Florida Keys Declares Open Season on Invasive Lion Fish

     Lionfish have taken the East Coast by storm in the past few years. Lionfish pose a huge problem for fishermen because they virtually prey on the eggs of all fish. Also, the Lionfish can produce up to 30,000 eggs in 4 days and have no predators. The Florida Keys have taken action by hosting Lionfish killing tournaments with cash prizes to motivate citizens to kill Lionfish. It is also legal now to spear or harpoon any Lionfish. Lionfish are a huge threat to any community where fishing is a leading industry. They are also extremely poisonous. However, one good thing about them is that they make for good food which also gives people motivation to go out and kill some Lionfish.

      

     This is an issue that we must pay attention to because Lionfish are quickly moving up the East Coast. If action is not taken, the New York economy will be affected. It is important that people go out and hunt down these vicious animals before they start to wipe out other types of fish and harm the economy.

                

     This article was very well written and rich in information. I would’ve like if the author talked more about some hypothetical theories on how these fish which are not native to the East Coast got here. Last, I thought that this article was very informative and the attached video on the article was very nice because the reader gets to see a visual of the fish which are not as harmful as they look. 

Florida Keys Declares Open Season on Invasive Lion Fish- Nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23lionfish.html?_r=1&ref=science

posted for D. Guglielmo

     

Visor Might Protect Troops From Blasts

            This article is about how adding a visor to the helmets that soldiers wear in Iraq can greatly decrease the risk of having a head trauma. What they are saying is that if you put a visor on the helmet that they now wear today is meant to stop bullets and not prevent major head trauma. What they are saying is that if you put a visor on the front of the helmet it would deflect most of the energy of the blast.

            This affects many people in general. The reason is that with this new technology that they have discovered it can affect the people in the armed forces in a huge way. If they find a way in which they can reduce the amount of head trauma cause by these blasts many veterans would not have serious head injuries. Also, if they succeed with this they can help a lot of other sports prevent major head injuries.

            I think that this article could have gone more in depth as to how the visor would be a great improvement to the helmet. What I liked though is how they describe how it can be used to prevent head injuries in other sports. Finally, I thought they just did an overall good job at making sure that the reader did not get lost throughout the article and stayed interested.

Ehrenberg, Rachel. Visor might protect troops from blasts. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. <http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/66322/title/Visor_might_protect__troops_from_blasts>.

Four Loko Drops Caffeine from Alcoholic Drink

     The manufacturers of Four Loko stated on Tuesday that they will remove caffeine from their products just as the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was about to put a ban on the drink. This statement was made right before the FDA was going to make their own rule. The FDA insists that mixing alcohol and caffeine is unsafe and needs to be stopped. Senator Chuck Schumer has been pushing the Obama administration to bad beverages of this kind. The statement made by the company’s three co-founders said they were removing caffeine from the drinks because they were unsuccessful in dealing with all the political pressure from both state and federal levels. The three co-founders Chris Hunter, Jeff Wright and Jaisen Freeman all still say that they believe that mixing caffeine and alcohol is safe. Their statement however did not mention the recent incidents in which college students have been hospitalized after drinking the beverage. As a result of this four states, Washington, Michigan, Utah and Oklahoma have banned the beverages and many other states are considering the action. Four Loko comes in many different flavors including fruit punch and blue raspberry. A 23.5 ounce can costs $2.50 and has a 12 percent alcohol content equaling about 4 beers. Although there is very little medical knowledge proving how dangerous this drink is, public health advocates say the drinks can make people get really pumped up and not feel drunk and then next thing they know they will be dangling all over the place. The FDA claims that mixing caffeine and alcohol is lethal and should be outlawed.

     There is a lot of relevance to our society with this article. This drink can be very harmful to us high school students as well as its current hit at colleges. It can ruin people lives and kill them. Only imagine if what you decided to drink on the weekend ruined your life for ever… or ended it. This is a good article that informs people of the unsafe possibilities at hand.

     There were many strengths and weaknesses in this article. One, it was good at getting the point across and scaring people away from drinking these lethal beverages. The article had good reasoning to back up its point of view. However, one of its weaknesses is that it acknowledges that there is very little medical evidence proving that this drink is harmful. Many people that like Four Loko feel that you can get this drunk and sick from any alcoholic beverage and people are just using Four Loko as a scapegoat. Overall I felt that this was a good article that I learned a lot from.


