asked them if they have always known they are gay, or at what time did they find themselves to be gay. All of them answered that they always knew they were gay, leading me to believe that people are born liking a certain gender. I decided to do some research.

The controversy over whether people are born gay is related to the nature vs. nurture debate. Since the early 1990s, scientists have conducted numerous studies in an attempt to determine a genetic cause for homosexuality. This research continues as it has not yet been proven to be valid evidence, i.e. causation does not equal correlation. As there is no science or DNA test to specify if a person is homosexual or bisexual, people believe that sexual orientation is a matter of how one defines oneself from the interaction of psychosocial and environmental factors throughout their life.

In November of 2014, the North Shore Research Institute conducted the largest study examining the debate of whether people are born gay. The study consisted of 409 sets of gay brothers and identified two genetic regions – Xq28 and 8q12 – that seem to correlate to homosexuality in men. This study follows the report done by geneticist Dean Hamer in 1993, suggesting the existence of a “gay gene.” Neuroscientist Simon Levay believes the DNA we are born with determines the theory of homosexuality.

Some people also believe that being gay runs in families. Researchers have found evidence for this belief, as well as the idea that it is more likely for two identical twins to be gay than it is for two fraternal twins since they share all of their genes rather than just half of their genes. A study done in 2012 suggested that epigenetic genes play a role in homosexuality. Since this type of gene regulation can be influenced by environmental factors or conditions during prenatal development, it is said that this epigenome can be passed down, explaining why being gay seems to run in families.

Many believe that the environment in which they grow up in affects people’s homosexuality. For example if a boy were to grow up with five sisters and played with all their barbie dolls, watched them all get ready and interact with each other, talking about having crushed on boys, etc.  would the boy turn out to be more feminine and in essence lead him to be gay?

After researching about this debate, I am still unsure, like the world, whether people are born gay or not. But I am leaning toward the idea that they are because if people were to have the “choice” to be gay, then there wouldn’t be so many cases where people are attempting to change their orientation. Also, after talking to my friends who are gay who have said that they have always known, it furthers my belief. But anyways, no matter what, everyone who is straight, homosexual or bisexual, should all have the same rights and all be able to love whomever they want!

Sources:

http://www.pureintimacy.org/a/are-people-really-born-gay/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/22/are-you-born-gay-or-is-it-a-choice-scientists-might-have-found-the-answer/

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

It’s that time of year again.  Halloween is fast approaching, which means haunted houses and scary pranks are right around the corner.  We will hear our fair share of shrieks and screams Halloweekend, but do we actually know why we do it.  What causes our bodies to let out these loud, piercing noises?  What do the screams mean to those around us?  Well, lucky for you guys, I did some research.

David Poeppel, a Professor of New York University, did tests on different types of screams, whether they be from movies, video clips, or actual people.  The sounds were measured in comparison to normal sounds made when simply talking.  In addition, and what seems to be thee key piece of this study, was how our brains interpreted these sounds.  Normally, sounds go through the cochlea and are sent to our auditory cortex in our brains for interpretation.  There, we decide gender, who is talking, and other important details to help us understand the sound.  With screams, these sounds are sent specifically to the amygdala to be interpreted.  The amygdala is responsible for emotions, specifically fear.  This shows that we scream to make the fear circuitry aware of what is going on.

So what does this mean for us?  If we were not able to scream, we would be caught in very dangerous situations.  When we scream, not only do we alert those around us that there is some sort of danger near, but it can also be a powerful weapon when facing someone trying to harm us.

While these are all good points, I feel as though the study could have gone more in depth as far as studying these screams.

I want to look at the types of screams and what they mean.  First, I would get a larger randomized sample of people.  I would forget the videos in total.  I would then randomly assign everyone in the sample to either something happy that they would scream about, or something scary.  For example: A happy thing could be telling them that they were receiving $100,000 for participating in this study.  A scary thing would be to attack them with people in costumes or do a pop out scare, or something similar to that.  I would then measure the responses in the brain to see if both types of screams went to the amygdala where fear is processed.  Are we even able to distinguish between them?

