If you haven’t heard about this get cash quick method before, then let me tell you now. The Red Cross organization will pay you to not donate blood, but to give them blood plasma. It is a popular method for many college students to get some extra cash, while not affecting their busy schedules. According to Octapharma plasma, the Food and drug administration allows you to donate twice every seven days, given there are at least two days between the initial donation day. Of course with anything like this, there are short term side-effects such as dizziness, or nausea. But what are the long term effects that we here about and are they really worth it. Before we continue we have to talk about what plasma is first.

According to the University of Rochester Medical Center, plasma is a light yellow fluid that makes up 55 percent of blood content. It serves as the medium that helps move hormones, enzymes, salts and nutrients, along with red and white blood cells through the circulatory system ( University of Rochester Medical Center Health Encyclopedia, What is Plasma).Donating plasma is similar to donating blood, except instead of collecting both red blood cells and plasma, the plasma is filtered using a machine called a cell separator through a process called plasmapheresis. After the blood and plasma are separated, the blood is returned to the body, while plasma  is collected.

So what are the long term problems of donating plasma? The first long term risk that you face from donating plasma is that you face more of a chance of getting sick due to lower immunoglobulin levels. According to the Asia-Pacific Economics blog, it can be sen that there is a 10 percent reduction in the antibodies that prevent illness from occurring. To me, as a college student this would put me off the idea is mainly because of this reason. Over time, we generally more and more able to become sick, which means more class that we would have to miss because of being sick. Other issues that are involved with plasma donations include increases scaring of the veins, and increased chances of a vein collapsing.

These are some of the things that have to be considered when thinking about donating plasma. While it is for a good cause, you should never let money be a higher priority than you health.

References:

Ever since I was young, I’ve loved drinking coffee. When I was young, I was told to avoid coffee because it would stunt my growth. In high school, I would drink it almost every morning to help me get through my long day and school after having to wake up at 6:00 in the morning. Now being a college student, I drink coffee two times a day (most days). My dad is really into health and researching what food/ drinks are good for your body and what’s bad for your body. He would always go back and forth whether or not I should drink it all the time. This has always interested me so I’ve decided to research: is coffee good or bad for me? (Hoping it’s good.)

This website has led me to find that there are both advantages and disadvantages to coffee affecting our bodies. One of the advantages is that coffee can protect and save our brain. Since we are taking in a lot of caffeine, the high caffeine level in our bloodstream can lower our risk of getting Alzheimer’s Disease while also lowering the risk of us getting dementia. Caffeine can also assist our fat cells break down body fat. It breaks down fat and allows us to use this as energy for exercise. Of course, if you add cream and sugar into the black coffee, this will ruin the purpose. But, if you drink black coffee before a workout, it is said that you can increase your physical performance by 11-12%. Since caffeine increases our adrenaline, this will prepare us for a nice, awakened and refreshed day. This study also says that drinking coffee, anywhere from 1 to 6 cups per day, can help us focus and increase our concentration throughout the day. A very important advantage is that coffee brightens our mood. This helps people fight off depression which lowers the likeliness of suicide in some. A few other pro’s about coffee is that it reduces risk of Parkinson’s disease, reduces the risk of cancer and reduces the risk of a stroke. This website then mentions a few disadvantages of coffee on our body. It mentions how it can cause insomnia. This means that you will not be able to sleep and this is not healthy on your body. It can also be toxic to some consumers.

People change their mind all the time, whether or not coffee is good or bad for us. After reading this study, I believe there are far more advantages that coffee has on our body. I’m going to stick to my daily intake of this delicious caffeinated beverage.

Sources:

http://www.warriorcoffee.com/news/2/12-health-benefits-and-6-disadvantages-of-coffee-smashing-it

Pictures:

https://genesistransformation.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/coffee.jpg

When I initially chose this topic, I wanted to know the type(s) of treatment(s) that were most effective in healing soldiers returning home from war with mental wounds. I have always been fascinated with events pertaining to combat, which is why I was so drawn to this issue. Both of my grandfathers are war veterans, and have shared vivid stories from battle with the family, and the lasting impact (both negative and positive) the memories left behind. However, I was unaware of the specifics that factored into the treatment process and/or what type(s) of treatment they received. After pursuing the internet, I discovered a unique type of treatment, known as Virtual Reality, that has not been widely promoted just yet.

In reality, there is no real homecoming for veterans. During their attempt to rejoin civilian life, the memories from combat linger in the back of their minds, hindering their progress. The indescribable horrors of war leave a negative lasting impact on a number of today’s finest young people, ultimately resulting in a mental health condition recognized as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). By definition, PTSD is a psychological disorder that sprouts from a first-hand experience of a traumatic event. Those whom suffer from PTSD recall the vivid experiences frequently and have difficulty overcoming them. Some of the symptoms include trouble sleeping, being extra alert and aware, dependency on alcohol, flashbacks of the traumatic event, and acts of violence. If a soldier were to return home in this disheveled manner, they would typically be prescribed antidepressants, however, my research shows that this approach is ineffective in healing those who are physically and emotionally scarred.

The Study:

In order to determine how effective exposing soldiers with PTSD to virtual reality is in the healing process, Rothbaum, Hodges. Alarcon, Ready, Shahar, Graap, Pair, Hebert, Gotz, Wills, and Baltzell (1999) conducted three controlled studies utilizing a caucasian, 50 year old male veteran who previously worked as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and has suffered from depression, alcohol abuse, and PTSD. The coordinators administered the experiment by exposing the patient to computer animated scenarios that replicated his area of deployment. These animations were intended to imitate realistic situations that the soldier has experienced in the field, and allow him to train his responses and restore memories.

Conclusion: Through their initial analysis, Rothbaum, Hodges, Alarcon, Ready, Shahar, Graap, Pair, Hebert, Gotz, Wills, and Baltzell found that there was a significant decrease in the patient’s scores from pretreatment to posttreatment. During pretreatment the impact of event scale, ranging from zero to fifty, measured the level of distress caused on the veteran by the traumatic event a thirty three. In the six month follow up his score was a zero, showing a total absence of intrusive and avoidance symptoms related back to the traumatic event. The experimenters concluded that the sound of helicopters triggered the strongest emotions in the patient. Imaginal exposure is seen to be helpful in curing this because of its capability to vividly rehash the worst experiences and control the feelings they trigger.

Bottom line: Adequate and immediate psychotherapy treatment is necessary for soldiers returning home from combat, because an acute episode can eventually transition into a chronic lifelong issue. Not all soldiers suffer from PTSD, but those who do ultimately have trouble transitioning back into civilian life. The virtual reality exposure tested in this study shows positive results and holds potential for the future.

References:

1. http://www.livescience.com/47258-virtual-reality-ptsd-treatment.html
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378165
3. https://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/posttraumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/symptoms

As a college student, we are under a lot of stress and pressure. So sometimes if we have an exam of some major assignment, we tend to have only a little sleep. And in order to go to class next day or go take the exam, many students will choose to drink the energy drink. So now energy drink is really popular on the campus when it’s the time for the midterm or the finals. But will these energy drinks harm our healthy?

caffeineinformer.com

According to research; the energy drinks is bad for our heart. A study found that after we drank the energy drink, our blood pressure is going to go up 6.2 percent. And increasing the blood pressure can lead us to heart disease, and sometimes might cause a person have a stroke. But many people will probably say that there are a lot of variables can cause the high blood pressure and cause the heart disease and stroke, so why it would be the energy drink is bad? But by looking at the experiment in the study, we found out that by only drank one energy drink could rise up 6 percent of blood pressure, so it means energy drink could raise our blood pressure a lot in order to give us energy.  Even though it can give us energy, but it is bad for our heath. But there are might be some flaws in this experiment because we only have a person in this experiment, so this small variable can not reflect the whole community. Correlation does not equal causation.

