Just yesterday I saw a story relating to police bias against black people. On top of that, I also saw an article arguing for the legalization of marijuana. Two of the most controversial topics in America right now are whether marijuana should be legalized, as well as this racial bias against black people. To my surprise, the two topics in a way went hand in hand with each other. How can the legalization of marijuana improve the racial bias problem within America? The null hypothesis is that legalizing marijuana will not improve racial bias against blacks while the alternative hypothesis would be that legalizing marijuana will improve racial bias against blacks. There is clear cut evidence to prove that alternative hypothesis is likely, and here’s why:

For starters, marijuana is classified as a schedule one drug along with LSD and heroin. I have never experienced either of those two drugs, but there is no doubt marijuana should be classified in a different category as them. If marijuana is federally classified this dangerously, the police who patrol the law must take any crimes involving marijuana very seriously. Here is an article that talks about the staggering amount of non-violent marijuana arrests outweighing the amount of arrests for violent crimes. Obviously, if there is such a significant amount of arrests due to marijuana, there is likely need for change.

Such a significant amount of people use marijuana for recreational purposes. In particular, white and black people both use marijuana equally. According to this article, it is a fact that blacks are four more times more likely to get arrested for marijuana in America! This data was very surprising to me, and it made me wonder what legalization could do for not only America but the black community as well.

The legalization would mean that crime rates would be cut in half, and people will no longer be at risk of damaging their future for using this drug. Being charged for marijuana possession can result in many different things. Those that are lucky enough to get these charges taken off their record by community service and the paying of fines will not be impacted long term. Those who can not afford the fines or are not given the opportunity to remove it from their record will see an increase in difficulty getting jobs, public benefits, and even housing. The occasional case may even result in jail time. All these negatives for a drug already legal in eight states make little sense. Unfortunately, the black community is being impacted the most by this situation. The black community is receiving these charges four times as much as white communities. These charges lead to major setbacks in life, leading to an overwhelmingly larger pool of black people suffering from these charges than whites.

In this study, it is found that although there is a large decrease of marijuana crimes in states that have legalized the drug, the racial gap remains the same. Black people still are four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana charges as a white person, advocating for the null hypothesis.

After researching the two topics, legalizing marijuana has its benefits by decreasing the number of drug-possession arrests. More importantly, the racial gap remained the same in these states. This supports the null hypothesis that legalizing marijuana will not change the gap between a larger amount of blacks getting arrested than whites. Unfortunately, this bias can’t be understood fully by Americans because there is not yet an understanding as to why the black community has a much higher risk than the white community at being arrested for marijuana. It can be noted that legalizing marijuana will not result in changing this problem, and there is furthermore research to be done to figure out where this bias is coming from.

Pics–

http://www.wcn247.com/psuwinvandalism/

http://keywordsuggest.org/270045-legal-marijuana-states.html

We use them everyday, we use them to talk to our friends, forward emails, and finding information that we need in a flash. Yes , Im talking about that fancy cell phone in your pocket, but did you know that your cell phone is affecting you in more than one way? Cell phone use can affect the amount of sleep..

When we use our phone, the light that the screen emits, also known as “blue light” is recieved by the rods and cones the interpret light in our eyeball. Normally, when we use our cell phones during the day, it does not affect us because we are wide awake, however the problems begin whenever we try to go to sleep. According to a study done by the Lighting research Center tested the effect the blue light would have to the level of melatonin  that the body produces, which helps the body regulate it’s natural circadian rhythm or sleep cycle. When performing the experiment, the researchers tested how melatonin levels where affected not only by the lenght of exposure to the blue light emmited from a tablet and the distance that the tablet was held from the face, but also how wearing different filtering goggles would effect the levels of melatonin in the body as well. After the first hour that the experiment was conducted through the three different types of glasses, orange,  clear, and googles that were fitted with blue light leds. After one hour of exposure, the goggles that were fitted had the lowest amount of melatonin produced, with only 4pg/ml being made while the other glasses allowed the body to make double that, 8pg/ml. However, after two hours of exposure, the blue light glasses had continues to surppress that amount of melatonin that was made by the body, those amounts still remaining at 4 pg/ml, while the two other goggles allowed the body to create even higher levels of melatonin.

Image found at http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2012-2013/iPad8511.pdf

This problem was seen mainly by people ages that were ages 18-24, compared to people who are old than that group. However, one common issue that all age groups that reported having issues sleeping after reporting that they had kept their phone in the bedrooms within arms reach while they slept , compared to those that their phone in their bedroom but out of reach and those that kept their phones out of their bed rooms. This study was conducted thorugh a poll that had a total of 4700 respondents, with ages ranging from 18 to 65 and older.

Images from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-smartphones-are-ruining-our-sleep/385792/

Refernces

How Smartphones Hurt Sleep. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-smartphones-are-ruining-our-sleep/385792

Wood B, Rea MS, PlitnickB, Figuerio MG. 2013, Light Level and duration of exposure determine the impact of Self- Luminous Tabvlets on Melatonin suppression. Applied Ergonomics http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2012-2013/iPad8511.pdf

Clones and cloning are one of the most controversial topics in science to this day. The ethics of cloning a human being is constantly being fought over, even though we clone animals quite often. Scientists have successfully grown clones from animals, most famously the sheep Dolly. In the late 90’s Dolly was the first animal to be cloned from an adult sheep cell. Other animals in previous years have been cloned like cows, mice, and frogs. However they were all cloned from the DNA from embryos. Dolly was cloned from a full grown six year old sheep cell. Dolly lived without any debilitating mental problems, she did develop arthritis though like any other sheep. She was also mated with a ram and produced offspring. She died of lung cancer, a common occurrence for sheep who live indoors and Dolly lived indoors.

What does this mean? It shows significant progress. The very fact the clones have no irregular abnormalities means humans can study these identical clones of animals and use them for research and guidelines for future breeding. Countries all over the world are researching clone science and so far most cloned animals can reproduce sexually. The Chinese have reported that they have an 80% success rate for cloning pigs. More pigs means more meat and more selling which can lead to a better economy. Not just pigs either, reports of other mammals successfully cloned are goats, horses, bulls, and even dogs. When you clone something its a common misconception that what you clone will think and act exactly as the host does. That is wrong.

an artists rendition of a human nucleus.

Human cloning has never fully been practiced. We have successfully cloned a human embryo but each time it was done it was not allowed to grow into a full human. We have also cloned organs. It is unethical even though there are no federal laws regarding human cloning. However several states have banned human reproductive cloning. There are two types of cloning therapeutic and reproductive. Therapeutic cloning is not intended to recreate a whole being but to recreate tissue to replace damaged tissue on a living being. The benefits of this means we can replicate tissue and even organs for people in the future. However human reproductive cloning could allow us to recreate an entire human and harvest its organs for the use of the real host. Beneficial yes but extremely unethical because all though the clone wouldn’t be a mental replicate it will have its own consciousness. It is wrong to clone something, have that clone be self conscious, then harvest its organs and ends its life. Even studying it against its will for tests such as we do on animals would be tormenting to the clone.

