Fracking: America's Best Friend

Hydraulic fracturing newly enhances an outdated way to extract oil and natural gas from shale formations deep within the earth thanks to technological advances that allow horizontal drilling. The process uses a highly scrutinized mixture containing water, sand and chemicals that become pressurized and forced through the horizontal well in order to release the pent up resources within the shale. The controversy regarding fracking is whether risking environmental damage outweighs the

Image from Wikipedia Commons

economic reward. This fuss creates a heavyweight political battle with the liberal agenda supporting anti-fracking groups and the more conservative followers lending their support to the refined industry. The article Uncertain Dash for Gas in the weekly journal Nature gives facts and predictions over the vastly expanding fracking industry that raises questions about the morals behind fracking. Many questions over the chemical processes and refinement regarding the used water have arisen that need truthful answers but we need to realize all the ways it has helped our economy such as providing more than 2 million jobs and stimulating the economy, gaining us independence from Middle Eastern oil and providing us with an environmentally safer and less carbon producing energy that is all around more efficient than the alternatives.

Astonishing facts linking fracking to the sudden rise in America’s energy industry have arose in the last decade. Recently, the U.S’s ever increasing energy industry has become a major factor in the overall U.S. economy. These numbers have a direct link to every person’s life countrywide as gas prices are the common factor. Thanks to the new boom we hit, gas prices fell to below $2.00 for the first time since 2009 (and the price that year can mostly be attributed to the fact that it was right after and election so it soon soared back well over $2.00). Not only have American’s wallets saved a little extra cash but fracking affects many individuals on a more personal level; helping them turn their life around. One man, Ryan Renzi, changed his whole outlook on life with fracking. He graduated college intending on a finance career but soon realized he could not support his ambitious lifestyle. He now makes plenty of money being a manager for a fracking company by overseeing the well sights surrounding Pittsburgh. This one man’s encouraging story of the benefits of our new found energy business and it is affecting many more across the nation. Our current oil and natural gas industry shows signs peaking to an all time high in employment records with reports showing as many as 2.1 million individuals currently employed according to the article Shale Economy. The article also predicts that by 2020 more than 3.3 million jobs will be directly linked to the U.S’s ever expanding energy programs. Hydraulic fracturing influences America as seen across the nation through personal stories going from failure to success or just the countless facts showing how many people have benefited from our new found energy resources.

Image from Wikipedia Commons

For years since the Middle East and Russia uncovered their bountiful energy resources to the world, the United States imports more than a million gallons of crude oil and natural gas by the day. Thanks to fracking, America has slowly become more self sustaining. Hydraulic fracturing increases daily oil production by 3.3 million barrels while net imports of oil from the likes of Saudi Arabia decreased a massive 44%. Some experts such as Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, says that this landmark achievement for the U.S. more heavily impacts us in the last 50 years than the nuclear energy revolution. Fracking creates a cleaner shift in energy that convinces

experts such as historian and author Andrew Bacevich who was quoted in the same article above saying “What the new energy regime could do would be to make it clear that the United States does have choices and one of those choices will be to lower our profile in the Middle East more broadly and in the Persian Gulf specifically.” This, more than anything, proves a point that we can be independent, in our woeful energy crisis. Hydro-fracking gives us the ability to begin to think about other nations that are in need of such oil. President Obama says he wants to use the oil that we no longer require and put it towards other developing nations. Outcomes such as these provide the facts that environmentalists fail to recognize which makes me ask if they actually fight for the people or just for their personal benefits. Giving us freedom from the clutches of oil giants lets us expand our horizon on new energy sources, such as natural gas, that will more efficiently provide American’s with reliable energy for years to come.

Image from Wikipedia Commons

Environmentalists and liberals criticize fracking hand in hand with their statements that it damages the lives of families through polluted air and water. To disregard the polluted air argument that the liberal media use, the United States has reduced carbon emissions by 5.2 billion metric tons, a level not seen since 1992. In addition, I would like to ask the adversaries to fracking what their solution to our energy demands would be? Solar and wind power are far less efficient along with a high start up cost and hydro-power proves to be geographically limited for obvious reasons. Will they then try to support nuclear power? Sure that solves the problem for commercial and residential infrastructure but does not begin touching the transportation industry. Left wing opponents of fracking argue that large scale companies and their rigs use too much water without a proper refining process. According to a Time Magazine article, we will most likely save water by switching from a coal powered plants to natural gas plants because it takes more water to run a coal fired plant than one with the heat of natural gas. In the state of Texas, hydro-fracking accounts for only 1% of the total water use by the state while it covers more than 10% of their total economy. The polluted water argument proves to be false according to an article written by Daniel Simmons. He explains that on multiple occasions, government and environmental agencies alike perform studies regarding the contamination of the water table. These studies prove that no substantial evidence links fracking to the tarnishing of ground water. With that being said, methane leakage is a severe risk for fracking as it traps up to 20 times more infrared radiation than carbon dioxide. The University of Texas performed a study about the methane leakage in fracking rigs and the numbers show that far less methane is being released than previously predicted by the EPA. This not only means that we are doing less harm for the environment, but we also have proven that the current regulations are helping curve environmental risks. The Environment Defense Fund currently supports 16 separate operations committed to lowering these numbers as much as possible. The facts show that on multiple accounts the environmental risks referenced with fracking are a lot less worrying than what its made out to be and that the risks related with it aren't just being left untouched.

