Nuclear Power - Unexploited?

Nuclear power has been a hot topic of debate in the current energy crisis. Although some may not consider the world to be in one, the fact remains that we continue to use fossil fuels for energy at staggering rates. Coal power plants are an everyday contributer to air pollution, releasing carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, soot, and other harmful chemicals into the air we breathe. As our technology has advanced over the years, our reliance on dirty forms of energy has remained constant. While nuclear power is perhaps one of the most clean and efficient sources of energy at our hands today, only 20 percent of our electricity is currently produced by it.

Unlike conventional coal fired power plants, which mostly use coal to superheat steam, nuclear power works via fission of (usually) Uranium-235 confined within a reactor. No pollutants are emitted into the environment. The fission is controlled via control rods which limit the rate of the fission reaction. As the Uranium splits into two separate atoms, neutrons are ejected at high velocity, which then strike other Uranium atoms, causing them to split as well. The control rods limit the speed of the reaction by decreasing the amount of neutron-Uranium collisions within the reactor.

It would seem as though some countries have adopted nuclear power more so than others. France, for example, produces roughly 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear reactors. If the United States were to produce this much electricity with nuclear reactors, the benefits to the global environment would be astounding. In our current state, in one year the average United States coal power plant produces over 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Research has been shown that this gas is one of the lead contributers to global warming. If just a single coal power plant produces this much carbon dioxide, picture how much is produced by the rest of the coal power plants in the United States, let alone the rest of the globe.

As efficient and clean as nuclear power is, it is often criticized for its potential disastrous side effects if it is not controlled properly. Critics of nuclear power constantly point to Chernobyl as a prime example what can go wrong, but Chernobyl was caused by human error. Clearly nuclear reactors can cause environmental harm if left improperly supervised, but more harm is being done each day by the thousands of coal power plants around the globe. In addition, critics state that nuclear power plants are a prime target for terrorism. However, the nuclear fuel used in the plants can never blow up like a bomb. It is contained in pellet form within a reactor that is reinforced with lead, steel, and concrete. In addition, the exterior shells of nuclear power plants are almost always designed to withstand plane crashes, earthquakes, and terrorist bombings.

It is clear to me that the benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the risks. As researchers look to invent and perfect new forms of energy such as hydrogen cells that only expel water vapor, it seems that they are ignoring technology that already exists. The time to act is now. Fossil fuel prices are sky rocketing and the earth's temperature is rising, yet energy demands increase every year. Nuclear power gets my vote.


Posted By: Nate Pitcher

Protecting Marine Life

Animals that are put on the Endangered Species List must have a high risk of becoming extinct throughout the world, or in an area that they once highly populated. Even though there are still many species becoming extinct every year, large efforts are being made to reduce the number. When an animal is on the Endangered Species List it is protected under the Endangered Species Act. This act forbids anyone from killing, harming, or harassing any animals on the List. It also forbids anyone from harming, destroying, or sometimes entering the habitat in which they live.
An example of an endangered species in the United States is the Hawaiian Monk Seal. As you can tell by its name, it lives in the areas around the Hawaiian islands. This seal is a bit unique from other seals. The Hawaiian Monk Seal is known to live alone. Most other seals live in groups called "colonies". Today their number one predator is the shark, though human destruction of their habitats has also caused a large decline in their population. It is one of many marine animals on the Endangered Species List. It is believed that only about 1000-1200 of the seals still remain today. The Hawaiian Monk Seal, in particular, is also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This is very similar to the Endangered Species Act, but it is aimed towards the protection of marine mammals in U.S. waters.
So you are probably wondering why I chose the Hawaiian Monk Seal as an example. In 2006, under the National Antiquities Act, George W. Bush designated a marine sanctuary around the Hawaiian and surrounding uninhabited islands. This sanctuary will be about 1400 miles long by 100 miles wide. It is the largest marine sanctuary ever created. It will help promote growth in the number of animals and coral reef along this area. In other words, the approximated 7000 different species living within this sanctuary will be protected from any harmful human actions. Excessive fishing in these areas has caused a lot of destruction to the habitat over the years. The marine sanctuary will allow some fishing in the protected areas by Hawaiian natives for a maximum of five more years. So, in 2011 no more fishing will be allowed in the marine sanctuary. Commercial fishing has been completely stopped. It will be restricted to such uses as scientific or education research and scuba diving. Nothing that could disturb or potentially harm this protected area is allowed. The marine habitat and wildlife population will be allowed to increase naturally without any human interference. The marine sanctuary is going to be put under the National Marine Sanctuary Act and will be managed by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Services.