In the Journal of Evolution and Technology, a peer reviewed journal, an entry by Nestor Morales entitled “Psychological and Ideological aspects of human cloning” talks about the unethical aspects of human cloning and the benefits. The unethical aspect of cloning a human would bring in the question of self identity and individuality of human beings. If you clone a human the clone will be viewed as a scientific product rather than a miracle of nature, and that makes some people uneasy and nervous. Nestor goes on to discuss the psychological life a clone may experience. People may insult or even demean the clone and the clone would intern contemplate its life and existence and this could negatively impact the clones mental state.

So reproductive human cloning is unethical and has no laws surrounding it but only a ban that prohibits the practice of such science. Therapeutic cloning allows us to create tissue from the nucleus of a cell and use its genetic material and information to replicate it. Think about the possibilities cloning could bring. Organs on hand for people who are in need, same with blood, plasma, and skin damage.

http://www.biosciences.uga.edu/sites/default/files/404e_2_0813.jpg

One of the many problems students face nowadays is the difficulty of coming to class. If you are a bad student who doesn’t go to class, should you have just taken an online course instead? Or will you perform even worse somehow? Which form of education is better, online or traditional? And which of them should you take so you’ll get a better grade.

One of the classes I’m taking this semester is ACCTG 211, the required Accounting class that every Business major has to take. While selecting my courses for the fall, I was given an option to take the lecture version of this course, or an online version of this course. I chose the traditional class setting, but was that a mistake? Would I have done better in the class if I took the online version of it instead?

A fundamental question arises. Do we learn better in a traditional setting or online setting? Living in the 21^st century, we are gradually shifting from reality to digital. We take notes by typing on computers instead of writing. We google things we don’t know about and click on a Wikipedia page instead of going to the library and picking up a book. And now we have the option to take online classes instead of going to a traditional one. Are we getting too far away from “reality”? Does some components of learning MUST be in person in order to achieve the optimal amount learning?

An instructor conducted a survey asking students regarding the effectiveness of his video lectures in communicating course content. The results were: 57% of students strongly agree that video lectures are effective, 33% agree, 4% are neutral, and only 6% disagree. Many students said to the open-ended question that it is nice to have a power point of the lecture online. One said they had technical difficulties viewing the video lecture. Another student complained that the video quality was too low making the lecture less appealing.

There are many factors which determine which form of course a person should take. It also depends on your personal preference. Maybe you are a person who need to be in a traditional class setting in order to learn. Maybe you don’t trust yourself to attend traditional class lectures at 8:00AM so you sign up for the online course instead. Maybe you need social interaction with your peers and instructor to do better. Maybe you are working full-time while balancing 20 credits and does not have time to attend lectures so you watch video lectures right after you get off work at 3AM. The real question is, should you choose a traditional class setting even though you aren’t a morning person or have no time? Should you try to make time to go to a lecture because you will get a better grade?

Studies show that online courses require more discipline from the student. This means you have to take it upon yourself to learn and study. Therefore, if you don’t think you can make it to the 8AM lecture, don’t think you’ll do better in an online course. If you have no flexibility in your schedule, you should choose the online class instead. Do not choose the online class so you’ll have more free time. Chances are you’ll spend even more time studying for an online class compared to a traditional class so you should just take the traditional road. If you are an independent person, one who does not like distractions or interactions with other people, online class is for you.

According to the Journal of Public Affairs Education, it is easier for students to ignore the instructor in online classes. On the other hand, online class give less anxiety to students compared to a traditional class.  Online classes provide a deeper understanding of the topic and has a high level of reflection. There are less hierarchies and more equal participation in online classes. On the other hand, traditional class are less likely to cover as much detail, is possible to avoid participation, and have little time to reflect upon ideas.

http://www.naspaa.org/jpaemessenger/Article/VOL19-2/03_Ni.pdf

Online classes have as high as 80% drop rate compared to the 10-20% drop rate in traditional classes.  In a study conducted by Thirunarayanan and Perez-Prad, they found that the online class scored slightly higher than the traditional class, however the difference was not statistically significant. Other studies show that students who do well in school in general can do just as well taking any type of class.

However there is also one factor that may determine which type of class will get you the better grade. Many online courses have quizzes done online. This may mean that it is easier for an online student to cheat compared to a traditional class setting, therefore online students get higher grades. According to Table 3 from Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning, online students have a higher rate of failure. 10% of students failed in online classes, while only 4% did in traditional class.

http://www.naspaa.org/jpaemessenger/Article/VOL19-2/03_Ni.pdf

In conclusion, there are pros and cons for both online and traditional class settings. From the studies, neither of the classes will give you any grade advantage over the other. However online classes does provide more equal and less intimidating interaction. Furthermore, online classes may be harder because there is a higher rate of failure. In the end it is up to you to choose which type of class is better for you. For me, I think I should have taken the online course for ACCTG instead.

http://take-onlineclasses.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/online-classesnn.png

the world’s demand in energy and resources will increase throughout this century. Meeting these needs will require both the development of new energy resources—especially carbon-free ones—and the efficient and environmentally responsible utilization of fossil fuels. In this context, The King Abdullah University of Science and Technology  created the center of catalysis, which is a critical enabling science to provide the energy for our future while preserving our environment. It is the number one technology to transform raw materials into foodstock, whether for the chemical, petroleum or the newly emerging energy industry. Catalysis is also a main tool for the organic synthesis of bio-active molecules, including medicament for pharmaceutical industry. Development of new catalytic processes across the chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum and new energies industries will increase both availability and efficient utilization of resources and energy, resulting in the reduction of wastes and overall environmental footprints. Catalysis is one of the most promising tools for sustainable development and green chemistry that will benefits the whole world. Along with that then need for another center came to existence which is (the Clean Combustion Research Center) The activities of the Center span a broad spectrum with both fundamental and goal-oriented research in fuel formulation, fuel diversity and the control of emissions – from internal combustion engines to turbines. CCRC utilizes both experimental and computational tools to develop predictive capabilities for the development of more efficient and less polluting fuels. Then another essential and very important center that could bring an precedents reliefs to millions of suffering people in Africa continent and elsewhere. (The Center for Desert Agriculture)  Due, to harvest losses by drought, salt and heat stresses amounting to approximately 60% of the world’s total agricultural productivity, researchers in the (CDA) seeks to find ways to improve the ability of plants to withstand droughts and the hot and salty environment of the desert. CDA researchers use genetic, genomic and epigenetic approaches to engineer stress-tolerant plants and apply their results directly to crop plants in the field. Another great Achievements at the center of Solar Researchers at the KAUST focus on the generation, storage and conversion of solar energy. The Center draws together experts in materials science, chemistry and physics to explore innovative solutions for the harvesting and conversion of solar energy. They study the fundamental processes involved in the conversion of photons into electricity and exploit their findings to design and develop the state-of-the-art materials used at the core of energy harvesting photo voltaic panels. In addition, the Center is involved in research and development studies aimed at minimizing the cost of photo voltaic panels while optimizing their performance in the sun-bathed but hot and dusty climatic conditions of the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. Then of course the water as major if not the most major problem that faces earth is the Fresh water supplies that decreasing is across the globe while, at the same time, production of potable water in desert and drought-ridden regions is extremely energy intensive. Researchers in the KAUST Water Desalination and Reuse Center (WDRC) focus on the development of new and optimized methods for low-energy water desalination and water reuse. The capabilities of WDRC extend from the laboratory scale to larger pilots with a view to transition the technologies to large-scale water production. While much activity is centered on membrane-based technologies, the goal of WDRC is to extend knowledge to other scalable approaches such as those involving the use of solar or waste heat as an energy source.