Hydraulic fracturing is the present and future of our nation’s energy and economy and the center of attention in today's press. Environmentalists use petty arguments and outdated research to support their claims that have no precedence over the economic and foreign benefits obtained. The media also misinforms us over the effects on the environment of fracking as it indeed helps us with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately, an all time low of carbon output emerged for the first time since the early nineties. This being said, America needs to focus on the extraction of natural gas and oil by way of fracking because it demonstrates on countless occasions how beneficial it is for our great nation.



"Shale Economy." Bulk Transporter 76.4 (2013): 32. Business Source Complete. Web. 2 Feb.

2015."Nature." Editorial. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.

Alternative Partners for the European Space Agency

Over the last few decades, cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Federal Space Agency has been mutually beneficial, but given recent developments I do not agree this partnership can continue. Due to mounting tensions over the Ukrainian Civil War, and an increase in sanction from many ESA member nations directed towards Russia, continued cooperation on space missions does not look like an attractive policy. Amidst this political turmoil the magazine Nature has published a piece on how the ESA wishes to work with Russia on their next lunar mission by sending their equipment on board a Russian Soyuz rocket (Gibney). Meanwhile many other organizations, particularly in Asia and America, are working on their own moon missions or launchers capable of moon missions that would provide a number of benefits over working with the Russians. Though the long cooperation between the European Space Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency has resulted in many admirable achievements, I see continued cooperation between the organizations undesirable for the ESA amidst failing relations with Russia, especially with the growth of capabilities of other organizations that would be willing to work with the ESA, and the large increase of investments for space missions around the world that is lowering the cost of large missions like the one currently being planned by the ESA.

Space X Falcon 9 on Launch Pad
Photo courtesy of NASA

Cooperation with Russia, given the current state of relations, is undesirable for the nations in the ESA. The Ukrainian Civil War has put Europe at odds with Russia due to Russia’s support of rebel groups in the eastern parts of the country, and many European nations accuse Russia of sending in heavy military equipment that will prolong the fighting considerably. Many sanctions have already been placed on Russia by Europe and its allies with more likely to be placed in the near future. Then there is the issue over Russia's support of Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad who is accused by many in the west of the intentional bombing of civilians, and the use chemical weapons. Working with Russia under such circumstances does not seem to me as a preferred situation. Merely stating that the joint space missions should not be muddled in politics fails to see how such actions would be viewed by the rest of the world. For example, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980’s the United States boycotted the Olympics in order to show how they will not support anything Russian given the political situation. By working with the Russians while accusing them of causing multiple humanitarian crisis around the world weakens the stance Europe has taken to contain Russia’s interests. I feel as if the only reason the Europeans consider working with the Russians during this time is because of their long standing cooperation since the 1990s on many missions, most notably through the use of Soviet era Soyuz orbital launcher that is commonly used to launch personal into space and resupply the international space station. Russia is also one of the nations with a planned robotic mission to the moon in the near future but, there are other nations and organizations in Asia and the Americas that also have moon missions planned that would make better partners for the ESA, such as Japan, South Korea, and private companies in the United States. Given these circumstances working with the Russians on a robotic mission to the moon with the tense political situation is unreasonable considering the alternatives.

Rover developed of Google X prize competition

The European Space Agency has a long history of working with the United States on space missions; a relationship that has lasted longer than their partnership with Russia. The United States is also in a much better situation politically with most of Europe avoiding the risk of politics playing a huge factor in the public opinion of cooperation. Private firms in the U.S. for space exploration are growing at an outstanding rate. Google, an American software company, is already showing interest to invest in lunar missions. Google has already given out a number of large monetary rewards to private companies in the U.S. for the creation of tools that would be useful for a moon mission and some to overseas in Asia and Europe. I see these kinds of investments as a sign that space is becoming less of a venture for large national organization and moving more towards private companies that will cooperate to provide the necessary technology for missions. NASA, the American space agency, has taken more advantage of the growth in the private space sector through the use of the Falcon 9 rocket developed by SpaceX, a private company well known for its recent advancements in rocket technology and for reducing the price of space missions over all. The success of private space firms in the US is highlighted by the budget increase to NASA specifically to the Commercial Crew program that has contracts with Boeing and SpaceX. The only reason why NASA is investing so heavily on private space is because they have benefited immensely by letting private space companies take over smaller missions which lets them focus on missions to Mars or Europa. Given the ESA like NASA is on a tight budget they will also benefit by signing contracts with these companies. Some can argue that Russia would be a better partner because they are European, but