Posted by: Christine McConville (1C)

Research Paints Bright Future for Solar Technology

Since Bell Labs began researching solar energy in the 1950’s it has been etched in the minds of people all over the world as a premier alternative fuel in our planets future. Initially used as an energy source on Satellites, solar power has been used throughout the decades following the fifties in many household products. These include everything from watches, to water heaters, to calculators and even street signs, propelling solar powered products from satellites to everyday life. With a recent surge in solar research this could become a far more dependable and cleaner form of energy in the near future.

The secret to solar energy is the electric current that is generated from the solar panels photovoltaic cells. These cells are made from high cost silicon, and are designed to create electrical current through electron motion when stimulated. When solar panels are heated by the sun electrons in the silicon are released and travel from one end of the panel to the other. The flow of these electrons generates a current, providing energy. Silicon based solar panels are the leading energy generators still to this day but only convert about 15-20% of energy in sunlight into electricity. Under laboratory conditions these numbers have been nearly doubled, but this production is still very unlikely in the field.

In search of strategies to increase the percentage of electrical yield from solar energy several new techniques have been investigated. For one some researchers have been trying to appeal to different frequencies light gained from the sun. This would potentially generate more electrical currents at the same time and therefore a higher percentage of the sun power. Other researchers are looking to increases absorption of the suns rays by using metal nanoparticles. These metal particles are thought to excite more electrons on the surface creating a large jump in efficiency.

Possibly the most promising idea however is for the development of quantum dots.
This production aims to group electrons in closer arrangements so that they can excite each other, making energy that is normally lost as heat drive an extra electron to the excited state. In laboratories this has led to far greater expression than the regular silicon panels.

The increased research in solar energy seems to be heading towards becoming one of the premier power sources of the future. Though silicon based generators currently lead the way in production it is also very expensive to produce. The future of solar power will surely find direction in creating higher efficiency power at a hopefully lower cost. These advances in solar technology seem to create a bright future for energy production and environmental protection at the same time.

Posted By, Daniel O'Leary

How Natural is Natural Selection?

In vitro fertilization is gaining popularity among Americans, both couples with fertility problems as well as couples at risk of passing on genetic diseases. According to this article the cost of one cycle IVF is about $12,500. The process of in vitro fertilization involves extracting an egg from the ovaries, and mixing it with sperm extracted from the semen in a laboratory dish. If the egg has been fertilized it is implanted into the woman. In cases where genetics are in question the fertilized embryos undergo preimplantation genetic diagnosis. It is in this phase that humans are about to face a serious ethic dilemma - should parents be allowed choose the genetic make-up of their child. Parents are already able to choose sex which may be an ethical dilemma in itself, but what if a family could also choose whether they want a brunette with blue eyes versus a red-head with brown eyes? Can humans be trusted with so much power in choosing the traits of their own offspring?
Evolution and natural selection seem to have been working their course pretty well for millions of years. Human intervention has led to more than a few problems. While there is no doubt of our contribution to mass extinctions among plants and animals, our choices about humans haven’t been too great either. Currently, China has legislature that each Han family may only have one child. The Chinese culture has shown a preference for male children and since this law was enacted in the late 70s, the population has become mostly male. Should parents in a culture where males are preferred be allowed to choose the sex of their child?
A more interesting topic comes when parents opt to give their child a genetic irregularity. A recent case was raised against a doctor who refused to implant only embryos which expressed dwarfism. A dwarf couple had to get screened for a genetic disease which often accompanies dwarfism. When the couple asked for only dwarf children, the doctor refused based on the premise that the quality of life would be less for the children. The couple defended themselves by saying that they have the right to have a child that looks like them. A similar case dealing with quality of life came with a mother who wanted a deaf child so began looking for a deaf sperm donor. The woman found one and got her wish of having a deaf child (mostly) but then refused to provide the child with any sort of hearing aids.
What some call “the intentional crippling of a child” could just as easily be “the intentional perfecting of a child”. This may not seem bad at first, but what happens when humanity gets to the point that most couples need to screen their embryos before implantation. Is it plausible that choosing the exact genetic makeup of our children could lead to the loss of some traits completely and some sort of species cleansing? Will legislation attempt to correct the loss of traits from an entire species? Perhaps this is just a way to speed evolution but if that is so, how do we justify dictating how natural natural selection is?