Second; because of energy drinks such as “red Bull’ and “5-hour energy” contains so much active ingredients taurine and ginseng, it can make people gain a lot of energy in a short time. So sometimes it is still questionable whether human’s brain can take all those energies. And in these energy drinks also contains a lot of vitamin B. So the National institutes of Health suggests that people does not need that much of Vitamin B, and if it is too much, the body will digest it through urine. But if a person has too much Vitamin B, t could affect our healthy too. But the good thing is, we will not reach that number after we drank 50 bottles of energy drink per day.

Third; the most important ingredients in the energy drink are caffeine. Because that is the substances  give people most of the energy. But we all knows, if we use too much of caffeine product, it will have some dependency on some people. So the outcome is if that person does have consumed caffeine product, they will feel really tired and will not focus on what’s they’re doing.

With these all bad effects that energy drink could do to us, we probably should stop drinks it or start to drink less. Because there are some other things can help us keep focused such as tea or wash our face with cold waters.

The Claim:

Music is a universal form of communication and expression that plays a huge part in culture, religion, entertainment, and the world as a whole. People listen to music to get their energy up at the gym. Dancers rely on music to keep a steady beat and inspire choreography. Some students find listening to music positively effective when studying. Warm-up songs are played at sporting events to prepare the players and rile up the crowd. Without music, a jack-in-the-box wouldn’t know when to come out of the box! There is a theme that I am getting at: music seemingly helps with focus and fluidity. So what if we took this magical thing called music and put it in a group setting? Would it cause the same focus and fluidity among a team? I came across a study that claims that in a work environment, teamwork within a group is heightened when music is being played.

Suggestive Correlations:

1. Music → Teamwork (direct causality)…..what is believed to be happening
2. Music ← Teamwork (reverse causality)….in this case reverse causality would be ruled out because teamwork would not cause music to be played
3. Music ← Z → Teamwork (confounding/3rd variable)….this may be a stretch but I feel like this could only really make sense if the z variable were something related to a type of work such as a dance team, a choir, musical theater, etc…. But since this study is generalized…I would probably rule this one out
4. Chance… always can be a possibility

The Experiment:

Researchers at Cornell University conducted two studies on how music can influence teamwork in employees. Split into groups of 3, the volunteers were given tokens that they could either keep for their own collective benefit OR put them towards the good of the group as a whole.

Study #1:

The first study tested two different types of music. As the participants worked in their groups, background music was played in an alternation between happy/cheery/familiar songs and sad/dark/unfamiliar songs.

The Results:

Positive music→ more likely to give tokens to the group   (by approx ⅓ more)

Negative music→ more likely to hold on to their tokens

Study #2:

The second study had a control group and an experimental group. This time, as the participants worked in their groups, there was an alternation between happy/cheerful/familiar songs and no music at all.

The Results:  (same as first study)

Positive music→ more likely to give tokens to the group  (by approx ⅓ more)

Negative music→ more likely to hold on to their tokens

Suggested Improvement:

In conclusion of this experiment, evidence supported that, yes, music did influence the participants to contribute more for the good of the group. However, the results showed that playing distasteful music in a work setting strengthened teamwork just as much as playing no music at all. Thus, the leading claim that music increases cooperation is not necessarily completely correct. The hypothesis that evidence actually supported was that if you play cheerful music in a collaborative group setting, teamwork progresses among workers.

Turn it up:

Although there is no clear mechanism proven as to why positive music amplifies teamwork, it is safe to say that joyful music can unite a group of colleagues at work. Knowing this, would I play Justin Bieber’s new song “Let me Love you” during my next group project collaboration? Oh yes.

Source:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160823125215.htm

Pictures:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkckeisenhower.schoolloop.com%2Fuimg%2Ffile%2F1411541307264%2F7026630414901250088.jpg%3F1470064578279&psig=AFQjCNHnCy_Yi5ogrvSOcVk1_z6L2OohPA&ust=1477132321673305&cad=rjt

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/musicatworki.jpg

As I was sitting in my econ class I began to daydream about summer vacation. In the midst of my phantasm I was struck by a memory of a debate I had done in my high school global economics course. The debate was on which form of economy (capitalism, socialism, or communism) was better in the areas of health care and education. While researching this paper I came across the Global Happiness Report. This stuck in my head because I was tasked with studying socialism, and the ranking reported Northern European socialist countries as the happiest. In this Blog I will be exploring exactly what makes a country happy, and why the Northern European countries tend to be ranked higher.

The first step on my quest to find the happiest country was to return to the place I had first encountered this ranking, and much to my pleasure I discovered that the World Happiness Report 2016 had been updated in between my my last viewing and now. Again I found that the Northern European Countries still dominated the top 10 list. With my source sorted out, it was time to discover why these countries consistently do so well. The World Happiness Report bases its data on an observational experiment gathered over 2013-2015. This data takes the form of a self evaluation known as a Cantril Ladder. The research is conducted by asking roughly 3000 people from each country to fill in the Cantril ladder on a basis of 0-10. In this study 0 is a fabricated dystopia made by the researchers and 10 being the best possible life. At a glance this may make the rankings seem like a silly doctors office pain ranking, but the report is also made up of six other factors which are then added to the responses of the 3000 participants. These variables are: levels of GDP, life expectancy, generosity, social support, freedom, and corruption. Below is the graph in which all the variables are represented.

I know at first this graph is very confusing, but I will do my best to explain it. All the different colors in the graphs represent the different variables transformed into numerical form. The vast majority of the bars are made up of three factors in particular: GDP, social support, and the responses from the Cantril Ladder. At the end of the bars hovering over dystopia is a number line called the 95% confidence interval. This represents where 95% of the mean population is likely to be located.  

After finding out how they found the data, I searched for a definite reason why the top ten where the top ten to no avail. From studying the graph I do not believe that there is one single category in which any of the happiest countries run away with a particularly strong statistic, rather it appears that they have an overall better performance in all of the categories which allows them to edge out the competition.  

In conclusion, I could not tell exactly what makes these countries the happiest, so naturally I will have to continue my research by applying and receiving a grant from the university to allow me to travel the world and report my own findings.

Citations

Photo

Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2016). World Happiness Report 2016, Update (Vol. I). New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

There has long been a debate about whether a person’s traits are gained through hereditary means (nature), or from the environment (nurture) that they grew up in. While I knew that a person does not get eye color or height from whether or not their parents took them to church, I found myself in the section of the population that believed that someone is who they  are due to one’s experiences rather than a form of genetic predestination. Armed with my hypothesis I set out on a google adventure to see what science had to say…I found out that science disagrees.

I found two studies that powerfully refuted my belief: the first being the famous Minnesota Twin Family Study and a very compelling meta-analysis. This blog is going to focus mainly on the Meta-analysis due to its thorough process. The Meta-analysis was created by a collaboration of experts in the fields of neurology and gene speciality. The data was collected by taking 2,748 twin studies, published between 1958 and 2012, looking at 14,558,903 partially dependent twin pairs. The majority of these studies came from the United States, but studies were also taken from 38 other countries to insure punctiliousness. As well as ensuring variation in location of the studies, the twin pairings ranged in ages, but mostly focused upon twins between 18-64. These studies examined a total of 17,804 traits. The majority of these traits were categorized under 28 general traits. Out of these 28, ten were investigated: temperament and personality functions, weight maintenance functions, general metabolic functions, depressive episode, higher-level cognitive functions, conduct disorders, mental and behavioral disorders (due to use of alcohol), anxiety disorders, height, and mental and behavioral disorders (due to use of tobacco). The study found that while genes were not the sole cause of all traits, there was not a single trait studied that genes did not affect in someway. The amount that the genes controlled traits varied from case to case, but on the whole it was found that traits either influence, or completely control each trait. While this study alone showed me that my beliefs were wrong, I continued to search for a different study to investigate where normal behaviors come from, rather than disorders and complex traits. In my search I found The Minnesota Twin Family Study.

