CSB #8:Relation Between Oxygen Levels and Grip Strength

by: Eric Yu, Harry Xu, Albert Lin, and Chris Hildum

Summary: 
The purpose of our experiment is to find out if the amount of oxygen someone has affects their strength. If oxygen levels do have a relationship with strength, we want to find out at how many seconds someone starts to lose strength. A scenario where our experiment comes into play is when a person is trapped in a place with limited oxygen; we want to find out if the person will be able to lift heavy objects in order to escape. In our experiment, we used Logger Pro to record our data in a graph on a laptop. Other materials we used are a paper bag for each test subject, a Hand Dynamometer for measuring the force in Newtons before and after hyperventilation, and a Go Link Cable. In order to simulate the lack of oxygen, we made someone breathe rapidly into a paper bag and hyperventilate for periods of 10 seconds and 20 seconds. Our first trial was when the test subject squeezed the Hand Dynamometer for 5 seconds. Then, he would hyperventilate in the paper bag for 10 seconds and squeeze the Hand Dynamometer again. We would measure the force of the test subject before and after hyperventilating. The second trial for our test subjects is that they would squeeze the Hand Dynamometer for 5 seconds, hyperventilate into a paper bag for 20 seconds, and squeeze the Hand Dynamometer for 5 seconds again. Some possible variables in our lab are that the time each person squeezes the Hand Dynamometer and hyperventilates into a paper bag may be different for each person. Also, some people who were our test subjects may be stronger than others, thus having a stronger force than everyone else.

Before Harry hyperventilated, he was able to emit a force of 197.4 Newtons. After, hyperventilating for 10 seconds, his strength had decreased by 48.5 N.  However, when Harry hyperventilated for 20 seconds his strength only reduced by 15.4 N. The results for Eric and Albert were similar to Harry’s. This is because when they hyperventilated longer, their strength did not decrease as much compared to a shorter hyperventilation time. When Chris hyperventilated for 10 seconds, his strength was reduced by 3.8 N, but when he hyperventilated for 20 seconds, his strength was reduced by 12.6 N. Chris' results were slightly different compared to the others since his strength decreased steadily as his oxygen supply decreased. We also found that the average decrease in strength for 10 seconds was about a 21.8% decrease. The average decrease in strength for 20 seconds was about a 13.4% decrease. With the given results, the strength of most people increased as they had a lower amount of oxygen. However others had a decrease in strength with a lower amount of oxygen. This could be possible if the brain believes the human body is in danger. This way, adrenaline would be sent out throughout the body. Because of this, some people would have an extra amount strength. However, for some other people, the adrenaline can be sent out later than others. This explains why some people have lower strengths with a lower supply of oxygen.Results: 
-Harry 

10 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 197.4 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 148.9 Newtons

20 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 179

Highest after hyperventilating: 163.6

- Eric

10 sec: 

Highest before hyperventilating: 205.9 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 151.9 Newtons

20 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating:190.3 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 155.5 Newtons

- Albert

10 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 195 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 130.7 Newtons

 20 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 212.7 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 172.6 Newtons

- Chris

10 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 182.6 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 178.8 Newtons

 20 sec:

Highest before hyperventilating: 187.1 Newtons

Highest after hyperventilating: 174.5 Newtons

CSB#7: The Domestication of Dogs

Dogs were the first animals to be domesticated. At first, dogs were first believe to have come from jackals, but the idea was discarded after the idea that they originally came from grey wolves. However, biologists and archaeologists still debate how gray wolves first evolved into becoming the dog breeds that is known today. Some theories are that dogs were domesticated for food, companionship, or for their amazing ability to hunt. In order to find where domesticated dogs had originally come from, scientists took DNA from 1,500 dogs. They soon found out that most of the DNA were similar to the Near Eastern gray wolf.

I was interested by the fact that different breeds of dogs are found all over the world, but they all came from one species, the Near Eastern gray wolf. The wolves must have been caught by humans and bred for food, companionship, or for their hunting ability. This way, the wolves would be more similar to the way dogs act today.