Four Loko Drops Caffeine From Alcoholic Drink - FoxNews.com." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .

Metaphors on the Mind: Psychology

11/15/2010

In his article “This Is Your Brain on Metaphors”, Robert Sapolsky explains the effect metaphors have on the brain and how they can twist our reality. He begins by explaining the basics of neurology: that electrical messages are carried throughout our brain and nervous system by particles called neurons. While the human has the same neurons as most other living organisms (same electrical properties, many of the same neurotransmitters, and the same protein channels that allow ions to flow in and out), we have billions more. Over the time we have evolved, our brains have increased in capacity and neuron count. However, we have not developed new “chambers” for storing and processing information, which is why, Sapolsky believes, we have a hard time differentiating between reality and ideals or metaphors. To explain his theory, Sapolsky concentrates on one “chamber” of the brain in particular; the insula. This area of the brain is responsible for processing both physical and psychic feeling. So if you were to smell hot sauce (and let’s say you don’t like hot sauce), then the insula would formulate a feeling of disgust. The same thing happens if you see hot sauce, taste hot sauce, or even think about hot sauce. When humans developed morals and ethics, those feelings were not put into a new “chamber” but instead were packed into the insula. So if one were to read a story about slavery in the 1700’s they would feel (in most cases) disgusted. Our feelings of disgust, pride, anger, etc. are therefore based solely on the part of the brain in which they are processed (the insula). The same can be said for pain, which we know is both physical and psychic from experience, and is processed by neurotransmitters called Substance P, located in the anterior cingulated (AC). The pain you feel when you are punched is directly related to the indirect pain you feel when you witness loved one being hurt. Sapolsky mentions numerous tests that have been conducted regarding this theory. For example, when subjects were made to hold a stack of heavy books and told to give their opinions on their peers, they judged without congenial interest. However, subjects the were given a cup of warm coffee to hold gave kind, friendly profiles of their peers. While these circumstances may not dictate our overall decisions and opinions, Sapolsky believes they do play a major role.

This article presents a theory that can only be proven scientifically by neurologists who must have a comprehensive understanding of chemistry. Neurology is a theoretical/factual stem from chemistry in that the conclusions drawn from research in this field are often based on the chemical makeup of the human brain. While therapists and psychologists set the foreground into the study of the brain, only using chemistry and biology will neurologists be able to factually understand the most complex component to human anatomy and behavior; the brain.

I enjoy learning about neurology because it explains how we come about our opinions, thoughts, and theories. Sapolsky also explained the linguistic aspect of the brain, which was composed of nuanced observations. He stated that humans have the ability to distinguish what we see/read from what is actually being said. One of his examples was of Russian composer Tchaikovsky and his music rendition of Napoleon being defeated outside of Moscow. While we can relate this jumble of noise to an event in history, we also understand that “Napoleon” relates not just to a man on a horse, but thousands of starved soldiers fighting in the cold, far from home (or more depending on how much one knows). I found these observations to be, although obvious, nonetheless, very interesting.

Luke Connors

Link to article

“Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet”

     In the article from the New York Times, “Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet,” many topics are discussed that are growing in interest in the world today. Mainly, the article talks about how the advances in the technology in the field of movies and cinematography are helping advance the knowledge of biology by making it possible for animated representations of complex topics that we couldn’t really comprehend before. Building on decades of research, scientists and animators are now collaborating to work on how to sufficiently represent these biological secrets that have been explained so many times without people being able to fully grasp the topic. One scientist who has joined the field recently, Dr. Iwasa, mentioned that it wasn’t enough to merely think about how the molecule moved in words, but to actually see the molecule moving and forming would give her a whole new sense of knowledge. Another issue that animation is confronting is whether or not the explanations that we have come up with for many topics are even realistic and could actually be done. The animation clears all that up because everything you need to see is happening right there in front of your eyes and not in a lab on a Petri dish which cannot be seen by the naked eye.


     The article is significant because the animation can explain so many topics that were dubbed unreachable. The animation shows us whether every explanation or theory we have ever come up with as a race is plausible or even possible in the world we live in. the only thing that the animation can do is help us out. It will help us gain knowledge in every field of science because everything is easier when you’re seeing it visually rather than reading it out of a book or hearing it from someone else. Animation is going to revolutionize science the same way it did movies.

