WHICH ONE IS BETTER: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICES OR PRINTED TEXTS?

Posted on November 19, 2018 by | Leave a comment

This is an image of the most commonly used media for educational purposes: technological devices (laptop on the top left and tablets on the top right) and printed books (bottom). (Source of compiled images (by Jolean Endique): Wikimedia Commons)

I am a student myself and I know the struggle of bringing a 1000-page textbook every day. However, no matter how heavy my textbooks are, I would still prefer using them over any technology on any day and here are the reasons why.

Most university professors specifically mention how laptop usage is prohibited in class. You might want to know why. Studies show that students who type their lecture notes instead of writing them, have shallower thought processing and have the tendency to types notes verbatim without understanding them. Students who read printed texts have better comprehension, better understanding, and better memory than those who use any handheld technological devices.

Handheld devices also offer a lot of distractions to students. You see those hyperlinks on the texts that you are reading? How about those advertisements that spark your curiosity that it makes you click on it? You hear a “ping” and you decided to check your email “quickly”. Traditional textbooks clearly do not pose this problem to students. If a student is still distracted otherwise, then that student has concentration issues that need to be dealt with.

Manufacturing tablets are bad for the environment and are harmful to our health. As stated by the New York Times, “adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book”. Apparently, manufacturing one tablet produces 66 lbs of carbon dioxide and requires 33 lbs of minerals, 79 gallons of water, and 11-kilowatt hours of fossil fuels. The extraction of those minerals is costly. Those 79 gallons of water can be supplied to families in communities that do not have clean drinking water. Fossil fuels are limited and could better be used to provide electricity in Sub-Saharan, Africa area where 600 million people lack access to electricity instead. Oh, should I also mention the continuous burning of fossil fuels to charge these tablets and laptops as a downside?

Electronic waste (e-waste) has now increased to about 63% in east and southeast Asia according to National Geographic. What do you think about this image?

This image is a representation of the increasing e-waste in the east and southeast Asia. (Image source: https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/01/17/e-waste-skyrockets-in-east-asia/)

E-waste is often burned or washed with acids to extract precious metals such as gold, silver, palladium, and copper. Washing e-waste with acid could contaminate the air and water which can alter thyroid function and lung function and can also affect growth and cognitive health.

In an economic perspective, tablet and laptop maintenance can be really expensive. This often requires constant software upgrading, anti-virus software installation, frequent battery, broken hardware or accessory replacement, and constant demand for battery recharging. Books, on the other hand, require none of these.

Technology is greatly helpful useful when used moderately. However, for health, educational, and environmental purposes mentioned above, there is no doubt that printed textbooks are definitely more preferable.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Tagged , ,

An enormous crater hidden in ice?

Posted on November 19, 2018 by | Leave a comment

Is it even possible that an impact crater which has even bigger area than Paris can hide underneath ice? The answer is yes! Recently a gigantic impact crater with 31 kilometres wide was found under Greenland’s ice. This crater was recorded in 25 largest craters on earth.

Crater Captain Budd Christman, NOAA Corps [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Thanks to NASA’s operation ice bridge, an airborne radar which is used to measure the thickness of the ice was applied at the edge of Hiawatha Glacier in northwest Greenland. And then researchers immediately found a round shape implements a massive crater.  Although the scientists couldn’t collect the sample from the crater from this time since the crater is still under around 900 meters deep under the ice layer, they collected the sediment from the water melt from the base of the glacier. In the sediment, they found out some significant signs of the impact: “shocked” quartz grains with deformed crystal lattices and glassy grains which implements flash-melted rock. This proves that the meteorite which caused this crater was a relatively rare iron meteorite.

To determine the age of this crater, scientists first determine the age of ice sheet covered on the crater which is 11,700 years old. Then researchers found out that the crater has cut through an ancient riverbed formed  2.6 million years ago. That is to say that the crater was probably formed between 11700 years and 2.6 million years old.

