Learning Biology

Brinkley Gray Presents:
Health Dangers You as a Shopper Should Know.

Never before have you seen it, rarely do you notice it. You think your safe, but you’re wrong, because in this world there are super “induced villains” that you never would have thought to be imaginable and they’re coming to take over our supermarket. The leader of this group is a genetically altered, chemical induced potato named dark tator. He along with his pupils is trying to take over our supermarkets and make you eat toxic foods just like him. You are the last hope in trying to save our nation from eating genetically altered foods. Below is all the information you need it’s up to you to help lead the resistance.
Here is the information on what you should know about your local food markets and farmers markets. Before you go on your mission to save the our nation or your hometown, can you answer these with guarantee that you know the answers? Let’s find out if you can. Could you honestly tell me wear your fruits and vegetables come from? Could you tell me that you know for 100% guarantee that you food is safe enough to give to children to feed to yourself to feed you husband or wife????
Studies have shown that geneticly altering foods vs. organically grown foods. People choose to choose the easy way out by buying foods that are bad for them geneticly altered foods. Do you know what these foods have stored inside of them that you eat just because they are cheaper and more effecitant? Well let me tell you all of the things that are in geneticly altered foods, you have steroids in you meats and you have pesticieds and growth homons on your vegies and fruits. Here if you don’t believe me check out this website : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food . You will find a chart showing you what’s all in the food you eat. You choose to put deadly poisons in your body just because it’s cheaper but look at your children. By giving this genticaly altered food to your children it can cause :
New toxins and allergens in foods
# Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods
# Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food
# The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds
# The spread of diseases across species barriers
# Loss of bio-diversity in crops
# The disturbance of ecological balance
# Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable.  But don’t just take my word for it look at this website: http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html   well I’ve done the most that I can for you to inform you need to get out there and change what your eating for the safety of you and your families.

Other websites:

 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBGH<ref>

Angie Lewis

Period 1

Ever think about what was in your food? If you were eating something healthy or if it was bad. Well, just depends on what you’re eating. Sometimes, farmers give animals certain hormones to make them produce more. I think this is a bad idea, and the following reasons are as to why I think so.

When farmers give animals antibiotics of mastitis, it causes problems with the meat a milk in cows. People who drink milk from cows that were givin antibiotics to treat mastitis, it can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance among bacteria in a person’s body. Also, the antibiotic goes into the cow’s blood and there are traces found in it’s milk that can lead to cancer for humans. Here is a website that leads further into that topic; http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Growth_Hormones_in_Food.

Farmers give their animals growth hormones which havebeen traced in the beef and have been putting people at risk for infertility. It has been proven that pregnant women who eat beef, in which a cow has been givin hormones, has givin birth to boys who grow upto have a low count of sperm. It also has been implicating the early onset ofpuberty in girls, which can put them at a greater risk of developing different cancers. Here is a website that goes further in depth; http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Growth_Hormones_in_Food.

Giving cows antibiotics, such as bST, puts the cows in a greater risk of getting udder infections. The antibiotics show up in the cow’s milk and if the farmer doesn’t allowa sufficient withdrawal period, the entire milk supply could become contaminated.The website that goes into the further is http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx.

Now, the good sides to having hormones in our foods. Giving animals hormones, making them produce more, is using less animals. Using less animals in a period of time, means more product. Although, animals are put at a greater risk of getting stressed out with can make the animal get a disease and make the food go bad. However, it still helps the animals to produce more.

Those are the reasons as to why I think giving animals hormones or antibiotics is a bad idea. Now, it’s your choice to find out exactly what’s in the food you eat.

Pesticides or No Peticides

By: Kayla Knox

Pd. 7

Pesticides are used in many different ways. They are used for managing weed, insects, birds, fungus, algae, worms, and many other things. A pesticide is a mixture of substances or just a substance that controls or kills a pest. As I may have mentioned before, some pests include plant pathogens, mollusks, mammals, fish, insects, weeds, birds, and more. However, there is not just one type of Pesticide; certain types are used to control certain pests. Although there are some pesticides that work for many things.

            Usually when people think of pesticides, they go straight to; they are harmful and are in our food such as fruits and vegetables. What you may not know is that pesticides have many advantages. Pesticides are a very reasonable way to manage pests. When we manage the pests, then there will be a plentiful supply of crops and the prices of those crops will be reasonable. If we do not use it, it would increase world hunger because it would cost more. Thus, the farmers will easily make money if they use them. If we did not use pesticides, our fruits and vegetables would look damaged and not nice. Farmers in the United States get a return on money they spend on pesticides. In addition, the labor is low when you use them. Here is a website that may help you better understand the advantages:  http://www.btny.purdue.edu/pubs/PPP/PPP-70.pdf

            There are also many disadvantages. Pesticides are used in almost all storage facilities and stores to manage the pests. Thus, the pesticides get on our fruits and vegetables that we eat. These pesticides present a great danger to us, the consumers. They also may hurt the people that transport or manufacture them. The residue from the pesticides can still be on the fruits or vegetables after being peeled or washed. When you digest or breathe in pesticide, it may cause many symptoms. Such as headache, wheezing, coughing, vomiting, diarrhea, and nausea. Or more severely, it may cause problems with the hormone and nervous system. This is why we may want to start to reduce using them. Here is a good website to go too to learn more:  http://www.peelregion.ca/health/topics/pesticides/why-reduce/why-reduce1.htm#start