Another study I thought of, is whether gender plays a role in how much we scream.  I think it is generally known that girls let out a shriek more often than men, but why?  For this type of experiment, I would still get a large randomized sample.  My null hypothesis would be that gender has no affect on screaming.  I would then do the same type of action to all participants, and see who screams.  It seems simple enough, but I am very interested in what the results would entail.

Overall, the study done by Poeppel gave important information on where the screams go in the brain to be processed.  By the experiments I came up with, I would hope to understand more about what types of screams get processed in the amygdala, and whether or not gender plays a role in screaming.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Photo 

We have been making wine out of fermented grapes for centuries now, and in one survey done in 2014, Americans alone consumed about 893 million gallons of wine. Over the past few years, there have been numerous studies done that have shed light on drinking wine and the health benefits (with moderation), specifically when it comes to drinking one glass of red wine a night (one glass is approximately 5 ounces of wine).

http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/the-4-red-wines-you-need-to-try-if-you-want-to-learn-about-red-wine/

To start, red wine is full of antioxidants. These antioxidants that are specifically in red wine, can work together to protect cells as well as defend one’s body against toxics and prevent cancer and other diseases. In a study done by the American Heart Association, the relationship between one’s heart and their red wine consumption was measured. While any type of alcohol (1 to 2 servings a day) has been seen to benefit us, red wine in particular has been thought to have additional benefits.

Atherosclerosis is a disease that is due to a build up of plaque inside one’s arteries, which results in severe problems because blood cannot reach your organs. The disease can result in a stroke or heart attack, or in the worst case, death. Red wine was believed to protect someone from this disease. In order to test this, the Copenhagen City Heart Study was put into place. A total of 13,825 men and women were watched for 12 years in order to monitor their alcohol consumption and then as a result, see what effects their consumption had on their health.

https://www.azvascular.com/atherosclerosis/

In this case: 

X-variable: Alcohol consumption (amount in ounces)

Y-variable: How healthy they are

Third confounding variables: What type of alcohol it is

The people in the study who drank wine, rather than liquor or beer, as a result were in a much better position when it came to their heart health. They had half of the risk of dying from something like heart disease compared to those who didn’t drink wine.

To take this study further to look at red wine in particular, 13 studies (a total of 209,418 people) were compared. With the consumption of red wine, came a 32% risk reduction to getting the atherosclerotic disease. What wine is made up of seems to be the main reason for why it is so beneficial. It has also been know to increase “good” cholesterol in one’s body which can clear out material what has the potential to clog arteries.

Like everything, there is always a down side to a glass day. While it helps protect one’s cells from the majority of cancers, it has been said to increase the risk of breast cancer. So then the next question becomes: should I start to drink a glass of day if I’m not already? The Center for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that you don’t. They argue that you shouldn’t go changing your routine just because of possible health benefits. On the contrary, in a study done by Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, results showed that people who drink regularly live longer than people who steer clear of alcohol. The majority of studies I read while researching this topic agreed with this study – in favor of 1-2 glasses a night.

I went home for the first time this past weekend only to come back to campus and find that my front bicycle tire was flat.  This wasn’t too big of a deal, because I didn’t have a bike for the first several weeks of school and I knew how the walking deal went: give yourself 15 minutes to get anywhere on campus.  I proceeded to walk to class for the day, along with the following two days.  This post was inspired by the pain I am now enduring in my shins.  Who knew that a month of not walking to class consistently (and riding a bike instead) could get my legs so out of shape?!  I know that each of these gross motor skills requires very different use of muscles, but I was still so surprised to find my legs to be so sore!

As I was walking downtown this afternoon to get my front tire fixed, I began thinking about which of the two options– biking or walking– was ultimately better for my overall wellness.  All of us see hundreds of pedestrians every day when walking from one place on campus to another, but we also see many more bikers on this campus than on most.  (As a side note, I’m going to continue to ride my bicycle as it allows for a much quicker transition time between classes.  But for the sake of this blog post, I want to compare the two).