From Boliden-Phasen.jpg: Thomas Grauderivative work: Basilicofresco (msg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Kurt Kjaer and his team from the University of Copenhagen mentioned that when this kind of big iron meteorite slammed to earth, the impact must cause severe environmental damage around the Northern Hemisphere. Since the crater is likely formed from 11700 and 2.6 million years old, the impact might be the main reason which caused Younger Dryas which is also known as Ice Age. However, this theory is still a hypothesis and is a lack of convincing evidence.

From Mr. Fred Walton, NOAA via Wikipedia Commons

All in all, a massive crater was found underneath Greenland’s ice and it might be the main reason caused the Ice Age back then. Below is a video shows the whole discovery story if this massive crater.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Antibiotic Treatment Course…to finish or not to finish?!

Posted on November 19, 2018 by | 1 comment

Have you ever taken antibiotics for any infections? I’m sure most of you have… have you been told to finish the course of treatment even after you feel better? This has been the traditional approach to antibiotic treatment for many years. The common belief is that, not completing the course of treatment would cause the bacteria to mutate and become resistant to the antibiotic. This belief was questioned by a study published in 2017 claiming that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea that not completing a prescribed antibiotic course results in antibiotic resistance; while many studies suggest that taking antibiotics more than necessary increases the chance of antibiotic resistance.

The common belief is that failure to complete the course of antibiotic treatment can result in antibiotic resistance. A new study has questioned this belief. Image from Pixabay

The study by Martin Llewelyn, a professor in infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex medical school, and colleagues published in the British Medical Journal became controversial as it claimed that this idea has arisen from the “fear of undertreatment” in the early years of antibiotic discovery. The article suggested that “[policy makers, educators, and doctors] should publicly and actively state that this was not evidence-based and is incorrect.” Many experts agreed with these findings. Alison Holmes, a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London, in agreement with this article mentioned that a great British authority, Professor Harold Lambert had made the same point in an article in 1999. This article states that since the optimum duration of antibiotic treatment for infections are unknown, patients should stop taking antibiotics when they feel better to avoid antibiotic resistance.

Martin Llewelyn and colleagues claim that there is no evidence for completing the course of antibiotic treatment and patients should stop taking antibiotics once they feel better. Image from Pixabay

On the other hand, many disagree with this claim. Sumanth Gandra, a physician, claims that although it is true that an antibiotic treatment course should be reduced to minimum, the only way to minimize antibiotic use responsibly, is by clinical trials to assess the optimal treatment lengths for different infections. Moreover, patients should not stop their antibiotics without consult with their physicians. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO) still strongly encourage the public to follow the instructions of their physician and finish the course of antibiotic treatment.

Health organizations strongly encourage the public to follow the instructions of their physicians and finish the course of antibiotic treatment. Image from Shutterstock

Antibiotic resistance is an important topic in today’s society and there are several different opinions about the causes of antibiotic resistance. Despite these disagreements, I think it is our responsibility as the educated public to follow the instructions and suggestions of authorities and experts in institutions such as WHO and advise others to do so.

1 Comment

Posted in News

Tagged , , , ,

Raw Broccoli or Cooked Broccoli?

Posted on November 18, 2018 by | Leave a comment

When I fork one raw broccoli from my salad box and with the crunchy sound and the dry taste, I start to think of why the broccoli is not cooked for few seconds before putting in the salad box. The cooked broccoli is softer and more delicious.

Broccoli – image from Wikimedia Commons

Broccoli, containing many nutrients such as fibre, protein, vitamins, etc, is a healthy vegetable. It is also low calories that good to people losing weight. Most of the time, people make the salad using raw broccoli rather than cooked, which one should we choose?

Some might think that eating raw broccoli makes us healthier. Fiona Kenny, R.D. indicated that cooking broccoli makes sulforaphane (helpful for human health) difficult to be absorbed in our body. In addition, He found out that those people having raw cruciferous vegetables in diets makes them have lower rates of cancer. Liu also suggested that cooking can destroy vitamin C containing in vegetables, due to its instability. Thus, to avoid low absorption of sulforaphane and destroying of vitamin C, they suggested eating raw broccoli.