Posted by Sarah Kaz

Plastic World: How Safe Are We.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is the building block for one of the most widely used plastics. BPA can be found in the inside lining of soda and food cans to the clear brittle plastic pieces found on many cooking appliances. It has been proven thought research with lab rats that BPA can cause reproductive problems, sugar regulation problems, and obesity. Japanese manufactured have eliminated BPA from the lining of food cans but this isn’t so in America. BPA is FDA approved.

BPA overtime brakes down and finds its way into our body. Products like Nalgene® water bottles use BPA based plastic. One of the most worrisome goods out today is the wide use of plastic baby bottles. Also dental sealant used to harden the enamel on your teeth leaks BPA into your system.

Other then human effect, plastic has taken a devastating toll on the ecosystem. Plastic floats in the ocean creating huge plastic landfills found in remote location all over the ocean. If the everyday use of plastic allows BPA to break down and enter our system imagine what years of floating plastic is doing to the animals and not only that but there habitat is totally taken over by plastic impairing the aquatic animals from doing their regular duties.

It would be impossible to eliminate plastic from our life but you need to be more aware of the harmful effects it has on your body There are ways to avoid it. Many people recommend that you use glass bottles or polyethylene, which is a plastic that does not leak BPA. Some major brands have released BPA free products for infants and toddlers, some companies have even gone as far as producting aluminum sippy cups.

There is no reason for BPA to be used if there are other safer plastics. I think that we should start to smarten up and pay attention to what other people around the world are saying. It is true that the effect of BPA on the body isn’t deadly but there is no reason to still uses it and if Japan agrees with this statement then why doesn’t America?

Posted by Julie Hachey (1B)

Genetically Modified Crops: Frankenfood or Panacea?

Genetically modified food strikes fear in many people. The environmental commissioner of the European Union, Stavros Dimas, has proposed banning Bt corn, claiming he has science on his side, even as scientists tell him that adverse health affects are unlikely. But the question of which side is more scientifically correct is questionable, as the emotional response to so-called "Frankenfood" can override rational thought.

The corn in question, Bt corn, produces a toxin that kills unwanted pests. To create this corn, a single gene from a bacteria, Bacillus turingienis, was combined with the genome of a corn plant. The gene taken produces a chemical that is toxic to insect larvae attempting to consume the plant. (For more information on Bt corn, look at this article.)

While Bt corn fights off other pests, it has its problems: the toxin can also kill monarchs if the Bt pollen gets on milkweed, the monarch's main source of food, but farming practices in the United States have reduced the chances of monarch extermination (more information here). Other environmental effects may be possible. But for a place like Europe, the results may be different. Much of the research on genetically modified crops has been sponsored by the corporations that sell Bt corn, and scientists may question the conditions under which the experiments were performed.

But genetically modified crops are capable of much more. Golden rice is a rice modified to produce more beta carotene in order to fight malnutrition, and the transgenic rice is being distributed free of charge to farmers in developing countries. A group of researchers have created an artificial plant chromosome, allowing for the insert of more genes than before and with less likelihood of disruption in the normal DNA sequence of the plant. Instead of simply producing Bt toxin, they could produce several kinds of toxin, or different nutrients and toxins.

Agriculture moves beyond just scientific issues, however, and there are economic considerations, and these must be taken into account. A recent column for the New York Times discusses the emotionally charged controversy of genetically modified crops. For example, some genetically modified organisms cannot produce their own seed. While this reduces the possibility of the gene mixing with the environment at large, the farmer is tied to a patent-holding corporation for the genetically modified seed. For issues like these, we need to move beyond our gut reactions, consider the human and scientific sides of the issue, and formulate a rational argument.