            Now for my side of the argument. I believe reducing pesticide use would be for the best. Pesticides cause many health problems. They could even affect the nervous system. No matter how much we wash our fruits and vegetables, the pesticides will still be there. Even if we cannot completely get rid of pesticides, that will be ok. I know it would probably be extremely difficult to wipe them completely out. I am sure reducing them alone will help a little bit. It is going to take a lot if we wanted to reduce pesticide use, but it would definitely be worth it. We would just have to stick with. I think pesticides will always be a problem, and will always be the easy way out. I suggest going with organic fruits and vegetables. I think it would just be for your best interest.

More references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

http://www.regional.org.au/au/roc/1992/roc.1992031.htm

By: Tige Woodson

<ref>http://www.midvalleyvu.com/About_Milk.html<ref>

Name: Anthony Pascuzzo

Title:  A Clean Getaway

By: Dina Fine Maron

A Clean Getaway

My article is informing people that it is possible to not be able to be traceable at a crime scene.  How you can do this is easy, criminal investigators use the protein hemoglobin to pick up traces of blood.  But first I will explain to you what a hemoglobin does.  A hemoglobin is a protein that loves oxygen, its job is to grab oxygen and from the lungs and carry it to the rest of the body.  Once its full of oxygen it won’t even bother to grab more oxygen, that the key for getting a clean getaway.  New oxy cleaners have lots of oxygen in them which make the hemoglobin’s not bother to grab oxygen from the investigators which will make the blood test negative.  This works because investigators you hydrogen peroxide which you use when scrap your knee to stop the bleeding.  The investigators tests use the same type of reaction between the blood.  They use the peroxide to which then makes the hemoglobin’s grab the oxygen and give them a positive result.  Then a group of researchers got curios and make their own crime scene.  They used Neutrex and oxy cleanser, then they took regular cleansers and then washed them with water.  The researches were right the regular cleansers made the clothes look clean to the naked eye but were traceable.  They Neutrex was clean to the naked eye and was still untraceable, therefore using oxy cleaners will make a blood trail untraceable.

Source:  http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/38925/title/FOR_KIDS_A_clean_getaway

FOR KIDS: DOUBLE TAKE

Emily Sohn

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39172/title/FOR_KIDS_Double_take

Devan Neal

January 5, 2009

Prior to reading this article, I had a little bit of knowledge on this subject.  I knew that there could be two types of twins; idenctical and fraternal.  I was aware that in identicle twins, they recieved the exact same combination of chromosomes from both their mother and father.  Also, that fraternal twins were concieved when two eggs were fertalized.  The difference between the two sets of twins is that identical twins are the same in many ways, i.e. looks.   The purpose of this research was to settle the debate between nature and nurture.  The essential question in the article is, “What makes us who we are, nature (genes) or nuture (environment)?”  This is a necessary research question because it allows us to have a better grasp on understanding how complex humans are.  Do genes determine whether we like sports, or if we’re good at art?  Or are our personalities a result of the way we are raised and the environment we’re raised in?  For their research, the scientists collected a variety of information from each family, using questionnaires, DNA samples, brain wave patterns and more.  Every few years since the work began, the scientists have met with the same families and have done many of the same tests.  The Minnesota researchers now have information about more than 10,000 people. From this large set of data, the scientists have turned up a lot of interesting results.

One thing the research showed was that identical twins are far more alike that fraternal twins in many ways, even when those identicle twins are raised apart.  Also that fraternal twins are more similar than virtual twins.  These similarities are true for a large number of personality traits, such as how outgoing people are, how aggressive they are and what types of decisions they tend to make.  These results suggest that genes play important roles in determining our personalities.  Identical twins also tend to become more similar to each other with age. That’s probably because as they get older they have more control over what they do and how they live.  Conclusions that can be drawn from this information would figuratively set the stone on the “nature” side of the argument.  This can be backed by the survey results of identical twins raised apart.  Research was conducted and advised by Matthew McGue, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and other coleagues at the university.

“Twinning is a mystery,” McGue says. “There’s no end to questions.” Therefore, researchers want to know why sometimes only one twin develops a serious disease. What is it about the environment that pushes certain genes to turn on or off?  I would still like to know if diseases developed by both twins will have the same magnitude, and ultimately end the same way?  I can connect this to my life because I know several sets of twins and some are identical and some are fraternal.  These twins show exactly what this article was talking about.