Source :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiU0viB4NXQAhVn9YMKHTzdALMQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkcc.kaust.edu.sa%2F&usg=AFQjCNH4wSo4Zf4KlAJ1tGP3YmSnYMFihA&sig2=Ad0wJkJ3tehmtayv7rtkCQ

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired

Image taken from http://kckidsdoc.com/tag/sick-kids-2

I knew that by coming to the Main campus, there would be many changes. However I never thought about the fact that my second week here I would be so sick. I always heard about how sick people get here, but I thought the chances of me getting that stuff and being super sick was low. Well, I was WRONG. Completely wrong. I was diagnosed with Acute Bronchitis, and as soon as I thought I got over it, I got it again. My roommate currently has Mono, and I’m just wondering how I can go under quarantine without seeming like an asshole. This makes me wonder, is there really a way to avoid these sicknesses at large universities, like is it scientifically possible?

Vaccinations

Image taken from http://revolutionofthemind.org/a-truthful-and-objective-view-on-vaccines/

As we talked about in class, it is very important for people to get vaccinated, but especially students at large universities. It is required for first-year students to get certain vaccines while living on campus, further increasing the number of less effected people. Less effected people, or in other words, the more people vaccinated, the lower the risk of non-vaccinated people getting sick. However, beyond the vaccinations, is there a way to compensate for sicknesses that do not have vaccinations? Even if a majority of people are vaccinated at State College, why is everyone so sick?

Be Healthy, Sleep, Blah Blah

The most common answer to preventing sickness, like this site explains is investing time in forming good eating, sleeping, and behavioral habits. It’s like yeah, I’m sure you have a million assignments at once, but please get eight or more hours of sleep every night to avoid getting sick. Also, we know there’s only fast food open late during the time you are writing that paper, but eat healthier please! And God forbid if you drink or party, you will be so weak (don’t do that)! Basically the answer the being healthy in college is to actually not be in college.

Image taken from http://giphy.com/search/sick

Digging deeper than this though, the question posed; is it possible for humans to avoid sicknesses? Even at such a large college campus, can immunology be achieved ever? It seems as though no matter how “safe” you think you are behaving, you still end up with a common cold. Is it in fact unavoidable? YES, it is. This article attempts to explore the science behind the reason why we can’t seem to shake the common cold. It concludes that our immune response to cold viruses actually makes things worse. So what are we to do? Or can we even do anything? We’re at a scientific standstill trying to answer this question.

What Would Happen?

Image taken from https://www.tes.com/lessons/Tc8ZEurmWEj3OA/utopia

Say we somehow did reach immunity from sicknesses and diseases. How would this change the world? Or would it even be safe? This Live Science article takes a scientific approach at what would come from a sick free world. This would change the science world immensely, as it is the job of many to explore sicknesses and cures. Also, the vaccination market would collapse. However, as humans, we would not directly see the effects of every one being healthy. Also, just because we got rid of sickness does not to cure the already sick. So would these people continue to contaminate others and further progress the cycle of sickness? It’s very interesting to think about the fact that we may never be able to live in a sick free world, that it’s scientifically impossible.

What DO We Do?

The disappointing, common answer is to keep getting vaccinated, and practice good healthy behaviors. Build up your immune system, and try to get the most sleep you can get (after finals week of course). For obvious reasons, though we share everything else, do not share anything that you put to your mouth or inside your body with anyone else. To reduce your risk of getting sick at a large university, avoid your sick friends. If your roommate is sick, LYSOL your room! Entirely! Wash your hands frequently, and make sure your vaccinations are up to par. Or you could put your roommate under quarantine (don’t do that).

Sources

• Source 1
• Article 1
• Live Science

I am going to be applying for internships very soon. This mean i am going to have to do interviews so I asked my mom to buy interview clothes. She said that I could just use clothes that I already had. I began to wonder how important it is that I actually look good at the interviews. I thought I would try to figure out if people are actually biased based on people’s physical appearance.

Unfortunately after doing research I found out that the look matters more than we may believe. A study done by Timothy Judge examined how something like height can affect how much you are paid as an employee. In his study he found a positive correlation between height and salary, meaning the taller you are the more you will be paid.

A similar study was done with obese people. They are likely to be paid less. More factors that can affect how you are paid include, hair color, amount of makeup, and level of attractiveness.

I wondered how appearance can have such an impact on people’s perception of another person. I then found about about the Halo effect. According to psychologist Edward Thorndike, people who have one good quality,  like being physically attractive, are seen to have more good qualities to. This effect can even cause a more attractive person to be less likely to be convicted of crime. In the end I concluded that the look matters, but it won’t get you far with out personality or character. Maybe, if I show my mother the research, she will get me clothes for interviews!

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

After matching with more than 100 people on Tinder, I still have yet to find much success through using the app. There is obviously a lack of understanding between matches, so I wanted to see how other people have found success in the app, and what this success means to them. Obviously, the initial question to be asked is what is a users goal when using the app. It varies between gender and people, but what is the primary goal of many? I use tinder for entertainment purposes but obviously, hope to find someone on the app I am attracted to and could meet. Others use the app to find hook ups, or even just a friend to talk to. I first wanted to find out what the best strategy is to use to get a match, and what the best primary message is to get a response. The null hypothesis is that there is no particular strategy or message to get a match or response while the alternative hypothesis is that there is a specific strategy or message to get a response. Stay tuned if you have the Tinder application.

In a study done by UC Berkeley professors, it was discovered that there is a much higher chance of matching with someone when using a profile picture with an expansive pose. This pose suggests dominance and can be just enough to differentiate yourself from a more contractive user. The pose also reflects openness, an important aspect for initial success in receiving a match. This study was done by testing 3,000 Tinder swipes to find that having an arms-out expanded posture was more likely to be rewarded with a match.