Posted by katgor (1B)

Chemical Imbalances: Balancing The Mind

Bipolar Disorder is a disease that commonly presents itself during adolescence and early adulthood. It is commonly known as manic depression and it causes extreme shifts in mood, functioning and energy. It is a disease that affects men and women equally. Bipolar Disorder is a chronic and generally a life-long condition during which one experiences recurring episodes of mania and depression. Such episodes last from days to months and often require lifelong treatment. Treatments include psychotherapy, support, education and the key element being medication. The latter being the more controversial treatment. There are different medications to take depending on the occurring episode. For manic episodes, FDA approved medications include lithium, divalproex sodium, carbamazepine, olanzapine and risperidone, to name a few. FDA approved medications for the bipolar depressive episode is a combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine. However, the drug that most patients are put on is effexor, also known as venlafaxine. When mixing effexor with cannabis, however, the results are unfit. And it just so happens that many bipolar disorder patients have a tendency to use one if not both of the former drugs. Especially if they are adolescents/young adults because the availability of cannabis is greater.

Effexor is a class of drugs known as antidepressants. It targets chemicals in the brain that cause imbalance, depression or anxiety. When starting the drug, the patient needs to be monitored for the first 12 weeks since there is an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior. Since it is an antidepressant, side effects include mood changes, trouble sleeping, anxiety, panic attacks and mania. This is where most patients turn to cannabis and decide to mix the two. While taking effexor, and possibly experiencing the side effects, the cannabis “fixes” the side effects being felt. Since cannabis is a narcotic, it induces sleep, alters mental states and relieves pain, stress and causes a sensation of mental numbness. Putting the two drugs together causes many problems for the patient.

In most cases, the patient starts out taking effexor, feels no more anxiety yet instead feels hopeless. Combining effexor with cannabis causes a drastic change in the patients’ emotional state and causes ‘trips’ that could sometimes be life threatening. It would seem as though the patient was experiencing tunnel-vision. In one case, there was a patient who was standing knee deep in water holding a plugged in hair dryer and holding a butcher knife in the other hand, having no recollection of how or why she was there. Most patients become delusional, saying and doing things they do not realize they are doing. The effexor and cannabis are targeting the chemicals in the brain and therefore creating a ‘maddening high’ that is not safe for the patient or those around them. It is not safe to mix a psychosis medication with a narcotic, or therefore any drugs or alcohol since it counter-effects the medication and causes an already chemically imbalance individual to ‘trip’ and enter into an unsafe state of mind.

Bipolar Disorder affects more than 2 million Americans. It is a disease which diagnoses a chemical imbalance that causes the patient to be put on life-long medications to aid in both depressive and manic episodes. The medications that are administered are often affected by other medications, drugs and alcohol. Especially in the case of mixing effexor and cannabis, the results negatively affect the patient and those around them.

Posted by Michele Kenausis (2)

Updated Section
If you follow the links, you will find the other medications and forms of treatment available, along with other links that I am sure you will find helpful and informative.

As far as the ethical standpoint, I have friends who are bipolar and I have seen how this affects them and those around them. I have also lost many very close to me to suicide which is one of the side effects of the drugs. I am sorry I could not give more on my standpoint at this time, but rather I wanted to educate people on the topic.

For mixing cannabis with other drugs and having a severely negative reaction, this is the one drug I have heard about and seen people so badly affected by it. Effexor is a serious drug that a lot of patients are placed on. I am sure there are other drugs besides effexor which causes a negative reaction because of what cannabis targets and what the other medications target. You can assume that the other drugs that are similar to effexor would have the same effects, however I was unable to find any information or instances which would provide you with sufficient information. However, I feel it safe to assume that mixing any medications is in itself a bad idea. You never know what kind of reaction you are going to get.

U.S. Ends Protections for Wolves in 3 States

Wolves like any other animal need protection. Wolves will always be endangered because people love to kill them. After the Bush administration decides the wolf would not be part of the protection act in three states of the United States (Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho).


According to the Department of the Interior base population of 66 wolves introduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s, there are now nearly 1,300, with an additional 230 or so in Montana that have drifted down from Canada. State management plans allow for wolf hunting, or outright eradication in some places — including most of Wyoming with a target population of 150 in each of the three states.


They said that the reason why they should not be protected is that the population of gray wolves has far exceeded their total recovery gal and still growing every year. Even though the population of wolf keeps increasing there is no way they can survive with out the protection plan. Because before the act was passed only 400 hundred wolf where found in 48 states, and it takes couple years to recover.


The Natural Resources Defense said that Americans will howl with rage when they learn that their government is jeopardizing this iconic animal, wolf should always be protected. Also animal protectors are trying to set lawsuit so wolf can be back to the endangered species. How can we prevent this when the hunters are ready to kill this animal.

