1. If being flashy and colorful attracts predators, why do you think guppies are so colorful?
To attract a female mate.
2. After viewing the guppy gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s scientific name, origin and average size? Describe the coloration of the fish you chose.
Poecilia Reticulata from Brazil. It's dorsal fin is metallic green and it's main body is blue with splotches of pink and orange. 1.4 inches (3.5 cm) Guppy or millions fish
3. After viewing the predator gallery, pick the fish you find most interesting. What is the fish’s common name, scientific name, and origin?
Fat Sleepy. Dormitator maculatus. Up to 27.5 inches (70 cm). Southern and North America, Bahamas, and Latin America
4. View the guppy’s habitats, what habitat conditions would affect the predator populations?
Endler’s Discovery and Variations of Guppy’s in Pools
5. Who is John Endler? What did he study and where did he study it?
John Endler is an ethologist and a evolutionary biologist. He is renowned for his science of adaption of vertebrates and how he noted how the environment affects an organism's adaption (like color adaptation, behavior, etc.).
6. For each of the three stream areas, describe the guppy coloration:
Pool 1:
Pool 2:
Pool 3:
7. Develop your own hypothesis about guppy coloration. The hypothesis should answer the questions: Why do guppies in different areas of the stream have difference in coloration? (You can choose from the list on the simulation, or make up your own)
My hypothesis would be that a male guppy is brightly colored in order to stand out and attract the attention of a female, and as such, a male guppy's coloration would depend upon how much he can stand out in what background. If a red guppy is in waters that run red from soil that has iron in it, well, he won't stand out much. But if he were green, he would contrast well. Same said for a green guppy in a algae-ridden stream, red would be a better color. Though since I wasn't able to run my simulation, that is what I can infer, based on my knowledge of that guppies stand out to attract a mate.
Guppy Simulation
% of Brightest Guppies
(10 generations)
% of Bright Guppies
(10 generations) % of Drab Guppies
(10 generations) % of DrabbestGuppies
(10 generations)
Trial 1
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus
Trial 2
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara
Trial 3
Guppy: Even Mix
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid
Trial 4
Guppy: Mostly Bright
Predators: 30 Rivulus
Trial 5
Guppy: Mostly Drab
Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid
Summary
8. Describe how predators influence guppy coloration.
9. Was your hypothesis correct, use your data to justify your answer.
10. What does it mean that “male guppies live in a crossfire between their enemies and their would be mates”?
It means that males have to choose sides: they can choose the side of the predator: and loose its colors, hide from said predator, and live, but be unable to pass on its genes for colors that allowed it to live because a mate wouldn't have been attracted. Or it can flash bright colors and have a chance to attract a female, mate, and pass on its genes before its noticed by a predator and eaten; or be eaten first and be unable to pass on those genes that would've gotten it a mate.
11. Why do you think guppies in different areas of the stream have different coloration?
I think it would be to stand out best in their surroundings to capture to attention of their mate or loose the attention of the predator, depending on which coloration they have. So they either blend in or stand out, depending on their standings of getting a mate, or keeping their life.
12. What would happen to mostly drab guppies that were placed in a stream with very few predators?
I think they would either start to die off because they cannot reproduce because they all think the other is ugly or they would thrive because the few predators there wouldn't be able to see them, therefore eat the. Or, it could be that in the new surrounding, they actually stand out because they were colorized for it, or they could develop brighter colors because of the lack of predators.
13. What would happen to brightly colored guppies that were placed in a stream with many predators?
They'd be eaten before they can adapt, I'd assume. Or, they'd adapt very quickly and loose their bright, flashy colors and go with more drab colors.
If evolution had a thought process (which it doesn't), it might think to make guppies' eyesight adapted to see drab colors as bright and flash vice versa. I'm just saying that that would be better for the species to thrive. . . .
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Conservation for the People
Whether you are intrinsic or anthropocentric, we are affecting nature, and whether or not you think that nature only has a value if it affects us (a good or bad value) and nature is affecting us. Ex.) Vultures were declining because they were eating the carrion of cows who had been drugged so as to ward against inflammation. And now since a cow carcasses can't be consumed by a vulture carcass, wild dogs at the free, rotting meat which has created a boom in their population and as such, the huge number of rabid dogs have started to attack humans. Can you imagine that, as you pet you docile, if not a little jumpy or lazy, dog who licks you finger in sweet, innocent animal affection? Can you imagine be attacked by a savage dog?