After matching with a potential partner, in my opinion, comes the hardest part. The initial message can be a deal breaker. I have witnessed successful attempts to get a response, as well as failed ones. Unless noted in a person bio, the initial approach is tricky. Often girls request a good pick-up line, and other times these lines are considered “fuck-boyish.” I took it upon myself to find out the best approach to beginning the initial conversation with a match. To my surprise, the most successful approach to getting a response is through sending a GIF. In this study different GIFs were tested to see which got the highest response rates. The Jimmy Fallon, “Haaaaay” GIF seemed to be the most successful. I took it upon myself to see if this strategy would work on the most attractive girl I had ever seen on Tinder, and it did! These studies have confounding variables such as the level of attractiveness of your match, and how difficult they are to get to reply.

Based on the research done in these studies, the null hypothesis can be rejected. This is because there is a strategy to achieving success on Tinder, whether it be to get a match or response. It can be concluded that an expansive pose will give a more dominant and open vibe, increasing your likelihood of receiving a match. Furthermore, the best way to get a reply would be by messaging a GIF that can spark laughter or entertainment. Whether you are using Tinder to hook up or date, you can probably achieve more success through using the strategies studied in this blog!

Pics–

http://giphy.com/gifs/yosub-hay-gurl-xTiTnfRQtTJ6Roof2E

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/how-your-body-language-alters-your-state-of-mind

Many people say music is food for the soul. I know that when I hear someone singing soulfully or with passion, I immediately begin to tear up. For me, it’s any kind of high pitched women’s opera. This isn’t necessarily my favorite kind of music, but this is simply how my eyes reaction. Sometimes our bodies have reactions that are out of our control. But how do your pupils react? Pupillary responses have been a well known recorder of how one reacts to something emotionally. Considering music creates an emotional response for many, scientists decided to investigate music’s effect on people’s pupillary reactions. Pupillometry is sometimes used as a physiological measure of emotional reactions to music because other measures all require participants to wear sensors and can be somewhat invasive.

Experiment: Pupillary dilations were measured in 30 German-speaking participants (15 males and 15 females) by 80 short classical musical excerpts normalized for intensity and selected for their stylistic uniformity. The subjects then provided ratings of arousal, tension, pleasantness and familiarity, all induced musically. The subjects were examined for certain listener-qualities like mood, stress reactivity, self-reported role of music in life, and liking for the selected music, as well as the subjective responses to music.

Hypothesis: If music plays a larger role in one’s life, the larger the pupillary dilations will be. If the music is rated as more arousing or tense, it will also cause larger dilations.

Null Hypothesis: The role music plays in a person’s life will not have an effect on the size of one’s pupillary dilations. The music being arousing or tense will also have no effect on pupillary dilations.

Results: In this correlational study of the results, the hypothesis proved to be correct, but complex. Arousal and tension (measurable physiological feelings) ratings were significantly correlated with the average pupillary response. Participants self-reported interest in music in their life also affected the size of their pupillary response. Males overall exhibited larger dilations than did women.

Potential Error: Having subjects self-report something in an experiment is always risky. Participants often lie or are not completely truthful. For example, maybe participants lied about how great of a role music played in their lives because they believed those questioning them were big music people, and henceforth wanted to impress them. Also, the participants were all German-speaking students. Perhaps the role of music is very varied throughout culture as well. I have to wonder whether or not the study would produce different results in an Asian-speaking country or another country, considering not just the role of music, but what people find arousing, tense, or pleasing can not just vary from person to person but from culture to culture.

I doubt most of sit around thinking about our pupils while we are listening to music, but it is interesting to see how something so everyday like music has an innate response in our bodies such as the dilation of pupils.

Works Cited

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639616/

Music brightens the eyes: Pupil size is modulated by musical emotions

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/1/18

When Penn State beats Ohio State a few weeks ago, everyone in state college was excited beyond belief. I was one of the student who was downtown in the aftermath. I saw the horse cops. However, the day after it turns out the students had done considerable damage to downtown State College. I began to wonder why do people riot anyway? Are people really that susceptible to conforming to the majority?

A study don’t by psychologist Solomon Asch sought out to test this. The study was to see just how often people will do something just because those around them are also doing it. The hypothesis was that, people will more likely conform to a wrong answer given by the whole, than choose what they believe is the right answer. The null hypothesis would be if people didn’t change their answer based on the the groups answer.

The study was arranged so that participants were placed in a room with other people. Only the other people were not participants, but pretending to be. The whole room was shown a picture of three lines, labeled a, b, and c. The researchers told the room to look at the lines and decide which one of the longest. The actors were instructed to pick the answer he was not correct. The goal was to see that if everyone around the participant chose wrong, would he do so himself. Asch found that 75% of people chose the groups answer instead of their own answer. The study also determined that the higher the number of actors there were, the more likely the participant would be swayed.

This experiment may give an explanation to why people do things ever if they know it is wrong. Like with state college for example. Everyone and their mother went down to beaver canyon after the game. Some people who may  have not even wanted to go went, just because of the mass amount of people doing it.

Another experiment showed just how easy it is to mass hoards of large people.  The study showed that in a group of 200 people, five percent of people were able to change their direction. People were told where to try and direct they crowd just be looking like they knew where they were going. 95% of people followed them blindly.

So the power of group mentality and conformity is very strong. Maybe in order to prevent the destruction in the future the students could have a place to go where they can celebrate that is legal.

Source

Source

Source

Source

In today’s world, we are always staring at screens. The advance in technology has created a world where we are constantly looking at some type of screen. Almost everywhere you go, there are televisions or computers. Almost everyone has a cell phone in today’s age. Teenage kids today are one of the largest users of screens. Video games, social media, and entertainment are always pulling teens towards some type of screen. It’s nearly impossible to go somewhere without seeing a screen. Teens tend to overuse technology, but can this overuse damage their eyes?

http://www.pclaptopspal.com/assets/computers_-_Copy.jpg

One study shows that in fact it can. There are a wide range of problems that can arise from screens. In an article, Dr. P Suresh discussed how screens affected the eyes of teens and adults. Some problems that occur are lack of focus, tension headaches, computer vision syndrome, and myopia. These are all causes from overuse of screens. Damaged eyes are not the only thing caused by overuse of screens. Overuse also shows an increase in obesity in teens.

I am sure many of us have felt our eyes hurt from staring at our phones too much and we need to be conscious of how overuse of phones and other screens can affect us. Our eyes are something that we need to take care of and there are many things we can do to prevent screens and the advancing technology from harming our eyes.

http://www.thehealthsite.com/diseases-conditions/tech-related-eye-problems-your-teen-may-be-suffering-from-f1216/

I am sure that all of us at some time or another have made a video or a recording for a project or some other reason. And I would say that probably everyone hates the sound of their own voice. Maybe there are a few exceptions like James Earl Jones or the guy from the Dos Equis commercials. This made me very curious as to why this is. It seems very unlikely that every person on earth just has an annoying voice, and with that explanation then everyone would hate everyone else’s voice as well as their own. I decided to try and find out the answer because it just seemed odd to me that something like this occurs.

