Thursday, December 15, 2011
Santa Clause Tummy
"Why is Santa Claus' tummy soo big?....Oh, I know - Is it from eating all those children's cookies?" - Rubi Grace Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:55pm
Monday, October 17, 2011
How do we know what we know?
How do we know what we know?
Take these three words and think about what they are and how they are inter-related.
TRUTH - KNOWLEDGE - BELIEF
The above picture was found on http://www.idealistarchive.com/studyarchive/e/epistemology.html.
The Scientific Method
1. Ask a question
2. Perform background research
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Experiment (text hypothesis)
5. Analyze data (form a conclusion)
6. Communicate the results
(click on image to go to original source)
Wikipedia lists the steps as follows:
Evidence: How do we know what we know?
Follow the below link and view the steps to verify scientific discovery.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/
1. What's the claim?
2. Who says?
3. What's the evidence?
4. How did they get the evidence?
5. Is there anything or anyone to back up the claim?
6. Could there be another explanation?
7. Who cares?
Take these three words and think about what they are and how they are inter-related.
TRUTH - KNOWLEDGE - BELIEF
The above picture was found on http://www.idealistarchive.com/studyarchive/e/epistemology.html.
The Scientific Method
1. Ask a question
2. Perform background research
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Experiment (text hypothesis)
5. Analyze data (form a conclusion)
6. Communicate the results
Wikipedia lists the steps as follows:
- Define a question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form an explanatory hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
- Analyze the data
- Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Evidence: How do we know what we know?
Follow the below link and view the steps to verify scientific discovery.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/
1. What's the claim?
2. Who says?
3. What's the evidence?
4. How did they get the evidence?
5. Is there anything or anyone to back up the claim?
6. Could there be another explanation?
7. Who cares?
Friday, October 7, 2011
Lucas, Cory
BIS301
Biochemistry Concentration Multidisciplinary
Paper Nutritional Differences Organic vs. Conventional Food Products
In times past, someone reading this paper might not have known what the term “organic” listed on a food item at the grocery store meant. That time has come and gone. Anyone that has spent any amount of time grocery shopping has most likely realized that it’s not just about price anymore. Another variable now exists in the grocery equation; whether to buy conventional or organic. This short writing will focus on two components of this debate. First, to define organic agriculture and secondly to show that organically grown products do not have a consistent verifiable nutritional difference from conventional farming methods.
WHAT DOES ORGANIC MEAN?
Excluding the general public’s perception of “organic”, the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission’s definition follows: “…The form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.” (Organic) Note: Notice the use of words “excludes or strictly limits. One must pay careful attention to the initial exclusion of something, followed by its re-allowance in a limited quantity. What determined the initial exclusion? What deemed it allowable in limited amounts? Who determines the limit? Most importantly, what governing body or driving force re-allowed the once excluded product? Profit driven business decisions, need constant monitoring and correcting, otherwise the actual difference between conventional foods and organic foods will slowly but surely blur into nothing more than a difference in packaging and pricing. The term “organic” in a liberal sense (liberal in order to include all possibilities) might define itself as the reduction of certain components and the inclusion of others components with regards to farming; The nutritional end goal, to minimize food deficiencies and maximize health giving components as well as to promote a more sustainable environment. With this in mind, the concept of organic agriculture maintains two premises:
1. All Synthetic products and their uses will prove harmful (either in there very nature or as byproducts of there use) and therefore their use minimized.
2. All Natural products and their uses convey a health benefit and therefore their use maximized.
The following SYNTHETIC items receive a harmful classification in a strict organic sense:
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
• Fungicides
• Herbicides
• Insecticides
• Hormones
• Antibiotics
• Food additives
• Genetically modified organisms
Interestingly enough, the same items receive a healthful classification if deemed NATURAL.