This study was a longitudinal study done on twins and parents that were separated at birth. To my relief, an interview with one of the scientists involved in the study, Nancy Segal, admitted to originally believing some traits, such as religious beliefs and social attitudes, would be effected by nature not genetic influence at the get go of the experiment. Unfortunately for both of us, through the study, the findings show that genes in fact do play a role in behaviors such as these. Although this study again proves that I was wrong. With Andrews lecture on the Texas Sharpshooter problem and the file draw problem fresh in my mind I began to become skeptical the more I read. As I read the articles and results they seemed to focus on amazing accounts of twins that were separated at birth and still had amazing parallels between their lives, for example: two twins who had the same names, same habits, drove the same car, and went on vacations to the same beach. The articles only talked about incredible cases, and in my mind I could not shake the thought of where all the boring, or normal studies were. While I had these doubts the evidence provided by these two studies could not be proven wrong.

In conclusion, these studies showed me, with overwhelming evidence, that my hypothesis was wrong. The evidence of 14 million twins proved to me that it is in fact nature that prevails when it comes to personality traits, not nurture as I once believed.

Citations

Photo

Lewis, Tanya. “Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics.” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Miller, Peter. “A Thing or Two about a Thing or Two, A.k.a. Science.” National Geographic 24 (2013): 59-62. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Polderman, Tinca C J, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. De Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen Van Bochoven, and Peter M. Visscher. “Meta-analysis of the Heritability of Human Traits Based on Fifty Years of Twin Studies.”Nature Genetics. Nature Publishing Group, 18 May 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Why do we sleep better when it rains?

Heavy Downpour — Image by © Anthony Redpath/Corbis

Whenever it rains, people always say they sleep better, even I think it’s true. On a gloomy or stormy day, the mood of the day is just tiring and low. Listening to the rain puts everyone to sleep. Why is this? This has always interested me, because I am one of those people that loves to fall asleep to a storm. Let’s look at the science behind this.

One study was done at the University of Rochester Sleep Laboratory in New York. They noticed this among many of their students as well. They test group consisted of 43 students. These participants were told to write in a ‘sleep diary’ for 105 days. This sleep diary would keep track of the weather that day, along with how long they slept and how their sleep was. This study worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather database. They found that when the barometer was high, the participants rested better. This led them to their answer. They concluded that it is because of the sound and the gloominess, we tend to sleep more and not want to get up.

Will Wister, a student at Stanford University with a biology degree, went more into the science of it. He explains why our bodies react this way. A lot of rainy days don’t involve much sunlight. It is a lot of clouds and dark skies. He describes how the lack of sunlight decreases our melatonin secretion production.  Wister found that when the sun reaches our optic nerve, we feel less tired and begin to feel more awake. Since many rainy days lack sunlight, our optic nerve is not stimulating as much and we feel more tired. With the help of melatonin secretion, our body is told that it is time to sleep. If our bodies did not receive melatonin, we would not feel tired and would feel very awake. This is why we often wake up to sunlight. When the sun begins to rise, our bodies sense it and our melatonin production will increase again; causing us to want to wake up (well,  not always wanting to).

Nancy Hall wrote in an article called, “Do Rainy Days Make You Feel Sleepy?” and brought up her conclusions to why this is. Besides mentioning the lack of serotonin, she mention that it also is because of the soothing sound of rain and how our ears interpret this. She believes that the pattern and repetitive sounds all night can cause our bodies to become tired and lazy which leads us to fall asleep. Next time there is a huge storm outside, you are all about to have the best sleep of your life. 

Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200302/why-rainy-days-make-us-tired

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-rainy-days-make-you-sleepy

http://fun107.com/do-rainy-days-make-you-feel-sleepy/

Pictures:

Reduce Your Pain by Adjusting Your Sleeping Position

http://efdreams.com/rain.html

It helps choose what clothes to wear, what books to buy, where to live, and who to date. It is in one’s smart phone, car, and can know their everyday routine. It finalizes most of the trades on Wall Street, grades college students’ papers, and controls a city’s transportation system and water infrastructure. It is for the twenty-first century what electricity was for the twentieth and steam power for the nineteenth. There is one major difference though, electricity and steam power will never outthink humans like Artificial Intelligence will.

The once unfathomable concept of artificiality and intelligence working as one being is becoming reality and arising in the modern world, more prominent and effectual than ever before. As the ability of AI expands, humans are no longer working in accordance with their brain’s full potential, lessening their performance quality. Since machinery is being so vastly utilized and now replaces direct human activity in several ways, less is required of humans. The presence of AI encourages a lack of attentiveness and sophistication. Nicholas Carr addresses this issue in the article “Automation Makes Us Dumb”. Carr expands on his theory of automation making the world dumb by presenting the results of an experiment acted out by scientists at Utrecht University, in which they had a group of people carry out laborious tasks. Some used software that provided little to no assistance while the others used sophisticated, artificially intelligent software that assisted greatly. The null hypothesis is that artificial intelligence has no effect on an individual’s performance in the work force, while the alternative hypothesis is that AI is lessening the quality of one’s performance in the work force. The consensus came to was that the individual’s whom used the less complex software made less mistakes and acquired new skills, while those utilizing the advanced machinery would rely on the software when faced with a difficult problem.

In one of the studies analyzed by Carr, and conducted by British aviation researcher Matthew Ebbatson, a group of pilots were sought out to execute a difficult task that pertained to landing a plane in harsh weather conditions. Ebbatson aimed to put their skills to the test and measure their reliance on AI. He concluded that the pilots were unable to land the plane swiftly and efficiently due to a lack of practice and over reliance on AI.

Correlation possibilities

1. Direct causation: Reliance on advanced technology —> poor performance in the work force
2. Reverse causation: Reliance on advanced technology <— poor performance in the work force
3. Third confounding variable: WEALTH
4. Chance

As the economy grows and manufactures, schools, and businesses are capable of purchasing more advanced machinery, students and workers no longer consider it necessary to think and analyze beyond what the machine, iPhone app, or built-in device provides. Almost every child by the age of three has an I-pad in possession, and textbooks in schools are slowly becoming extinct due to new and improved technology. Humans are slowly becoming second in line to the capable AI machinery. The products of AI are being incorporated into major fields, possessing the ability to perform an excessive amount of tasks that were once solely able to be performed by human beings.

Bottom line: Practice makes perfect. As humans become more reliant on advanced machinery to complete a multitude of tasks, the less practice they feel is needed. However, when unexpected situations arise, they are unsure of how to handle them because of how dependent they have become on advanced technology. If we stop and use our brain’s more often instead of relying on siri, or other to do the dirty work for us, than AI machinery will not be able to beat out the human brain. After all, humans are the master minds behind the creation of the machinery!

References:

1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/automation-makes-us-dumb-1416589342
2. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Understanding-Artificial-Intelligence/1014625
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/can-artificial-intelligen_b_7903914.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/fashion/artificial-intelligence-as-a-threat.html?_r=0

In recent years, everyone can feel that the temperature is rising. Even though some people will not admit it. But now it is a really important issue for us. And many countries leader are working hard to find a solution. For example, President Obama signed an agreement with China  in Paris which is about the decreasing the carbon emissions. But what are the exactly reasons caused the global warming and the question are how can we fix it?

First of all, the emission of carbon. The scientist find out it is the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) caused the global warming. And all these carbon dioxide are comes from the the factory, oil or wood burning. So there are a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And most of temperatures we get are form sun. But after the carbon dioxide is up on the atmosphere, they absorb the heat from the sun too. So basically it heats up the earth for another time.