Russia is not a part of the ESA or even the EU and they are constantly at odds with western European interests; this makes them less desirable partners than American space firms. Even the Chinese at this stage would look like better partners for the Europeans given their recent advancements in lunar mission technology. It seems clear that even though the Russians are Europeans that does not instantly make them a more viable option over other organizations around the world.

Soviet era Soyuz during launch
Photo couetesy of NASA

The issue remains that though Russian spacecraft have proven to be technologically sufficient, reliable, and relatively cheap compared to other options in the last few decades, new developments from other nations have better, more up to date technology that can accomplish the same tasks the ESA needs. Even internally the ESA is working on a heavy launcher, Ariane 6, capable of sending spacecraft deep into space. The issue with the Ariane unfortunately is that it is not expected to be operational until the 2020 while the ESA is looking to go to the moon sometime in the near future. In that case NASA already has a heavy launcher in service, the Delta IV Heavy that costs around $300 million compared to the heavy Soyuz launcher which would be more along the lines of $320 million. The cheapest option currently is the Falcon 9 heavy from SpaceX which will purportedly cost a meager $85 million and will be ready by the end of 2015. Given these recent developments the ESA will likely be able to get a cheaper and more suitable launcher for sending its equipment to the moon within the next year or so while it develops its own rockets capable of the same missions. SpaceX in particular looks like a very promising partner for lunar exploration considering the amount of money its CEO Elon Musk is investing on improving his company’s technologies which push the bounds of what private companies are able to do. I am certain that these private companies would enjoy the opportunity to prove their capabilities by working on missions like the ones being planned by the ESA.

Overall, given the circumstance, the ESA would be better off working with an organization other than the Russians for their planned lunar mission. The stance Europe and its allies have taken against Russia over the situation in Ukraine and Syria would be weakened by continued reliance on their space program. It would be better and possible even cheaper if the ESA were to postpone their moon plan slightly and find a partner elsewhere. Promising developments in the private sector and the more cost effective solution that could be provided by NASA and their partners will prove to be better alternatives and be available in the near future. Given the growing interest in space exploration in the private sector it may not be long before rockets like the Falcon 9 are being sold and used as cheaper alternatives to the expensive, established community of heavy launch vehicles. The entire landscape of space exploration is changing and there are now more options for a space mission than ever before. The ESA should not be so open to this plan to work with the Russians at this time and their interests on a whole would be better served if they found new partners to work with.

Works Cited

Gibney, Elizabeth. "Europe Proposes Joint Moon Trips with Russia." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/europe-proposes-joint-moon-trips-with-russia-1.16517>.

On The Food Crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa

Quite clear benefits and quite clear drawbacks exist that require analysis when considering using chemical fertilizer, however another, oft-forgotten element exists: people and what helps maintain their living styles. Chemical fertilizers attract largely those whose region where they live share similarities to sub-Saharan Africa where “[f]arming a smallholding is intensive, backbreaking work that, for the most part, is done out of necessity, not choice”. The quick and obvious rewards, along with the little time and effort required to apply chemical fertilizers, shows why they have such appeal. Given this, one might expect that many farmers would use fertilizer, however sub-Saharan Africa's fertilizer prices leave farmers unable to afford any. The requirement for fertilizer to be imported, since few produce it locally, underlies the reason fertilizer costs a lot. The fertilizer does not get produced locally because the demand does not reach a level where producing it locally seems worthwhile. The high prices that leave fertilizer unaffordable cause this low demand. This causes a lovely catch-22 scenario, where the high price causes the high price. The local governments have tried subsidizing the fertilizer, however the governments stopped these subsidies before too long because they had a high cost. Some people believe that African farmers need fertilizer, and if they're unable to afford it then wealthier countries should provide it; and when you think about the fact that many nations largely overuse fertilizer, one would likely agree that wealthier countries can spare fertilizer.

Sub-Saharan Africa's long-lasting food crisis has prompted many people to suggest solutions. As a solution, people often first consider using chemical fertilizers, which have their benefits and drawbacks; however, people often forget the way chemical fertilizers affect farmers' lifestyles. Though options other than chemical fertilizer also exist, including planting plants that naturally enrich the soil and using crop rotation. However, carefully combining all the options will likely produce the best results.