Citations:
Jarrett, Lobell A., and Eric A. Powell. "More than Man's Best Friend (cover
     story)." Archaeology: n. pag. EBSCO Animals. Web. 7 May 2011.
     <http://puffin.harker.org:2092/ehost/
     detail?vid=3&hid=105&sid=30471ac1-26f6-46ea-95a1-1b0eb73c1ea2%40sessionmgr110&bda
     ta=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=sch&AN=52898691>.


http://a6.idata.over-blog.com/312x468/0/34/63/78/husky.jpg

CSB#6:Fish Farms

           A lower amount of fish are coming from the wild, instead, people are receiving their fish by fish farming, or aquaculture. However, fish farms are usually crowded with fish in a small area, allowing diseases and parasites to easily infect the entire population of fish. Also, if an infected fish escapes into the wild, it can spread the disease to native species. Other fish would also be required to be killed in order for the farmed fish to be fed. However, fish farm owners discovered that these fish only require the same amount of food as their weight, this way, the prices of the farmed fish would be cheaper than the ones caught from the wild. Also, fish farming can be more efficient. Farmers can decide whether or not the fish are big enough to be sold on the market, the small fish can still grow. However, when big fish fleets start to set out their nets, they are most likely to receive the wrong species, dead fish due to the harsh fishing techniques or to small.
and
            I found this article interesting because it shows the pros and cons of aquaculture. I believe that fish farming is a great way to receive fish because they are efficient. This way, more fish would not go to waste, which would increase the population of wild fish. However, some people would be unsure about the safety of the fish since they may contain diseases due to the their cramped living conditions.

Simpson, Sarah. "The Blue Food Revolution." Scientific America: 54-61. EBSCO 
     Animals. Web. 8 Apr. 2011. <http://puffin.harker.org:2092/ehost/
     detail?vid=7&hid=113&sid=03a9afb5-3a36-42cd-8618-11b53061190f%40sessionmgr12&bdat
     a=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ulh&AN=57244706>.


http://tropicalfish911.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/fish-farming.jpg

CSB#5:The Decreasing Population of Fish

By Albert Lin

Summary:
In the ocean, thousands of fish are being killed at an dramatic by both other fish and humans. In order to solve part of the problem, fish the size of a wheel from a wheelbarrow are being actioned. Since some fish, such as tuna, must eat equal amount of fish equal to their own weight, killing huge fish will help reduce the worlds seafood print. The real problem that effects the population of fish are fishermen. Even if there were half the amount of fishing equipment right now, we would still be catching to much fish. Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia, believes that possible solutions are reducing the world's fishing fleets by fifty percent, creating larger no-catch zones, and limit the use of wild fish as food in fish-farming. However, the seafood industry will not change any rules about fishing.

Discussion:
I chose this article because it interested me about possible ways to prevent the decreasing population of fish. Also, the fact that the seafood industry will not change any regulations even though the population of fish are decreasing. In addition, there are still to many fish caught, so adding some restrictions should not affect the amount of fish caught much. I agree with Pauly, there should be stricter rules about fishing because we are fishing to much that will cause fish to become extinct.

Questions:
What other possibilities are there in order to reduce the seafood print?
How can consumers change the way they eat fish so that not as many fish would be caught?


Sources:
Greenburg, Paul. "Time for a Sea Change." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 7
     Mar. 2011. <http://puffin.harker.org:2092/ehost/
     detail?hid=17&sid=bbdeb52f-fbaf-4e1f-8bd9-2c19f1f38741%40sessionmgr10&vid=4&bdata
     =JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ulh&AN=53874352>.


http://www.jlmphotogallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/fish.jpg

CSB#4: Cloning Animals

 by Albert Lin

Defenitions:
Clone:

a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived.

Summary:

Scientists are planning on cloning cows in order to help livestock breeders earn more money. For example, if their was one bull that consistently has offspring that have top quality meat, they can be cloned so there can be multiple bulls that are the exact same. However, the average cost for cloning one animal is about $13,000 to $17,500. Compared to the cost of buying a non cloned animal, purchasing a cloned animal is extremely more expensive. Also, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that products from cloned animals are just like the animals that are not cloned, but critics still believe that the cloned animals can create diseases.

Disscusion:
I chose this topic because I wanted to learn more about cloning. The fact that people can even clone today. However, I was not surprised that cloned animals were extremely expensive. Cloning animals can help livestock breeders earn more income if they purchase cloned animals.

Questions:
How can cloning animals help improve the economy?
What benefits are some benefits of cloning?
 What can be done in order for citizens to agree upon the fact the cloned animals are safe to eat.

Sources:
Dictionary.com 
Oostoek, Sharon. "I'll Have the Cloneburger and Fries." New Scientists: n. pag.
     EBSCO Animals. Web. 8 Jan. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/
     detail?hid=111&sid=e0e40ba4-6f07-432d-b86b-0fb44db9c508%40sessionmgr112&vid=3&bda
     ta=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ulh&AN=31907255>.