First I wanted to learn about cycling.  Are there any health benefits or dangers that make it a better or worse option than simply walking?  Rather than researching a single study, I chose to look for information on this topic in a meta-analysis–as cycling is a very prominent topic of study and is extremely relevant to the general public.  The meta-analysis that I found included results of many different types of studies, including cross-sectional, case-control studies, and intervention studies.  This included 16 studies total, with only two finding that cycling was potentially harmful to human health.  The cross sectional and longitudinal studies all found that a consistent positive relationship between cycling and cardio-respiratory fitness in youth.  All but two of the case-control studies discovered a consistent inverse relationship between commuter cycling and cancer mortality among middle aged adults to elderly adults.  The intervention studies also revealed positive results in their discovery of clear cardiovascular improvements.  Aside from the fact that this meta-analysis wanted only to look at health factors and not confounding variables such as the use of helmets, it discovered that overall–biking can absolutely maintain and improve human health conditions, especially the cardio-respiratory and cardiovascular systems.

Next I wanted to look into long distance walking and the benefits or potential dangers that came along with.  My typical route to and from classes, in addition to any other movement I do in a day (i.e. going to the gym, getting dinner at the dining commons, etc.) adds up to be about 3.5 miles on average.  I figured this out, back in my days of walking when my phone would alert me that I had reached a daily goal that I had somehow set up.

Good news for those of you that do have longer routes throughout your week: walking is one of the most underutilized yet best forms of physical activity.  It is considered moderate-intensity physical activity which is recommended universally, and regardless of age.  The most interesting thing that I found about walking, however, is that it has been found to increase in significance to health as the population ages.  Consistently walking has been shown to decrease obesity, chronic disease in older individuals, and reduce the risk of injury in people.

To conclude, both cycling and walking have tremendous health benefits.  While both are prominent ways to get around as a college student, what makes one better than another is that walking is universal.  By this I mean that it requires absolutely no equipment, training, etc.  Biking requires certain conditions that cannot be found everywhere.

So bike or walk?  It really ends up being personal preference.  The important piece to take away from this though, is that consistent physical activity like cycling or walking each and every day is going to help keep you healthy.  And staying healthy is what is really important in the long run.

Lee, I., & Buchner, D. M. (2008, July). The Importance of Walking to Public Health. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(7), S512-S518. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from Ovid.

Oja, P., Titze, S., & Bauman, A. (2011, August). Health Benefits of Cycling: A Systematic Review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(4), 496-509. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from Wiley Online Library.

Photo 1 Link

Photo 2 Link

from here

As a kid, CAT scans discovered that the terrifying head aches I was getting were really just hemiplegic migraines; migraines that cause facial and body paralysis. Migraines are absolutely awful, but fortunately now, as a young adult, I can sense when they are about to hit and can take precautions to make the migraine less painful. However, as a kid, whenever I felt a headache coming on, I would immediately panic and become terrified that it would develop into a migraine. My doctor told my family that many headaches are caused by dehydration, and this made sense to me because I lived in Cairo, Egypt at the time and didn’t drink much water on a day-to-day basis. I made the immediate connection that drinking lots of water could prevent headaches, which could decrease my  migraine frequency.

Now, I drink as much water as I can. I am constantly drinking water; when I am bored, hungry, tired, literally whenever I can. In today’s health culture craze, water is something that we just can’t get enough of. We are constantly encouraged to drink as much water as we possible by movements like The Drink More Water Campaign . Curiously enough, I had just as many headaches as when I was dehydrated. To me, this meant that I just wasn’t drinking enough water, and I reached for the tap again. With this in mind, I kept drinking bottle after bottle and ended up with a splitting headache. Thankfully it did not grow into a migraine, but it made me wonder: was I drinking too much water? Is drinking too much water even a possibility? Are these headaches caused by drinking too much water?

