Welcome to my 7th grade science blog!

Monday, November 29, 2010

Food Inc. Reflection

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghYDDCLN7kBfMbIuiOiSNBAyO2uvgk2SO1yR44gcIePM0YXzWk0KsPVrwGfgWxZ7QKo5CabCZrvnpHUC9Iw-AEZDPUwE-aIpfEQDKnZv8yat97pSZhRBgQ8uxawNXz49fYmekxMMGqBi4c/s1600/cow.jpg

After watching Food Inc, what are your impressions of how science, technology, and society are interrelated?  
Now I know that much of our society relies on engineering from scientists. Also we rely greatly as society on technology to eliminate dirty work or make our lives in general more pleasant for us. If scientists hadn’t genetically engineered chickens to make them grow faster, be larger and have larger chicken breasts, maybe the Chicken McNugget would not exist or would be expensive.

How did the film describe science & technology as a positive or negative impact on society or the environment?  
The film showed science and technology in both a negative light5. However, it focused less on the good side, because when you are presented with the positive facts of science and technology, it is easy to figure out why it is good. For example, when you learn that chickens have steroids in their diet to make them grow faster, it is easy to figure out that growing faster results in more chickens flowing in/out of the feedlots at a higher rate, which means more efficiency and cheaper, more easily available chickens.

How do our consumer choices affect what is out on the market and therefore, our own survival?  
When we buy something at a supermarket, what we purchase is saved in a database.  The database is later analyzed to see what is purchased most frequently so they can stock more of it, and what is purchased the least, so they can stop stocking it. When you stop buying milk from cows with steroids, the store will have less incentive to keep stocking it. If it stops stocking it or decreases how much it stocks, the farmer making the milk will make less or switch to a different type of food (e.g. milk from cows without steroids), because he sees he is not selling the milk from the cows with steroids.


How are we as humans connected to how the Earth is used?  
Whatever we consume has to come directly or indirectly from the earth. When you eat a carrot cake, there is a carrot in there that comes from the earth. Even totally artificial foods are made from things from the earth. When we eat things that are made in a sustainable way, then the https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEpVWgXTzxkxWsCMrintTeNYU9lTAqRe-_zK1WXel-6Zz2OFu8Br7WZVDHQzEWbknjZJRDM3XVchNDiJbRyxnJye0OpTC7b0zbyb3a_8DxCdeoyhIWlXi4oKOvJgkM-zXv0M7ow26SIKCv/s200/food%252C+inc.jpgway they were made is not harming the environment, and that is good. However, when we eat something that relies on nonreliable resources or was produced in a non-sustainable way, then
it harms the environment, which is bad.



A few ideas that popped up in conversation throughout the movie were:  


When do we say no to more high tech devices and go back to what caused the problem in the first place?  Why are we only into the "HOW" and not the "WHY?"
Sometimes it is easier to eliminate the effect of the problem than to eliminate the cause. If you take cold medicine that eliminates your symptoms, it doesn’t completely heal you, but it does make your cold go away for a while. In a similar way, it is easier to irradiate meat to kill germs than to implement a massive change in the way we grow and slaughter meat, because the massive change requires revamping farms and slaughterhouses, while irradiation is only another step in the manufacturing process. In that way, we are addressing the “How?”, and not the “Why?”, mainly because it is easier to address. However, sometimes if you cannot completely or effectively address the “How?”, you should address the “Why?” instead of trying complicated and ineffective solutions for “How?”. I disagree with the question here, because it suggests that addressing the “Why?”  is better to do than addressing the “How?”, yet that is not always the case.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitxd80L6hyphenhyphensLfo8zpHDyqco0n4RiERgiDkSuExVUYKDNdNdAwtCloYSJpX8poH-HEmC9anLrc97qFWLgRZFiHOSXerUSEgLra6iFXQuCLUoBtKHSe2ZYfIiCbEoTp1NGGrOhCOgtI9qSOu/s1600/assembly+meat+cutters.jpg


What is the difference between natural farming and industrial farming?  Which is better?  Are they both necessary?  
Natural farming is the kind of farming that is usually small-scale, and doesn’t use growth hormones. The animals in a natural farm are usually fed the foods that that their bodies are meant to be fed and that they can digest. Industrial farming is focused more on speed of growth and quantity. Because of that, they use growth hormones and steroids to make the animals on an industrial farm grow faster. There is no easy way to define the “better” of the two, because they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Natural farming is safer and more natural, yet it is more expensive and produces less food. Industrial farming is less safe and has a slightly higher risk of disease in the food, but has a high output and is the more viable and cost effective way of feeding many people for a low price. Both are necessary, because in some situations (in a fancy, expensive restaurant), more expensive, higher quality food is needed, but in other situations, (a fast food restaurant), lower quality, cheaper food is needed. If the whole world used natural farming, food would be much more expensive, and I doubt that it would be possible to produce the amount of food that we need using natural farming.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz3Imi_ousnHt-e5j1jYOvde9l23fhzie2j5G6KW3Rc_8Alkp3i9BtRT84E4LqexoH9VXCcmjKDhNhHNMpXdF93iw_hVZELGRJvHRa-FNpt0gpVIZ-V1P_JW0dS9EaOXFnn7pwd17tgndh/s1600/lots+of+chickens.jpg