Why We Take Risks—It’s the Dopamine
By Alice Park
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,00.html
Erika Bizousky
1/5/09

Before reading this article, I really did not have any prior knowledge about dopamine and it’s effect on the brain. The research question in this article was “What makes people take risks?” When you think about it, it really doesn’t make sense to take risks. If no one ever took any risks, then there would probably be a lot less deaths happening everyday, or a lot less injuries. Yet people are still taking risks. Scientists at the Vanderbilt University of Nashville, and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City had a hunch that some kind of chemical in the brain must have been being released every time a person takes a risk. They conducted research and experiments to prove that dopamine was the chemical that made people take risks. Dopamine is a chemical in people’s brains that makes you feel good or happy, so it would make sense that it is somehow involving in risk-taking. A professor at Vanderbilt University named David Zald conducted a study to prove their hypothesis. He had 34 men and women complete a survey on their risk-taking tendencies, and then he scanned their brains to figure out how many dopamine receptors the participants. He predicted that the people who liked to take more risks would have less receptors because then they could achieve unusually high dopamine levels whenever they took a risk.  The results of the experiment proved Zald’s theory correct. The people who would take more risks didn’t have as many dopamine receptors. The rush of unusually high dopamine in the brain caused these people to take more risks like they were a drug addict. Professor Zald knew his results were valid because before they tested the same experiment on rats which had the same results.
The study showed that dopamine was definitely the cause of why people take risks.  They can also conclude that people kept wanting to take risks because of the feel-good effects of the dopamine and that people who had bad or few dopamine receptors wanted to take more risks than people with better receptors. I think the research is very informative and interesting. I have wondered why people take silly risks or do things without thinking, and these studies answered this question. The people who conducted the research were professors at colleges in New York and Tennessee. I believe that the reason for the research was to figure out more about the brain and why people do the things they do. The human mind is a very complex thing and should really be studied more.
Some questions I have for further understanding of this subject is “What activities produce high dopamine levels?” and also “How can dopamine affect your mind and make you feel happy?” This study really relates to my life because a lot of times I wonder why I do risky or stupid things without thinking, and now I know it is because of dopamine.

Title: Corals, Turfgrass, and Sediments offer stories of climate past and future

Author: Sid Perkins

Thomas Wagner

Period 1

January 5, 2008

Website: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39485/title/Corals%2c_turfgrass_and_sediments_offer_stories_of_climate_past_and_future

They didn’t know very much about the history in rainfall of the islands of Hawaii. This is essential because they said they can use the coral for ancient rain gauges if there is no data available. They researched it because it is always good to know the history of the places around the world, also since that Hawaii hasn’t been very explored. They ran tests on the coral to see the yttrium content in the coral, it is found in the groundwater which runs into the ocean.

They found the evidence of the yttrium in the water has decreased over years, there also has been a large decrease in the runoff from the streams from 6.4 million gallons a day to just 3.5 million gallons a day. You also can see a decrease in the amount of groundwater seepage. Some conclusions you can get from this information is that you might not know what will happen if there is not enough water seepage and flow, you also may not be able to support all the life for the people and plants there too. In my opinion I believe this is very important seeing how vital this water is for the Hawaiians to live and provide a great environment. Grumet Prouty and her colleagues worked on this project to provide information on this to the world.

Some questions I have is that what would happen to their population if they cannot get their need of the water to have a plush environment? What will happen if the water seepage and the runoff falls way to low? If so could it damage the environment around it?

Title: An Injection to Cure Holiday Drinking?
Author: Jeffrey Kluger
Website: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1867668,00.html
Keaton Mohney
Period 3
December 22, 2008

Before reading this article, I knew that a lot of people over drink during the holidays. I was shocked at the percentage of deaths over the holidays due to alcohol is 40% ! I think that that is way to big of a percentage. We should try to reduce that this Christmas. I also knew that a leading cause in these accidents is because of one main decision. When people choose to get behind a wheel after they have had one to many drinks is a really stupid thing to do. Yes, you might not wreck. You might wreck and not get killed. You might wreck and kill people in both vehicles. Or, the worst is when you wreck and you don’t die, but the person/people in the other car do. That would be on your conscience for the rest of your life.  I think that scientists purposely researched this injection to stop over drinking and save lives this Christmas. One researcher  was David Rosenbloom who is a substance abuse specialist at the Boston School of Public Health and director of the addiction prevention and policy group. He and many other scientists studied this new drug called naltrexone to prove its authenticity.
From the research and experimentation, researchers learned that this drug can alter your brain and make you curb the want to drink. And it even has a backup plan, if you give into the craving, it still  allows you to shrink the amount consumed so you will not get to a drunken state. The main conclusion they can make from the research is to basically end deaths during holiday seasons by eliminating drunk drivers. My opinion on this is very strong. I totally agree with this new shot to prevent over drinking. People are so stupid when they have to much to drink and I think that this drug is a way to ensure safety for travelers this Christmas. The people who drink are not the only ones who are in danger of getting hurt when they get in a vehicle. Families who don’t even drink and have little sons and daughter in the backseat quietly sleeping after a long night of unwrapping presents are also in danger because of someone else’s reckless decision.
The only thing I would like to know after reading this article is the follow up on this drug. If it gets put out on the market, I would like to know in a couple of months if it was effective enough to get people to limit consumption of alcohol. I would like to find out if the death tolls during the holiday went down due to this drug. I think this injection  should be further tested and tried so that the value of it is proven so we can reduce the amount of deaths before it is too late.