This chapter had me convinced that global warming is no myth. Kolbert clearly explains the consequences global warming has on the land and biological species. However, Kolbert's main focus was on the earth's butterflies and toads. When discussing the species she used their general name and in parenthesis she would state their scientific name. Kolbert thoroughly went through who the victims would be; what will happen to them; when it might take effect; and where this might take place.
The chapter was a questioning one -- what if. I can definitely say I was a bit frightened after reading it because I never knew this was happening. Kolbert chose to use these specific examples, so readers can feel the same way I do and hopefully, they might want to do something about it. She also used them to clearly project that if the world is constantly moving, the species living within it have no choice but to shift along with the earth. She subliminally states throughout the chapter that "history repeats itself" ; this happened before and it has a chance of happening again, according to recorded data.
The most striking moment was the extinction of the Golden toad. With exclusive details, Kolbert was able to accurately tell the tale of the species' short life on earth. I wish I was able to see such a beautiful creature. Overall, I felt the chapter itself was memorable. People aren't informed of such information, so this chapter served its purpose. Everything little thing served its purpose from the hardcore facts to the description of a biologist.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Field Notes Chapters 2-3
Using many different examples, Kolbert supports the theory of global warming. She starts off using a scientist dated back to the 1800s to begin her timeline of other scientists who made remarkable discoveries about carbon dioxide and rising temperatures to help prove the point -- something needs to be done. Each person used to help emphasize the world's climate change had significant credentials in heir background proving to be credible in this case. The timeline starts with curiosity of one scientist and the rest just pick up where the other left off.
The argument, however, was strongly supported in most cases. There were four strongest pieces of evidence adduced in support of the theory of global warming. The greenhouse gases were accounted for the fact that "the average global temperature, instead of zero, is actually a far more comfortable fifty-seven degrees." If equilibrium of the quantity of radiation both receiving and giving are unbalanced, the planet would either have to heat up or cool down to get to normal temperature again. Kolbert supported her case with places in ice-lands that are beginning to melt or shift. Greenland's temperatures increases, sea level rises, and the Swiss Camp floating on ice thoroughly support her claim.
Kolbert even throws in information that contradicts the global warming theory. Talking about the miscalculations of CO2 in the atmosphere by one of the scientist, she uses that to stand on both sides; yet, at the same time she answers and questions and speculations readers may have against Kolbert's global warming theory. With recent studies and a more effective, modernized way to measure atmospheric CO2, the Keeling Curve, she wins the argument once again. What I admire the most of her writing style and skill is the way she turned a study into something readable -- scientific jargon to English.
The argument, however, was strongly supported in most cases. There were four strongest pieces of evidence adduced in support of the theory of global warming. The greenhouse gases were accounted for the fact that "the average global temperature, instead of zero, is actually a far more comfortable fifty-seven degrees." If equilibrium of the quantity of radiation both receiving and giving are unbalanced, the planet would either have to heat up or cool down to get to normal temperature again. Kolbert supported her case with places in ice-lands that are beginning to melt or shift. Greenland's temperatures increases, sea level rises, and the Swiss Camp floating on ice thoroughly support her claim.
Kolbert even throws in information that contradicts the global warming theory. Talking about the miscalculations of CO2 in the atmosphere by one of the scientist, she uses that to stand on both sides; yet, at the same time she answers and questions and speculations readers may have against Kolbert's global warming theory. With recent studies and a more effective, modernized way to measure atmospheric CO2, the Keeling Curve, she wins the argument once again. What I admire the most of her writing style and skill is the way she turned a study into something readable -- scientific jargon to English.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
"Field Notes From A Catastrophe"
This is well-written, simply because the simplicity of it.
It's a journalistic science book. Why? Because she was informing readers about something we already knew, but presented it to us differently and she explained scientific terms, for those who "skip over it." Elizabeth Kolbert uses great sources in the book, which contributes to the true journalistic writing. Each point and fact given was supported with recent, credible sources. She even compared statistics/numbers to objects and places to show rather than tell.
Kolbert began the book with a scene-setter/narrative and pretty much, the rest of the book is structured that way. She took a different approach for a book introductory, especially a science book about global warming. Honestly, most people don't care about global warming because they don't know what it actually is and does, thanks to scientific jargon. Constantly, personal experiences are used to help prove a scientific point. Kolbert mixes experience with facts to give readers a better understanding of how global warming is detriment to society today.
