Allison, Fever effect

This article is about the “fever effect” on Autistic children. This is the phenomenon that occurs when children with Autism have a high fever, their symptoms lessen and they seem to be able to communicate easier with those around them. Parents have noticed that children who do not make eye contact or speak, begin to talk and interact with others when they have fevers, but as fevers go away, so do these improvements. Some studies have been done on this, and while it did not happen to all children, some children had great improvements while their temperatures were high. The question now is why does this happen. Some scientists believe that it has something to do with the extra amount of proteins called cytokines that are in the brain when it is feverish. Further research of this may lead to possible treatments.

Cytokines- any number of substances that are secreted by certain cells of the immune system and have an effect on other cells

I really liked this article, it introduced to me a new idea of a possible cure for Autism. I think that more research should be done in this field, if it is possible to put the cytokines into the brains of these Autistic children with out giving them a fever, may lead to a much easier and happier life. While the study that was reported here had only used 30 children, more studies could be done to see if this so called "fever effect" happens in enough children to make it practical to continue research in the field.

Hamilton, Jon. "Autism Study Lends Credence to 'Fever Effect'" NPR (2007). 6 Feb. 2008 .

Kevin, Genetically altered alfalfa fears

In Wisconsin, a genetically altered form of alfalfa, called Roundup Ready alfalfa, was planted in 13,000 acres. This alfalfa allows farmers to use Roundup Ready weed killer without hurting their crops. There was a ban put on the planting of this crop, however, because of the worry from organic farmers. The organic farmers worry that this genetically altered crop will cross pollinate with their unaltered crops, giving their crops the same characteristics as the Roundup Ready variety. Not only would it affect the alfalfa farmers, but alfalfa is a very common form of feed for cattle. The potential cross pollination and feeding of altered alfalfa to organically raised cattle would violate the trust between organic farmers and their customers. Developers of the Roundup Ready alfalfa state that with proper farming techniques the possibility of cross pollination between the altered and unaltered crops is slim to none. They also state that there are no concerns in terms of both human and animal health. A study done by the University of Minnesota found that cattle that had been fed with the Roundup Ready alfalfa produced 8% more milk than those fed on unaltered alfalfa.

Cross-pollination- the process of transferring the pollen from one plant to another, usually via insects or wind.

I think that the organic farmers are making a big fuss out of nothing. The only aspect that is altered in the new kind of alfalfa is its ability to survive herbicides. Nothing else about it is change, and if they still haven’t used herbicides in their own crops, I don’t see how the use, accidental or otherwise, of the Roundup Ready alfalfa would hurt the organic food industry.

Where the information might lead: further development of herbicide resistant crops.

Barrett, Rick. “A Change in the Air: Organic Farmers Fear Spread of Genetically Altered Alfalfa” Knight Rider Tribune Business News (Sep. 16, 2007) ProQuest (6, Feb 2008)

Worldwide oil production, 1930-2050

Actual and projected oil production.

Baird, B, Chemistry and Your Life, 2nd ed., Freeman, NY, p.147

Melanie, Coal, losing its luster?

Coal is a cheap and plentiful energy source. It produces more then half of the nations electricity, yet questions arise when coal’s reliability starts to falter. The main concern involving coal burning is the carbon dioxide it emits into the air. Natural gas does not emit CO2. It is a reasonable alternative to coal, since it is both plentiful and affordable. Yet, in conjunction with nuclear power plants that go along with this, the cost would rise dramatically. David Eskelsen, who is a spokesman for PacifiCorp, seems to believe that its too early to find an alternative energy source other then coal, since “ the current situation makes the utility planning is very challenging.” In disagreement, 53 “coal-fired” plants were shut down in 2007 because of the increasing emission of carbon dioxide. Even with this disturbing thought, coal will be always known as the main energy source. New Mexico, Minnesota, and Indiana have made plans to continue the production of coal burning industry. In Washington, many believe that the rapid movement of global warming has something to do with the burning of solid carbon, which is the worst and dirtiest way to produce power. A recent study shows that if we keep burning coal, it will become more expensive then natural gas by 2030, because of the amount of CO2 it will produce and the money it would take to make a cleaner way to burn coal.

I found this article somewhat surprising, since i had no idea that coal power plants were being shut down because of there extreme CO2 emissions. I wonder what will be used for energy in the future.

Pasternak, Judy. “Coal is no longer on front burner,” LA Times. 18 Jan. 2008. A8 & A21.