from here

We have been told contradictory statements our whole lives many regarding how much water we should drink a day. Most health classes teach that we should be drinking 2 liters of water a day by drinking eight 8 ounce glasses. Fitness instructors, like my mom, say that we should drink out body weight in ounces. For example, if I weigh 155 pounds, I should drink at least 155 ounces of water a day. I found a journal, titled, “Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.” Really? Is there scientific evidence for “8
8”? that concluded there was little evidence that all of us healthy adults need to be drinking that much water a day. They came to this conclusion by rejecting the null hypothesis; that drinking eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day was mandatory for our health. In this randomized, double blind experiment, participants were randomly allocated different water drinking regimes. When compared to the control, the paper concluded  that there was no scientific evidence that the eight-8 ounce glasses rule was applicable to the American population. Everyone has a different body type with different body needs, and such a general statement, such as the “8 by eight rule” is not applicable to everyone. Saying that everyone needs to drink 8 eight ounce glasses of water is like saying that everyone needs 50 grams of protein in their diet a day; it is a rule/standard that doesn’t fit the entire population accurately! This serves as a contrast to the study we looked at in class regarding soda consumption and weight gain in children in the Netherlands. The results of that study are applicable to nearly everyone as drinking the extra sugar and calories led to weight gain where-as the eight by 8 rule is not universally applicable.

This study was conclusive in nature, and even warned that drinking too much water can lead to a potentially dangerous situation called hyponatremia. My first search on hyponatremia brought me to Men’s Health, and a page titled, Are You Overhydrated? This internet magazine also introduced the concept of “hyponatremia” and after encountering this condition twice, I figured I would take to Google Scholar again to find some more reliable information.  This journal, titled, HYPONATREMIA, explains this condition more scientifically as the situation where your body’s sodium levels are unusually, and sometimes dangerously low. According to The Medical Dictionary, hyponatremia is when the sodium levels in our plasma drop to 135 mEq per each liter of water. This can be extremely serious, and increases the risk of coma and seizures. It is triggered by the consumption of too much water in relation to the amount of sodium in your body. Sodium, as an electrolyte, is important to our body’s function because it regulates the amount of water in our cells. When the water to sodium ratio is too high, our cells swell, causing a myriad of health problems such as brain swelling. One of these problems, if you didn’t guess it, is headache!  Apparently, hyponatremia is very prevalent in emergency situations, such as in ambulance rides, and in is extremely common in nursing homes. But, who else can hyponatremia affect?

Hyponatremia is also extremely common among long distance runners and tri-athletes. This study, Hyponatremia in ultradistance triathletes. discuses the danger of consuming too much water, especially in the case of athletes. Because an experiment would be unethical, an observational study was conducted. The participants were 605 athletes competing in the New Zealand Iron Man triathlon. The Iron Man triathlon is a race that includes a 42 kilometer run, a 180 kilometer cycle, and a 4 kilometer swim. The participants were weighed before and after the race, their beginning weight serving as the control. After the race, a blood sample was drawn from the athletes to determine the sodium plasma levels in the athlete’s blood streams. Although complete data was only available for 330 finishers, researchers discovered a strong, positive correlation between sodium concentration levels and amount of water consumed post race. 18% of the male finishers were deemed hyponatremic, and 11 athletes overall were severely hyponatremic- in danger of stroke, seizure, and more.  The researchers concluded that mild hyponatremia was associated with too much fluids in too short a period of time. Observational studies, such as this one, can only show correlations- not explain them. So, it is important that we take this study with a grain of salt. The correlation between over-hydration and hypotremia seems very prevalent, but, this was only one study, and who knows what other third variables may be lurking! Maybe triathletes have lower sodium concentration levels than the average human being in general, or that people that aren’t as in shape have higher sodium levels than these “iron men”. It is also important to note that only 330 participants made up this final conclusion and that 330 people is not a large population. Scientists can not make sweeping conclusions for large populations with generalizations developed from small, specialized populations.

Drinking too much water is dangerous, and in my experiences, it can lead to painful headaches because of the lack of sodium balance. Dehydration is not the only cause of headache, as I’ve learned that over-hydration can lead to serious health issues. Although it is important to drink enough water, scientists have not been able to discover what the “right amount” of water is for the average person’s daily consumption. Now, I will be much more conscious about how much water I drink on a day-to-day basis and not immediately blame my headache on dehydration. There is danger in drinking too much water, and also in drinking too little- it’s all about balance!