Chemical fertilizers contain mostly nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. People reference this nutrient combination frequently enough that it has gained the abbreviation NPK; nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium's chemical symbols determined this abbreviation. Nitrogen gets the most focus since “corn, wheat, and rice, the fast-growing crops on which humanity depends for survival, are among the most nitrogen hungry of all plants”. One might expect that, the air containing 80% nitrogen, plants wouldn't lack this nutrient, but unfortunately plants cannot process the form this nitrogen has.

People often view chemical fertilizers negatively, but they have proven extremely useful when attempting to lessen food crises. Sub-Saharan Africa largely seeks chemical fertilizers because the red soil there has extremely little vital nutrients, “[losing] 22 kilograms of nitrogen, 2.5 kg of phosphorus and 15 kg of potassium annually over the past 30 years”. The low labor cost and quick and obvious returns also add a large appeal.

The short-term effects show many boons, but the long-term effects show more negatives. When overused, excess fertilizer will wash away from farms and contaminate river water. The fertilizer the river contains helps to grow the plants that reside there, largely plankton and algae. The aid these two receive causes a population boom, creating much more plankton and algae than one could consider healthy. This extra biomass creates dead zones, areas where plants and fish can't survive. The plants die because the algae and plankton form a large and dense population that completely blocks out sunlight. The fish die because decomposing plankton and algae consumes the oxygen the fish need, and because the recent population boom provides more biomass to decompose, decomposition consumes too much oxygen.


Researches have studied other, more natural, methods that increase the concentration of soil nutrients. These methods largely consist of planting legume, which contain bacteria in their roots that help to convert airborne nitrogen into nitrogen usable by plants. Like many green solutions, the growing of legume unfortunately imposes much more extra labor on the farmer, often to level where farmers forego the option. Another solution involves planting Faidherbia albida trees, which also help boost nitrogen content in soil. These trees have an added benefit, they shed their leaves near the beginning of the growing season, meaning not only do they not block sunlight from any crops planted near their base, but they actually provide a form of natural fertilizer for them.

Crop cycling contains another solution for providing more bountiful harvests. Crop cycling rests on the idea that, since soil will renew its nutrients over time, if you do not plant crops for a year, the crops will have the nutrients to produce a lot more the next year. However, no one really likes the idea of wasting their land for a year, so instead of not planting crops, farmers plant crops that require different nutrients. Since these crops use different nutrients, they can produce a bountiful harvest while allowing the nutrients that the original crop needs to build up. This allows both crops to have the surplus of nutrients that gives them a bountiful harvest. Sometimes though, after one year, the nutrients in the soil remain too low; in this case farmers simply add crops to the cycle until the cycle lasts for long enough to allow the nutrients to return. Many farmers, likely not wanting to waste seed, instead of only using a single field and cycling which crops they plant in a year, will use multiple fields and switch which crop they plant in which field. Crop cycling has another added benefit for the farmer, at least if they mainly practice subsistence farming, in that it provides more variety to the diet of the farmer and those that they support.

Personally though, I think the best solution to this problem, like the solution to many problems, lies in a careful mixture of all the provided solutions. This works especially well in this case since all the solutions I have discussed rely on the same underlying mechanic to produce their results, providing extra nutrients to crops. Since this solution allows the usage of these methods in small quantities, it has the added benefit of reducing many of the negatives that result from the over-practice of these methods, such as the dead-zones created from the overuse of chemical fertilizers and the large amount of work required of nutrient-enriching plants. However, saying “let’s just do them all” does not really provide a solution to the issues involved with getting farmers to use the individual methods.

The first issue lies in the unwillingness of farmers to put in the extra labor required in growing nutrient-enriching crops. A potential solution to this consists of providing farmers with subsidies for planting and growing Faidherbia albida trees. Using trees has the benefit that, while in their early years trees may require a decent amount of upkeep, when they grow old, trees tend to require little care. The trees also live a long time, meaning they will rarely need replanting. The little care and non-necessity of replanting means that after a few years farmers would not require an incentive to make sure the trees grow well, allowing the amount spent on these subsidies to be reduced.

The second issue consists of people preferring old and safe methods and hesitating to try new and unfamiliar methods. The solution of this also lies in subsidies. If subsidies existed that farmers only gained in the case of their crops failing, they would have a safety net and their worry about trying new methods would greatly diminish.