According to Kate Goldbaum when we hear something, the icicles in our ear vibrate against the ear drum which allows us to hear. However the ossicles also vibrate even more when we talk, so this causes the sound that we hear to be interfered with a little bit, and will make our voice sound lower and a little bit different. Also because our ear drum is very close to our mouths, we will hear the sound very loudly which can also affect how we perceive the sound. When we hear our voice on a recording we do not have any of this interference happening, which allows us to hear what we truly sound like. Now this gives an explanation for why our voice sounds different when we hear a recording, but it doesn’t give a good answer as to why the sound is unappealing to us. Kate Goldbaum believes it is most likely because it is unfamiliar. We are used to hearing ourselves not on a recording, so we have an idea of what our voice sounds like. However when we hear a recording of ourselves it is not what we think we sound like, so this could cause us to dislike it.

Unfortunately I was unable to find any experiments pertaining to this topic. If I was to do an experiment on this, I would want to try and find out how different our recorded voice is compared to what we think our voice sounds like. In order to do this I would get a large sample of people so the results will be more definitive. Then one by on I would have people listen to recordings of various people and they would tell me who’s voice it is. I would have recordings from family members, famous people, and of course of themselves. It would be interesting to see if people are able to still identify their voice, or if their perception of their voice is too different then the recording to identify themselves. If I had to guess I would say that most people would not be able to identify their own voice.

It seems pretty apparent that our voice sounds different in recordings because their is no interference. Our voice gets muttered by vibrations when we are speaking, but this does not happen with a recording, so the two sound different. And we can not know for sure why we don’t like the sound of our voice, but a good possible explanation seems to be that we are unfamiliar with the sound. It is not the sound we are expecting, and therefore do not like it because it catches us off guard. All in all this is a peculiar topic, but it seems like we have a decent understanding of what is occurring.

http://www.livescience.com/55527-why-people-hate-the-sound-of-their-voice.html

“An apple a day keeps the doctor away”. I am sure that all of us have heard our mom say this about a million time growing up. Obviously they want us to eat fruits to be healthy, however can there be truth to this saying. Apples are no doubt good for us, they are full of nutrients that help our bodies. However, can eating an apple everyday really prevent me from getting sick and having to go to the doctor? It may seem a little far-fetched, but there could be truth to this old saying.

It is no big secret that apples are good for us, in fact they have a lot of different health benefits, some of which people may not be aware of. According to Best Health apples have many benefits including healthier teeth and heart, reducing the risk of cancer and diabetes, lowering cholesterol, and strengthening your immune system. This shows that apples are certainly beneficial for us to eat, however the real question is if they will “keep the doctor away”. Amy Hunter believes that despite an apple’s benefits, it is still not enough to keep us healthy and not need the doctor. She says that our diet alone can not prevent us from getting sick. Also other fruits can provide just as many health benefits as apples. Our best chance to stay healthy is too have a diet that consists of many healthy foods including many different types of foods, and not just apples, that way we will get all the different nutrients to help keep our body healthy. Even with all this, we could still get sick and need to go to the doctor, so we should do what we can to be healthy, but still be prepared to see a doctor if we get sick.

A study was done by Dr. Arjmandi to determine the health benefits of apples. He split 160 women into two groups, one received dried apples everyday and the other received dried prunes everyday for a year. The results at the end showed a large decrease in bad cholesterol in the women that ate the apples and even a little bit of an increase in good cholesterol. Also the women that ate the apples lost an average of 3.3 pounds. Once again this proves that apples an have a significant impact on increasing our health. Dr. Arjmandi believes that the saying is true and that an apple a day can keep the doctor away.

While it is clearly evident that apples are very good for us, I still would have to say that the saying is false and that eating an apple a day will not keep the doctor away. However, it is certainly a good place to start. With all the nutrients apples give us, they can make us much healthier and less likely to get sick, but will not keep us out of the doctors office for sure. It seems that the saying we all heard as a kid is false, but I think that moms should continue to say it to their kids because apples are no doubt a very good thing for kids to have.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412131923.htm

http://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-eats/nutrition/15-health-benefits-of-eating-apples/

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/an-apple-a-day1.htm

I recently heard of an odd practice that people have begun doing. People are now using smelling salts for non-medical purposes. This seems to be most common among athletes and people who are working out, usually with heavy weights. Most notably was the Dallas Cowboys’ star running back Ezekiel Elliot, who was using smelling salts before his football game on Thanksgiving (I guess it worked). I am not sure if this is a new thing people are doing or if it has been around for a while but just caught my attention. Either way I found this to be a little strange, I couldn’t really think of a reason why people would be doing this. According to Jeff Kingston smelling salts give people a big quick burst of energy after they are inhaled. Also they can help to keep you focused and prevent you from getting too tired. Many athletes use these in a variety of sports, especially powerlifters who need a short boost of energy. However, are smelling salts safe to use?

Most would say that there is no real harm, they just shouldn’t be used on people who are knocked unconscious anymore because it can cause involuntary movements that may cause more damage. Also with so many people using them, it seems like there couldn’t really be any health effects, at least not ones that are too bad. Abhijit Naik would disagree and say that smelling salts are dangerous. When they are inhaled, the ammonia irritates the mucous membrane of the lungs and nose. This causes the persons breathing to increase and the person will be more energized. Taking in too much ammonia gas can cause bad reactions in the body, so one has to be careful to not inhale a large amount. Aside from this, the main dangers of smelling salts are the involuntary reflexes that occur. This can cause an injury to worsen, especially a spine injury because the victim may move his neck and cause more damage to the spinal cord. This would obviously be a serious issue, so smelling salts can be harmful in some ways.

Overall smelling salts have potential to be harmful, like most things, but I believe if they are used in the right way then they are fin to use. They can cause serious harm if used on a person that has been seriously injured, however if someone is just using them to get some energy before a sporting event, then they appear to be just fine. As of right now we don’t have any reason to believe people shouldn’t be using smelling salts, so it may be a good thing to do before a big competition. However, as with most things, if smelling salts are used in great quantities then they can become harmful because of the excess ammonia. I would say in general smelling salts are safe and can even be very beneficial as long as they are used in the right way.

http://smellingsalts.org/smelling-salts-sports/

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/smelling-salts-dangers.html

If you watched the Rio Olympics this past summer you may have heard or noticed that athletes have been using a practice called cupping before their competitions. This was mainly used by swimmers, many of whom you may have seen with dark discolored circles on their body, especially their back. Michael Phelps seemed to get the most attention for this, and he says that it is very helpful. However, apart from him and other swimmers, there were still many athletes that used cupping as well. Cupping is an ancient healing process from China in which cups are placed on a persons back. Then the cups suction the skin up and bring more fluid to the area and increase blood flow. It seems like a weird thing to do, and I can’t imagine that it helps that much, but these athletes stand by it, and with all the medals they have accumulated, Especially Michael Phelps, I guess there must me something to it.