Sulforaphane – image from Wikimedia Commons

However, in contrast, another research indicated that cooked broccoli can lower the risk of disease and cancer. The conclusion was proved by the value of bile acid whose binding in human body relative to cancer. The higher the binding, the lower the risk of cancer. This research showed that compared to the binding values of uncooked and cooked broccoli, steamed cooked of vegetable improve the binding capability. Therefore, cooked broccoli can decrease the risk of getting cancer.

Cholic acid

primary bile acid – image from Wikipedia

If you ask me which one I will choose, I will choose the cooked broccoli. When the water is boiling, broccoli is put in just a few seconds and taken out, finding tasty. Also, that boiling water might kill the bacteria on my broccoli. But, it is up to you, all have the good side.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

The Weight of the World’s Fate

Posted on November 17, 2018 by | 1 comment

In (very!) recent news: the concept of the kilogram as we know it could drastically change.

Scientists from around the world gathered together on November 16, 2018 in Versailles  to vote on whether the current kilogram system should continue or be rejected and modernized. I started writing this post before the date and so I will provide both sides to the argument before revealing the vote’s outcome.

Currently, the kilogram is based on an actual physical object. Hidden under lock and key outside of Paris, a platinum-iridium cylinder called the International Prototype of the Kilogram is the fundamental unit of mass. This cylinder has been the definition since 1879 and is nicknamed Le Grand K. It is the last base system international (SI) unit to be based on a physical object and poses a couple of problems.

A replica of of Le Grande K, held by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US. Photo credit to NIST

The mass of Le Grand K is divergent, as it can pick up particles of dust, decay with time and has the possibility of being dropped or damaged. As a result, it seems very inefficient to base all of our scientific research and measurements over something this arbitrary. Le Grande K is also very inaccessible to scientists over the world.

The proposed solution? Set Planck’s constant as a fixed value. It is famously known that energy is correlated to Planck’s constant (h) and frequency (f). Energy is also known to equal mass (m) times the speed of light (c2). By rearranging, (as seen in Figure 1) mass is dependent on (hf)/c2. By setting h to a fixed value, we standardize the value of mass and therefore the kilogram.

Figure 1. Rearrangement of formulas to show mass’ (m) dependency on Planck’s constant (h). Made by Elizabeth Porter.

However, this is not as easy as it sounds. Scientists have been reminded  that Planck’s constant comes with a degree of uncertainty. The last few decimal places of the number have been differently suggested by many. What isn’t uncertain? The mass of Le Grand K, locked away in France. Because of this, there may be merit in keeping the system as is. Additionally, the standardization of Planck’s constant will affect not only the kilogram, but other SI units such as the mole, the Kelvin and the ampere. Is deviating from the status-quo worthwhile?

Both sides of this topic have validity, although a conclusion has been made. Over the years, scientists have worked tirelessly to set Planck’s constant to a certain value. Many methods were cross referenced to one another to report that h equals 6.62607015 x 10-34 Js. The kilogram can now be based off of this scientific discovery, rather than an arbitrary object. The mole, the Kelvin and the ampere are also now certainly known.

As for the vote? Scientists unanimously approved the overhaul of Le Grand K with joy and celebration. Nobel Prize winner William Phillips exclaimed  that this change is “the greatest revolution in measurement since the French revolution.” Measurements are the foundation of science as they allow us to make observations, and I think it is important to keep modern in our referencing.

This is a photo of people celebrating after Superbowl XLVII, but I like to think the reactions in Paris were similar. Photo credit to David Robert Crews.

1 Comment

Posted in News, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Human Augmentation: Salvation or Destruction?

Posted on November 17, 2018 by | 1 comment

With the emergence of technologies such as gene therapy, neural implants and brain-computer interfaces; one can only imagine, how far can we push the human body?