So most of all sources of carbon dioxide are comes from the burning fossil fuels or coal. Because these are the basic energy resource for energy to our home or to factories. So in order to fix the situations, we should use more efficient energy resources such as nuclear or the nature gas. Now most of the country are using the nature gas for energy, because it’s a clean energy, and it will only produce water after they are burning. So it is a good replaceable energy for fossil fuels. But the problem is that we do not have unlimited nature gas for us to use. So after we run out the nature gas, what should we do? Maybe the nuclear. Because nuclear is best energy source we can get to replace fossil fuels. Because the advantage of nuclear is we only need a little bit unclear materials and produce tremendous energy, and it is no pollution. But the only problem that nuclear has is the safety. If we controlled well, it is the best source. But if there is any accident, it will be a disaster. For example Chernobyl in Russia and Tohoku in Japan.

A radioactive sign hangs on barbed wire outside a café in Pripyat.

So for countries who produced most carbon dioxide such as China (3000 tonnes) and US (5800 tonnes) should have a more restrict regulation on those factories. And two countries need to work together to reduce the emission of carbon. For example, the agreement signed in Paris. And for us, we should do it from the small things, such as turn off the light while we are sleeping to save energy and recycle the thing we have used to reduce the landfill. Because we all share one planet.

Many of us have found ourselves staying up late at night, studying, doing homework and other tasks to keep up our grades. All this creates a lot of stress for students of all ages. Personally I have found my self stressing over school work ever since middle school. Even worrying about getting accepted into this school, along with completing the application was a stressful process. With constant days of getting limited amounts of rest, due to working on homework it could have a negative impact on health. Personally, stress due to school work has caused restlessness, decreased mood and anxiety. There are two types of stress, chronic and acute. Chronic stress occurs over longer periods of time (weeks, months) and causes longer periods of unhealthy habits respectively. A second type of stress is called acute stress, which is a physical shock, like rapid heart beating after a dramatic event and causes less physical harm to the body.

Stress causes:

• Depression
• High Blood Pressure
• Anxiety
• Cardio Vascular Problems

So does stress have a true impact on health? Researchers would say so. In an article published by the American Psychological Association, they compiled a list of negative impacts stress has been found to have on health. By looking at the biological methods behind proposed health effects on stress helps determine the real causes of stress. For example, prolonged stress causes increased heart rate and constant release of hormones, causing a fight or flight response. With this occurring, it will result in hypertension, or high blood pressure and could cause heart problems in the future. Living a stressful life, often causes people to make unhealthy decisions. Stress can cause people to partake in higher consumption of alcohol, tobacco use, unhealthy foods and many more. many smokers say they need to go have a smoke to take the edge off while in a stressful situation. This can lead to a higher amount of cigarettes smoked and is a terrible alternative while in a stressful situation. According to the same source about forty percent choose to manage stress by eating unhealthy foods, about twenty percent resort to tobacco products, and the other forty percent reported higher consumption of alcohol. There are much healthier ways to manage stress. Some people say watching TV, surfing the internet, listening to music, reading and exercising are the best ways they manage a stressful situation without damaging their health.

Looking at this from a scientific perspective, to determine wether the hypothesis is true that stress is to blame for poor health, we need to consider other possible causations. What if people that have poor health are more likely to become stressed, this would cause a potential flaw in the results (reverse causation). Overall, people put in stressful situations should look for some type of treatment since there will be no good outcome.

In grade school, my teachers would always give my class cinnamon gum before our yearly standardized tests. They would tell us that it would keep us concentrated and make us smarter! To this day I still chew cinnamon gum when I take tests because I have adapted to this idea that it will make me smarter… but does it really?

The Rush University Medical Center created a study in July 2016 to test how cinnamon effects the brain. The easiest and safest way for them to figure this out, was to test it on mice. Scientists fed slower learning mice food and observed as they became smarter. This is because of the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a part of our brain that does everything involved with memory, such as storing and organizing it. The mice were fed pure ceylon cinnamon and results were seen immediately. Right after consuming the cinnamon, the mice’s bodies metabolized and began turning into sodium benzoate. This showed that it was positively affecting their bodies and brains because sodium benzoate helps treat brain damage. Kalipada Pahan is has a PhD, and is the head researcher of the study and the Floyd A. Davis Professor of Neurology at Rush. He believes that cinnamon really does improve the learning and memory of the brain. They then put the mice in a maze learning experiment. The maze was a Barnes maze. The constant variable in this test was by having all of the (soon to be experimented) mice see how they would do on this task, without consuming any cinnamon. These results were taken and calculated. A month later, these same mice were given the cinnamon to consume, and were given the same task, which was to finish the Barnes maze.  It was found that the slow learning mice began to start learning as quickly as the fast learning mice.

Next time you are taking an exam, studying for a test, or just completing one of these blog posts, I suggest you chew cinnamon gum, or sprinkle some cinnamon on your toast. It is clearly shown that cinnamon is a brain booster and directly affects your hippocampus, leading you to learn better and focus. 

Sources:

http://www.mydomaine.com/learning-benefits-of-cinnamon-study

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160712214659.htm

Pictures:

http://cleversysinc.com/products/behavioral-tasks/barnes-maze/

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/07/03/10-drinks-that-make-smarter/

Sleeping is an important process that many of us, college students forget about. Personally I don’t go to sleep until around 3 am each day because I have a lot of homework constantly. I have found myself sleeping in class, on the bus and even sometimes behind the wheel. Not sleeping can be seen to be a good thing at times, but it can also be dangerous and unhealthy. 

Sleep is an important process that allows the body to recover, regenerate, and develop. It is a key component to staying healthy. According to the sleep foundation, young adults from 18 to 25 (college age) need about 7-9 hours of sleep per night. Sleep is more complicated than we think, and each time we get a normal night sleep, we pass through five stages. In stage one, it is where we drift in and out of sleep and can be woken easily. In stage two and three, the eyes stop moving and the body begins to slow down. Stage four is where the brain begins to have very slow activity and the person is difficult to wake up. Finally stage five is where the brain reaches REM, this is where people begin to have dreams and are the most difficult to wake up. After learning the process of sleep, it is important to know why it is crucial to living a healthy life.

Not only can restlessness be unhealthy, it can be dangerous as well. Sleep deprivation can cause serious errors, especially while driving or operating machinery. For example, the Exxon Valdez oils spill was caused because someone fell asleep behind the wheel of a boat and cause an environmental catastrophe.  

Long periods of sleep loss can cause

• Heart failure
• Stroke
• Diabetes

According to research, nine out of ten people with a sleeping disorder also suffer from another health condition. It’s simple, if you can’t sleep, your body can’t repair itself. Once people begin to lose sleep constantly it is obvious in their appearance, because they have bags under their eyes, and they appear emotionless. In a longitudinal study done by the division of public health, they took a stratified random sample of 4,997 adults aged 65 and older as their sample. After compiling the results, they found a positive correlation between depression and the three main types of sleep disorders and accepted the alternative hypothesis that lack of sleep does cause depression. With this being said, there is no argument weather improper sleep will be detrimental to health and proper sleeping habits need to be put into place, even if it requires medication.

Spending long hours, late nights, and all-nighters makes it difficult to concentrate without using certain stimulants to keep wired. Every time I do homework, I go to “Good to Go,” a convenient store and grab a large coffee and a five-hour energy drink to help me focus on my school work. Some of my friends who have ADHD, an attention deficit disorder are prescribed Adderall, a prescription stimulant drug that helps them focus to get their school work done and pay attention in class. Although most people aren’t prescribed these stimulant drugs they often tend to abuse them, because they claim it helps them concentrate on school work for longer amounts of time. There are many types of stimulants, including, caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines and methamphetamines (caffeine, amphetamines and nicotine used most to study). Energy drinks, coffee and other drinks that “wake you up” contain caffeine. Caffeine is legal, so it is most commonly used by students and other individuals. Adderall and other similar drugs, are prescribed, so it is limited to use of only a certain number of individuals, even though some people purchase them illegally. Another overlooked drug that people use to study for concentration is nicotine. Generally, people resort to a quick smoke break or chewing tobacco to give them a “buzz,” which helps them stay awake. Using these stimulants may help improve concentrating on a task, but do the positive effects of being “wired” outweigh the negative health effects?