Can we consider wolf a problem. According wildlife officials themselves have killed 725 problem wolves since 1987, an annual cull of about nine per cent of the population a year. A private foundation has also paid out about US$900,000 in compensation for wolf attacks on livestock since 1987. For anyone who still have their doubts about the decision on the government to take the wolf out of the endangered species please check this sites





Posted By: Rafael Leon

POLAR BEARS RESORTING TO CANNIBALISM

When it comes to global warming and its impact on various animals around the world, perhaps no other animal has had a more publicized plight than the polar bear. For those who haven’t been aware of the polar bears’ dire situation, the vast arctic ice sheets that serve as the hunting grounds for these animals have been melting increasingly early every spring. This forces polar bears to retreat inland before they have replenished their reserves on seal fat. Those who become desperate have been seen swimming for miles at a time looking for stable ice. More and more polar bears are dying from either drowning or being stranded in areas where food is scarce.

In what can only be seen as another desperate attempt to combat an ever growing problem, recent studies conducted by Canadian and American scientists have shown that polar bears are now resorting to cannibalism. In one graphic example cited by the study, a mother polar who had just given birth to cubs had been dragged away from her den by a male stalker and killed seemingly for no other reason than as prey. Polar bears have been known to kill each other for territory and breeding purposes but never for food. "During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears," the scientists said.

Cannibalistic behavior exhibited by polar bears was first documented during the winter of 2004. While the number of these accounts is small, scientists caution that it may be a sign of things to come. "We anticipate we're going to continue to see these things and if the ice retreats farther and farther out we're likely to see an increased stress in the polar bear population," lead researcher Steven Armstrup of the US Geological Survey said. It also should be noted that the actual number of these situations is likely to be higher than the number of documented accounts based on the sheer fact that the region is so large it is impossible to observe every case.

The issue of Global Warming is a subject that has become inescapable these days. Everywhere I look there seems to be a new article published or television program aired describing how global warming is negatively impacting a particular thing (for lack of a better word), whether it be a certain species, ecosystem, country, economy, the planet, etc. The exposure is so great that it has almost become numbing to me in a sense. As a result, I cannot help but develop a certain pessimistic outlook on the whole topic. It certainly appears that the future for the polar bears is bleak at best. "This is not a Coca-Cola commercial," says Deborah Williams of Alaska Conservation Solutions. "This represents the brutal downside of global warming." For anyone who still has their doubts and wants more tangible evidence that global warming is real, just take a look at what is going on to the polar bears.

Kevin Gray

Sugar Free Sweeteners: A Dieter's Nightmare?

In recent years, obesity has become a major health concern in America. Leading to other major health problems such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes,stroke and cancer, it has become a major topic of recent research anddiscussion. As most know, a combination of diet and exercise help to reduce body fat and therefore decrease obesity. The word “diet” has become a major part of one’s vocabulary as an American. When one thinks of diet, however, it is almost an automatic response to think of some sort of restriction on what you can and cannot consume. For some, it may be a reduction of fats, or carbohydrates, or perhaps the amount of sugar in ones’ diet. Recent research suggests, however, that by reducing the amount of natural sugar you consume, and increasing the amount of the alternative “no calorie sweetener”, you may be sabotaging your dieting efforts.
In a recent research study carried out at Purdue University in Illinois, lab rats were divided into groups of those that consumed yogurt with natural sugar,and those that consumed yogurt prepared with artificial sweeteners. According to the study results, the lab rats that were given the artificial sweeteners were more likely to eat more food and exercise less than those that were given the real thing. It is understandable to see that they would be less energetic from lack of energy in sugar calories, but why would they be more likely to eat more? This seems to be due to some sort of miscommunication between the taste buds, the brain, and the rats’ metabolism. When your body receives the signal from the taste buds that it just consumed something sweet, it triggers the brain to prepare your metabolism for a high calorie load. When the calories do not appear, your body has a difficult time bouncing back to a stable appetite, and therefore,when more food is presented in front of you, you are more likely to eat it, according to Susan Swithers of Purdue University. http://www.sciam.com/article/cfm?id=artificial-sweetener-linked-weight-gain
Further research suggests that there could be something else causing weight gain from artificial sweeteners. According to an article written by Jennifer Warner and reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD, artificial sweeteners may fool the body into thinking that foods with actual sugars have less calories than they actually do, interfering with the body’s natural calorie counting ability. This also leads to overindulging, bringing us back to the obesity problem. Before artificial sweeteners were introduced, a food’s sweetness was able to give clues about how much energy the food contained. According to Swithers,