DNA. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

According to a report done by The National Intelligence Council, exoskeletons offer improved functionality over human limbs; allowing workers to carry increased loads without physical burden. Future neural implants could possibly link human brains to computers leading to enhanced “superhuman” abilities (think permanent photographic memory!)

However, not everyone believes in augmentation…

A movement called Bioconservatism challenges the idea of radical technological advancement in the basis that it destroys human dignity. According to them, should these augmentations come to fruition, they bring a problem that could change human society forever. This quote shows a Bioconservative sharing his testimony:

“It undermines our self – conception as free, thoughtful, responsible beings, worthy of respect because we alone among the animals have minds and hearts that aim far higher than the mere perpetuation of our genes.” – Leon Kass

Anti-Transhumanism. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The National Intelligence Council predicts that only the rich could purchase these augmentations due to their enormous costs. Which may create a divide between enhanced and non-enhanced individuals leading to a two-tiered society.

In fact, our daily lives would definitely change! Individuals with hearing or sight augmentations could invade our privacy and use our information for their own benefit. I guess annoying phone calls from telemarketers would stop (that’s great!), but instead they could just access your mind! (not so great!)

Our current technology prevents us from venturing further into human augmentation, as it cannot support these futuristic designs. For example, the battery life in exoskeletons doesn’t last long enough for practical use in work settings. Not to mention, malicious individuals could easily hack augmentations as this technology still remains in its infancy stage.

US Army Exoskeleton Prototype. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

While Bioconservatives disapprove of human augmentation, another movement called Transhumanism supports the change and believes that humans can evolve beyond our current physical and scientific limitations. A quote from a famous body artist states his opinion:

“The question is not whether a society will allow freedom to express yourself, but whether the human species will allow you to break the bonds of your genetic parameters” – Stelarc

Beyond philosophical ideas, the military sees human augmentation as the future of warfare. Researchers seek to develop retinal implants that offer night vision, neural implants that give improved cognitive ability (such as increased concentration) and augmented reality devices that enhance situational awareness of soldiers in battle.

In the future, we might see a real life Captain America or even an actual Terminator! (Excited?… maybe not)

In this day and age, if someone wants to change their physical appearance, services such as plastic surgery already exist. In my opinion, the individual should have the choice if they want to augment themselves.

I wouldn’t mind getting a bionic arm actually…

 

1 Comment

Posted in Energy, Manufacturing, Synthesis

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Truth Behind Aspartame

Posted on November 13, 2018 by | 2 comments

Sugar vs. Aspartame (artificial sweetener): if you were to ask anyone which of the two they think is the healthier alternative, the majority of people would say the latter. Is that really the case, or is the negative connotation associated with “sugar” masking the truth?

Common Sweetener Packets. (Image from Evan-Amos [Public domain], Wikimedia Commons)

For years people have been trying to cut down on their sugar intake and have been looking for a healthier alternative. For some, they miss and crave the sweet taste of sugar because their body is unable to properly regulate it. As a result, many of these people have found their solution in artificial and natural sweeteners. One of the most successful and controversial artificial sweeteners, aspartame, has especially sparked the interest of many. Is it better or worse than its sugar counterpart?

Over the last couple of decades, many claims have stated that aspartame increases the risk or is a cause of the following: headaches, dizziness, or depression. A 2007 study showed a link between cancer and aspartame in rats. Ironically, links to long-term weight gain have also been tied to aspartame intake.

On the other hand, Aspartame has been deemed safe for consumption up to 50 mg per kg of body weight, even in pregnant women and children. It is also a safe alternative for people with diabetes who cannot consume high sugar levels.

Sweeteners are substituted for sugar in many popular soft drinks. (Image from The Hits)

Comparing the pros and cons, aspartame looks to have some bad effects, but they can only be speculated, and has no real scientific basis to prove or disprove these claims. On the other hand, aspartame has been scientifically proven to be safe for consumption.