Let’s look at some experimental evidence. Just from taking a quick poll from ten of my close friends and people I associate with, nine out of ten people use one or more stimulant that I mentioned above to help concentrate on school work. According to an observational study done by the University of Maryland, they found that 61.8% of college students use prescription stimulants are for  for non-medical reasons. This can be dangerous. If a doctor did not clinically prescribe someone to the medication, they are putting their health at potential risk. Clearly this shows that the majority of students use them for school related reasons, because they think it “helps” them focus on school work. However, increased focus obtained by these drugs does not actually enhance intelligence in any way, it may only help the duration of focus on a task. For example, if a student wanted to study late through the night, stimulants will help him or her stay awake and alert, but it is unhealthy for the body to be forced to stay awake in times of rest.

Null: There is no relationship between stimulants and long term negative health.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a relationship between stimulants and negative health in the long run.

Positive Effects:

• Alertness
• Focus

Short Term Negative Effects:

• Loss of appetite
• Nausea
• Dilation of pupils
• Increased heart rate

Long-Term Negative Effects

• Blood vellel damage
• Liver damage
• Weight loss
• depression

After looking at the negative and positive affects, it is clear that if someone wants to use stimulants to study over a long period of time they will have to sacrifice their health in the long run.

Though stimulants are proven to increase alertness, they seem to be mind over matter because many people can still concentrate well without them. It is best to avoid stimulants in the first place, since once one starts using them, they tend to get overused and a dependence is formed. All these drugs do is stimulate the central nervous system, which gives the feeling of alertness and opposes sleep. Using any type of drug to enhance the mind in a non-natural way will have a negative impact on health in the long run. Thus, we would have to reject the null hypothesis and  accept the alternative that there is a relationship between negative health and the constant use of stimulants over a long period of time.

During the summer, the sun is blazing, people are spending time at the beach, outdoors and getting tan. But one important thing people don’t think about when they put on sunscreen is to wear glasses as well to protect them from the suns UVA and UVB radiation. Yes, your eyes can get sunburnt. Even on cloudy days, the reflection of light and UVA radiation is still powerful enough to cause sun damaged eyes. Failure to wear sunglasses or allow sun damage to the eyes can cause cataracts and possibly blindness in the long run.

Symptoms:

• Itchy
• Irritated
• Red
• Dry
• Gritty

A recent study done by the vision councils website, only thirty one percent of people are aware that their eyes can get sunburnt. In just fifteen minutes of of raw eye exposure, damage could occur. This is remarkable and there is only one way to prevent this and that is by wearing sun glasses.

Although it may seem obvious that some eye conditions are caused by the sun, it is not alway easy to blame the cause on one single variable. There are many confounding variables involved with research on eye issues. Since many eye diseases can have multiple causing factors, like genetics, medications ect, there are many potential confounding variables. Many people swear to themselves that their eyes have never been sunburnt and they may be right. Since many people live in colder environments or days when it is cloudy out, it could be hard to convince them that they should still be wearing sun glasses because it could seem over pre-cautious and they may not look “cool.” According to the American Scientist Society, during cloudy  conditions, eighty percent of the radiation that causes harmful effects to our body still reach through to the surface. 

Null Hypothesis: sun can not cause damage to the eyes on cloudy days.

Alternative Hypothesis: Sun can cause damage to the eyes if its cloudy.

Using evidence and some common sense, it is definitely the best option to reject the null and accept the alternative hypothesis. With this being said, there could be a high probability that clouds don’t significantly lower any risk of eye damage. One prime example that shows weather does not have an effect on sun damage is mountain goers. For instance, in the dead winter months people go snow boarding and skiing in places like Colorado and Utah every year, the very last thing people think about as they ascend up a mountain is if they put on sunscreen or to protect their eyes from dangerous sun rays. It might sound stupid to think about, but you still put yourself at risk of sun damage, especially at higher altitudes, regardless if its cold out.

Even though it may seem common sense like to conclude that sun exposure causes damage to the eyes, many people overlook this thought and don’t take precautions like wearing sunglasses  especially just because it is cold or cloudy out.

My cousin has celiac disease, my boyfriend is allergic to gluten, and best friend is deathly allergic to gluten and dairy, so while I myself have no allergies, it’s safe to say I have experience in knowing people with them.  While celiac disease is a different ballpark than plain allergies, I’ve always been curious as to why I was lucky enough to have no allergies and my friend has two major ones.  I skimmed around Google and instead of finding what I was initially searching for, I found a study called Small Amounts of Gluten in Subjects With Suspected Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Trial .  The experiment in question set forth to test if individuals who believed their issues in their G.I. system were due to the gluten or to something else.

The null hypothesis for the experiment would be that consuming gluten did not negatively affect a persons G.I. system, and the alternative hypothesis would be that consuming gluten would negatively affect a persons G.I. system. For the actual double-blind placebo test, 61 people who believed that they had issues with their G.I. system due to gluten intake were randomly split into two groups.  For the first week they were given a table containing 4.375 grams of gluten a day or a tablet of rice starch; For the second week, the two groups would switch.  During the two weeks, the individual would wrote down their symptoms, such as bloating, pain, and depression.  Once the experiment was over, the results were studied and researchers found that across the board consuming gluten caused a large increase in the symptoms the patient recorded, corresponding to the alternative hypothesis.

While I do think that this studies findings are valid, since gluten sensitivities are a very common occurrence nowadays and for someone with a sensitivity to have these symptoms makes sense.  But, I felt that these results were easy to predict since the sensitivity was known.  Personally, I don’t have any allergies, but I know that going gluten free has been a fad diet for awhile since people believe that since cutting gluten improved the lives of those with a sensitivity, it will improve their health even if they don’t have a sensitivity.  I did some research to see if that was necessarily true and while I wasn’t able to find a study relating to my search, I did come across an article from LiveScience.com titled Gluten-Free Diet: Benefits & Risks. 

What I read essentially stated that if you don’t have a sensitivity, cutting gluten out of your diet will do nothing for one’s health.  For those who feel like cutting gluten out of their diet has significantly improved their health, all that they’re feeling is the reduction of foods full of carbs and sugars.  According to the site, gluten is just protein that keeps bread together and does nothing harmful to one’s health as long as the person is able to digest it.  In fact, nutritionists say cutting gluten out deprives the body of all the nutrients in gluten products that the body needs!

In my opinion, I felt that the first study I discussed was not at all surprising.  While it would have been interesting if the results had gone the direction of the alternative hypothesis, I knew that that was unlikely.  While it also may have been interesting to have seen how third variables come into play, it would be hard to dispute the role of gluten in any of these instances.

In the end, the diet one consumes is purely up to choice and how it makes them feel.  If you do decide to cut out gluten, though, make sure you fulfill all the nutritional needs you will have.  While I don’t believe that any of the results found were groundbreaking, it is interesting to see the bodies reaction to foods it can’t process and how a simple diet change can completely affect one’s health.  So, maybe if you’re feeling any of the symptoms I mentioned earlier, try cutting gluten out for a week and see how you feel!

Sources:

Study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542356515001536

Site on going gluten free: http://www.livescience.com/53061-gluten-free-diet-facts.html

Photo: https://goo.gl/images/g28fnQ

We all know the say… “Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupid-er”. Only kidding. However, this topic did spark an interest in me: how do the brains of women and men differ? Do we remember things differently? Are women more inclined with their short term memory than men? Is THAT why you guys are always forgetting things we tell you, or do you just not listen? Honestly, it might be a little bit of both. Nonetheless, I decided to investigate the male and female brains further.