Being the ears and eyes of the expedition, Kolbert does a great job in being detailed, which further helped explain the global warming issue. She even uses mini-dialogue to bring the story to life.
It's a journalistic science book. Why? Because she was informing readers about something we already knew, but presented it to us differently and she explained scientific terms, for those who "skip over it." Elizabeth Kolbert uses great sources in the book, which contributes to the true journalistic writing. Each point and fact given was supported with recent, credible sources. She even compared statistics/numbers to objects and places to show rather than tell.
Kolbert began the book with a scene-setter/narrative and pretty much, the rest of the book is structured that way. She took a different approach for a book introductory, especially a science book about global warming. Honestly, most people don't care about global warming because they don't know what it actually is and does, thanks to scientific jargon. Constantly, personal experiences are used to help prove a scientific point. Kolbert mixes experience with facts to give readers a better understanding of how global warming is detriment to society today.
Being the ears and eyes of the expedition, Kolbert does a great job in being detailed, which further helped explain the global warming issue. She even uses mini-dialogue to bring the story to life.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I'm Seeing Floaters
I explained to my mother that I can see dead people and she just told me to stop wiping my eyes with dirty hands. I'm trying to catch black dots that fall in every direction I look. Every time I try to focus, they begin to drift off. Is it floating spiritual energy or just some dirt in my eye?
-eye-floaters.jpg)
Photo Courtesy of Google
A. Doctors call them eye floaters, which are circles, spots, or cloud-like objects that appear in the field of your vision, are only seen by that person and nothing is seen on the eye. The floaters are small, dark, shadowy shapes that you can not focus on because they dart away when you look at them, and they usually don't follow the eye movement since they drift only when the eye stops. Eye floaters can be seen if looking at a plain, light-colored background; To see them clearly look at a white piece of paper, a white wall, a clear sky and even light. Most people have had eye floaters before, but we learn to ignore them even if they become more prominent.
Photo Courtesy of The National Eye Institute
Floaters occur when the vitreous humour, a gel like substance that fills the space between the retina and the lens as well as other vertebrates and helps stabilize the eye, slowly shrinks. When the vitreous begins to shrink, it becomes stringy and the strands can create tiny shadows on the retina. As we get older the more the vitreous humour degenerates and can detach causing more floaters. If you have an eye injury severe enough that it changed the structure of the vitreous humour, you are likely to have retinal detachment along with more eye floaters. Flashes of light may appear as one gets more eye floaters. High blood pressure and migraines can also contribute tot the flashes of light. However, there are much more serious causes of floaters such as infection, inflammation, retinal tears, pregnancy, hemorrhaging, and other injuries to the eye. Floaters are very common in people with diabetes, near-sighted and people who are cataract operation.
Eye floaters are simply annoying and no treatment is really recommended because they are usually ignored. People do go to eye care professionals to see if there are more complicated issues. For extreme cases in which the floaters are so dense and numerous that they affect vision, there are laser treatments and surgery to remove them. This surgery is called vitrectomy, which is the removal of the vitreous gel along with the floating debris inside the eye. The vitreous is usually replaced with a salt solution and because the vitreous is mostly water, you would not know the difference.
http://www.eyecaresource.com/problems/eye-floaters.html
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/index.asp
-eye-floaters.jpg)
Photo Courtesy of Google
A. Doctors call them eye floaters, which are circles, spots, or cloud-like objects that appear in the field of your vision, are only seen by that person and nothing is seen on the eye. The floaters are small, dark, shadowy shapes that you can not focus on because they dart away when you look at them, and they usually don't follow the eye movement since they drift only when the eye stops. Eye floaters can be seen if looking at a plain, light-colored background; To see them clearly look at a white piece of paper, a white wall, a clear sky and even light. Most people have had eye floaters before, but we learn to ignore them even if they become more prominent.