Before we charge into a green forest to save the day, you need to do some research. Just because there's a lot of green stuff, doesn't mean there's a lot of biodiversity to be had, at least among the animal category. Those places are referred to as "hot spots" and tend to be where the nature reserves are. That's all fine and dandy, but if you are intrinsic, your beliefs are that that humans are part of nature, too, so if you had to barricade a section of land that locals depend on for their livelihood that means those locals are sunk. And if you are anthropocentric, those locals export medicines, furniture, food, etc. Enough said. But the ecosystem services strategy saves the endangered ecosystems that humans depended on without impairing the locals' life-stlye and, sub-sequently, yours.
And just because there aren't graceful, defenseless butterflies fluttering around; cute, fuzzy monkeys eating yellow bananas; or crystal-clear oceans lapping a pristine, sandy beach or dazzling blue waterfalls cascading into a pond with koi swimming around in it with the dense, rich brown of the bark of trees growing up to the heavens and stretching their gloriously green leaves and tendrils like fingers to the sky, doesn't mean it is of no use. Ex.) the mangroves. Let's all face facts, when you're honey-mooning, you are gonna choose the beaches of the Caribbean or the forests of Japan vs. the mangroves. I don't exactly see any sweet butterflies flying there: I see swarms of mosquitos coming to suck the blood out of me 'til I am bone-dry (THAT'S MORE OF A VAMPIRE THAN YOUR STUPID, VEGETARIAN VAMPS, MS. MEYER!), the monkeys there screech like banshees, the water is brown like sludge and under its murky depths lie snakes, piranhas * though they won't attack you, they are scavengers *, and deadly diseases. But it does have some attributes, it saves the people living there from hurricanes and tsunamis (believe me, the people in our village we were saving in our disaster simulation were thankful for our mangroves).
So let's say you care not a whit about the hot, muggy mangroves and that so long as you get your picture-perfect Caribbean honey-moon, it's all the same to you. Well, you know those amazing corals you are supposed to see? Sorry, but they are brown and dying. This is caused by the winds that blew sand over from Africa and deposited it in the very waters you are swimming, chocking the corals. 70% of rare fish live in corals and with dead corals, no rare fishies. Or no fishies at all since, either directly or indirectly, depend upon the corals. I suppose it would still be picture-perfect (if you're looking at pictures of a nature morgue).
But since you are too devastated by your now-ruined Caribbean honey-moon, you're offering you an alternative that may just yet save your pathetic vacation. Governments are taking money from visiting your vacation site and contributing that money to saving environments and protecting biodiversity. So hope on the band-wagon! More and more people are supporting organizations devoted to saving the world. Organizations are working to save hot-spots, life-raft ecosystems, and the ecosystem services strategy to save the world. But they don't have all the money. The money comes from you (or vicariously, through you by medium of your honey-moon. . . .) but it's not just your money. It's you time and effort that is need, as well. " Conservation will only become truly global and widely supported when people are central to its mission." You are being called to further our cause. Will you answer?
Before we charge into a green forest to save the day, you need to do some research. Just because there's a lot of green stuff, doesn't mean there's a lot of biodiversity to be had, at least among the animal category. Those places are referred to as "hot spots" and tend to be where the nature reserves are. That's all fine and dandy, but if you are intrinsic, your beliefs are that that humans are part of nature, too, so if you had to barricade a section of land that locals depend on for their livelihood that means those locals are sunk. And if you are anthropocentric, those locals export medicines, furniture, food, etc. Enough said. But the ecosystem services strategy saves the endangered ecosystems that humans depended on without impairing the locals' life-stlye and, sub-sequently, yours.