A major challenge faced by this viewpoint reveals itself in that all things natural do NOT possess an inherent health benefit and all things synthetic do not possess inherently harmful effects. The concept of organic, as viewed by the public, may require some clarification. Unfortunately, a review of the substantial studies as a whole show a need for more clear and unbiased results as well as consistently substantiated confirmations of proposed hypotheses. A larger number of well thought out studies show one result when just as many qualified scientific studies show something different or even contrary. A possible re-defining of the term “organic” may self-propagate as this occurs. In all agriculture, the general and specific environmental conditions have a considerable effect on flora and fauna. This fundamental concept applies to conventional as well as organic farming techniques. Implementation of certain environmental controls improves the quality, increases the quantity and shortens the maturation cycle of plants used for human consumption. The controls deal with increased availability or minimization of simple resources. These can include water, sun, shade, and elements like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
LIMITATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Availability or scarcity of an environmental factor has limited ability to change the plant. For example, no environmental condition exists wherein an apple tree becomes an orange tree. In similar manner, changing the environmental inputs only has the possibility of changing relative amounts of components within the plant that already exist and only in very small and limited amounts. Even that concept has very stringent limitations due to the fact that whether its molecular organization defines it as an apple, an alligator or a human, they all consist of the same basic major molecular components of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen organized in a different way. The basic components of a species and their construction do not vary significantly; otherwise any significant variance would constitute a different species. This seemingly simple concept reveals an important concept with regards to organic as well as conventional farming: Environmental controls will only go so far.
A REVIEW OF THE STUDIES
In the 2002 study Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?, Christine Williams said the following, “Despite the widespread conviction held by the public that organic food is ‘healthier’ than foods produced using conventional farming, evidence to support this perception is difficult to identify.” (Williams) A review of the studies, indeed verifies this as he case. Both sides of the argument have a compelling proposal. Organic proponents put forth the hypothesis that organically grown foods have more nutrients, and lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers. Conventional food producers argue that animal based fertilizers along with reduced synthetic “-ides” like pesticides and herbicides open a the door to greater contamination of food products by harmful microorganisms, etc. Unfortunately, both sides put forth very polarized opinions. In table 1 (Williams) 52,471 articles regarding organic foodstuffs, narrowed to just 162 studies, showed only 55 of a high enough quality for scholarly review. The conclusion stated, “…conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference surfaced for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.” (Williams) The data clearly shows no consistently verifiable nutritional difference between the organically grown plants and the conventionally grown plants (other than the nitrogen/phosphorus component). This data appears to correlate to another study of the effects of growth conditions on nutritionally relevant plan substituents.
DEEPER THAN ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL
Table 1 shows one example where the relationship between nutrients and growth conditions appears much deeper than just organic vs. conventional farming methods (Woese) Here, a relationship between ascorbic acid (vitamin C), beta-carotene (vitamin a precursor) and nitrogen availability at the time of planting reveals itself. Nutrient levels in plants show a dependency on the nitrogen up-take availability at the time of planting. In addition to this dependency, the data presents and inverse relationship of ascorbic acid to beta-carotene. Both nutrients do not increase or decrease based on the same environmental stimulus. Also note that as the nitrogen levels decrease from the first year to the second year, the beta-carotene levels decreased, whereas the ascorbic acid level in the plants increased! This relationship would exist regardless of organic or synthetic fertilizers. (Woese) A plant would not differentiate an organic nitrogen molecule from a synthetic nitrogen molecule. Stress components also triggered increased ascorbic acid content in the plants not organic or conventional controls per se. Oxidative stresses such as full sunlight, low nitrogen availability or herbicides increased the vitamin C content. Conversely, optimum conditions that promoted growth increased the beta-carotene content. In conclusion, a significant disparity exists between the public perception and the reality of what the term organic means with regards to food products. Performing more, high quality studies will bring to light more specific environmental factors that influence certain nutritional components of plants.
Bibliography
Dangour, Alan D. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: a Systematic Review." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Web. 26 Sept. 2011..
"Organic Certification." U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.
.
"Organic Farming." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 25 Sept. 2011.
.
Williams, Christine M. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Food:
Shades of Grey or Shades of Green?" Cambridge Journals. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. .
Woese, Katrin. "A Comparison of Organically and Conventionally
Grown Foods—Results of a Review of the Relevant Literature." Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 13.S1 (1962): 1-56. Web.
BIS301
Biochemistry Concentration Multidisciplinary
Paper Nutritional Differences Organic vs. Conventional Food Products
In times past, someone reading this paper might not have known what the term “organic” listed on a food item at the grocery store meant. That time has come and gone. Anyone that has spent any amount of time grocery shopping has most likely realized that it’s not just about price anymore. Another variable now exists in the grocery equation; whether to buy conventional or organic. This short writing will focus on two components of this debate. First, to define organic agriculture and secondly to show that organically grown products do not have a consistent verifiable nutritional difference from conventional farming methods.
WHAT DOES ORGANIC MEAN?