House of Hoxshore

The study

The first study I looked into was focused on evaluating the correlation between multitasking and short term memory in male and female college students. This study merely evaluated 6 subjects: 3 men and 3 women in college. Prior to tests, the subjects underwent a pre-questionnaire. Following the questionnaire, the subjects entered a virtual spherical room with pictures designed specifically for the study. They allotted approximately 60 seconds for each subject, recording the tour, as well as pinpointing specific pictures the subjects focused in on. After the tour, the subject underwent a post questionnaire, asking them specific questions regarding the tour. For example, the subjects had to identify which wall they saw specific photos on. The goal of this experiment was to analyze male and female recollection, how it compares and how it differs, and ultimately to support or refute the hypothesis.

Hypothesis: Female subjects would test better on the post tour questionnaire, indicating their short term memory is stronger than male subjects.

The results

After the study, the authors concluded that females scores were drastically better than males. This means that during the post tour questionnaire, the females were successfully able to indicate the photos in relation to the virtual room. Out of 12 photos in various locations, the male subjects tended to accurately place 2-4 of the pictures in the room. While the females recalled 5-9 successfully. Based off of the numbers, the authors supported their hypothesis: female subjects tested higher than male subjects. This could potentially lead to the assumption that females possess stronger short term memory traits than males. Though the results of the study supported the hypothesis, a study with merely 6 subjects is often hard to view as accurate when speaking of percentages. In this study specifically, the females tested 40% higher than the males. A study with a larger subject group may decrease the percentage gap.

Pinterest

How men and women differ

It’s simple: men and women are wired differently, point blank. Ragini Verma, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, conducted a study in which they tested the brains of 400 male subjects and 500 female (ages 8-22). By scanning the brains, they found some pretty notable results: female brains tended to be most connected between left and right hemispheres, triggering the social and emotional tendencies of women we are all used to. On the other hand, the male brain connections focused more so in the back of the brain, which is the action and perception – also known as the manly man tendencies.

To break it down further, I came across a Masters of Healthcare blog titled “10 Big Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Brains”. Up until this point, most articles shared on the brain differences were filled with complex wording and terms I couldn’t even pronounce. So luckily, Amber Hensley broke it down in a way I could understand. Here were a couple of her points:

• Human interactions: this correlates with Verma’s findings between hemispheres. Women tend to thrive more with interaction – emotion, empathy, comfort. They are also more intuitive with body language, and nonverbal relationships. This means that women are better suited for nonverbal communication and comforting, whereas men tell it like it is. Black or white, and expect people to all do the same. I mean, how many times are women secretly upset at men, but will deny being mad, and so the man accepts that she’s not mad and moves on; except, the woman is upset, and he’s about to have an earful. Women are in touch with their emotions and feelings (most of the time), whereas men want to see a problem, and physically fix it.
• Stress reactions: in a previous blog of mine I evaluated the term “fight or flight”, which is essentially a chemical reaction in your body that tells you to fight, or to flee. Men generally possess the “fight or flight” reaction. Women, on the other hand, “tend and befriend” (term credited to psychologist, Shelley E. Taylor). In stressful situations, women are wired to nurture, to comfort, and to congregate in groups.
• Pain: this one is super interesting – men and women are even wired to handle pain differently. Women often require more morphine than men to reduce pain, this is found to be because women perceive pain much more intensely than men. On top of that, though not very surprising, men are less likely to vocalize their pain, which explains how they can get sacked so hard playing football, and just walk it off without a tear. Me? I cry when I get a shot. According to Hensley, the amygdala is the portion of the brain in which interprets pain. When men experience pain, the right side (connected with external uses) is active, whereas women activate their left side (connected with internal uses). Weird, huh?

Conclusion

All in all, men and women are drastically different in regards to the brain. Women may have better short term memory, but that does not make them the winners here (sorry, ladies). It’s sort of funny how it’s a balancing act – what women lack, men possess, and vice versa. The various studies shed light on several concepts highlighting the differences, making it easier to understand. So ladies, next time you’re mad at a male for not understand why you’re upset, don’t blame him, his brain was not physically wired that way, be patient and he will figure it out eventually. And men, when a woman tells you “nothing is wrong”, you better believe something is wrong. Go buy some flowers.

Sources

“Short Term Memory Based on Gender – Clemson University.” N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Grant, Bob. “Male and Female Brains Wired Differently | The Scientist …” The Scientist. N.p., 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Hensley, Amber. “10 Big Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Brains …” Masters of Healthcare. N.p., 16 June 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

The Claim:

*Unlocks cellular device*                                         

        *Opens camera*

             *Turns the camera facing self*                                

                   *Poses*

                       *Captures image*

                            *Happily ever after*

Ah, yes, the art of selfie taking. Considering that everyone and their mother is aware of this decade’s “selfie movement”, I’m sure you followed my take on the sequential actions  that result in a selfie. Everyone has taken one at least once in their life (if not on a regular basis). Don’t lie. We know you have. However, you may have been stumped by the final asterisks: “Happily ever after”.  Sure, taking selfies is fun, especially with friends, but happily ever after is a little extreme, no? I chose to use those words because they imply happiness as a hard end point, or a response variable that matters to us. Why? Because interestingly enough, I came across an article that claims that studies show that selfies cause happiness in persistent selfie-takers. So… let’s find out… will regularly taking selfies make us happier as individuals??

Suggestive Correlations:

1. Selfies → Happiness (direct causality)….what is thought to be happening
2. Selfies ← Happiness (reverse causality)….. Cannot be ruled out in this case because being happy could very well make someone want to take a selfie
3. Selfies ← Z → Happiness (confounding/3rd variable)… anything that could cause selfie taking and happiness ….. Z= confidence, compliments, makeup, etc.
4. Chance…. Always can be a possibility

The Study:

According to computer scientists at the University of California, if one takes at least a single selfie per day, they will experience more positive feelings and emotions. An author at the university, Yu Chen, led a randomized control experiment where she and her colleagues set up an app that 41 participating college students recorded their emotions in three times a day. They also set up another app where they would document daily photographs. The participants were split up into 3 groups based off of what they are supposed to photograph: smiling selfie, something that would make someone else smile, and something that makes themself smile. Conclusively, the moods of the different categorized participants wound up all being positive throughout the trial. So what this is saying is that, yes, selfies do spark happiness, but apparently happiness is not limited to just selfies in the photographic realm. Each type of photograph brought on different kinds of happiness:

The Results:

Smiling selfies→ confidence & self-security

Making someone else smile → stress relief & calmness

Makes self smile → grateful & eye-opening

How I feel:

It turned out that just positive images in general come with positive emotions.The claim in the headline is that studies link selfies and happiness, but it left out a very important detail: the type of selfie. Personally, I think this study would be a lot more interesting and informational if it stuck to the specific of selfies. I would change the hypothesis to: If you take a SMILING selfie of yourself everyday, your positivity will increase. If I could conduct this differently I would take 50 males/females total and randomly sort them into two groups. The control group would take a smiling selfie every hour on the hour from 10 AM to 9 PM for 3 weeks and record their current mood in the app. The experimental group would take a frowning selfie and document the same times/way that the control group did. I feel like this would give a more clear answer as to if regularly capturing positive selfies causes positive emotions. 

Also, I feel as if this experiment left so much room for error. There are tons of things that could alter the mood of a person and there is no way to manage factoring in ALL of the possible interruptions. Anything from good/bad weather outside to a good/bad grade on a test can significantly sway someone’s emotional status in either direction.  This experiment did provide evidence that persistent happy selfies made people happier, but the vagueness of the study made it hard to find a clean cut mechanism behind the apparent causation. If it’s true that taking a lot of smiley selfies makes you happy, is there parallelism with frowning selfies? If I take a sad selfie everyday will I get sadder??? 

Smile for the camera:

Seems to me that engaging in daily “selfie-ing” is totally worth the shot…just don’t forget to smile! But if you’re having a bad hair day or you’re broken out and just not feeling yourself, HAVE NO FEAR!! Evidence showed that there is a correlation between positive images and positive feelings, not just positive selfies. If puppies make you happy, photograph a puppy. If your friend likes cupcakes, send her a picture of a cupcake! And if you look good and you know it….selfie away!