And just because there aren't graceful, defenseless butterflies fluttering around; cute, fuzzy monkeys eating yellow bananas; or crystal-clear oceans lapping a pristine, sandy beach or dazzling blue waterfalls cascading into a pond with koi swimming around in it with the dense, rich brown of the bark of trees growing up to the heavens and stretching their gloriously green leaves and tendrils like fingers to the sky, doesn't mean it is of no use. Ex.) the mangroves. Let's all face facts, when you're honey-mooning, you are gonna choose the beaches of the Caribbean or the forests of Japan vs. the mangroves. I don't exactly see any sweet butterflies flying there: I see swarms of mosquitos coming to suck the blood out of me 'til I am bone-dry (THAT'S MORE OF A VAMPIRE THAN YOUR STUPID, VEGETARIAN VAMPS, MS. MEYER!), the monkeys there screech like banshees, the water is brown like sludge and under its murky depths lie snakes, piranhas * though they won't attack you, they are scavengers *, and deadly diseases. But it does have some attributes, it saves the people living there from hurricanes and tsunamis (believe me, the people in our village we were saving in our disaster simulation were thankful for our mangroves).
So let's say you care not a whit about the hot, muggy mangroves and that so long as you get your picture-perfect Caribbean honey-moon, it's all the same to you. Well, you know those amazing corals you are supposed to see? Sorry, but they are brown and dying. This is caused by the winds that blew sand over from Africa and deposited it in the very waters you are swimming, chocking the corals. 70% of rare fish live in corals and with dead corals, no rare fishies. Or no fishies at all since, either directly or indirectly, depend upon the corals. I suppose it would still be picture-perfect (if you're looking at pictures of a nature morgue).
But since you are too devastated by your now-ruined Caribbean honey-moon, you're offering you an alternative that may just yet save your pathetic vacation. Governments are taking money from visiting your vacation site and contributing that money to saving environments and protecting biodiversity. So hope on the band-wagon! More and more people are supporting organizations devoted to saving the world. Organizations are working to save hot-spots, life-raft ecosystems, and the ecosystem services strategy to save the world. But they don't have all the money. The money comes from you (or vicariously, through you by medium of your honey-moon. . . .) but it's not just your money. It's you time and effort that is need, as well. " Conservation will only become truly global and widely supported when people are central to its mission." You are being called to further our cause. Will you answer?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Biodiversity
What is biodiversity?
The biotic variation of organisms within a defined space, usually used to define and measure the status of that region including the array of kingdoms and classes of species.
Biodiversity is the differences in living organisms (biotic factors) from both terrestrial and marine environments. It also refers to the population of species and the genetic variations that play a role in the complex web of effects in an ecosystem.
The quantity and variety of differing plant and animal life present within a specific natural environment.
The richness and variety of organisms in any given ecosystem or habitat on earth This includes variety among more specific species.
Why is biodiversity important?
Biodiversity holds the whole world together, in a literal sense. It's almost like a math equation: each factor is a variable and effects the outcome. If you were to take away one variable or subtract/decrease a variable, the outcome would be different. For example, if a forest (f) has lost 20,000 trees (t) then other factors like floods (n) would come into play (trees act as a natural barrier against such disasters). So you equation would read: f-t=n=h-d (h represents humans and d equals those who have died). It used to read f+t=1/2n=h-sd (s representing small amount dead). Only the real equation is far more complex, but the point is, one effect creates another. You could think of it like a domino effect, if one domino wobbles, it may not fall but it could hit another domino that does fall setting off a chain of events.
How does the location of a sanctuary affect its long-term outlook?
Remember, it's all about location, location, location. If you placed an animal sanctuary in a dump, well, that's not serving much of a purpose. If you place an animal sanctuary in a place that was recently a dump, animals may have adapted and learned to stay away from there. If you place a sanctuary at the base of a volcano and it blows up, well, that wasn't the smartest move, now was it? But if you place a sanctuary in an environmental heaven where animals have been coming, you are in a good spot. you can also attract other species to the sanctuary since it's so perfect.
What are ways in which preserving biodiversity locally might have a global effect?
By preserving species in you land, can save them in others, too. If you are providing a home for migratory birds, you are saving them here (as well as the animals that depend upon them as food--predators--or to keep other species from over population by eating them--prey--then that will effect the environment you are protecting as well as the one the birds will fly to. And if you are protecting 100,000 acres of forest, that's 100,000 acres not being used to pollute.