Many homes in America today have trampolines in the backyard. Trampolines are lots of fun for young children, but these fun contraptions can sometimes result in serious injuries for young users. Over the past few years, there has been a spike in trampoline related injuries. So, do trampolines lead to a higher chance of a visit to the emergency room? Are at home trampolines different than trampoline parks? And is it safe to have a trampoline at home?

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, trampolines result in about 100,000 emergency room visits each year. Many children are injured by crashing into others on the trampoline at the same time as them, or falling on the mat or springs around the trampoline. However, more serious injuries including damage to the skull or spinal cord are more likely to occur while using a trampoline. Using a trampoline is more likely to lead to injury, and the use of trampolines by children poses a significant risk to their health.

According to CNN, the recent spike in trampoline related injury is largely related to the growing popularity of trampoline parks in the United States. More and more of these wall to wall trampoline filled rooms are popping up all over the country. A study conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that the number of trampoline related injuries rose from 581 in the year 2010, to 6,932 in 2014. 2014 is about the time when trampoline parks started gaining popularity. It can be concluded that the rise in trampoline related injuries is largely in part due to indoor trampoline parks. The most common types of injuries obtained at trampoline parks are sprains and fractures. The study also showed that those injured at parks were more likely to have injury to the lower extremities, while injuries from at-home trampoline use were more likely to involve the head. So park related injuries are more common, but often not as serious as injuries obtained from home trampoline use. Obviously, it is clear that using a trampoline, no matter what form, increases one’s chance of injury. It is possible that these results are due to chance, but again, that is very unlikely given the data and the results of the experiment.

So, keeping the results of the study in mind, is it safe to have a trampoline at home? The study states that if there is a trampoline at home, safety measures should be implemented to ensure that nobody is injured. First, only one person at a time should use the trampoline, to reduce the risk of collision with other jumpers. Children should also use padding when jumping on a trampoline to ensure that collision with the springs or trampoline mat does not lead to serious injury. Finally, younger trampoline users should be under adult supervision at all times while using the trampoline. Hopefully, if people are smarter about how they use trampolines, the number of injures will lessen. Trampolines are fun, but not when a child ends up in the emergency room because of one. As they say, “It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt”.

Calcium in one of the most important minerals to the human body. We begin calcium intake from the time of our birth, and over time we have developed supplements to increase our calcium intake. Data suggests that almost half the population of the United States takes additional calcium supplements. A large portion of this population includes older women. Up until now, the intake of calcium supplements only meant aid our bones, however, recent studies have shown that the intake of these supplements may actually be harmful for our hearts. One such research experiment took place at the hands of the  National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, an organization that funded research projects at six different universities. One of the six was Josh Hopkins University and it’s research team looked at data from 2,742 over a period of 10 years.

The study was observational and highly detailed. The university recorded dietary and medicinal intakes of these participants and took two CT scans to see the effects of supplements on the heart. Based on conclusions of previous researchers showed that in older people, calcium intakes don’t make it to the skeleton and often get absorbed by other soft tissue in the body. They also tend to form plaques and block arteries and blood vessels. Hence the researchers expected high supplemental intake would  show high risks of heart disease through the CT scans. The image above is an example of one such CT scan showing the amount of calcification (the deposit of calcium in the arteries) in a heart. The more amount of calcification would mean higher chances of getting heart diseases.

As mentioned earlier, the researchers took detailed information about the participant’s daily diets. They did this to measure the total amount of calcium intake and also to determine how much was being ingested through natural means or through supplements. The first CT scan was taken at the beginning of the 10 year period, and it showed that of the 2,742 participants, 1,175 already had some quantities of plaque in their arteries. In order to get definite conclusions, the researchers had to take into account third variables like age, consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, medical history etc. All of these factors can have direct impact on heart disease and can be a possible cause of damage to heart instead of the calcium supplements.