Sources:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913173436.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/09/selfies-make-you-happy

Photos:

http://m.memegen.com/p3aa8g.jpg

http://selfieober.blogspot.com/2015/01/best-selfie-of-dwayne-rock-johnson.html

As one of many students at Penn State, I can honestly say there is rarely a time of day where I am not listening to music. Whether it’s Rihanna, Drake, or any other artist making hits, I’m sure you all love listening to music too.  Maybe you even listen while trying to study for an exam to make you happy, and to forget about your stress. Maybe you listen to music to get you pumped up before a big game.  Personally, music makes me feel free, and I am constantly singing at all times of the day.  Before athletic games I would always blast music through my headphones, visualizing myself making great plays in the game I was about to play. Every time I would walk into the weight room, even if I was feeling tired, if I heard music, a new switch turned on.  I believe that music helps me perform better on the field, but I have always wondered if this is actually proven to be true, and if so why is this the case?

In many cases, research has shown that listening to music before a competition has a positive impact on focus and cognition, due to the fact that it increases arousal and motivation.  This research also suggests that music creates an exertion for physical activity, even acting as a stimulus.  A recent experiment conducted by Eliakim attempts to prove that music enhances athletic performance.  In this study, 24 athletes, 12 male and 12 female, partook in two different exercise sessions in a week, one containing music, and the other without music.  The null hypothesis being tested in this case was that music would have no effect on athletic performance and the alternative hypothesis states that music does indeed play a role in enhancing athletic performance.  The participants were required to pedal on a bike for 30 seconds, testing anaerobic power.  It was found that peak performance for those who warmed up with music was higher than those who hadn’t, and it was also found that these participants were believed to work harder. Therefore, it can be believed that music increases motivation, which may increase work efficiency.

Another study was conducted with 30 participants ranging from ages 18 to 63. Fast and slow music were both played as participants ran on the treadmill for a duration of ten minutes.  A direct correlation was shown between the tempo of the music and the speed of the treadmill, concluding that the up-tempo music motivated the participants to run faster.  Results also prove that the groups with the up-tempo music had a 5bpm higher heart rate.

Do these studies mean that listening to music will 100% make you perform better? Not at all, but there is certainly a correlation between listening to music and work ethic and motivation. Also, it depends on the type of music and type of person as well. Some may like to listen to soothing music before competition to relax their nerves, and other may like to blast hip hop and rap to get them fueled up.  At the end of the day, we all have our specific preferences, but ultimately, music is a great way to enhance motivation, which for some of us may have a direct impact to athletic performance.

Most (but not all) Americans participate in daylight savings each year, pushing sunrise back by one hour in March and bringing it back on the first Sunday in November. The history of daylight savings is long and complicated- it was used to support the war efforts of both World Wars and to conserve energy during the 1973 oil embargo. The current schedule was set by an act of Congress in 2005 and has been observed that way ever since. Daylight savings has always been controversial, it seems to defy logic and its relevance is under constant scrutiny. The economic impact of a longer evening has also been the subject of much criticism. I will not discuss the logistical and/or economic implications of daylight savings in this post, rather I will seek to apply scientific study to the idea that the current practice might actually be impacting public health and safety.

Risk of heart attack:

Naturally, skipping an entire hour of the night for the sake of implementing daylight savings shortens the amount of sleep that most people on fixed schedules get for that night. In 2011, a team of researchers from the Swedish Register of information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA) conducted a study using statistical analysis to demonstrate that there is indeed an increase in the number of heart attacks suffered during the first week after the start of daylight savings. They were able to conclude (with a confidence interval of 95%) that there was a 4 percent increase in heart attacks that can be attributed to the beginning of daylight savings. The possible mechanism for the causal relationship might be more complicated than just losing an hour of sleep, according to an article published by Medical Daily. It postulates that the adverse health affects (including heart attacks and strokes) are likely more a result of the sudden change of environment than of one hour less sleep. This idea is supported by a 2007 study involving 50 test subjects that examined the disruptive effects of daylight savings on natural human adjustments to seasonal changes in sunrise. Essentially, the researchers found that the participants transitioned through the changing time of sunrise well without DST but did not when DST was in effect. Considering the evidence that circadian rhythms can affect hear attacks, this mechanism is certainly plausible and the affects could theoretically be avoided with the elimination of daylight savings.

Increase in stress:

There is experimental evidence to support the possibility that the sudden shift of time during daylight savings can cause stress. The 2014 study, which lasted 13 years, examined the differences in cortisol levels in 27,569 people who were subjected to different sunrise times. Cortisol level is a key indicator of stress. They also made sure to exclude anybody taking any kind of confounding medication or having a preexisting condition that might affect or skew beginning cortisol levels. The data showed a 5% increase in cortisol level in the bloodstream for each hour that sunrise was pushed back. The extremely damaging effects of chronic stress are well documented and certainly worthy of prevention. If the abrupt delay of sunrise can act as an additional stressor to humans, it begs the question of whether it is really worthwhile to continue the tradition of daylight savings.  

Other considerations:

The health affects of daylight savings might not be entirely negative, according to some studies. For example, better road visibility due to a later sunset might prevent some car accidents. This study, conducted in Minnesota, found that even though there are more cars on the road during times when daylight savings is in effect, there is still a noticeable decline in motor vehicle crashes. This supports the idea that DST can actually be helpful and practical in some ways during the later parts of the say. Another study, involving 23,000 children, found that more daylight in the evening leads to a decrease in childhood obesity. The mechanism for this lies with the fact that kids play more when the sun is out than they do when it is not. It is important to note that the changes were rather small, but impactful when extrapolated to an entire population.

Take home message: 

Daylight savings originated with a specific purpose that is no longer relevant today, yet it remains an integral part of our yearly schedule. Scientific studies establish causal links between daylight savings and several noteworthy health risks and some benefits. Different people might weigh the pros and cons differently, but I conclude from my research that this is certainly a conversation worth having and worth researching further. Lives could depend on it.

Note: The pictures themselves are links to their sources.

In recent years, people might notice that there are so many students start to smoking on campus. Even it is legal that college students smoking. But still, I am very curious about why there is so many student smoking even they know it is not good for their’s heathy.

According to the research, most of the students thinks they will not be smoking forever, they probably will not be smoking after they graduate from college. So it is not going to hurt their’s health. So these phenomenon are called social smoking, and it is really popular among the college students. Usually, the student who is social smoking are not heavy smokers, they will smoke when they are with their friends at a party instead of every day. So because of this, they think this will not affect their healthy, so more and more people will be a part of social smoking.

But for those heavy smokers, they are saying that smoke can help them lower the stress. Well, this statement makes sense, because college student is under a lot of pressure. But according to the research, these saying are wrong. It is just excuse for their’s psychological addictions. According to research; smoking is not going to lower someone’s stress instead of increasing the anxiety and pressure. So people tend to smoking a lot tend to have more anxiety than the people who does not.

Another reason is that students’ parents are smoking. So their kid is smoking too. Because to a kid, the biggest influence is their parents, so once the kids saw their parents are smoking, they will think it is normal. Also, some cigarets commercials will show that people who are smoking are cool. So after the student saw those commercials, they tend to imitate the commercials and trying to be cool. Here is link that show five reasons why teenagers tend to smoke.

Like we talked in the class, no matter what kind of cigarets or how often does people smoke, it is all bad for healthy, and it will increase the chance for people to get cancer. So it is better we should not smoking or smoke less.