How do habitat destruction and loss of species effect more than just one area?
There's that migratory animal thing I mentioned before. But if you have those 100,000 acres of forest again, and it's all cut down, those trees were serving as more than just to not pollute there, they soaking up CO2 that isn't polluting the Earth. Every animal and plant has a certain niche it plays, but if an animal or plant is suddenly lost, then that niche they held crumbles and so does other organisms that depended on it. If one ecosystem collapses, so does the next ecosystem that had a link to it (a bird that ate that migratory bug but that bug is gone and so the next ecosystem goes because that bird population is dying because it lost a major food source) and on and on until there is nothing left. From what I've read, that's my prediction, at least.
How does preserving biodiversity enhance the life of people?
The point of the medicine document we read pointed out how there is so many different types of life out there and have so many unexplored options that if we aren't protecting that species and it goes extinct, we could have just lost the cure for the common cold. The best cure is nature if we just learn to explore it. The possibilities are endless . . . unless we are the ones ending it, of course.
The biotic variation of organisms within a defined space, usually used to define and measure the status of that region including the array of kingdoms and classes of species.
Biodiversity is the differences in living organisms (biotic factors) from both terrestrial and marine environments. It also refers to the population of species and the genetic variations that play a role in the complex web of effects in an ecosystem.
The quantity and variety of differing plant and animal life present within a specific natural environment.
The richness and variety of organisms in any given ecosystem or habitat on earth This includes variety among more specific species.
Why is biodiversity important?
Biodiversity holds the whole world together, in a literal sense. It's almost like a math equation: each factor is a variable and effects the outcome. If you were to take away one variable or subtract/decrease a variable, the outcome would be different. For example, if a forest (f) has lost 20,000 trees (t) then other factors like floods (n) would come into play (trees act as a natural barrier against such disasters). So you equation would read: f-t=n=h-d (h represents humans and d equals those who have died). It used to read f+t=1/2n=h-sd (s representing small amount dead). Only the real equation is far more complex, but the point is, one effect creates another. You could think of it like a domino effect, if one domino wobbles, it may not fall but it could hit another domino that does fall setting off a chain of events.
How does the location of a sanctuary affect its long-term outlook?
Remember, it's all about location, location, location. If you placed an animal sanctuary in a dump, well, that's not serving much of a purpose. If you place an animal sanctuary in a place that was recently a dump, animals may have adapted and learned to stay away from there. If you place a sanctuary at the base of a volcano and it blows up, well, that wasn't the smartest move, now was it? But if you place a sanctuary in an environmental heaven where animals have been coming, you are in a good spot. you can also attract other species to the sanctuary since it's so perfect.
What are ways in which preserving biodiversity locally might have a global effect?
By preserving species in you land, can save them in others, too. If you are providing a home for migratory birds, you are saving them here (as well as the animals that depend upon them as food--predators--or to keep other species from over population by eating them--prey--then that will effect the environment you are protecting as well as the one the birds will fly to. And if you are protecting 100,000 acres of forest, that's 100,000 acres not being used to pollute.
How do habitat destruction and loss of species effect more than just one area?
There's that migratory animal thing I mentioned before. But if you have those 100,000 acres of forest again, and it's all cut down, those trees were serving as more than just to not pollute there, they soaking up CO2 that isn't polluting the Earth. Every animal and plant has a certain niche it plays, but if an animal or plant is suddenly lost, then that niche they held crumbles and so does other organisms that depended on it. If one ecosystem collapses, so does the next ecosystem that had a link to it (a bird that ate that migratory bug but that bug is gone and so the next ecosystem goes because that bird population is dying because it lost a major food source) and on and on until there is nothing left. From what I've read, that's my prediction, at least.
How does preserving biodiversity enhance the life of people?
The point of the medicine document we read pointed out how there is so many different types of life out there and have so many unexplored options that if we aren't protecting that species and it goes extinct, we could have just lost the cure for the common cold. The best cure is nature if we just learn to explore it. The possibilities are endless . . . unless we are the ones ending it, of course.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Gases and Climate Change
Combustion
I think that the evaporate alcohol gas will flare up inside the bottle, burning a translucent orange, and then quickly die out because of the imited amount of oxygen in the bottle.