If technology and industry have improved so much that we are getting faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper, how are science and technology involved in our survival? 
Without the technologies that enable us to make plants and animals “faster, fatter, bigger and cheaper”, producing enough food for the entire world would be nearly impossible. With these technologies, we can grow more food in the same time and space than using traditional farming methods. Without the technologies, sustaining all 6.8 billion people in the world would be mighty difficult.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB0zHIr6z410q4r_zaglXQV36FH1H3DUeQwchP3rHoEG9fvH3D6w1Rd00yqjGBnBxExAleY71X7IiYzZYL_4TnSq6Y4kr3WKLmemwHK_r5fa65Ub6FzFqxHStAJmcLxVlomnpxejHFa3hM/s1600/bigger+chickens.jpg


What economic costs, environmental costs, ethical costs, health costs, and cultural costs did you observe while watching the film?  
With the abundance and extremely low price of fast food, it is a quick and easy option for a meal. However, fast food contains a lot of sugar, salt, fats and other things that are not good in excessive quantities for the human body. Because fast food is so appealing, ubiquitous and cheap, people consume it often, and that causes people to get fat and be negatively affected in terms of health. In America, heart disease is the number one killer of people every year. A large cause of heart disease, but not the only one, is eating fast food. If there were no fast food in the world, many million people fewer would not die.
  

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Current Events 8: Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth

Don't ever think that your brain is a simple thing.
Some new research by Stanford students has found that there are more switches in the human brain than all the switches in every computer on earth added up.
In you brain, there are things called nerve cells, or neurons. Those are hard to define, but I found that they are "cells that are specialized to conduct nerve impulses". In other words, they are the controllers of the nerves in your body. If you didn't remember what nerves were, let me remind you: nerves are the things in you body that control you feelings (pain, hunger etc.), and they also help you control you movements. 
Back to neurons: you brain has 200 billion of them. They are connected together with 100s of trillions of synapses. Synapses are basically just connections between the neurons. (I know this is a lot of vocab for one post!) Although not every neuron is connected to every other neuron, that's still a lot of synapses. In order to fit so many synapses into your brain, they are extreme small. They're less than one-thousandth of a millimeter wide each. All of this was discovered by students in the Standford University School of Medicine. They were creating a new imaging model, in other word a new way to scan and represent the brain. They call their new model array tomography. Array tomography can be used with some computer software that can make a 3d image of the synapses in a brain. When the Stanford researchers  created this model, they were amazed by how complex the brain is. Just look:


Source:
Elizabeth Armstrong Moore
November 17, 2010
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html

This was my hardest current events ever. I didn't even understand the article myself when I read it, and there were seemingly millions of terms to look up.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Percent of Owl Prey in Class Owl Population

Reflections/Answering Questions
 Based upon the class data, rank the most frequently consumed prey for the class “owl population”
Based on the data, I can tell that the most consumed prey for the class population is the rat, because 42% of all the biomass consumed was rat biomass.
A predator expends energy when hunting for food. Which is more “energy expensive” cuisine, 35 insects at 1 gram each or one 35 gram vole?
It would be more energy expensive to eat 35 insects than 1 gram each than one 35 gram vole, because It would take many trips and a longer time hunting to get 35 insects, rather than 1 vole. However, if voles were extremely rare and the owl found a new insect nest and scooped up 35 insects, then it would be more energy expensive to spend a long time hunting for a vole rather than scooping up a huge portion of insets at once. that situation would be rare though, so it would be safe to assume that in general it is more energy expensive to eat 35 insects rather than one vole.
Try to define the food-getting “strategy” for a predator.
The food getting strategy for a predator, although it varies for each animal, is basically the systematic plan that the predator uses to get it's food. It can also vary according to what environment the predator is in. For a barn owl, the strategy could be to swoop down from high above and snatch up mice to eat. For a bat, the strategy could be to find insects using echolocation and eat them.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Current Events 7: In Twenty Years Chocolate Will Be A Rare Delicacy