According to Josh Peter, the athletes say that cupping helps to loosen them up and perform better. Cupping helps to increase their motion and movement of their muscles. This allows them to do better when they are competing. Also cupping is used after competitions to heal their body and help them recover more quickly. All of this sounds great, however there is still no real evidence that cupping actually helps athletes to perform better. It is still just based on what the athletes themselves say about the treatment. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because if the athletes think that it helps them then they should definitely continue to do it regardless of true evidence. My only question is if it is a safe thing to do. According to Web MD cupping is for the most part safe as long as it is done correctly. There are only mild downfalls to it such as irritation or skin infections.

Cupping is used by many people, including athletes to help them perform better and normal people to treat certain injuries. There is not much evidence to prove that it actually works, especially with athletic performance, but people that use it seem to say that it helps them so it seems like it is a good treatment to use. Also it is very safe to do, so I think that more research should be done on this and more people should begin using this for sports or to treat pain.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/cupping-therapy?page=2

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/how-cupping-works-and-why-olympic-athletes-use/88410804/

I’m sure everyone is aware that phones have become a bit of an epidemic in our society. Everyone has a smart phone and everyone is constantly doing something on their phone. Don’t get me wrong, cell phones are great, and the new technology we have now is very helpful. However, it seems like we are getting to invested in our phones. Between texting people, checking Instagram and all the other apps that people are constantly using, we are spending a very large amount of time on our phones. Personally, I am on my phone a lot too. I am always either responding to a text or checking twitter (I’ve probably checked my phone about three times already while writing this). It doesn’t seem to matter what I am doing, I will always have to take frequent breaks to check something on my phone. This started to get me wondering if I was addicted to my phone, or if that is even possible. I find that I check my phone almost out of habit, even if I didn’t get a message I will often unlock my phone just to look at something. It’s almost out of habit. I decided to research to see if people can be addicted to their phones.

Ira Hyman says that we can be addicted to our phones. Most people have a very hard time being without their phones and not using them when they do have it. A study was done by Atchley and Warden to test this theory. Students were given an option to receive a small amount if they responded to a text right away, or a larger amount of money if they waited a while. Most of the students decided to text right away and take less money. This showed that texting was more important than getting more money. Studies have also found that students will interrupt an activity they are doing, even if it is really important, just to check their phone. I think this shows that people are addicted to their phones, at least a little bit. People weren’t even willing to part with their phone for a short time even though a reward was offered to them.

People are definitely becoming addicted to their phones, and it seems to be getting worse rather than better. With all the new apps and social media that we have today, it is hard to not be constantly on our phones. There is just too much going on. I feel myself constantly wanting to check my phone, even in bad situations. If I feel my phone vibrate during a test I have the urge to check it even though I know I would get in trouble. Luckily I am not at the level yet where I do check my phone during tests. I think that all the ne social media and technology is great and beneficial to us, but we should all try to stop using our phones so much, especially when we are doing something important.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201303/are-you-addicted-your-cell-phone

As everyone know exams are coming in a week and they are approaching quickly. If you are anything like most college students , then you will spend at least one night or day trying to cram the information into your head before you take the test. However, this may be even less reliable than you think. I decided to try and find out just how expansive is the memory in the short term.
A study done by Peterson and Peterson hypothesized about the duration of the short term memory, or how long you retain that information if it is not stored in long term memory.
They conducted an experiment where they had volunteers to to remember random groups of three letters. The independent variable was the amount of time between when the participants heard the letters and the time time they had to recite them. The independent variable was the accuracy of the volunteers. The researchers found that short term memory declines sharply within seconds if there is no rehearsal or repetition. With three seconds in between hearing the letters and saying them there was 80% accuracy of recall. However with 18 seconds between hearing the letters and saying them, only 10% of their answers were accurate. That’s less than half a minute!

If you are still not convinced you can’t rely on your short term memory for exams, you can actually test it for yourself. If you follow the example given by Kendra Cherry, a psycho-social rehabilitation specialist, you can look at a group of around 25-30 words for a minute. Then when you are done see how many of the words you can recall without looking. Kendra says that the words can’t be alike or be related because the brain uses grouping as a memorization skill. So the task would be harder if the words were “Bed, Dinner, Worm, etc” as opposed to “Baby, Bottle, Crib.”
My suggestion is that if you want to do well on your exams, give yourself enough time to repeat, rehearse, and practice the information.

Source

Source

College is a stressful time. The other day, I swore that I discovered a grey hair on my head. Although my roommate insisted it was blonde, I got to wondering anyway. It’s common knowledge that as we grow older, our hair either turns white or grey, but we also link that hair color to feelings of immense stress. So can stress actually cause a change in your hair?

http://www.scarymommy.com/found-first-grey-hair/

Greying is a normal effect of aging. As we grow older, the melanocytes in our hair die off continually until our hair is no longer colored. In the case of extreme stress, science is just beginning to explain why our hair turns grey. One researcher, Tyler Cymet, conducted a retrospective observational study and found that his stressed patients, on average, went grey 2 or 3 full years before their less stressed counterparts. However, as with all observational studies and especially with studies involving self-report, there is the possibility of many confounding variables.  The reason as to why stress could effect the cells of hair is still very much disputed. One dermatologist believes that stress hormones mediate some signals that pigment one’s hair. Another believes that stress hormones act to cause inflammation that creates damaged hair cells.

However, although the jury is still out on why, it is clear that stress does play a role in our hair. Depending on your genetics, your stress level could cause you to grey prematurely as early as 10 years. So take a deep breath and relax, or start saving up for dye.

I have been diagnosed with ADHD, and have a prescription of ADHD medication. Everyone knows that the drugs prescribed to ADHD patients will help anyone get their work done. It is known that the use of these stimulants has increased throughout the years, especially in the college scenario. Whether a person has ADHD or not, they are likely to consider investing money in the stimulants prescribed to actual patients. It made me wonder, what are these people getting out of taking these drugs? Are they taking an even greater advantage or is it equal? The null hypothesis is that ADHD medication does not impact non-ADD patients the same as it does to ADHD patients, and the alternative hypothesis is that it does impact non-ADHD patients the same as it does ADHD patients. After further research, the answer to this question is that they do not impact non-ADHD patients the same.

In this compilation of studies, it was found that patients with ADHD who have been treated with medication do better than those with ADHD who have not been treated with medication on IQ testing. Not only this, but the patients who take medication can see an increase in their ability to focus longer and be less disruptive. It was also found that people who used ADHD medicine without being prescribed would see increases in many aspects of their learning as well. Stimulants have been proven to give those without ADHD an advantage over those with it, therefore causing Duke University to adjust their policy on taking these stimulants without a prescription. The policy now reconsiders these actions as a form of cheating. Although both non-patients and patients can see improvements in their cognitive ability, patients with ADHD are experiencing differences in the way their brain works than those without ADHD. Therefore, taking the medication has an overall larger impact on those with ADHD.

I don’t know many people who procrastinate like myself, and I also don’t know many individuals who share the same attention struggles as myself. My ultimate goal is to do well in school, but my attention problems tend to get in the way of this. When others go and focus on their school work, I find myself refreshing Facebook, refreshing Instagram, and regularly starting three-minute Clash Royale matches. It is an everyday struggle, but on days I take my medication, a more intent and focused side of me comes out. After taking the proper amount for the first time in months, I finally can focus on my blog posts.