IT TURNED INTO A SODA-ROCKET FLAMBE! I was correct in the fact that it was a translucent orange (blue deeper in the bottle) and that it was fairly quick in ignition and flaring. I did not guess that it the force would shoot it vertically and into the desk. I also did not predict that some of the flame would be shot about 6 inches out of the neck of the bottle.
Climate Change
Climate Change 30% of solar radiation is reflected back into space while 70% is absorbs then is thrown into the atmosphere were 30% goes through it and 70% is reflected back to Earth. Preexisting gases, such as Methan, Co2, andNitrogen Oxide were sky rocketed when humans used things such as fossil fuel burning, aresol cans, etc as well as making new gases. These gases help to heat the Earth and trap that heat within it so it can't be discharged. The gases also destroy the Ozone which makes it harder for that 30% heat to be reflected back into space.
Co2 Gas
I think that once CO2 gas is introduced to the naked flame of the candle, the will be a bit of a slower burn but still translucent and blue at the base. I don't think that it will be as explosive of a reaction,though.
Jeesh, that was stupid of me not to get that. When building a well, you want to set a candle down there to see if there is clean oxygen (it will burn) or if there is no oxygen/a high quantity of another gas (it will be extinguished). This is because a fire needs oxygen to burn so when it was introduced to only carbon dioxide, there was no oxygen for it to consume.
Effects of Co2 Gas on the Earth
4.5 billion years ago (beginning of Earth) it was estimated that Co2 made up 80% of the Earth's atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, Co2 made up 20%-30%. With the evolution of plants and photosynthesizing, they helped reduce Co2 levels and raise oxygen levels. But when trees die and decompose, they release Co2 and since we are cutting down acres of trees everyday, we are releasing more Co2 and allowing less means to absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen, depleting those levels as well. With fossil fuels, those organisms never completely decomposed and never released all their Co2 but as we burn them, we are releasing that stored up Co2. It is theorized that the warming of the ocean releases Co2 levels that have built up over time.
Hydrogen Gas
Since Ms. Leland said this could be used as an alternate fuel source, I'm inclined to think that this will not snuff out the flame like the previous experiment. THIS TIME, I don't think that the ignition will be as explosive as the alcohol (and, I was right without he last one that it wasn't explosive, I just didn't think that was as right as I wanted to be). I think that this will also be translucent and orange, blue at the base where it will burn hottest. I think it will burn as long as the gas is produced if it reacts like baking soda and vinegar in the idea that it creates the gas as it reacts. But I am hesitant to say any of this because she threw a monkey wrench in there with the Co2, so I have virtually zero confidence in that prediction.
Haha. THAT was a classic, none mad-scientist flambe`. And, more importantly, I was right! Haha! It did burn translucent orange (no blue), it did burn as long as the gas was being produced, but the ignition was a bit explosive, not as much as the first test, but enough to have a quite loud poof of a pop.
Renewable Resources
86% of energy used is fossil fuels. Wind energy is going to be used for the future. Solar energy is being promising.
Solar power count for less than .01% of world's energy but is growing. Created by concentrating heat or useing solar panels. SOlar hot water heating is the only practical way to create solar energy. On average the solar marketing fact grew 14% annually.
Tidal Generation:
Pros- Stable electricity generated because tides are stable.
Cons- More costly than traditional hydro-electricity. Effects marine estuaries.
Wave Power: Located several miles off shore and gathers energy as a buoy bobs up and down the waves
BIofuels:
Pros- 100x's more energy per hectare is given back using vegetable oil and have lower fossil fuel input.
Cons- Possibly takes more energy to grow and harvest than is provided. Takes more fossil fuel to make than it does to give back.
Corn ethanol net energy with a breaking point of 0. So any energy below 0 that's produced equates to no energy gained.
Air Pressure:
I think the gas will condense so you can see it go out in billowing wisps. That, or, with the way things are going, it might explode. You never know with Ms. Leland. . . .