This might be upsetting for you: in about 20 years, chocolate will be very expensive. It's going to happen because the demand for chocolate is increasing faster the then production. IN other words, people are wanting chocolate more and more, more than the chocolate growers are growing. This has been coming for a long time. IN the past six years alone, cocoa prices have been doubled. Another factor that is influencing this is the fact that chocolate can only grown within 10 degrees of the equator, which means that chocolate can't be grown everywhere in the world.  A small-time grower earns about 80 cents each day, but they could be earning much more money if they grew other crops like rubber. That's why farmers don't replant the cocoa plants when they die. Many farmers are also moving into cities where more money can be made. One of the few things that could stop this is the fact that scientists have "sequenced" chocolate's genome, which means that they now have the ability  to alter the chocolate crop to produce more and be able to grow in a wider variety of locations. However, the most likely result of this whole dilemma is more expensive chocolate. According to John Mason, who is the director of a Ghana Nature Conservation group, a chocolate bar could cost around $11 in 20 years.
I am disappointed by this news. I hope that more farmers start growing genetically engineered chocolate so that it won't be much more expensive.
Source:
Rebecca Boyle
Sept. 9, 2010
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/future-chocolate-will-be-rare-delicacy-analysts-say

Monday, November 15, 2010

Reflection about Carbon Footprint

The video spoke a lot about sustainability.  What is sustainability?
I searched for the definition of sustainability, and I found that "the property of being sustainable". Since that didn't really help me, I continued searching. I found that there are many ways to define sustainability, but sustainability in an environmental sense means "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In other words, continuing whatever you are doing now, and doing so in a way that wouldn't harm the environment if you continued doing it for a million years.
 Define this in your blog post and give examples of ways that you can lessen your human footprint.  What is a human footprint?  What do you think the video was trying to get across to you?  
Human footprint is much easier to define. It means "The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems." In other words, how much of Earth's resources you are using in your existence on earth. I think that the whole movie was trying to show you that you are not small at all, and that you do have a very large impact on Earth's resources, in other words a large Eco Footprint. I think that it was pretty effective in that respect.What does Earth have to do with our footprint?  Find out what makes an Ecological Footprint by clicking on each icon in the circle under:  What Makes an EcoFootprint?  Describe some global impacts that occur because of consumerism.  Now, follow the link on my original post and play the game.
The earth has to do with our footprint because it provides us with all of our resources that allow us to live and have an ecological footprint. Without the Earth, we obviously would have nowhere to live. Even if Earth and life did exist, but the Earth stopped producing resources, we would die because all of our food, electricity, and water and other vital things come from the Earth
Using the website below, calculate your Eco Footprint and reflect on what you learned about your family behaviors and actions and what type of Footprint you are leaving on the planet.  Write down some ways that you believe you could lessen your footprint.  

I couldn't really understand the game footprint calculator, but I used the calculator on the Eco Voyagers site to find out that if everyone on Earth lived like I did, we would need 2.66 Earths. That was surprising to me. I believe that my family is not doing to badly environmentally, because we almost never use our car (which is a hybrid) we always reuse plastic bags and we do other things to lessen our Eco Footprint. I guess that is not enough though. I could lessen my footprint further by buying less heavily packaged food, possibly living in a smaller house because ours is larger than we absolutely need and also conserving energy use further.
Now, go back to the Ecovoyageurs website and click on Earthly Impacts at the top of the page.  Visit both the Global and Personal impacts pages.  Were there any facts that surprised you from the website?  What about from the video we watched in class?  What were some facts that stuck in your head and really made you think about human behavior on our planet?  
There were a few facts that really struck me, like:

The wealthiest 5% of the world's population consumes 58% of energy.
That surprised me because although I knew that the wealthier part of the worlds population used a lot of energy, I didn't think that it was this disproportionately high.
The least wealthy 20% of the world's population consumes 1% of paper, while the most wealthy 5% of the worlds population consumes 84% of the world's paper.
Again, this was surprising because I knew there would be a large difference, but I didn't know it would be this big.


Finally, click on You Can Help to get some ideas about what you can do to help lessen the footprint you leave.
I clicked through here, and the section that I focused on was energy consumption, which is the area that I think that I can improve the most in. There didn't seem to be any easy solution here, though. Global warming is a very complicated problem. They suggested switching off TV/Computer, and doing something that doesn't require electricity. That would be very hard for me.


***Remember all the things that we consume or use throughout a lifetime, you may be young and just one person, but that all adds up in the end.  What are some changes you and/or your family can make?  
Like I said before, (this is the same text) I could lessen my footprint further by buying less heavily packaged food, possibly living in a smaller house because ours is larger than we absolutely need and also conserving energy use further.