     I really liked how this article explained how science can be related to movies and how an advancement in the technology for both has helped the other. Also, I enjoyed learning about how animation is going to help our scientists and students at every school learn these topics so much easier. The article was a very informative and interesting.



Olsen, Erik, “Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet.” New York Times. 15 Nov 2010.

posted for Max Boyd

"Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet"

In the article from the New York Times, “Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet,” many topics are discussed that are growing in interest in the world today. Mainly, the article talks about how the advances in the technology in the field of movies and cinematography are helping advance the knowledge of biology by making it possible for animated representations of complex topics that we couldn’t really comprehend before. Building on decades of research, scientists and animators are now collaborating to work on how to sufficiently represent these biological secrets that have been explained so many times without people being able to fully grasp the topic. One scientist who has joined the field recently, Dr. Iwasa, mentioned that it wasn’t enough to merely think about how the molecule moved in words, but to actually see the molecule moving and forming would give her a whole new sense of knowledge. Another issue that animation is confronting is whether or not the explanations that we have come up with for many topics are even realistic and could actually be done. The animation clears all that up because everything you need to see is happening right there in front of your eyes and not in a lab on a Petri dish which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

The article is significant because the animation can explain so many topics that were dubbed unreachable. The animation shows us whether every explanation or theory we have ever come up with as a race is plausible or even possible in the world we live in. the only thing that the animation can do is help us out. It will help us gain knowledge in every field of science because everything is easier when you’re seeing it visually rather than reading it out of a book or hearing it from someone else. Animation is going to revolutionize science the same way it did movies.

I really liked how this article explained how science can be related to movies and how an advancement in the technology for both has helped the other. Also, I enjoyed learning about how animation is going to help our scientists and students at every school learn these topics so much easier. The article was a very informative and interesting.

Olsen, Erik, “Molecular Animation: Where Cinema and Biology Meet.” New York Times. 15 Nov 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16animate.html?_r=1&ref=science

“Phenomenal Fabric: How Can a Cloth Clean up Toxic Waste?”

In “Phenomenal Fabric: How Can a Cloth Clean up Toxic Waste?”, the article discusses the ability of this new material and its various possible uses. This cloth is made up of activated carbon and is able to filter out and destroy toxic materials even of minute proportions. The cloth was invented at Abertay University. The reason the cloth is able to filter out such small toxic materials is that the cloth is composed of extremely reactive chemicals called hydroxyl radicals. Since the hydroxyl radicals are so reactive any toxic material that comes into contact with the cloth is immediately bonded with it. In addition to its extreme usefulness the material is cheap. It can be used in small amounts like in hospitals or even on an industrial scale like filtering chemicals in water. The high reactivity of the material allows it to filter out toxins in extremely low concentrations. It can remove pollutants from the air, gas, or liquid. Researchers explored other forms of activated carbon such as in a powder form but still found cloth to be the most effective. The cloth can essentially decompose of the toxins by first absorbing them into the surface where they then react with one layer and are eventually converted into smaller molecules sometimes carbon dioxide or water. The research on this cloth began in the 1980s to help create a material to protect soldiers from chemical attacks. This material can have endless uses and help create a safer and cleaner environment for all.

This article is significant due to the versatility of this new material. It can be applied to small-scale tasks at home or filtering entire water systems. In addition it can be used in hospitals or to protect soldiers, as the material was originally planned for. The article did an excellent job of explaining how the material works as well as explaining its possible potential. The material is so important because of its diversity.

I thoroughly enjoyed the article because it explained well how the material worked without going into too much detail. It clearly revealed the possible success and importance of this cloth. I enjoyed the article and was interested in how a cloth can be so complex.

Chand, Rashmi, Raul Molina, Ian Johnson, Anna Hans, and David H. Bremner. "Phenomenal Fabric: How Can a Cloth Clean Up Toxic Waste?." Science Daily. University of Abertay Dundee, 3 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2010. .
posted for A. Corbat

Alcohol 'Most Harmful Drug', According to Multicriteria Analysis-By Henry Palermo