Excluding the general public’s perception of “organic”, the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission’s definition follows: “…The form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.” (Organic) Note: Notice the use of words “excludes or strictly limits. One must pay careful attention to the initial exclusion of something, followed by its re-allowance in a limited quantity. What determined the initial exclusion? What deemed it allowable in limited amounts? Who determines the limit? Most importantly, what governing body or driving force re-allowed the once excluded product? Profit driven business decisions, need constant monitoring and correcting, otherwise the actual difference between conventional foods and organic foods will slowly but surely blur into nothing more than a difference in packaging and pricing. The term “organic” in a liberal sense (liberal in order to include all possibilities) might define itself as the reduction of certain components and the inclusion of others components with regards to farming; The nutritional end goal, to minimize food deficiencies and maximize health giving components as well as to promote a more sustainable environment. With this in mind, the concept of organic agriculture maintains two premises:
1. All Synthetic products and their uses will prove harmful (either in there very nature or as byproducts of there use) and therefore their use minimized.
2. All Natural products and their uses convey a health benefit and therefore their use maximized.
The following SYNTHETIC items receive a harmful classification in a strict organic sense:
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
• Fungicides
• Herbicides
• Insecticides
• Hormones
• Antibiotics
• Food additives
• Genetically modified organisms
Interestingly enough, the same items receive a healthful classification if deemed NATURAL.
A major challenge faced by this viewpoint reveals itself in that all things natural do NOT possess an inherent health benefit and all things synthetic do not possess inherently harmful effects. The concept of organic, as viewed by the public, may require some clarification. Unfortunately, a review of the substantial studies as a whole show a need for more clear and unbiased results as well as consistently substantiated confirmations of proposed hypotheses. A larger number of well thought out studies show one result when just as many qualified scientific studies show something different or even contrary. A possible re-defining of the term “organic” may self-propagate as this occurs. In all agriculture, the general and specific environmental conditions have a considerable effect on flora and fauna. This fundamental concept applies to conventional as well as organic farming techniques. Implementation of certain environmental controls improves the quality, increases the quantity and shortens the maturation cycle of plants used for human consumption. The controls deal with increased availability or minimization of simple resources. These can include water, sun, shade, and elements like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
LIMITATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Availability or scarcity of an environmental factor has limited ability to change the plant. For example, no environmental condition exists wherein an apple tree becomes an orange tree. In similar manner, changing the environmental inputs only has the possibility of changing relative amounts of components within the plant that already exist and only in very small and limited amounts. Even that concept has very stringent limitations due to the fact that whether its molecular organization defines it as an apple, an alligator or a human, they all consist of the same basic major molecular components of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen organized in a different way. The basic components of a species and their construction do not vary significantly; otherwise any significant variance would constitute a different species. This seemingly simple concept reveals an important concept with regards to organic as well as conventional farming: Environmental controls will only go so far.
A REVIEW OF THE STUDIES
In the 2002 study Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?, Christine Williams said the following, “Despite the widespread conviction held by the public that organic food is ‘healthier’ than foods produced using conventional farming, evidence to support this perception is difficult to identify.” (Williams) A review of the studies, indeed verifies this as he case. Both sides of the argument have a compelling proposal. Organic proponents put forth the hypothesis that organically grown foods have more nutrients, and lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers. Conventional food producers argue that animal based fertilizers along with reduced synthetic “-ides” like pesticides and herbicides open a the door to greater contamination of food products by harmful microorganisms, etc. Unfortunately, both sides put forth very polarized opinions. In table 1 (Williams) 52,471 articles regarding organic foodstuffs, narrowed to just 162 studies, showed only 55 of a high enough quality for scholarly review. The conclusion stated, “…conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference surfaced for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.” (Williams) The data clearly shows no consistently verifiable nutritional difference between the organically grown plants and the conventionally grown plants (other than the nitrogen/phosphorus component). This data appears to correlate to another study of the effects of growth conditions on nutritionally relevant plan substituents.
DEEPER THAN ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL
Table 1 shows one example where the relationship between nutrients and growth conditions appears much deeper than just organic vs. conventional farming methods (Woese) Here, a relationship between ascorbic acid (vitamin C), beta-carotene (vitamin a precursor) and nitrogen availability at the time of planting reveals itself. Nutrient levels in plants show a dependency on the nitrogen up-take availability at the time of planting. In addition to this dependency, the data presents and inverse relationship of ascorbic acid to beta-carotene. Both nutrients do not increase or decrease based on the same environmental stimulus. Also note that as the nitrogen levels decrease from the first year to the second year, the beta-carotene levels decreased, whereas the ascorbic acid level in the plants increased! This relationship would exist regardless of organic or synthetic fertilizers. (Woese) A plant would not differentiate an organic nitrogen molecule from a synthetic nitrogen molecule. Stress components also triggered increased ascorbic acid content in the plants not organic or conventional controls per se. Oxidative stresses such as full sunlight, low nitrogen availability or herbicides increased the vitamin C content. Conversely, optimum conditions that promoted growth increased the beta-carotene content. In conclusion, a significant disparity exists between the public perception and the reality of what the term organic means with regards to food products. Performing more, high quality studies will bring to light more specific environmental factors that influence certain nutritional components of plants.