So, next time you consider taking ADHD medicine without a prescription, consider the struggles the people with ADHD go through on a day to day basis. Their need for medication is likely stronger than yours, but they will still improve your cognitive ability as well. From my research, it can be concluded that the null-hypothesis is true because the medication has more impacts on a student with ADHD than one without.

Pics–

Blog Post Series 2: ADHD-Medication Treatments

http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/2014/01/27/10-addadhd-blogs-and-forums-you-should-follow/

http://www.avensonline.org/blog/is-adhd-a-boon-for-children.htmlhttp://www.avensonline.org/blog/is-adhd-a-boon-for-children.html

Red Wine

As my 21st birthday is fast approaching, i decided i want to learn a little bit more about alcohol and it’s affects. When doing some research I saw many articles that claimed that red wine is good for you. I have also heard this before, especially from my father who is a wine collector. I started to question what that means; how is it good for you? In what way? I wanted to learn more.

There are several articles I found claiming a few different things. Some of the claims are that red wine can improve heart health, prevent colon cancer, slow memory loss, prevent weight gain, and more.

However most of the articles did not really have sufficient evidence, claiming things like “studies show” and “scientists believe”. The problem is that they did not claim where they found that information.

One article in particular jumped out at me. It claimed that drinking wine is the equivalent to one hour of exercise. Surely this couldn’t be true. I clicked on the article and traced back where they found the information.

The claim came from a study that looked at the effects of Resveratrol, a compound that is found in wine, and certain fruits. The study was done in a lab with modules, and found that resveratrol was a natural performing enhancing compound. The dependent variable was the amount of resveratrol that is consumed and the independent variable is the effects on the human body. The hypothesis was that resveratrol enhance physical performance and the null hypothesis would be that resveratrol has no effect on physical performance.

The study was misinterpreted and twisted to come out with many different claims that resveratrol was a substitute for exercise. This simply isn’t true. While the compound can enhance performance it does not replace it and still requires exercise in order to see actual results.

In addition to other false claims, there were also articles that claimed that red wine increased the risk of certain cancers.

Studies on wine suffer from the file drawer problem; people tend to post the good findings only because many people like to drink wine. However there have been negative results found that are not often discussed by the media.

In conclusion I think it is safe to say the wine should be consumed like every other food or drink; in moderation. A moderate amount of wine most likely won’t kill you, but it is not wise to drink copious amounts instead of exercising.

Source

Source

Source

We’ve probably all experienced a good scare or two at some point in our life.  And you’ve probably reacted in a similar way after each scare.  The classic response to being frightened is to either punch the person that scared you or to run straight out of the room.  But is there another response to fear that might exist?

I have never thought myself to fall into one of these two categories.  Rather than fighting, or even flighting, I tend to fall.  And yes, I mean literally fall to the ground.  Now this only happens when I have been scared really (and I mean really) well.  It’s those moments of genuine fear that we learn about our genuine reaction.

What I wanted to learn, was whether or not the fall-response is a legitimate response to fear or if it somehow just falls into the flight response.

According to Harvard Health Publications, not only does the fight or flight response apply to fear, but it also applies to stress.  (I was glad I found this out as it broadened my question and my hypothesis a bit.)  Say, for instance, you were being accused of doing something you did not do, by someone who had much more authority over you.  It would be in our instinct to want to either run and hide from the situation altogether or to want to argue the problem out.  We’ve all experienced this, too: having the strong desire to vanish from the situation or feeling our jaw and fists clench up.

Turns out, fight or flight is a survival mechanism that both animals and humans have been using for centuries.

In a study I found from Cell Press, researchers looked at rats to learn about more about these known fear responses.  Researchers used methods like Pavlov to study rats by pairing a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus.  Because animals cannot respond in more than one way at the same time, researchers were easily able to study how rats initially reacted to fear stimuli.  The main conclusion that researchers were able to draw from this study was that female rats were more likely to flee (or flight) from the stimulus than males rats.  However, researchers were also able to study how rats had anther response to the conditioned stimulus and that was to freeze.

Perhaps there are three instinctual ways to respond to fear or stress factors: to fight, flight, or freeze.

So what is it that causes us to respond one way over the other?  In general the way we respond to genuine fear is going to be consistent among the individual.  The mystery remains in why.

In time, this mystery behind this phenomenon will become more fully uncovered, but that will require more thorough research like Pavlov’s and meta-analysis.  To answer my initial question, it seems as though three categories of fear response do exist, just not the three that I hypothesized.  From a scientific standpoint, fighting and flighting are the most common responses to stress and fear, but a third response– to freeze– has presented itself as an alternative reaction.  So when I collapse to the ground out of terror, maybe I am, in fact, fleeing from the source of my fear.

Jones, Carolyn E. “Fight, Flight, or Freeze? The Answer May Depend on Your Sex.” Trends in Neuroscience 39.2 (2016): 51-53. Web. 2 Dec. 2016.

Publications, Harvard Health. “Understanding the Stress Response – Harvard Health.” Harvard Health. N.p., Mar. 2011. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

Photo 1 Link

Photo 2 Link

Growing up, I have always heard different amounts of hours that is recommended to get what is considered a good or complete night’s sleep.This person says no more than 3, while he says 6, and she says around a full 9 type of thing. I want to get to the bottom of this, how much sleep do we actually need per night to have a productive next day and why?

pic1

The National Sleep Foundation’s website, that I found through this article in the Huffington Post, actually comes right out with a list of recommended hours for people depending on their ages. For us in the young adults category (18-25), there is no specific number of hours but a range 7 to 9 hours that is considered a full night’s sleep. The same article, actually goes on to list 6 different ways that sleep benefits your mental health but for the purpose of my blog, I will only use 3 that are mentioned. The first point, states that a lack of sleep will increase the probability that one will inherit increased risks for further health problems. It is further explained in an article linked to the previous, nearly 50-70 million Americans are living with chronic sleep disorders. These sleep disorders causing a lack of sleep, or causing abnormal sleeping periods, as mentioned, will increase your risk for various health problems ranging from hypertension to stroke.

The second mental effect in the Huffington Post article is that sleep can improve your memory. The article leads to another, that should pertain more to us college students because it states that looking over your notes before you go to sleep on the night before the exam, might help you perform when it comes time to take the test. Members who participated in a study were told that they would need to remember a certain list of made-up words and must be able to present that list the next day, after what is considered to be more than enough time to sleep (12 hours). The study proved that the subjects who received a full night of sleep, had a higher ability to remember what their words were opposed to the subjects who chose to stay awake.