There are too many reasons to list why lots of sugar intake is bad for you.  Therefore, I am all for the switch to sweeteners like aspartame instead of sugar.

 

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in Energy

Tagged , , , ,

Low-fat vs Low-carbohydrate Which is better for Weight loss?

Posted on November 12, 2018 by | 1 comment

Do you track your calories if you are trying to lose weight? Do you look at the amount of fat that is present in food? Protein and carbohydrates? For most people the answer to most of these questions is “sometimes”. When you might ask why they don’t pay closer attention to some of these attributes of food, they may mention that a single factor is more important than others. What is the main factor in weight loss when it comes to the composition of food?

Public Domain Author: Peggy Greb, U.S. Department of Agriculture

There are many advocates for the plant-based low-fat high-carbohydrate way of eating. This approach generally will contain around ~65% energy from carbohydrates, ~15% energy from protein and ~20% energy from fats. This diet calls for a large number of whole foods such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. The benefits are generally to have improved cardiovascular markers such as lowered cholesterol levels, lowered triglycerides, reduced C-reactive protein levels (inflammation biomarker) and have higher energy levels. A study took a look at a standard non-calorically restricted low-fat plant-based diet that was followed for 16 weeks. They found that with increasing percentage of energy from carbohydrates and increased consumption of total and insoluble fiber was associated with a lower weight. It also had favorable effects on insulin control which means it can be effective in reversing pre-diabetes.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Øyvind Holmstad

Another popular diet regimen for weight loss is a low-carbohydrate diet, popular variants include the Ketogenic diet (~5% energy from carbohydrates, ~20% energy from protein, and ~75% calories from fat) or the Atkins diet (a higher protein and lower fat variant of the Ketogenic diet). These diets aim at carbohydrate restriction to induce a state of mainly burning fat for your body’s energy needs. This is a state of ketosis and this can reduce appetite which can make dieting easier. This diet also claims to improve the same cardiovascular markers as previously mentioned in the low-fat diet description. A study shows that when pinned side by side, low carbohydrate diets can lead to more favorable changes in lipid profiles, as well as being greater in effectiveness for weight loss even while calories weren’t restricted when compared side-by-side with a calorically restricted low-fat diet.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: M21Cestda

The idea of a diet is frightening to many because the restriction is not easy especially from food. A diet should aim to increase your cardiovascular biomarkers to minimize risk for disease and increase your chances of leading a long healthy life. In dietary studies, many studies contradict results of another, A study which reviewed all the other smaller scale studies on the different macronutrient composition diets found that there was no significant difference between weight loss in different diets assuming that calories were controlled. This means that the diet that would be the ideal candidate for inducing weight loss would be a calorie restricted plan which can be followed the best.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

What’s the legal name? “Lab-Grown Meat” or “Lab-Grown Meat Alternative”?

Posted on November 12, 2018 by | 2 comments

Lab-grown meat is coming but will it be allowed to be called “meat”?

Lab-grown meat, or cultured meat, is grown from a sample of animal muscle cells and provides a source of meat that doesn’t require killing an animal. This brings up a big question for food regulators. What do we consider meat? Is it just anything that consists of animal muscle cells, or does it have to directly come from an animal that has been raised in the traditional method?

Cultured meat looks and tastes similar to conventional meat. (Carnivore Locavore / flickr)

Cultured meat tastes similar to conventional meat. Dr. Mark Post at Maastricht University, one of the scientists who worked on cultured meat, has tried cooking some of the meat that he grew and said that it “tastes reasonably good” even though it had no fat. It’s not surprising that Dr. Post found his cultured meat to taste good, after all, the product he ate consisted of pure muscle cells, which would be similar to eating any other type of very lean meat purchased at a grocery store. Dr. Post says that cultured meat could be safer and healthier than conventional meat.