Bibliography
Dangour, Alan D. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: a Systematic Review." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.
Monday, September 26, 2011
I will be using this page for a poll response on a presentation I am giving for my BIS 301 class. I'm going to be giving the class some food that were grown organically & conventionally. They will have a chance to vote as to which of the two items they believe is organic. My part of the presentation has to do with the Biochemistry component, but I wanted to do something to get there attention.
You'll be able to see the results. Maybe afterwards, I'll put up some more polls that everyone can vote on?
You'll be able to see the results. Maybe afterwards, I'll put up some more polls that everyone can vote on?
Replace your audience response systems with Poll Everywhere
Thursday, September 15, 2011
I'm not happy unless I have more.
Awesome thought from Wayne W. Dyer's "Making The Shift" audio series (CD 1, part e)
It was more of the more freeing things that I ever did in my life. To stop identifying myself on the basis of how much of this stuff I accumulate...How much can I hoard. Because we're really about the only creatures that really hoard. We want more than we even need. To believe that we can't be happy unless we have more is really one of the definitions of insanity. To believe that I must have something that I don't have in order for me to be happy is a form of insanity, because you already don't have it and you have the opportunity to be happy.
If I am what I have...then when I don't have...I am not.Awesome.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Dia Cuatro de Julio
Worked on the sprinkler system and outside most of the day....yeah..it was hot.
Later in the day went over the the rents-in-law and barbecued and did a little pool action. It was fun and relaxing.
We watched the craziest show. I don't remember the name (maybe one of you will) about the people that hoard stuff? Holy crazy! I have to admit though - I think the producers probably have a significant role in making it look as bad as possible and make the situation worse if possible. But then again..some of that crap looks real! (and crap if both figurative and real).
Finished up the night with Never Say Never (Justin Bieber). I've actually heard good stuff about it - and it was OK. It's a crazy sociological discussion about how he got to where he it, but I'll save it for another day.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Holy Comments..
Well - as you can tell, I am neither an expert nor consistent and blogging. I would like to be but I'm not there yet.
Anyway - I just clicked on the comments section. HOLY HANNAH! I guess I didn't really realize anyone was actually reading this stuff!..lol...
Thank you so much for all the comments! It makes me feel like people care! And if you don't care - well at least your reading the blog..hahaha..
So thanks!
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!!!
Anyway - I just clicked on the comments section. HOLY HANNAH! I guess I didn't really realize anyone was actually reading this stuff!..lol...
Thank you so much for all the comments! It makes me feel like people care! And if you don't care - well at least your reading the blog..hahaha..
So thanks!
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!!!
Don't give up...Just play your game the best you can.
Ok..So i'm just trying to get the hang of this...there's always going to be some glitches..I just realized that that the first part isn't showing up...and the audio didn't record on either one..Hopefully I'll get better at this...lol..
Part 1
Part 2
The other guy might be bigger, better, have more money, etc..etc..etc..(heck - it might not even be another guy - it's anything that tries to bully you around) But that doesn't mean you give up. There's not a lot of background, but basically the professional baseball player (Dante) who refers to himself in third person all the time, took the other guys girl friend. Basically he has no chance to win her back and so it's looking dim. But he still cares about her and confront Dante when he realizes that he doesn't care about her. They make a wager that he never should have taken. But he has to...I ended the clip early, but the point is - it doesn't matter if he beats the guy or not - he made the right choice when he chose to stand up against him.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
My independence Day!
Every year since 2009, I celebrate July 2 as one of my greatest personal independence days. It was the day that I was finally released from the hospital after months and months of what is without question one of the most difficult times of my life. I want to shed some light on the myth of individualism. Despite the fact that I had countless days of personal struggle where I had to push myself well beyond what I thought I had the ability to do....I COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND LOVED ONES LIKE YOU! Whatever you did for me, whether it was a simple prayer offered up for me when you heard about my situation, or you were there day after day after tireless day with me as I drug you through some of the worst days of my life....I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FROM THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. THANK YOU. Happy 4th of July weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)