What went wrong??? Ms. Leland heated up the can and wisps of steam were escaping out the top when she quickly grabbed in and dunked it in the ice cold water and NOTHING HAPPENED. It looked to be like it was supposed to be an instantaneous because Ms. Leland immediately took the can out, dripping and cold, after a moment of nothing.
Now we're gonna put the can in upside-down, I'm expecting that once we do, a cascade of bubbles will blow up and out of the can.
Wow, I was dead-wrong with the explosion prediction, it IMPLODED! My guess would be that because the air pressure was different. And since a gas takes up more space, when she dunked the heated gas that would try to rise above the sinking cold air/water it instantly turned into liquid that created a void (or vacuum, as I have been informed) that caused the can to implode.
I think that the evaporate alcohol gas will flare up inside the bottle, burning a translucent orange, and then quickly die out because of the imited amount of oxygen in the bottle.
IT TURNED INTO A SODA-ROCKET FLAMBE! I was correct in the fact that it was a translucent orange (blue deeper in the bottle) and that it was fairly quick in ignition and flaring. I did not guess that it the force would shoot it vertically and into the desk. I also did not predict that some of the flame would be shot about 6 inches out of the neck of the bottle.
Climate Change
Climate Change 30% of solar radiation is reflected back into space while 70% is absorbs then is thrown into the atmosphere were 30% goes through it and 70% is reflected back to Earth. Preexisting gases, such as Methan, Co2, andNitrogen Oxide were sky rocketed when humans used things such as fossil fuel burning, aresol cans, etc as well as making new gases. These gases help to heat the Earth and trap that heat within it so it can't be discharged. The gases also destroy the Ozone which makes it harder for that 30% heat to be reflected back into space.
Co2 Gas
I think that once CO2 gas is introduced to the naked flame of the candle, the will be a bit of a slower burn but still translucent and blue at the base. I don't think that it will be as explosive of a reaction,though.
Jeesh, that was stupid of me not to get that. When building a well, you want to set a candle down there to see if there is clean oxygen (it will burn) or if there is no oxygen/a high quantity of another gas (it will be extinguished). This is because a fire needs oxygen to burn so when it was introduced to only carbon dioxide, there was no oxygen for it to consume.
Effects of Co2 Gas on the Earth
4.5 billion years ago (beginning of Earth) it was estimated that Co2 made up 80% of the Earth's atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, Co2 made up 20%-30%. With the evolution of plants and photosynthesizing, they helped reduce Co2 levels and raise oxygen levels. But when trees die and decompose, they release Co2 and since we are cutting down acres of trees everyday, we are releasing more Co2 and allowing less means to absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen, depleting those levels as well. With fossil fuels, those organisms never completely decomposed and never released all their Co2 but as we burn them, we are releasing that stored up Co2. It is theorized that the warming of the ocean releases Co2 levels that have built up over time.
Hydrogen Gas
Since Ms. Leland said this could be used as an alternate fuel source, I'm inclined to think that this will not snuff out the flame like the previous experiment. THIS TIME, I don't think that the ignition will be as explosive as the alcohol (and, I was right without he last one that it wasn't explosive, I just didn't think that was as right as I wanted to be). I think that this will also be translucent and orange, blue at the base where it will burn hottest. I think it will burn as long as the gas is produced if it reacts like baking soda and vinegar in the idea that it creates the gas as it reacts. But I am hesitant to say any of this because she threw a monkey wrench in there with the Co2, so I have virtually zero confidence in that prediction.
Haha. THAT was a classic, none mad-scientist flambe`. And, more importantly, I was right! Haha! It did burn translucent orange (no blue), it did burn as long as the gas was being produced, but the ignition was a bit explosive, not as much as the first test, but enough to have a quite loud poof of a pop.
Renewable Resources
86% of energy used is fossil fuels. Wind energy is going to be used for the future. Solar energy is being promising.
Solar power count for less than .01% of world's energy but is growing. Created by concentrating heat or useing solar panels. SOlar hot water heating is the only practical way to create solar energy. On average the solar marketing fact grew 14% annually.
Tidal Generation:
Pros- Stable electricity generated because tides are stable.
Cons- More costly than traditional hydro-electricity. Effects marine estuaries.
