Skeeters.

Raise your hand if you love mesquitoes. Anyone? personally, I can't wait until monsoon season, just so I can feel that sting of the straw, and those lovely itchy bumps on my arms and neck. lovely. But seriously, I believe that Mosquitoes do provide a sufficient amount of help to our own human preferences, as well as those of many other animals.

    Mosquitoes help pollinate a huge variety of plants, some necessary to preserving habitats and even entire biospheres. They also provide food to many animals, including a huge number of migratory birds in alaska. Why would you wipe out any species? If any species causes enough harm to be exterminated, It's us. Oh, and although it is slightly morbid, Mosquitoes are playing a role in keeping the entire planet alive, by keeping our population down with their many viruses. Overall consensus? Mosquitoes stay.

Ecosystem services...or else.

Ecosystem Services. That's a weird term. What services are we talking here? environmental help, recreation? Truth is, the divisions of Ecosystem Services are something that we all think about, and we all want. A cash trade. But of all the different trades for money, Ecosystem Services may provide one of the best, or worst, income reasoning. The ecosystem does many things for us. Providing oxygen, water, and endless recourses, among many other things, are needed for human existence. So say you spend your time helping other people get what they want. Don't you want compensation that benefits you? This is how Ecosystem services work. The idea is that if citizens were to contribute tax money or other funds, then divisions of Ecosystem Services could generate that money back into preserving the environment. All in all, I think it's a pretty good deal. Plus, all that green paper came from nature, so we might as well start to pay it back.

What's Biology?

Hmmm, interesting question, eh? that's also what my Bio teacher thought. So she asked all of us to answer in our own. To me, Biology is the study of life, and how life is possible.

here is a link to my bio site http://hankstowersbiology.blogspot.com/

Chimps come out of retirement to play professional football for the Green Bay Packers (and do scientific testing)

Animal testing is EXTREMELY controversial, even often illegal, which is why people are practically up in arms about a group of chimps in New Mexico being reenlisted to test cures for different forms of HIV. Recently, an article in Nature News added to the flames.

So how do we get around this problem? Animal testing obviously has it's lows, especially when there is no cure for what they are infecting them with. Some solutions that have been presented are testing on prisoners (think Guatemala in the 60's), volunteers, and plain out not testing on living creatures. So why don't we use one of these alternatives? Everyone has a different view on what is cruel, humane, or necessary. one comment below this article stated, "To think that these animals would be put back into research studies is disturbing. Then what – stash them away somewhere for another 10 years. it seems that they have been subjected to enough.

I would think that the general public is against this and their wishes should be respected. All animal based research relies on the support of the public. This is not the way to gain or even maintain current support levels." however, another comment stated, "Just because these chimpanzees are already in captivity does NOT mean we should conduct invasive, unnecessary experiments on them. They've already been through enough, and we owe them respect and permanent retirement."

With this much indecision, how can we ever come to a consensus? 

Personally, I feel that this type of animal testing, although not necessarily kind to the chimpanzees, is fairly humane and not cruel. Considering the animals' quality of living, I doubt the testing is more bothersome than a zoo exhibit or astronautic conditioning. And to those whom are so outraged, why don't you step in for them? because they certainly don't seem to mind. and as to the idea of testing on prisoners, I feel that that would be GREAT on death row/life sentence convicts. aside from those few, I believe the 8th amendment saves them and rightfully so.

Just a thought

Hey followers, which I have one of. If you happen to know me and happen to be reading this, you should check out my other blog righttt.....HERE

Water Sucks!

Well, at least for Jennifer Strange, a 28 year old from Sacramento, California who died of water intoxication after competing in the contest, "Hold your wee for a wii". Yes, believe it or not, people have actually died from too much water! Most people know that our bodies are made up of over 70% water, but few know that as little as 6 liters of water can change that balance, and actually kill you from water intoxication. Think of water intoxication as a bathtub with the drain open and the water running. Although the drain is constantly disposing of water in your system, it is possible for the faucet to run at a high enough rate, causing the amount of water to grow and overflow into parts of the bathroom that you don't want wet. Jennifer is not the only case for water intoxication. Deaths from hyperhydration have also been caused by athletes trying to recover from an event, or even users of the common drug known as Extacy who try to drink as much water as possible after wearing themselves out during a "roll".
            But seriously, all warnings and fear aside, ARE YOU KIDDING??? It amazes me that people actually DIE from drinking too much water! and even more bothersome to me is that someone took the time to write an article making water intoxication sound like the next Black Plague. Did you know that over 2 MILLION children a year die of dehydration? How many stories have you heard about children who can't drink because they are stricken with diarrhea? In my opinion, the people who wrote this article would have made a much bigger change by looking up ways to help hydrate than why drinking water can kill you.

Kidneys!!!

Recently in class, we discussed organ transplants, and how the process of a transplant works. For our mini-project, we each got split up into groups, were given a group of people theoretically in need of a kidney, and two board members to decide who would receive the kidney. My role was as a policy maker, someone who decides on what basis the kidney is given to a transplant needer for. After lots of deliberation, I decided that Austin Rogers, a teenager who only had one kidney after giving one to his father, and would die without a transplant, would receive the kidney. Do you guys think I made the right choice?