Photo Courtesy of The National Eye Institute
Floaters occur when the vitreous humour, a gel like substance that fills the space between the retina and the lens as well as other vertebrates and helps stabilize the eye, slowly shrinks. When the vitreous begins to shrink, it becomes stringy and the strands can create tiny shadows on the retina. As we get older the more the vitreous humour degenerates and can detach causing more floaters. If you have an eye injury severe enough that it changed the structure of the vitreous humour, you are likely to have retinal detachment along with more eye floaters. Flashes of light may appear as one gets more eye floaters. High blood pressure and migraines can also contribute tot the flashes of light. However, there are much more serious causes of floaters such as infection, inflammation, retinal tears, pregnancy, hemorrhaging, and other injuries to the eye. Floaters are very common in people with diabetes, near-sighted and people who are cataract operation.
Eye floaters are simply annoying and no treatment is really recommended because they are usually ignored. People do go to eye care professionals to see if there are more complicated issues. For extreme cases in which the floaters are so dense and numerous that they affect vision, there are laser treatments and surgery to remove them. This surgery is called vitrectomy, which is the removal of the vitreous gel along with the floating debris inside the eye. The vitreous is usually replaced with a salt solution and because the vitreous is mostly water, you would not know the difference.
http://www.eyecaresource.com/problems/eye-floaters.html
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/index.asp
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Can Men Produce Milk?
Q. Can men produce milk?
A. If men have the ability to get breast cancer, why wouldn't they be able to breastfeed?
Generally, everyone thinks men have nipples for no reason -- They're wrong. According to lactation consultant, Jan Barger, men can put those nipples to work. When a baby is conceived, the embryo follows a female template, so males inherit female traits such as milk ducts, some mammary tissue, oxytocin and prolactin, which are the hormones responsible for milk production.
In some cases, men have been reported to undergo intense breast and nipple stimulation producing drops of milk (That's disturbing). However, not all men have the ability to lactate. Men who suffer from diseases or other conditions that require hormonal treatment are much more likely to stimulate their mammary glands successfully producing milk. Though this may not be as good as mommy's milk, it's still appetizing, for hungry babies at least.Men don't need to develop breasts to breastfeed, but they can lactate under extreme circumstances. Jack Newman, a breastfeeding expert, says putting a baby to its father's breast won't necessarily promise a lactating father.
"It would be the same reason- increased prolactin levels&mdashin the one case drug-induced, in the other due to a tumor or some sort of neurological problem," said Newman.
Extreme stress, demanding physical activity and starvation, which inhibits the functioning of hormone-producing glands, also can increase lactation. Survivors of Nazi concentration camps and Japanese POW camps in World War II have experienced the untimely lactation.
This may seem very abnormal, but this just might be a societal norm soon. Mothers who plan to work after their children are born will most likely face the stressful demands of balancing work and family, so those lactating dads will come in handy. Men get ready to trade places.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate&sc=rss
http://web.archive.org.nyud.net/web/20040909091015/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n2_v16/ai_16051177
http://www.babycenter.com/404_can-men-breastfeed_8824.bc
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Discover: Stephen Hawking Is Making His Comeback
"But was the Big Bang a singularity. Or was it a concentrated, hot ball of energy – awesome and mind-bending, but still describable by the laws of physics?”
Could Hawking be making a comeback or losing his iconic status? Journalist Tim Folger does a spectacular job covering both angles of the article. The profile of the “master of time,” Stephen Hawking, touched on topics like the false rumors about Hawking retiring, “the capstone to his career,” and his possible setbacks when trying to “reclaim the aura of youthful genius.”
Ironically, Folger creatively compared Hawking’s future and comeback to black holes – “The master of black holes is himself becoming steadily less visible.” It is saddening to know that the person “popular media had likened to Albert Einstein” now has to try to regain the influence he once had on cosmology and physics. Hawking no longer has the ability to keep up with what is now happening to the field because of his thin body and fatal condition. Quite frankly, Hawking could be headed towards the black hole.
A) Lede: 20 out of 20. Folger was the eyes and ears for readers as he described exactly what was going on during the convention, what Hawking looked like, what he said, and the music that played. The narrative lede with its descriptive set of words definitely drew in me in.
B) Content: 17 out of 20. As I said before, I feel both angles were represented well, but I still feel there should’ve been more information about his comeback. Instead, the article focused on if Hawking was well enough to reclaim his status. The background information serves its purpose and solely supports the rest of article: explaining Hawking’s achievements and life.