The third issue results from the high price of fertilizer that prevents farmers from affording them. The solution to this once again involves subsidies, though this time the subsidies would not be for the farmers, but for those that produce fertilizer. Having a local source of fertilizer would allow farmers to purchase it at a lower price. The subsidies would also encourage more people to produce fertilizer, which would push the price down even more. With more people producing fertilizer the government could safely reduce or eliminate the subsidies without the fear that everyone will leave the business.

These solutions all unfortunately have one big problem: governments do not want to subsidize farming. The hesitancy of governments to subsidize farming results from the failures their attempts at subsidizing farming had in the past. This leads one to wonder, if not the government, where will money for subsidies come from? Charity organizations seem like a likely answer. Charities often focus on providing in impoverished areas, so they already focus on locations such as this. Many charities also focus specifically on providing food, and they likely would willingly direct some of their efforts towards not just providing what people need, but toward providing the means so that these people can produce what they need themselves.

In total, the benefits and drawbacks of chemical fertilizers, nutrient-enriching plants, and crop rotation tend to neutralize each other. However, when used together in lower quantities, the drawbacks of these methods become a lot smaller while the impact of their benefits does not change much, resulting in a much more appealing solution. Unfortunately, farmers hesitate to use these new methods, but the provision of subsidies should make them feel safe and motivate them to try them. All in all, this should result in farmers having more bountiful harvests, improving their quality of life and the quality of life of their communities.

Ketamine for Use as an Antidepressant

Generic form of ketamine, called Ketaset

Ever since the 1980s, depression treatment research has not had any major breakthroughs or
advancements. Almost all the knowledge we have regarding depression came from research done during the 60s and 70s; research that is not even widely agreed upon to be the “correct” answer in regards to the cause of depression. The medication currently on the market is based on this outdated research and is still being prescribed today for patients suffering from depression. This needs to change. Traditional antidepressants tend to be less effective and more harmful when compared with depression treatment using ketamine. New research, needed because due to the stagnation of research on antidepressants since the 80s, shows that ketamine acts faster and works differently in comparison with antidepressant medication; major pharmaceutical companies are already producing their own patentable versions of the medication that has shown to work very effectively, which is what needs to happen in the field of depression medication.


Traditional antidepressants work much differently when compared with the way ketamine fights depression. There are few different types of conventional antidepressants. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are among the most common prescribed because they seem to have the most success combating the depression symptoms while having a short list made up of potential side effects. The actual scientific explanation for how SSRIs work is very complex; in short, they allow more serotonin to be present in the gap between brain synapses. There is still a lot of debate concerning how, or even if, having more serotonin present can actually alleviate depression symptoms. There are many other depression medications that can be prescribed if SSRIs do not help. They all work similarly; they allow more of a certain chemical to stay between brain synapses. These medications have varying levels of efficacy and reported side effects, including, but not limited to, decreased libido, worsened depression, and suicidal behavior. The laundry list of side effects for these medications


Ketamine, however, does not work like antidepressants. It is an NMDA receptor antagonist in the brain, which block the function of the NMDA receptor. Basically, the NMDA receptor is a part of the brain that responds to certain chemicals (mainly a substance called glutamate), which can have a variety of effects on the body. Recent research has shown that the NMDA receptor has been link to depression. In the US ketamine is classified as a Schedule III drug, which means “The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.” and “The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The drug is widely used as a general anesthetic in a medical setting. Recently, however, ketamine has been found to treat symptoms of depression. In various studies, it has been found that ketamine can be used to stop suicidal thoughts and behavior in patients in as little as one hour. This is much needed, as mental health drug research breakthroughs have somewhat stagnated since the 1980s, this article states. However, the same article does offer promising new potential drug options for depression patients, and ketamine is at the top of list.


A lot of questions must be asked when determining if a drug can be safe for long term, continued use. Can it permanently damage neurons in the brain? Can it cause a physical or psychological dependence? There have not been many studies regarding the danger of ketamine to destroy brain neurons, called neurotoxicity, but it has a half life of only 3 hours in the body, which means it is only active in the body for a very short time relative to other drugs. Because of this, a viable treatment option would be continued low dosage over a period of time, akin to a diabetic person taking insulin shots. This could provide a long term treatment for patients. The short half life makes it a viable option for consecutive low dosage treatment, as neurotoxic drugs typically have much longer half lives. As far as dependency goes, ketamine has been shown to cause a psychological dependence in some chronic recreational users, even though no data exists regarding the users' frequency and amount per dosage. Any medical application of ketamine uses a much lower dose, therefore lowering the already low risk of dependence.


Ketamine acts a lot faster than traditional antidepressant medication. SSRI medications take about 2 to 3 days for a patient to feel its effects, while patients who take ketamine can feel a mood change in about a day, sometimes even as fast as 1 hour. This is very helpful for patients who may need emergency medication because of imminent suicidal behavior. This is life-saving for patients who suffer from severe depressive mood swings.