Wave Power: Located several miles off shore and gathers energy as a buoy bobs up and down the waves
BIofuels:
Pros- 100x's more energy per hectare is given back using vegetable oil and have lower fossil fuel input.
Cons- Possibly takes more energy to grow and harvest than is provided. Takes more fossil fuel to make than it does to give back.
Corn ethanol net energy with a breaking point of 0. So any energy below 0 that's produced equates to no energy gained.
Air Pressure:
I think the gas will condense so you can see it go out in billowing wisps. That, or, with the way things are going, it might explode. You never know with Ms. Leland. . . .
What went wrong??? Ms. Leland heated up the can and wisps of steam were escaping out the top when she quickly grabbed in and dunked it in the ice cold water and NOTHING HAPPENED. It looked to be like it was supposed to be an instantaneous because Ms. Leland immediately took the can out, dripping and cold, after a moment of nothing.
Now we're gonna put the can in upside-down, I'm expecting that once we do, a cascade of bubbles will blow up and out of the can.
Wow, I was dead-wrong with the explosion prediction, it IMPLODED! My guess would be that because the air pressure was different. And since a gas takes up more space, when she dunked the heated gas that would try to rise above the sinking cold air/water it instantly turned into liquid that created a void (or vacuum, as I have been informed) that caused the can to implode.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Chernobyl Health Article
Summary:
High dose or does rate was the reason the majority of the early deaths in Chernobyl because repair and regeneration can be inadequate so that a lot of cells would be destroyed which would cause impaired organ function. These are labeled as "deterministic effects" which can be life-threatening if the does is high enough. The first signs of a high dosage of radiation include the following diarrhoea, vomiting (which usually occurred within the first 15-30 minutes of exposure), fever, erythema, and mucous membrane were severely damaged. and erythema. The white-blood cell count within the first 24-36 hours of radiation also determined the severity of the dose and the only people to receive high dosage were the workers and the firemen who fought the fire.
Low doses or dose rate, damage can be repaired by cellular mechanisms that are still in functioning order and can atone for the harmed cells. But if the repair is inadequate or flawed, these cells can develop into cancerous cells further in the future or morph into inheritable defects. These late effects are referred to as "stochastic effects" and survival improved greatly; no early deaths were recorded in the less than 1-2 Gy exposure group.
What are the effects of "deterministic effects?"
What are the effects of "stochastic effects?"
In which case can cells have a chance to regenerate?
High dose or does rate was the reason the majority of the early deaths in Chernobyl because repair and regeneration can be inadequate so that a lot of cells would be destroyed which would cause impaired organ function. These are labeled as "deterministic effects" which can be life-threatening if the does is high enough. The first signs of a high dosage of radiation include the following diarrhoea, vomiting (which usually occurred within the first 15-30 minutes of exposure), fever, erythema, and mucous membrane were severely damaged. and erythema. The white-blood cell count within the first 24-36 hours of radiation also determined the severity of the dose and the only people to receive high dosage were the workers and the firemen who fought the fire.
Low doses or dose rate, damage can be repaired by cellular mechanisms that are still in functioning order and can atone for the harmed cells. But if the repair is inadequate or flawed, these cells can develop into cancerous cells further in the future or morph into inheritable defects. These late effects are referred to as "stochastic effects" and survival improved greatly; no early deaths were recorded in the less than 1-2 Gy exposure group.
What are the effects of "deterministic effects?"
What are the effects of "stochastic effects?"
In which case can cells have a chance to regenerate?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Chernobyl Questions
1.) Why is Chernobyl habitable for nature and places like Sweden and norway, they had to clean up reindeer carcasses because they had eaten contaminated soil?
2.) If there was a hundred times more radiation than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 100 roentgens an hour which is more than a person should get yearly for the power plant) so why did only 187 people die vs. the thousands at the bombings (initially)?
3.) "One corner of a field might be highly dangerous, while just a few yards away levels seemed low." Why was the blast so uneven?
4.) "Up to 4,000 of these children had doses as high as 2,000 roentgen equivalents." How many roentgens does it take to kill a person?
5.) "As a consequence of inhaling aerosols containing iodine 131 immediately after the accident, 13,000 children in the re- gion experienced radiation doses to the thyroid of more than 200 roentgen equivalents." If the aerosols are bad to inhale, will anything happen if it touches someone?