C) Organization: 18 out of 20. The separation of his previous achievements and his comeback is acceptable, but I prefer that information be intertwined with the rest of the article. The transitions worked smoothly and most of the time I knew what I was reading.
D) Quality of writing: 19 out of 20. I loved how Folger wrote an interesting, easy-read article/profile on a physicist who studies black holes: He turned something not so appealing into something one would enjoy reading. He spoke to associates and co-workers of Hawking, which help support some of Folger’s points. There were also humorous parts in the article: Folger felt the need to plop in the quote when speaking of Hawking having three children -- “The disease only affects voluntary muscule.” Hoiwever, there was occasionally a bit of jargon scattered around.
E) Clarity of exposition: 19 out of 20. The scientific language was certainly kept at a minimum and that was one thing I enjoyed about the article. Folger was very descriptive and in-depth about the theories along with the happenings of the universe.
Could Hawking be making a comeback or losing his iconic status? Journalist Tim Folger does a spectacular job covering both angles of the article. The profile of the “master of time,” Stephen Hawking, touched on topics like the false rumors about Hawking retiring, “the capstone to his career,” and his possible setbacks when trying to “reclaim the aura of youthful genius.”
Ironically, Folger creatively compared Hawking’s future and comeback to black holes – “The master of black holes is himself becoming steadily less visible.” It is saddening to know that the person “popular media had likened to Albert Einstein” now has to try to regain the influence he once had on cosmology and physics. Hawking no longer has the ability to keep up with what is now happening to the field because of his thin body and fatal condition. Quite frankly, Hawking could be headed towards the black hole.
A) Lede: 20 out of 20. Folger was the eyes and ears for readers as he described exactly what was going on during the convention, what Hawking looked like, what he said, and the music that played. The narrative lede with its descriptive set of words definitely drew in me in.
B) Content: 17 out of 20. As I said before, I feel both angles were represented well, but I still feel there should’ve been more information about his comeback. Instead, the article focused on if Hawking was well enough to reclaim his status. The background information serves its purpose and solely supports the rest of article: explaining Hawking’s achievements and life.
C) Organization: 18 out of 20. The separation of his previous achievements and his comeback is acceptable, but I prefer that information be intertwined with the rest of the article. The transitions worked smoothly and most of the time I knew what I was reading.
D) Quality of writing: 19 out of 20. I loved how Folger wrote an interesting, easy-read article/profile on a physicist who studies black holes: He turned something not so appealing into something one would enjoy reading. He spoke to associates and co-workers of Hawking, which help support some of Folger’s points. There were also humorous parts in the article: Folger felt the need to plop in the quote when speaking of Hawking having three children -- “The disease only affects voluntary muscule.” Hoiwever, there was occasionally a bit of jargon scattered around.
E) Clarity of exposition: 19 out of 20. The scientific language was certainly kept at a minimum and that was one thing I enjoyed about the article. Folger was very descriptive and in-depth about the theories along with the happenings of the universe.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Why Humans Alone Have Pubic Hair?
Q. Why humans alone have pubic hair?
A. "Hey, nice pubs!"
Pubic hair developed as a sexual ornament, said Robin Weiss, virologist at University College London. After our ancestors split from non-human primates, we lost most of our hair. So when things down there got bushy, it served as a visual sign of sexual maturity. The hairier and coarser it was, the sexier you appeared to be.
Pubic hair has also been known to be around for plenty of reasons: warmth, a visual maturity indicator, to reduce friction during sexual intercourse, and to hold the scent of pheromones (designed to make you sexually attractive towards to the opposite sex). While other animals have fur and feathers designed to protect and attract, humans only have armpit hair and hair in the genital area to rely on.
Weiss was studying and comparing gorilla lice to today's pubic lice, which crossed back into the human lineage about 3.3 million years ago, and he discovered gorillas pubic hair is much more finer and softer than any other place on their fur-filled bodies. When humans begin to grow pubic hair, it starts off as smooth fur, but later evolving it something much more bushier and coarse -- total opposite of the great apes.
"Human pubic hair is different and probably unique, both in its evolution and in its physical appearance and purpose," said Weiss.
Good news is bushy and coarse is no longer fashionable. Bare skin seems to be in and shaving off pubic hair is a must in today's culture.
"There may be a health benefit to this emerging sexual lifestyle -- the extinction of crabs," Weiss said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