The State of Missouri says anything labelled as “meat” must come from livestock like these cows. (Oli / flickr)

The State of Missouri disagrees that cultured meat is “meat” and has passed a law that forbids “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.” The law targets both plant-based meat and cultured meat and aims to prevent shopper confusion. The divide is highlighted by the federal regulators behind the two types of meat. Cultured meat is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, while conventional meat is regulated by the US Department of Agriculture.

I think that since cultured meat would provide the same nutritional value as conventional meat, it should be allowed to be labelled as meat.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Why Graphene hasn’t Taken Over the World… Yet

Posted on November 12, 2018 by | Leave a comment

Fourteen years ago, Nobel prize winners Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov created one of the strongest materials in the world using just some graphite and scotch tape. Graphene is one of the thinnest materials ever made, but is still hundreds of times stronger than steel. It is as pliable as rubber and an excellent electrical conductor. When news about graphene first came out, scientists proposed myriad uses of the material from creating electronics to developing new water purification technologies. But graphene hasn’t lived up to the hype it initially created. This raises an important question: Why is graphene not ubiquitous in today’s world?

A visual representation of the structure of graphene. Image Source: SketchPort by User magicalhobo (2014)

Graphene has a unique structure that gives it many desirable characteristics. It is composed of only a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in interlocking hexagons, much like chicken wire. Scientists from Northwestern University have exploited this property in an atypical application – Using graphene as a hair dye alternative. Graphene is mixed with chitosan, a sugar from crustacean shells, and applied onto the hair. Graphene wraps around the hair follicles and the chitosan glues it into place, allowing the dye to stay on even after 30 washes. The findings are significant because the treatment does not cause any hair damage, unlike typical hair dyes which use chemical reactions to change hair colour.

A vintage advertisement for a chemical hair dye proclaiming to preserve natural hair colour. Image Source: Flickr by User Classic Film (2015)

In a more radical application, graphene could be used to make artificial heart valves. Heart valves are attractive sites for clot formation after surgery. These clots can block blood vessels, eventually resulting in death. Patients thus need to take anticoagulant drugs for life to prevent such clots from forming. Instead, scientists from two U.S. universities suggest coating the heart valve itself with a catalyst that produces the needed anticoagulant. Graphene could be used as a durable scaffold for this catalyst, eliminating the need for a lifetime course of medication.

Visual representation of a blood clot. The thrombus/blood clot obstructs the flow of blood through the vessel. Image Source: Wikipedia by User Persian Poet Gal (2006)

However, graphene yet has to overcome many obstacles before it can be put to practical use. The biggest hurdle remains how we make graphene on a large scale. It is difficult to control the structure of graphene when it is manufactured as large sheets. This problem arises from the structure of the material itself – Because graphene is very thin, it is difficult to handle in large volumes. Even if this problem is solved, we must consider the overall cost of producing graphene. At present, graphene production requires the use of extreme reaction conditions such as high temperatures and low vacuum environments. Graphene is simply not cost effective for its proposed uses.

In the long run, it is also important to consider some of the health and environmental concerns of using graphene. These influences are difficult to predict for a material that is only starting to come into use, but several studies have already begun to focus on the potential toxicity of graphene. A study published in 2016 revealed that inhaling high doses of graphene oxide could result in lung damage in humans. The findings are particularly significant when considering the applications of graphene in products such as hair dyes. Accidentally inhaling or ingesting a hair dye could result in significant health concerns. It is then also important to investigate the effects of graphene on other flora and fauna. The results from such studies could influence how we dispose of graphene in the environment.

From my viewpoint, these predicaments are not unusual for many innovative technologies. The process of translating scientific discoveries from the lab bench-top into a commercially viable product is often difficult and suffers from a significant lag time. While it would be nice for these potential applications to materialize, we should act in a prudent manner. The long-term impacts of graphene on human health and the environment are important to consider before we start to use graphene more widely. My two cents would be to consider the problem one layer at a time.

Leave a comment

Posted in Manufacturing, Synthesis

Tagged , , , ,