A new analytical system that ranks drugs via certain criteria has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug, above heroin and crack. Professor David Nutt, of Imperial College in London, was the expert who developed this scale. The system that Nutt helped to develop was not easy to conceive, especially considering all the different ways that drugs can cause harm to both the people who use them and those who don’t. Nutt had tried a similar analysis earlier where he engaged experts, trying to have them score a drug for nine different areas of harm that included “the intrinsic harms of the drugs to social and healthcare costs.” After using that approach he came at the same issue with the thought of using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). This system uses “ninc criteria that relate to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others both in the UK and overseas. These harms are clustered into five subgroups representing physical, psychological, and social harms.” The researchers explained that the scores out of 100 that drugs receive must be relative to one another, so the one that receives a score of 40 must be half as dangerous as the one that receives 80. Some of the other categories are drug-specific mortality, drug-related mortality, dependence, drug-specific impairment of mental function, and loss of relationships. The final score that alcohol received was a score of 72 with heroin and crack coming in second and third place with scores of 55 and 54 respectively. A lot of other drugs, such as cocaine and tobacco, received a score near one third that of alcohol’s. Nutt then goes on to describe that any sort of classification would have ranges for the different types of dangerous drugs. Nutt continues to proclaim that “Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm.”

Overall I thought that this study and this article was very well done and explained its purpose very well. I was more than surprised when I came across that headline, and even more surprised at the nut graph, with what it said beginning the story. But I also have some reservations concerning this article. I wish I knew more about the type of classifications and the train of thought for some of these researchers because from a study I made up 10 out of 10 people would agree that crack and heroin are, if anything, just a little more harmful than alcohol. I guess it’s just been set in my mind that those hardcore drugs just have to be more lethal than alcohol. I mean, come on, alcohol is legal. Those are the reasons why I felt like this article was semi-foolish, but interesting nonetheless.

The biggest reason why I chose this article is because of all the commotion surrounding alcohol, especially in Bronxville. In a recent SFL meeting the main topic of discussion was the consumption of alcohol by students in the school. Of course the students brushed it off. “It’s just alcohol.” Seemed to be the thought of most students in the room, while the teachers showed a legitimate concern. This article made me think that maybe it’s a little bit more dangerous than just one beer.





ScienceDaily 1 November 2010. 2 November 2010 .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101101162138.htm

At NASA, A Quiet Quest to Send a Humanoid Robot to the Moon

NASA originally planned to send humans back to the Moon for $150 billion, but it was deemed too expensive by the Obama administration, and Congress cancelled the program. Instead, for approximately $200 million and $250 million more for a rocket, NASA will be sending a humanoid robot to the Moon, and they plan to accomplish this within a thousand days. This plan is being called Project M, and the top half of the robot, Robonaut 2, exists already and is on a shuttle, Discovery, that will be launched Wednesday. It is headed for the International Space Station and will be the first humanoid robot in space. It will assist with housekeeping chores at the space station as NASA learns how robots and humans can work together. Project M will also be drawing from other planned NASA projects, such as engines using liquid oxygen and methane, a cheap and nontoxic fuel combination, and an automated landing system, that could avoid dangerous landings. Integrating these technologies is actually speeding up development of this robot. However, this NASA project will provide the answer to the question of what NASA will do when there is not enough money for space missions. When the project of sending people to the Moon was cancelled, the robot being sent to the Moon is a compromise between reducing costs and cutting edge science. A robot does not need food, air, and a return trip home. Most of the parts needed for the mission were bartered to cut costs even more. Project M is mostly being considered a technology demonstration and not a scientific mission. The robot’s potential on the Moon is far less than a human’s capability.

This article is important because the humanoid robot could become an important tool in space missions. Certain missions cannot be carried out by humans, and these robots could be used to complete certain dangerous or impossible tasks. It is also possible that the smaller budget and savings of this mission will help convince Congress to allow more funding for the more expensive NASA projects.

While this article is interesting, I felt that the article focused too much on the budget problems of NASA and not enough on the actual mission itself. I enjoyed learning about how NASA bartered for parts at Home Depot and other places, and I would have liked to have learned more about how they got all the rocket parts to work together. Overall, this article was very thought provoking and could be very important to space travel. In the future, a humanoid robot could work together with a human. The article raises these interesting questions: “What is the best way to spur advances in space technologies? And given the costs and dangers, how important is it to send people into space at all?” We do not yet have the answers to these questions.

Citation: Chang, Kenneth. "At NASA, A Quiet Quest To Send a Humanoid Robot to the Moon." NY Times 1 Nov. 2010: Print.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02robot.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=print