Major pharmaceutical companies are already recognizing ketamine as a viable depression treatment. Certain companies are already making their own ketamine derivatives, which have very similar chemical structure and provide the same effects. Johnson & Johnson has created a nasal spray that contains a chemical called esketamine, which is structurally the same as ketamine, although patients only need a fraction of the dosage to feel the effects. Because the spray is technically not ketamine, it is not subject to the same testing and protocol as the original drug. There are many other ketamine derivatives being made by other companies that fall outside the protocol of the parent drug as well.


Ketamine works differently than traditional antidepressant medication, as it targets a completely different part of the brain. It is this difference that makes ketamine the future of antidepressant medication. It has been shown to work better and faster in some patients suffering from depression and suicidal behavior, along with having fewer side effects than traditional antidepressant medication. Current depression medication research is outdated, but many companies are already making their own patentable version of ketamine that is being given to depression patients. The research is still in early its early stages, but the data collected so far has shown that ketamine needs to be used to treat depression, as it has been shown successful in doing so.

Work Cited

Reardon, Sara. "Rave Drug Holds Promise for Treating Depression Fast." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 07 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2015.

GM produce versus Conventional produce

Browsing the refrigerated section for food, Lily finds that she needs milk for her Frosted Flakes. She stops, puzzled, because her favorite 2% is significantly cheaper than the competing 2% organic milk. Inspired by her drastic savings, she decides to research the contents of the advertised GM and finds that the milk contains Chymosin, a genetically created enzyme. She traces the milk back to the corresponding cow, and finds that the cows were fed with soy beans: 60-90% are Genetically Engineered (Compass). You see, conventionally grown foods are a dying aspect; they require much more time, production cost, and the yield is dependent on environmental conditions. The reality is, conventional foods lack the production yields required to support our ever growing population, as Verena Seufert, the author of the article Comparing the Yields of Organic and
Conventional Agriculture believes; however GMO’s provide a limitless future source of sustainability in the produce market (Seufert). In order to keep up with the exponentially increasing population, Genetically Modified (GM) produce are the only plausible option to counter the shortcomings of conventional foods: GM produce, unlike conventional foods, are cost efficient, have limited cross-pollution,and are able to sustain a growing population.


The majority of people who “hate” GM produce are local farmers that have been using organic farming methods their whole lives, says author of Sweet Sustainability (Farm). I’m not sure if hate is an appropriate word to use in this context; I believe fear is quite fitting. People fear that these GMOs are not understood enough to be allowed into the natural gene pool. Instances such as that of pesticide resistant maize articulating into other farmers corn, tend to bring fear into the general public (Dalton). Currently, people are questioning how much is known about GM produce. Do people really not want to buy GMOs because they support conventional farming, or is it because they don’t understand them? In a recent poll conducted by Charles Noussair, a random group of French consumers were asked about their willingness to purchase GMOs: the study found that 35% of participants are unwilling to purchase products made with GMOs because of unfamiliarity, 23% are indifferent or value the presence of GMOs, and 42% are willing to purchase them if they are sufficiently inexpensive (Survey). Is this because French people hate eating French grown food, or is the picture something much simpler then that?

Picture from Wikipedia Commons

Conventional foods cannot offer the same amount of yield that GM produce can. This is primarily because GM produce can be immune to insects, herbicides, and certain diseases (Benefits). The author of GMOs Needed argues that the advantages of GM produce are much greater than those of of conventional foods, and needs to be embraced (Economic). We can all agree that produce is immensely important to the developing world. The author includes that the area used in GMO farming has increased 100-fold from 1.7 million hectares to 173 million hectares worldwide because of the ample benefits of planting GMOs. The reason many farmers are choosing to invest in GM produce is because of three significant cost-efficient factors: They offer more net by-product, less germination time, and most importantly, pest resistance (BioForum). Now when looking at all of these advantages, it is quite obvious why GM foods are indeed cheaper than their counterparts of conventional food.

Rex Dalton, the author of Genes Spread to Local Maize, states that cross contamination of genes has always been routine for GMOs. He goes on to state that this mimics the same gene pollution that occurred in late 2011(Dalton): sixty-nine women reported to have notably high Bt Toxin accumulation in their blood, which was thought to be caused from pesticide pollution (Quebec). The year following, a French farmer sues Monsanto for chemical poisoning caused by pesticide pollution. Of these peculiar claims, they all focused on that GMOs were uncontrollable, but in fact, the primary claim against GMOs is that they have no means of regulation (Nature).