The third mental effect mentioned in the article is that a proper amount of sleep can help you keep your emotions intact. A source I found inside the main article, for this study, the effects of sleep were measured using MRI and EEG machines. The subjects were participating in a challenge to complete various tasks that would test their cognitive abilities. Emotional distractors were incorporated into the challenges to see how the subjects would react. Due to the fact that the emotional distractors were placed in the study, this would force the subjects to have to attempt to keep their emotions in check. The machines showed that the sleep deprived subjects had exhibited a decline in their ability to connect and decipher various emotional distractors to the adaptation process that would require them to keep their emotions under their control.

pic2

For my question, how much sleep do we need to be productive?, I also wanted to look at possible physical side effects of sleep. Or as talked about in this article, a lack thereof. Common sense will tell us that to have a truly productive day, not only do you need your head but also your body. The article I found shows the relationship between sleep and neuromuscular function. The article states that sleep deprivation can lead to muscular weakness by having a negative effect on our Central Nervous System. It negatively effects our CNS by causing a slight delay in the time that it takes for information to be processed from the brain to our muscles. Unfortunately, I was not able to find specific studies that could follow up with what I learned in this current article. I wanted to find a study that would show statistics of how the negative effects on our CNS work. I wanted stats that showed exactly how delayed the process would be for the average person who only received 3 hours or 4 hours of sleep, opposed to a person who received the recommended amount of 7 to 9 hours with little to no delay to the CNS.

In conclusion, I quickly was able to see that based off my age, I need to get a recommended 7 to 9 hours of sleep per night in order to maximize my productivity for the next day.

References:

source1

source2

source3

source4

source5

source6

Global Warming is no one’s fault, one cannot put blame one country or industry for the rise of global temperatures. It is cause by a wide array of global trading industries across the world. The nations of the world gathered in Paris last December, and agreed to reduce emissions to a record level. While heads of states signed the agreement, it is left to regular people to carry out their own responsibilities toward the planet. I could scare you about the facts that scientists agreed upon, I could tell you that Over 100 million people living in coastal regions will be displaced by just a one-yard rise in sea levels, I could tell you that There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any point in the past 800,000 years, and the U.S. produces 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning, I could tell you that California ran out of water! I could tell you that the world lost about 16 percent of all coral reefs due to unrest in sea temperatures. Global Warming is real, and I also believe we can be a part of its end. As much as it is scary, the measures to counter it are not. For example, If you replace your regular lightbulb with an LED lightbulb, you are helping. If you are recycling in way or form or measure, you are helping, when you leave a room and turn off the lights, you are helping, when you plant a tree, you are helping, when you use less hot water, you are helping, when you buy an energy efficient product, you are helping, when you replace using plastic, you are helping, when you reduce your household garbage by just 10 percent, you save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, and again, that helps.

Sources

1. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/
2. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/55460/20150527/21-amazing-facts-global-warming-climate-change.htm#sthash.OUXcGvCX.dpuf

Have you ever had a sprained ankle…..yeah you probably have. They SUCK, I’ve had six I’m surprised my ankles haven’t just fallen off yet. Anyone is at risk for an ankle sprain but especially athletes. I played basketball for 15 years and it wasn’t until high school that I started experiencing ankle sprains so bad. I’ve always heard from a bunch of people that once you sprain your ankle it just keeps happening. They were not joking. So I always wonder why are ankle so fragile. I get that there are a lot of little tiny bones and tendons in there but why doesn’t this happen with any other part of your body.

This article proves my point exactly about ankle sprains they are so common among all sports. Guys and girls get them equally. I think that these are the most common injuries because there are all different types of ankle sprains. Ankle sprains occur the most because besides the finger and toes those are where the smallest bones are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsRQLIyIM9w

Picture 1

Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164372/

Video Link

Athletes, actors, parents and gym teachers alike have, for years, preached the value of starting each day off with a good workout. Not only does a morning run, swim, or trip to the gym get your daily sweat over and done with early in the day, but it’s been said that this exercise can help prevent sickness and disease as well as provide people with lasting energy, an upbeat attitude, and a strong work ethic that carries over into anything a person has on tap for the day. Obviously we are all aware of numerous health benefits and improvements in quality of life that come as a result of daily exercise, however, what many (including myself) are wondering is, can exercise be just as beneficial to the brain as it is to the body? In researching this question, I will seek evidence supporting the idea that exercise can improve brain function (alternative hypothesis) rather than opting to believe the null hypothesis, that exercise does not have any effect on the function of the human brain.

At the onset of my research, I wanted to take a look at how exercise could potentially improve brain function specifically in relation to children and young adults. As it turns out, the cognitive benefits of exercise maybe be evident in young people more so than people of any other age group, and the children who benefit the most as a result of frequent exercise may continue reaping the benefits much later in life. In one study, researchers analyzed (via a series of reaction tests and choice-response tasks) how the brains of children were impacted by 30 minutes of aerobic exercise prior to testing in comparison to children who had not done any physical activity. The results showed that the children who had exercised prior to their task evaluation performed significantly better than the children who had not exercised at all. Interestingly, the cognitive abilities of children and young adults were found to be considerably increased as a result of exercise not just on a day-to-day basis, but for the long-term. In a study published in 2014 that was conducted over a 25-year period, children were asked to run on a treadmill before having a variety of their cognitive abilities tested (including verbal memory, memory capacity, reasoning skills, problem-solving ability, and multitasking ability, amongst others). 25 years later, the same subjects, now adults, returned and were given the same test they had completed as children. As a result of this study, researchers were able to determine that the individuals who exhibited above average cardio-respiratory fitness as kids typically had a higher level of cognitive ability once they reached their 40’s and 50’s. In addition, the subjects who exhibited the least decline in cardio-respiratory fitness over the course of the 25-year period also had a greater level of cognitive functionality than those whose fitness levels decreased over time. Based on these two studies it can be determined that there is, at the very least, significant evidence supporting my alternative hypothesis, that exercise can improve brain function.

After observing how physical activity can be beneficial to the minds of people as young as children and all the way up to middle aged individuals, I wanted to see if these cognitive improvements stemming from exercise could also be made by older subjects.

In a study conducted from 2004-2007, 138 subjects above the age of 50 were randomly placed on an at-home, 24-week fitness regimen. After actively participating in their fitness routine for six months, the cognitive abilities and brain function of each individual were documented for an additional 18 months. At the study’s conclusion, researchers determined that the participants who actively followed their assigned fitness regime provided “modest” cognitive developments and also were less likely to develop dementia.

In summary and based on my findings from the analyzed research studies, I believe that exercise is a valuable tool for sharpening both the human body and the human brain. Because cognitive function and ability can be visibly increased due to physical activity alone, I feel as if there is substantial evidence supporting my alternative hypothesis, that exercise can improve brain function.

Works Cited:

Text:

• http://brainblogger.com/2015/02/04/can-physical-exercise-improve-cognitive-abilities/
• http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/regular-exercise-changes-brain-improve-memory-thinking-skills-201404097110
• http://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/Fulltext/2002/04000/Exercise_Enhances_and_Protects_Brain_Function.6.aspx
• http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/182502

Picture:

http://smartensity.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/braintrain.jpg