Bad Luck Brian
Condescending Wonka
Paranoid Parrot
Y U NO GUY
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Coffee Drinking Linked to Longer Life
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/16/health/coffee-drinking-longer-life/index.html
The AARP tested 400,000 healthy men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 for
around thirteen years and 13% of the participants died. Coffee helps prevent chronic diseases such as heart disease, and diabetes. Some people believe this and some people believe the opposite. The coffee drinkers in this study are 10% to 15% less likely to die during the study. Cancer was the only major cause of death not associated with coffee consumption. Other causes of death that was associated with coffee are heart disease, lung disease, pneumonia, stroke, diabetes, infections, and injuries/accidents. People don't have to worry that coffee might increase the risk of death. Even a little bit of coffee was significant in living longer. One cup a day was more common that six cups a day proved that drinking coffee was a lower risk of dying 6% for men and 5% for women. The results might not be from the coffee itself, but from characteristics of the people drinking the coffee. Both decaf and regular coffee were used and associated with lower risk of dying.
I think that the AARP should try to straighten their facts out so that people who want to stay healthy know whether or not to drink coffee or not. For some people, coffee is necessary. If they don't drink coffee they will fall asleep during their day. But for others, coffee isn't necessary so they can decide to drink it or not. I think if it is healthy, scientists and doctors can try to find out what characteristic of the coffee makes it healthy so that they can apply it to more foods. Also more people can drink coffee if it does have a health benefit.
The AARP tested 400,000 healthy men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 for
around thirteen years and 13% of the participants died. Coffee helps prevent chronic diseases such as heart disease, and diabetes. Some people believe this and some people believe the opposite. The coffee drinkers in this study are 10% to 15% less likely to die during the study. Cancer was the only major cause of death not associated with coffee consumption. Other causes of death that was associated with coffee are heart disease, lung disease, pneumonia, stroke, diabetes, infections, and injuries/accidents. People don't have to worry that coffee might increase the risk of death. Even a little bit of coffee was significant in living longer. One cup a day was more common that six cups a day proved that drinking coffee was a lower risk of dying 6% for men and 5% for women. The results might not be from the coffee itself, but from characteristics of the people drinking the coffee. Both decaf and regular coffee were used and associated with lower risk of dying.
I think that the AARP should try to straighten their facts out so that people who want to stay healthy know whether or not to drink coffee or not. For some people, coffee is necessary. If they don't drink coffee they will fall asleep during their day. But for others, coffee isn't necessary so they can decide to drink it or not. I think if it is healthy, scientists and doctors can try to find out what characteristic of the coffee makes it healthy so that they can apply it to more foods. Also more people can drink coffee if it does have a health benefit.Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Pacific Reef Sharks Are Vanishing
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/27/pacific-reef-sharks-vanishing-near-populated-islands/
Almost 90% of reef sharks have disappeared near populated islands such as the main Hawaiian Islands, the Mariana Archipelago, and American Samoa. The reason that sharks near human civilization are disappearing is probably from illegal fishing, incidental killing, and human impact on the fish that the sharks eat for dinner. It also says that human influences have more effect than natural influence, such as warmer water temperatures. I know that many people say that this is destroying the shark environment and it would cause a chain reaction affecting other species, but I think that this could be positive for humans. If these sharks do attack humans, there would be a significantly decrease in shark attacks. That is just my opinion on it.
Almost 90% of reef sharks have disappeared near populated islands such as the main Hawaiian Islands, the Mariana Archipelago, and American Samoa. The reason that sharks near human civilization are disappearing is probably from illegal fishing, incidental killing, and human impact on the fish that the sharks eat for dinner. It also says that human influences have more effect than natural influence, such as warmer water temperatures. I know that many people say that this is destroying the shark environment and it would cause a chain reaction affecting other species, but I think that this could be positive for humans. If these sharks do attack humans, there would be a significantly decrease in shark attacks. That is just my opinion on it.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
It Came From the Media: What Prompted the Ruckus about "Pink Slime" And Is It Unhealthy?
Michael Moss and Amy Hubbard are two people involved in the process of figuring out weather or not the pink slime on meat is unhealthy or not. There is pink slime on beef, but it also could be unhealthy. Pink slime is generally the fat and meat removed from standard meat cute. Scientists that the pink slime could be unhealthy, and there could be unwanted things inside it. It could also be healthy, we just hadn't figured that out yet.