Since these incidents, GMO technology have had a breakthrough, according to author of Kept on a Leash. More specifically, the author addresses that the current technology of GMOs have increased 10-fold in the means of control. These headlines show that research has proven GMOs can be synthesized to where they cannot exist without specific regulatory proteins known as "catabolic inhibitors". This allows GMOs to be controlled, such that the protein is removed when wanting to denature, or make inoperative (Nature). If utilized correctly, as the author believes, organisms can be controlled by a biological leash, giving a means of control. Now when comparing to conventional foods, GM produce now has an Achilles Heel, of which author Rex Dalton failed to mention.

Overpopulation by Conserve Energy Future

While conventional foods have proven to be a reliable source of food to maintain a steadily growing population, the equilibrium between our population and food production is quickly turning. Reverend Thomas Malthus, who developed population growth theory, hypothesized that “population growth would exceed the growth of resources, leading to the periodic reduction of human numbers. (1798)” Many believe that our world is reaching it’s carrying capacity, not because we are reproducing at a rate that surpasses existence, but because our ecological footprint is entirely unproportional. In layman’s terms, we are running out of resources because each human requires more than ever before. Food being a necessity, is undoubtedly the most jeopardized. I could surprise you with facts like “45% of child deaths is because of malnutrition” (Hunger), but these are much less concrete when compared to “we will run out of food by 2050” (Mirror). Overpopulation is happening, and this is when GMOs becomes of great significance.

Picture from Golden Rice Project Organization

In hopes to take on the challenge of limited food source and malnourishment globally, The Golden Rice Project was initiated in late August 2012. The focus of this organization is to solve the beta carotene deficit, which kills 670,000 children under 5 each year. The genetically modified rice was given it’s name because of an orangish glow caused by the concentrated beta carotene enzymes. These enzymes are used once ingested to make Vitamin A. Most recently, researchers from USDA have determined that Golden Rice is as effective as pure carotene oil, which is rare to extract, and more effective than spinach when it comes to Vitamin A production. One bowl of rice provides a child with 60% of recommended amounts of Vitamin A. (Journal). Globally, there are many GM organizations working to offer potential solutions for world hunger. The BioCassava Plus (BC+) program has developed nutrient-rich African White Corn (zinc, iron, protein, and vitamin A). This is largely important because African White Corn feeds 250 million African Americans daily (Corn). The author addresses three important benefits which are increased shelf life, toxic regulation, and disease resistance that can be applied to almost any GM food. Another example of current GM technology is that plants have been developed to thrive in areas plagued with droughts, primarily Libya and Egypt. These plants have self-enclosing stoma, which is the gate of the plant stem, that are most efficient when water is limited (Drought). Now that plants can be grown to contain the nutrients we want and wherever we want, the limitations of GMOs are quickly thinning.


You may want to look at GMOs vs Conventional foods in a different, more relatable perspective. This is what I mean; pretend that the new iPhone 7 came out today for 299.99$ and you absolutely need a new upgrade from your basic flip phone. This phone is up to date on data storage, wireless internet, and includes a lot of cool useless features that you can brag to your friends about later. You walk into your local cell phone distributor and hear people talking about the iPhone 7, saying there are glitches and sometimes when you turn on hands-free-mode, one of the cool useless features I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t work correctly. Everyone, including myself, is hesitant to invest in such new technology. Your second choice is the original flip phone, you know the first one you got for your thirteenth birthday, and it is on sale for 399.99$. Part of you wants to buy the flip phone even though it is expensive, because it is what you’ve known since you were little, and the other part of you wants to get on technologically-savvy bus. This may seem silly, but this is the reality of the GMO vs Conventional food debate. GMOs have immense new hallmarks when compared to the outdated Conventional farming produce of which including pest and herbicide resistance, weather tolerance, rapid germination, controllable nutrition content, and as of 2011, no cross-pollution between GM produce. When you look at all new technology, of course their are going to be glitches at the beginning, so to speak, but that’s what makes the technology even more flawless at the end. We need to embrace the shortcomings of GMOs and vividly see that conventional foods are growing obsolete. The only possible way we can sustain the exponentially growing population is if we invest in the potential of GMOs and dedicate as much effort into mastering GMO technology as we do debating them. So don’t get caught up on “Do GM Produce have more to offer than Conventional Produce?”, because if you look at the debate from all angles the real question in mind is very different, something more along the lines of “Why do we still farm Conventional Produce?” or “What else will it take to convince the general public that we need GMOs?”