The researchers at the University also felt that it was important to note the differences in effects on hearts based on the type of calcium intake. They wanted to find out whether it was the consumption of excessive Calcium supplements or the Calcium itself that can harm the heart. The results of the second CT scan for people with high calcium intake through natural resources such as milk, veggies etc showed that they had little signs of calcification than those who had low intakes from the same products. Hence the researchers concluded that high intakes of calcium through food is in fact beneficial to us rather than being harmful. However, the same cannot be said about those who consume large amounts of calcium supplements. CT scans of such participants(46% ) showed an increased risk of heart diseases by approximately 22%. The reasons for such a big impact through supplements and the complete opposite through food seem unclear. However, a professor from the University of North Carolina suggested that it may be because of a difference in the concentration of Calcium. The calcium ingested through foods are often present in low quantities, and are accompanied with other minerals. On the other hand, calcium ingested through supplements have larger quantities of pure calcium in them. It is possible that our body finds it harder to cope with the later form of Calcium.

The conclusion of the researchers at John Hopkins and other universities however are not agreed upon by everyone. Some studies have found that the use of supplements have in fact reduced risks of heart attacks in women. Seeing such varying conclusions, the use of Calcium supplements has become quite the controversial topic amongst scientists and doctors. There are still on-going studies on the issue, however, in the meant time it may be beneficial to consult a doctor and past medical history before consuming supplements.

Citations:

(Image 1: Ca)

(Image 2: CT Scan)

1. “Calcium Supplements May Damage the Heart.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
2. @BerkeleyWell. “Calcium in the Spotlight.” @berkeleywellness. N.p., 11 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
3. “Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Calcium — Health Professional Fact Sheet.”U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Personally, I have never used any for of tobacco products. I have never smoked a cigarette, nor a cigar in my lifetime and I also have never used dip nor snuff either. I have been taught all my life that those four products cause several different types of cancer including oral cancer, throat cancer, and lung cancer. Our society as a whole, questions why cancer is increasing so rapidly in our modern society but the truth is, is that many individuals disregard the safety precautions to prevent these terrible illness’ and use these tobacco products. At a young age of four months old, my left lung collapsed, contributing to the effects of the chronic asthma I have today. Asthma and the knowledge I have been educated on in my household, along with 13 years of education in school, have prevented me from trying these tobacco products that are so frequently used.

I was interested in finding out if all the negative knowledge I have learned about tobacco is real and to what extent. I have witnessed the excessive use of dip in college and questioned why so many people take part in using these products and why they are so popular if it truly does cause cancer. Are people just not educated on the effects of tobacco on the body or do they just not care? Does tobacco, specifically smokeless tobacco, actually cause cancer? These questions have lead me to research the effects of smokeless tobacco on the human body.

According to the TIME article, ” AHA: Don’t be fooled, smokeless tobacco isn’t exactly safe,” smokeless tobacco is not a better alternative to cigarettes. It may have a lesser risk of a heart attack or stroke; however, smokeless tobacco causes an increase in the chance of getting oral and throat cancers. Smokeless tobacco was said to increase your chances of getting a heart attack 30-40 percent more than those individuals who do not use tobacco products at all. These concerns have not stopped young males from using these products because in another TIME  studies show that about 9.6% of high school males used smokeless tobacco in 2013 and it only risen since then.

Pros:

• Creates a temporary “enjoyable buzz”

Cons:

• Risk of oral cancer
• Risk of throat cancer
• Risk of a stroke or heart attack
• Addictive
• Expensive

Clearly, the cons and risks of smokeless tobacco outweigh the pros by a significant amount. To answer the question previously asked, “Are people just not educated on the effects of tobacco on the body or do they just don’t care?”, I concluded that most individuals just ignore the adverse effects of tobacco and that once they start they find it so hard to stop. It even says on every smokeless tobacco tin, “smokeless tobacco is addictive,” which points toward the fact that every individual that dips is aware that the drug may cause one to become dependent on it. Even if one is educated on the fact that tobacco can be dangerous, they can become hooked on it causing them also to be a regular tobacco user.

Where does science come into play?:

X Variable: Smokeless tobacco use

Y Variable: Longterm effects on the human body (cancer)

Experiment type: Experimental/Observational

Null Hypothesis: Smokeless tobacco has no effect on the human body.