“Before things like artificial sweeteners, these relationships would be very
reliable….it’s only been relatively recently that foods have been introduced to
violate those kinds of relationships.”http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art/asp?articlekey=55667

The statistics show that over the past few decades, more people are consuming sugar substitutes, but their waste lines are not shrinking, but instead growing, which helps to show the relationship between artificial sweeteners and weight gain.
A healthy diet needs to consist of balance of healthy fats, proteins, carbohydrates, and simple sugars. By using alternatives in order to make dieting easier, we could be doing more harm than good by confusing our body’s natural responses.
post by: Meaghan Elliott

Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture

The debate between nature and nurture has come to the forefront of the public’s mind especially in regard to homosexuality. Is it something you’re born with, or is it a result of your upbringing? Some scientists believe that they may be close to finding a “gay gene.”

In a study published in October, scientist Erik Jorgensen and a team of researchers changed the sexual behavior of nematode worms. Male nematodes use sensory neurons to find females, since they are blind. On the other hand, most nematodes are hermaphrodites, producing sperm so they can fertilize their own eggs without finding a male. Hermaphrodites are essentially females because they do not seek other hermaphrodites to mate with. In this study, the OSM-9 gene was determined to be related to sexual attraction through pheromone sensory neurons. It was determined that males without sex specific neurons like the ones OSM-9 codes for are still attracted to pheromones, and hermaphrodites whose core neurons were masculinized were also attracted to the same pheromones.

This study has reminded many of another study published in the summer of 1993 by Dan Hamer about a possible homosexuality gene in humans. There have been studies on families with two or more gay brothers, and it was found that they share about 60% of genetic patterns, which is more than the expected 50% that they would share by sheer statistical probability. Researchers believe to have isolated areas on chromosome 7 and 8 that may be associated with homosexuality, and another area on chromosome 10 that only has an effect if it is inherited from the mother. It is uncertain what these areas of DNA might code for, whether it is transcription factors, promoter regions, or a coding sequence. In order for these conclusions to be validated, the study must be duplicated with similar results.

There was also a study conducted in Canada by Dr. Bogaert to determine if birth order had an effect on the probability of homosexuality in males. Over 400 gay and straight men were surveyed, and Bogaert and his team of researchers found that younger sons have a higher likelihood to be homosexuals regardless of time spent with their biological brothers. Also, step-brothers had no effect of the sexual orientation of the men surveyed. Therefore, Bogaet concludes that there must be some determining factor in the womb that predisposes children to be either gay or straight.

While evidence is pointing to DNA as the cause of homosexuality, scientists are not saying that this definitely means it is genetically inherited, but some of the media has been portraying it that way. The interactions between DNA and the environment are far more complex than the public is led to believe, and homosexuality, unlike some physical traits, is not directly inherited, but it is a balance between genetic and environmental factors. There is more than meets the eye to this issue, which brings us to how a conclusion in this debate may affect our society.

Gay marriage is already a major political issue, with all of the presidential frontrunners opposing gay marriage; however, they all also oppose an amendment banning it. Clinton and Obama both support civil unions, and McCain supports legal benefits for same-sex couples. If homosexuality is determined to be entirely genetic, will it alter the mainstream opinion or marriage rights in any way? The repercussions may also affect all aspects of our society, including religious views, genetic engineering of children, and social acceptability.

By Nicole Eckart

Not What the Doctor Ordered

By now, most of us are aware of the tragic and untimely death of actor Heath Ledger. The 28-year old Australian native passed away last month from an accidental drug overdose. What may be the most shocking revelation in Ledger’s case is that a toxicology report showed all of the drugs in his system were legal, prescription medications. Standing out in the report were two well-known pain relief narcotics: hydrocodone and oxycodone, apparently two of the most widely abused prescription drugs.

Additionally, an autopsy revealed that a combination of painkillers, anti-anxiety and sleeping medication were also found in Ledger’s bloodstream. By themselves, all of the drugs found in his system were relatively safe, but their combination was deadly. A medical examiner revealed that no unusually high concentration of any one drug was found, thus exposing the hidden dangers of combining prescription medications even at low doses.