Dustin, Coal issues

The LA Times article discusses the United States’ current situation with energy and electricity, particularly the coal reserves that we have depended on for so many years. As our environment becomes more of a concern and global pollution and warming issues are ever-growing problems, the state officials of our country have decided to slow the production of more coal plants. Companies in control of regional power plants are making efforts to slow their carbon dioxide emissions as well as their nuclear pollution. Their inability however to find an alternative form of energy that is “environmentally friendly” is the main problem. Coal plants certainly prove to be damaging to our earth, nuclear plants are too expensive, and the “clean” alternatives such as wind-powered plants are not sufficient. Combine these factors with the problem that coal plants have of transporting their coal through rail lines (as they are primitive and inefficient) and you can understand the reason for worry.

In my opinion, our country needs to utilize as many “clean” energy plants possible and consider possible ways to sustain their electricity output while at the same time keeping their pollution levels to a minimum. Either new innovation and technological advancement needs to occur or a more effective way of ridding nuclear waste from nuclear plants needs to be made available.

Pasternak, Judy. “Coal is no Longer on front burner”. LA Times. Jan 18, 2008.

John, Coallision of opinions

The coal business in America is lagging due to fears about global warming and costs. This is slowing down the rush to build power plants fueled by coal. The industry appears to be hitting many speed bumps. Utilities are being charged more for the same service and transportation from coal fields to generators is difficult with few routes. A big opposition comes from state regulators and environmental groups. Some troubles in Washington have come up as it is an issue involving climate-change policies. People still supporting the coal industry feel that it is a resource that should be tapped into, as they believe we have enough coal for 200 years. Also with the lack of coal being used, energy regulators are foreseeing difficulties in maintaining an already energy hungry people.

This article stood out to me since my brother is stationed in Gillette, Wyoming by his consulting firm, working for a coal company. He said the industry has been struggling as of late, and that was seconded in this article. I believe that the troubles need to be faced and soon with countries such as China and India increasing in power. An issue as significant as the energy situation of the United States should be sorted out as soon as possible.

It should lead to a compromise between the part of the country which needs energy to thrive and the part that must protect the environment. Finding the middle ground which can keep both sides satisfied is the key.

Pasternak, J. (2008, January 18). Coal is no long on the front burner. Los Angeles Times, pgs A8, A21.

Sam, Future of Coal

This article is about the future of coal as a viable natural resource in our countries future. Recently coal has been touted as America’s saving grace. Obviously many of us have seen the recent advertising campaign on TV claiming coal is America’s fuel. But this article is questioning the reality of that claim. According to the article, coal is on the decline. One of the largest arguments against tapping into the coal reserves is that of environmental safety. Burning coal causes a very large amount of pollutants and recent concerns about climate change. This is causing a bit of a dilemma. America, today, is struggling to meet its electricity demands; the California blackouts are a good indicator that it may be time to enhance the system. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. says that if action is not take in the next year or two we probably wont have enough electricity ten years from now. There has been an attempt to build a clean burning coal power plant, dubbed the FutureGen plant, but rising costs may result in the cancellation of the project. The last major struggle that the coal advocates have to deal with is transportation. About 40% of the nations coal comes from one location, and thus, the transit around this location is vary important. In order to transport all the needed coal to the planned power plants, hundreds of millions of dollars will have to be invested in railroads.

I looked up the FutureGen plant to see how they planned to create a low emission coal plant. It turns out that the plant was cancelled yesterday, citing the massively inflated cost. The plant was originally going to cost just under a billion but the cost increased to about 1.8 billion. The plant was supposed to capture its emissions and bury them in capsules deep under ground, producing no emissions in the air and producing hydrogen and electricity. That hydrogen could then have been used in fuel cells.

I think that the issue of coal power is actually a very pressing concern for the American people. We need to either increase our energy production fast that it seems possible right now, or lower our usage. Between 2001 and 2006 about 30% of the energy produced in the world was produced by coal. Sadly, none of these coal plants are low emission and therefore pose a significant threat to our environment. America has about 200 years worth of coal reserves, and yet there is a good chance that these reserves will never be tapped, as they are too dangerous to the environment and we lack the infrastructure to operate the amount of plants that we need to build. I think that the decision to leap forward in coal use was a rash one. Granted we do need the energy, but it is absolutely critical that we develop new methods of getting our energy that do not cause permanent damage to the environment.


Pasterna, Judy. Coal is No Longer on the Front Burner. LA Times. Friday, January 18th. 2008. Pp A8+A21.