Alternative hypothesis: Smokeless tobacco causes an increase in the chance of getting cancer.

Reverse Causation: Cancer causes an increase in smokeless tobacco use.

Chance

I would accept the alternative hypothesis and would reject the null hypothesis because there is enough data to back up the statement that smokeless tobacco causes cancer. Reverse causation does not make sense because if an individual has cancer, he or she would not decide to use smokeless tobacco more if it causes a high risk of cancer in the right state of mind. Chance is always an option but there are enough statistics and information to lead me to rule it out.

Overall, the studies and research done clearly show that the alternative hypothesis was correct because smokeless tobacco use clearly portrays that the product causes an increase in a persons chances of getting cancer. The cons outweighed the pros by a significant amount due to its high risks, expensive costs, and addictiveness. Is this enough to get you to quit or refrain from using smokeless tobacco?

http://time.com/4116934/smokeless-tobacco-more-toxic-than-cigarettes-study-says/?iid=sr-link3

AHA: Don’t Be Fooled, Smokeless Tobacco Isn’t Exactly Safe

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-pros-and-cons-of-smokeless-tobacco-products/2/

Can People Alter Endings to Nightmares?

Regardless of whether people are young or old, people still have nightmares whether they are 8 years old or 88 years old. Nightmares are a part of sleep, for better or worse. As far back as dreams have been studied, people have been associating their bad dreams with an assortment of factors like stresses of daily life, trauma, and various other items. But are all nightmares related simply to our day-to-day lives? Not necessarily. In fact, there are researchers who say that nightmares could be helpful to the survival of humans, in terms of making important decisions and serving as a redirection to more important issues in the personal lives of people. In fact, some neurologists are arguing that people can use different endings to dreams to determine solutions to traumatic times, as well as every-day problems, in their real lives.

So how can nightmares actually help people get through difficult times? According to Deirdre Bennett, a psychologist at Harvard, nightmares have probably remained a part of mankind for so long because they are helpful to human survival. “Nightmares probably evolved to help make us anxious about potential dangers,” Barrett said. “Even post-traumatic nightmares, which just re-traumatize us, may have been useful in ancestral times when a wild animal that had attacked you, or a rival tribe that had invaded might well be likely to come back.” This interpretation of dreams is intriguing as it offers a more holistic approach to thinking about dreams, even if those of prior generations had no knowledge of the science behind dreams. I believe generations of the past probably related the dreams to religious purposes as these generations had a higher dependency on religion and lower emphasis on science than society today. An interesting phenomenon that has begun to unravel recently with dreams is the power to potentially control at least the ending of the dream itself.

Can people really control their dreams? Link: http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/531/557/a88.jpg

Perhaps partially taken from the plot of the movie Inception, Barrett also discussed the potential humans have to change the endings to their nightmares. “Some people prefer to fight off an attacker, some people would rather be rescued by someone else. Some want a realistic solution, for others, a metaphoric resolution is more satisfying.” She goes on to explain that analyzing a bad dream can help people see the correlation between that dream and the impact it can have on their day-to-day lives. So how can these “lucid dreamers” alter their dreams? According to a recent study, people who have a larger anterior prefrontal cortex are able to have lucid dreams. The correlation between the two stems from this part of the brain being responsible for self-reflection. Therefore, the correlation would make sense.

The problem with people claiming they are lucid dreamers is natural skepticism. Neurological studies can only go so far to show evidence that people really can have lucid dreams. Barrett argues that once people come up with the ending they desire, “they can rehearse this while awake and then at bedtime, to remind themselves that they want to have this ending, should the nightmare occur again.” At this point in neurologic studies, it is hard to determine how realistic lucid dreaming and dream-altering can be. But rest assured, this area will continue to be looked at over time and people could have some answers to this question over the next 10-20 years.

Bibliography:

Melina, Remy. “Why Do We Have Nightmares?” LiveScience. LiveScience, 28 July 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

“People With This Special Quality Can Control Their Dreams – PsyBlog.” PsyBlog. PsyBlog, 26 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Picture Link:

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/531/557/a88.jpg