What is even more unsettling is the budding prevalence of prescription drug use in America, particularly among today’s youth. A USA Today article describes how their availability and legality is making pills a common outlet for abuse. Scarier still is that most of the people using prescription drugs for recreational purposes are also recklessly mixing them together, unaware of the potentially deadly consequences. Apparently the combination of narcotics and sleep aids depresses the central nervous system, adversely altering normal breathing patterns. If the right combination of drugs is used, even at low doses, the respiratory system can suddenly shut down.

A problem fueling this outbreak are the online prescription drug retailers. If you simply ‘google’ “online prescription drugs” more than a dozen sites pop up where you can instantly fill out order forms for drugs that would normally require a physician’s referral. Because of their relatively easy accessibility, prescription drugs are finding their place in teen culture. What method of obtaining drugs could possibly be easier for today’s tech-savvy youth? Most of these sites require no background check, and the pills are delivered right to your doorstep. The world of online shopping has really caught up with us.

The reasons for using drugs vary greatly between individuals, cultures, and countries, however many adolescents are experimenting with prescription drugs with the mentality that because they are legal that they are also safe. The fact that such potentially deadly medications (when used for recreational purposes) are sold online only supplements that notion. Apparent misconceptions and are widespread ignorance are putting prescription drug abuse on the map, and I think we have only begun to see the tip of the iceberg.

Quite simply, someone needs to be held accountable. Whether it is the regulation of online retailing, monitoring physicians’ prescriptions, or us as a society, properly educating today’s youths about the dangers and detriments of prescription drug abuse, we need to take more responsibility. If not, this festering problem will continue to spiral out of control. Elementary, middle school, and high school students have been taught for years about the addiction and harm caused by illicit drugs. Maybe we should begin to pay more attention to the ones we can buy at CVS. If we cannot stop the online sale of pharmaceuticals, maybe it is time we revamp our education tactics or, at the very least, acknowledge the epidemic at hand.

by T. FitzGerald

Stem Cells, Why Not?

Stem cells are one of today's top political controversies. They have the potential to save the lives and improve the quality of life for millions of people. Countless diseases could be cured through the advancement of stem cell research, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, brain damage, muscle damage, and a host of other debilitating ailments. With all theses reasons to fund stem cell research, one might ask why has our government not begun facilitating and funding stem cell research? I myself, know very little about the controversies, but I will tell you about what I do know. In my opinion politics is getting in the way of safe ethical research, I do stress however that this is just my opinion.

There are two specific types of stem cells embryonic and adult or somatic stem cells. Somatic cells are those found in the tissues of adults and can not differentiate as easily as embryonic cells. The embryonic stem cells are found in the blastocyst stage of developing embryos. The bastocyst stage occurs within the first 4 to 5 days of a women's pregnancy. These embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. These cells can differentiate into any other cell in the body. From skin, to neurons, to organ tissues. Those suffering from brain damage, or any trauma in general could use stem cells to regenerate areas of the body that conventional medicine can't. There are obstacles that have yet to be overcome. Scientifically obstacles could be hurdled simply by more research. They still need to find out how to keep the body from rejecting stem cells and how to make stem cells differentiate into a specific cell type. It wouldn't be that great to have pancreatic cells growing on your brain. I believe our political views on the matter will set stem cell research farther back that our scientific obstacles.

Politically, stem cell research has gained a bad reputation because of its closely related ties to abortion. Abortion has been a controversial subject in our nation for decades and since the main source of stem cells would come from aborted embryos, it too has become a hot button issue. Its frustrating to me that since in our country abortion is legal, but the procuring of stem cells from the aborted embryos is illegal. If your going to allow for an abortion to occur why not allow that abortion to help the advancement of science. Of course using the embryo for science should be completely up to the women carrying the embryo. I just don't understand the opinions of certain people in our nation sometimes, it just seems like they don't see the big picture or even the small picture for that matter. Stem cells will save and help so many lives and should be funded and facilitated.

Some politicians in our country are very backwards even when faced with strong scientific evidence, be it stem cell research or the theory of evolution. However, there is still hope because scientists are resourceful people. In January of 2008 there were two major break throughs in stem cell research. Human embryonic stem cells were extracted without the destruction of the embryo itself. Then scientists completely skipped over using embryos and were able to clone blastocysts from adult somatic stem cells. Stem cells are most certainly the future no matter what, politics can only slow it down.

-Tom Farese

gtd

gfhshth theh whwh

The First Blog Post

This is the first line of the first post.