*Old Reflection*
Don't read this or grade this visitor. This is the my high-speed reflecting that I did during recess. Obviously I redid the whole reflection once I read the instructions.



I took the quiz that Mrs. M linked to on her site. I got these results:

Your total ecological footprint is 4.84 hectares
If everyone lived the same as you we'd need 2.66 earths!
I found it pretty surprising. In the quiz, it asks for many, many things, like how big my house is (I probably got that wrong), but telling me that I need 2.66 Earths to sustain my lifestyle is shocking. I'm glad not everyone in the world lives like that! The movie that we are watching in class also shows some shocking numbers, while backing them up with a real picture. However, they don't tell you the alternatives, or what you can do to avoid using so many resources. I find the fact that Earth is still able the (mostly) cope with so many people living like that surprising. In the movie, they do waste a lot of resources showing you what they want to show you. Especially in the scene when the dump thousands of eggs onto the floor, that seems quite wasteful. I guess that it is OK in the name of science, to waste all those eggs. Maybe people will eat fewer eggs, now that they know how many they are eating. If everyone reduced their egg consumption, then they could make up for all the eggs wasted.
Overall, I think that my quiz results plus the movie both show me that I do have a large impact on the earth, and that I can really negatively impact the environment if I don't conserve.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Current Events 6: The Truth Behind the Everlasting Happy Meal: Burgers That Size Don't Rot

Recently a big fuss was made of some images released by a person named Sally Davies. She took a Happy Meal, and left it out in the open for 6 months, taking a photo of it every day. She made a video of it, and her experiment showed that the Happy Meal didn't rot at all. However, later research by Kenji Lopez-Alt, a writer for Serious eats, a well known, reliable internet food site, showed something interesting: hamburgers don't rot. Using a good scientific method that Mrs. M would be proud of, Kenji researched whether mold would grow on a McDonalds burger, or a normal home-made burger. You can find his research here. He left a McDonalds burger and a burger he made himself using a store-bought patty and bun. He also tested many other burgers, small ones and big ones like an Angus 1/4 Pounder, which you can read about on my , and source link. He testing found that all of the small burgers, both the McDonalds one and the home-made one didn't rot. However, both of the larger burgers he tested, the Angus 1/4 pounder, and a home-made version of the Angus, did rot. He concluded that the smaller burgers didn't rot because they have a large surface area, and are small, both of which help cause the burgers' inability to hold moisture. Moisture is one of the key factors for creating mold, so without the moisture, the mold couldn't grow. He also stated that another reason that the burgers didn't rot is that they were cooked at a very hot temperature, which could have killed the bacteria on the meat. When he put any of the burgers into a closed environment like a plastic bag where moisture couldn't escape, the mold grew.
I think that this is really interesting because it proves a very shocking piece of information wrong. I don't eat at McDonald's very much, but I don't think that it is fair for people to criticize McDonald's for someting they haven't thoroughly researched ad tested. 
Here is the video of the Happy Meal that started all this fuss:


Sources:
Kyle VanHemeret
Nov. 5, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5682815/the-truth-behind-the-everlasting-happy-meal-no-burgers-that-size-rot
http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html?ref=carousel
If you are interested, here was McDonalds' official response to the non-rotting Happy Meal. It was made before this new research I reported about, but some of the points they made were proved to be valid by the research:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/mcd_faq/spam_recruitment_fraudulent_email_messages.html

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Current Events 5: Echolocation Forces Poor Bats to Nosedive Into Metal

Many people know that bats find bugs using echolocation. That's where they send out sound waves, and depending on which waves bounce back and where, they can tell the location of a bug. Now, new research says that bats also use echolocation to learn about their surrounding environment. Wild bats both young and old were placed in a room with smooth and textured wood and metal plates. All of the bats, both the young ones and the old ones, tried to drink from the smooth plates, but never the textured plates. They did this because when they found a smooth surface using echolocation, they thought it was water, and attempted to drink from it. Water (and smooth surfaces) have a smooth surface which sound waves bounce cleanly off of, while rougher or textured surfaces make sound waves bounce in more directions. Even the young bats that had never seen a large river or lake, would theoretically not know what a large smooth surface represents because they had never seen one, but they still tried to drink from the smooth surfaces. That means that the feature of recognizing smooth surfaces is engraved in all bat's brains, whether they had seen smooth surfaces before or not.
Here's a video that explains this topic really well, along with some cute footage of bats skimming the surfaces:



Sources:]
Sam Biddle
Nov. 2, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5679971/echolocation-forces-poor-bats-to-nosedive-into-metal
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/video-reliance-echolocation-drives-bats-try-drink-metal-plates