I think that scientists should develop different methods into finding out weather the pink slime is healthy or not. Some people can be eating the pink slime but it can be extremely unhealthy. But also for the people not eating it, it can be extremely healthy but we just don't know. The soupy meat slime through a thin tube. Then there is some ammonia gas. Afterwards the ammonia gas reacts to form ammonium hydroxide. This decreases acidy and kills any pathogenic germs in the meat. They should find out if the pink slime is healthy or not so it wouldn't be dangerous if we did eat it or if it could help us if we do eat it.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/03/23/it-came-from-the-media-what-prompted-the-ruckus-about-pink-slime-and-is-it-unhealthy/
I think that scientists should develop different methods into finding out weather the pink slime is healthy or not. Some people can be eating the pink slime but it can be extremely unhealthy. But also for the people not eating it, it can be extremely healthy but we just don't know. The soupy meat slime through a thin tube. Then there is some ammonia gas. Afterwards the ammonia gas reacts to form ammonium hydroxide. This decreases acidy and kills any pathogenic germs in the meat. They should find out if the pink slime is healthy or not so it wouldn't be dangerous if we did eat it or if it could help us if we do eat it.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/03/23/it-came-from-the-media-what-prompted-the-ruckus-about-pink-slime-and-is-it-unhealthy/
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Blog: States of Matter
rIn the past week, we did many labs and learned many things. First, I would like to explain the difference between physical changes and chemical changes.
a. A physical change is the change of form or appearance of a substance. It's composition or identity does not change.
b. A chemical change occurs when a substance changes into one or more new substance.
Burning Out A Candle:
The first experiment we did was blow out the fire on the candle with gas. We created a gas by adding baking soda to vinegar and putting it close enough to the flame to diminish any oxygen from the flame, causing it to burn out. The first time, we messed up putting too much of each which overflowed and touched the candle, forcing us to do to again. But in the end, we created a gas which just by placing near the flame, will burn out. This is a physical change because the fire was burned out by the gas, which is a change of form/appearance of the substance. (Not so sure, but I think it could be a chemical change because after burning it it created a charred substance.)
Roasting A Marshmallow:
The second experiment we roasted a marshmallow on a bunsen burner. We burnt one part of it, leaving it charred, and the rest was a golden brown (so gooey on the inside). We tasted the charred part, and to it tasted really bad (like solid smoke) but the golden brown was not roasted too much and tasted very good. This is a chemical change because we burnt the marshmallow with fire, causing the charred area to appear, creating another substance.
Burning Sugar:
We placed sugar into a test tube to burn it. We placed it above the bunsen burner. The color changed very quickly, from white, to carmel, to black. After a while a huge puff of yellow smoke came out of it so we took it down. As Mrs. Rousseau broke the glass, we had to observe it. It looked like black honey, it was dark and smooth and hot. It was also partially gooey. We did not get a good chance to feel it first so we tried to take the glass off of it (causing me to get glass in my finger), and got a better feel of it.
a. A physical change is the change of form or appearance of a substance. It's composition or identity does not change.
b. A chemical change occurs when a substance changes into one or more new substance.Burning Out A Candle:
The first experiment we did was blow out the fire on the candle with gas. We created a gas by adding baking soda to vinegar and putting it close enough to the flame to diminish any oxygen from the flame, causing it to burn out. The first time, we messed up putting too much of each which overflowed and touched the candle, forcing us to do to again. But in the end, we created a gas which just by placing near the flame, will burn out. This is a physical change because the fire was burned out by the gas, which is a change of form/appearance of the substance. (Not so sure, but I think it could be a chemical change because after burning it it created a charred substance.)
Roasting A Marshmallow:
The second experiment we roasted a marshmallow on a bunsen burner. We burnt one part of it, leaving it charred, and the rest was a golden brown (so gooey on the inside). We tasted the charred part, and to it tasted really bad (like solid smoke) but the golden brown was not roasted too much and tasted very good. This is a chemical change because we burnt the marshmallow with fire, causing the charred area to appear, creating another substance.Burning Sugar:
We placed sugar into a test tube to burn it. We placed it above the bunsen burner. The color changed very quickly, from white, to carmel, to black. After a while a huge puff of yellow smoke came out of it so we took it down. As Mrs. Rousseau broke the glass, we had to observe it. It looked like black honey, it was dark and smooth and hot. It was also partially gooey. We did not get a good chance to feel it first so we tried to take the glass off of it (causing me to get glass in my finger), and got a better feel of it.Sunday, January 8, 2012
Separating A Mixture
1. Remove water from cup into filter on top of beaker, into the beaker.
2. Use spoon to scoop up the sand and put on tray. Then take beans from cup onto tray.
3. Put 1/4 of the water into flask.
4. Put beaker with water onto hot plate and heat (high).
5. Separate stick and bug from the cup onto the tray.
6. Use magnet to remove metal.
7. Remove beaker from hot plate, which should leave you with salt on the bottom.
The items you should be left with are: Water, beans, sticks, plastic bug, metal, sand, and salt.
2. Use spoon to scoop up the sand and put on tray. Then take beans from cup onto tray.
3. Put 1/4 of the water into flask.
4. Put beaker with water onto hot plate and heat (high).
5. Separate stick and bug from the cup onto the tray.
6. Use magnet to remove metal.
7. Remove beaker from hot plate, which should leave you with salt on the bottom.
The items you should be left with are: Water, beans, sticks, plastic bug, metal, sand, and salt.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)