6.) "Still, previous experi- ence with the long-term effects of radiation—much of it derived from studies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki—suggests that the toll [diseases and such] will continue to rise." Did the effects at HIroshima and Nagasaki ever decrease? Weren't people looking similar to Pompeii after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are effects less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though radiation was high?
7.) "This mental trauma has given rise to a psychological syndrome comparable to that suffered by veterans of wars in Viet- nam and Afghanistan." So is it like shell-shock? ARE PEOPLE GETTING SICK FROM THE MEDIA??? (Like Dr. Whelan suggested?)
8.) "In order to prevent soluble compounds from further con- taminating water sources, the wastes must be removed to properly designed and equipped storage facilities—facilities that do not yet exist." How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki clean-up their radiation?
9.) "Rain and snow can get inside. If the sarcophagus were to collapse—which could happen if there were an earthquake—the rubble would very likely release large amounts of ra- dioactive dust." Can people not learn from their mistakes? B.P., you were WARNED that your pump needed repair!
10.) "We have embarked on a new, post-Chornobyl era, and we have yet to comprehend all the consequences." What will prove to be the most deadly and long-lasting effect?
2.) If there was a hundred times more radiation than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 100 roentgens an hour which is more than a person should get yearly for the power plant) so why did only 187 people die vs. the thousands at the bombings (initially)?
3.) "One corner of a field might be highly dangerous, while just a few yards away levels seemed low." Why was the blast so uneven?
4.) "Up to 4,000 of these children had doses as high as 2,000 roentgen equivalents." How many roentgens does it take to kill a person?
5.) "As a consequence of inhaling aerosols containing iodine 131 immediately after the accident, 13,000 children in the re- gion experienced radiation doses to the thyroid of more than 200 roentgen equivalents." If the aerosols are bad to inhale, will anything happen if it touches someone?
6.) "Still, previous experi- ence with the long-term effects of radiation—much of it derived from studies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki—suggests that the toll [diseases and such] will continue to rise." Did the effects at HIroshima and Nagasaki ever decrease? Weren't people looking similar to Pompeii after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are effects less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though radiation was high?
7.) "This mental trauma has given rise to a psychological syndrome comparable to that suffered by veterans of wars in Viet- nam and Afghanistan." So is it like shell-shock? ARE PEOPLE GETTING SICK FROM THE MEDIA??? (Like Dr. Whelan suggested?)
8.) "In order to prevent soluble compounds from further con- taminating water sources, the wastes must be removed to properly designed and equipped storage facilities—facilities that do not yet exist." How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki clean-up their radiation?
9.) "Rain and snow can get inside. If the sarcophagus were to collapse—which could happen if there were an earthquake—the rubble would very likely release large amounts of ra- dioactive dust." Can people not learn from their mistakes? B.P., you were WARNED that your pump needed repair!
10.) "We have embarked on a new, post-Chornobyl era, and we have yet to comprehend all the consequences." What will prove to be the most deadly and long-lasting effect?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Love Canal Panel Questions
1.) Is there any CURRENT evidence that the health problems are linked to the chemicals.
2.) If there is an uncommon amount of health problems/mutations/defects, then why can it not be DIRECTLY linked to the toxins?
3.) If this has happened in other places (on a smaller scale), then can we monitor that situation better to see how long it takes hose chemicals to disperse if, in fact, they do.
4.) Can the effects of these toxins be similar to that of DDT?
5.) Flies can be mutated by just living in cigarette smoke (i.e. wings and different color eyes) so shouldn't the effects of these toxins be far more apparent and severe?
2.) If there is an uncommon amount of health problems/mutations/defects, then why can it not be DIRECTLY linked to the toxins?
3.) If this has happened in other places (on a smaller scale), then can we monitor that situation better to see how long it takes hose chemicals to disperse if, in fact, they do.
4.) Can the effects of these toxins be similar to that of DDT?
5.) Flies can be mutated by just living in cigarette smoke (i.e. wings and different color eyes) so shouldn't the effects of these toxins be far more apparent and severe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)