We were taught in grade school that to further our education and professional career you should graduate high school and go to college.  Back then, there was only positive attributes that college would provide. It can provide you with further education, independence, networking and communication skill and much more. No one ever stated the negative factors pertaining to college. Especially the money aspect of it all! If I was told I was that it I would be in extreme debt before I decided i wanted to go to college, i would of reevaluated the pros and cons a few more times. Do not get me wrong, we have all mad a great choice to come to college but is the amount of money we spend at college really worth it?

http://www.slideshare.net/mrcoryjim/back-to-school-is-it-worth-it-by-jairuscope/65-Want_to_make_moneythrough_educationMake

According to a study of surveys conducted on a very large sample of individuals via phone and or online. The results from the surveys are very remarkable. Over half of the Americans that took the survey stated that school did not provide enough experiences and knowledge that was worth the amount of money need to put in. The study also states that having a degree or no does not have a very large different in annual earnings which really bring the question.. is it really worth it?

Of course individuals taking surveys can say and have their own opinion but overall I stand that college is 100 percent worth the time and money. I fight this argument with both opinions and facts. In most professional jobs, they require their employees to have a college degree. It is also know that having a degree does indeed get you better jobs which include a higher salary.  College is also a place where you can truly find out who you are and what are best at. On top of that, it is a location that provides a location where you can learn new information and practice new skills that will be beneficial in a our future careers. Yes, college is expensive, especially for an out of state student, but college can provide you with opportunities and experience no amount of money can buy.

This debate can be seen today and will still be debatable in the future too. College does indeed take a very large amount of money and loans but it is completely worth it. College is not only about the education it is about the opportunities and the networking that can be done. It provides a scene of determination and the feeling of success. Do you think your college career is worth it?

http://theproducersunited.com/tag/college-vs-no-college/

(2016). Tony-silva.com. Retrieved 21 October 2016, from http://tony-silva.com/eslefl/miscstudent/downloadpagearticles/colleduc-long-pew.pdf

It is widely believed that the political standpoint in a given household has strong influence on the political beliefs of the adolescents whom grew up there. Given that the 2016 presidential election is right around the corner, I’ve decided to explore this topic and attempt to recognize how political opinions are shaped. Not to mention the overwhelming amount of people that approach you in the hub on the daily asking the question that everyone dreads, “Are you registered to vote?”, make it hard to forget about the election…

Many conclude that the political views of others within an individuals exposed environment juggle with and/or manipulate their political stance when engaged in conversation on the topic. While this may be true, additional third confounding variables have been identified that sway the political opinions of young children. In a scholarly paper written by Andrew Healy whom attended Loyola Marymount University, and Neil Malhotra whom attended Stanford University, a newly conceived notion is closely dissected. Healy and Malhotra analyzed a fairly large natural study conducted by the University of Michigan Political Socialization Panel (PSP), and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), which solely focuses on the influence gender of siblings has on political beliefs.

The experimenters hypothesized that boys with sisters are more likely to possess conservative views leading up to adulthood than males with brothers. While this can be labeled as the alternative hypothesis, the null hypothesis would be that the gender of siblings has no effect on political opinions. The putative causal variable (X variable) being tested is sibling gender and gender roles in a given household, and the putative response variable (Y variable) being measured is whether the older male siblings identify as Democrats or Republicans as they grow older. The data collected in this experiment is entirely survey based, therefore, a potential barrier is that respondents might not be completely honest in their answers.

In 1965, the PSP gathered a group of 17-19 year olds for the first wave of the study, and followed up with them in 1973, 1982, and 1997. The surveys asked a series of questions pertaining to their opinion on a woman’s stance in the workforce. The respondents were to rate these statements/questions on a 1-7-point scale, 1 being the most liberal choice, and 7 being the most conservative choice. Similarly, the NLSY respondents were given statements regarding gender roles and were asked to rate them from strongly disagree-strongly agree. The data collected by this organization is fairly more modern given that the survey was handed out in 1986, followed up in 2006 and 2008, and ended in 2011. One advantage the NLSY has over the PSP is that it contains detailed information of the respondent’s childhood experiences prior to the experiment. However, both the NLSY and PSP possess background information on the families of those who were surveyed.

Conclusion:

1. Data from both the PSP and NLSY showed a massive amount of males with sisters whom possessed conservative and traditional views on gender roles.
2. Men with sisters are less likely to perform typical female chores around the house, but the gender of a female’s sibling(s) does not alter their household tasks.
3. Correct decision and a consistent result

Take home message: Political opinions are shaped by multiple surrounding factors, and are linked to gender. The results of this study does not prove that ALL males with sisters tend to classify themselves as republicans, but it does raise an interesting point that should be further researched. As a female who grew up in a house entirely made up of woman, I tend to fall more on the liberal side of the political spectrum. However, a handful of my girlfriends have brothers with political views that would further prove the conclusion of this study!

References:

1. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/27/why-boys-with-sisters-are-more-likely-to-be-republicans/
2. http://myweb.lmu.edu/ahealy/papers/sibling_politics_jop_submit.pdf
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5mJE7zIPUY

In this day and age, the internet has grown to be a very strange place; You click on a Facebook link and are directed to sites full of bizarre ads and weird articles that you’d never willingly look at.  One of those strange ads that I always see is one for World of Warcraft, an online videogame.  The advertisement shows a hyper sexualized woman, wearing “armor” that covers less than a bikini.  This is not an uncommon sight to see for videogames; Take Grand Theft Auto for example, most of the women portrayed are again, hyper sexualized and often have the role of being prostitutes, while the men are extremely muscular and do all of the action in the game. In the media, the discussion of whether or not violent video games cause aggression in children is one that is always being debated, but after seeing this ad, I wanted to see how this type of sexualization in videogames affects player attitudes of women.

The first study I found was a German experiment called Sexist Games=Sexist Gamers? A Longitudinal Study on the Relationship Between Video Game Use and Sexist Attitudes. In this study, the null hypothesis was that sexist video games don’t cause sexism in players while the alternative hypothesis was that sexist video games do cause sexism in players.  The study also tested the reverse causation of the alternative hypothesis by testing if having a sexist attitude makes a player more inclined to play sexist video games.

The observational experiment gave two phases of surveys to 4,500 videogamers to measure their third variables, such as their level of education, how many hours they spend playing videogames a day, and their beliefs on gender roles.  I found the results to be interesting because each third variable was measured against the reported attitudes, so researchers were able to see that younger males had more sexist attitudes as compared to older males, but also that educated members of both genders were less sexist than those with less education.  The results also showed that females held less sexist attitudes across the board.  But, when it came to see how the genre of the videogame (if it were sexist or not) was tested, there seemed to be no significant rise in sexist attitudes among the players, therefore following the null hypothesis and showing no mechanism between sexist videogames and sexist players.

While I appreciated the fact that despite the genre of the game, the player’s attitudes didn’t change, I admit was slightly surprised.  Just to double check with my initial thought process, I Googled the hypothesis on videogames and violence. The study I found was called Videogames, Television Violence, and Aggression in Teenagers  and ran through a set of surveys given to 250 teenagers.  The results came back being that violent videogames did not increase aggression in teenagers, which made my negative thoughts on the previous study subside.  Even though some of the violence and sex portrayed in videogames may be extremely unappealing to some and could be hypothesized to affect player’s attitudes, it seems that what happens in those videogames stays in those videogames.

In my opinion, the study on sexism did a great job identifying third variables that would also affect the attitudes of players.  Clearly, age and level of education had more of an effect on the attitudes of players than time spent playing did.  I do believe, though, that in terms of self-assessed sexism, people may downplay the feelings they have and change their answers if they know they’d be seen as sexist.  Such as with memory, self assessments can often be faulty since humans are not reliable, but in cases like these, self assessments are the only way to tell a person’s thoughts.  While impossible, it would be interesting to see how a person’s true thoughts correlated to the types of videogames they played.  Overall, I think that this study was very well done and interesting.  While I don’t believe that this is a topic where more studies will be conducted, it is slightly comforting to know that sexist content doesn’t affect the attitudes of its players.

Sources:

Study on sexism and photo source: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber.2014.0492

Study on violence: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02165.x/epdf