Works Cited

Seufert, Verena. "Comparing the Yields of Organic and Conventional Agriculture." Nature 485.229–232 (2012). Nature. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

Dalton, Rex. "Modified Genes Spread to Local Maize." Nature 456.149 (2008). Nature. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/2008/081112/full/456149a.html

"Nature." Kept on a Leash 517.7535 (2015): 517. Nature. International Weekly Journal of Science. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

"Economic and Political Weekly." GMOs Needed 12.3 (2014): 1-2. Nature.
HLEAD(GMOs Needed) and Date Is 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=365197&sr=

Ketamine to Treat Depression Annotated Bibliography

Hello readers of FutureWolfTech, it’s Matt and I’m writing my first post here on the blog. This post will let you know how my research is going on my first project. I’m researching the drug ketamine and its uses as an antidepressant. Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic drug that can be used both medically and recreationally. In the medical field, it is used for patients that need emergency medical treatment to deal with pain. Because of its potential for hallucinatory side effects, it is not used as a primary anaesthetic. Recreationally, however, it is used because of its hallucinatory effects at high enough doses, similar to drugs like PCP and MDMA. It’s known as “Special K” and is a popular drug among ravers. However, new and promising studies have shown that ketamine can be used as a fast acting antidepressant and anti-suicide medication.


Reardon, Sara. "Rave Drug Holds Promise for Treating Depression Fast." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 07 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.


The author explains how the drug ketamine can be used to treat depression better and quicker than most antidepressants. The drug has just started to be tested in depression patients and the long term effects are just beginning to be recorded. Some companies are already creating their own forms of ketamine-like drugs, that have very similar chemical structure and effects on patients.


McMillen, Matt. "Ketamine: The Future of Depression Treatment?" WebMD. Ed. Micheal W. Smith. Depression Health Center, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.


In this article, the author argues that ketamine is definitely a very promising drug to treat depression, but it is by no means a “miracle drug” used to treat depression in everybody. The author argues that proper and thorough testing is required, as well as treatment of all aspects of depression.


Zarate, Carlos A. "Rapid Antidepressant Effects of Ketamine in Major Depression." ClinicalTrials.gov. US NIMH, 24 Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.


This article, while it does not provide any conclusions or results, it shows how relevant and new the studies of ketamine on depression are. The clinical trial was submitted in late December and currently, the experiment is recruiting volunteers diagnosed with depression or bipolar disorder. Because the trials and experiments have started very recently, it will be about 4 or 5 years until the FDA approves of any ketamine or ketamine-like drugs to help with depression patients.


Lally, N., and A. C. Nugent. "Anti-anhedonic Effect of Ketamine and Its Neural Correlates in Treatment-resistant Bipolar Depression." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 06 Feb. 2014. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.


In this article, the authors tested whether or not ketamine could be used to reverse specifically anhedonic feelings in depression patients. Anhedonia is a condition in which the patient gets little to no enjoyment out of activities that they normally enjoy. 36 depression patients participated in this study, and ketamine was found to quickly reduce anhedonia in patients. The anhedonia reversal was found to be independent of other depression symptoms.


Nordqvist, Joseph. "Ketamine Effective At Treating Depression." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 4 June 2013. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.


The authors of this do not argue whether or not ketamine could effectively treat depression, but at what dose it can be administered safely while having the effects. If the patient is given a high dose, it works well to treat depression, but with the hallucinatory and dissociative side effects. When administered at low doses, over a longer period of time, it was equally effective at treating depression but without the side effects.

European Joint Moon Missions with Russia

To all Future Wolf Tech readers. I am currently working on an article on potential collaboration between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Space Agency on moon missions. The posts main focus will be potentially better partners for the ESA other then Russia.


Gibney, Elizabeth. "Europe Proposes Joint Moon Trips with Russia." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/europe-proposes-joint-moon-trips-with-russia-1.16517>.

Europe proposes joint moon trips with Russia amidst intense strain brought upon by Europe Russian relations over the situation in Ukraine.

The Europeans Space agency believed that currently only Russia is able to help them as they are the only nation apart from the US to have experience with moon missions.

European space agency is already collaborating with NASA for development of high power rocket engines though no thought of collaboration with the US has been made even when private firms in the US are showing increased interest in moon missions.

Davies, Chris. "Google Lunar XPRIZE Awards $5.25m to Moon Mission Hopefuls." SlashGear. SlashGear, 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.slashgear.com/google-lunar-xprize-awards-5-25m-to-moon-mission-hopefuls-26366206/>.

Article on google investment on a lunar mission posted by slash gear for similar unmanned missions as proposed by the ESA and the Russians.

Private firms in the US such as SpaceX have already pledged large amounts of money to future developments in space technology. Some firms such as Boeing and SpaceX have been working with NASA for a long time now. SpaceX is one of the few groups able to send missions to the International Space Station while the ESA has long relied on Soviet Era Soyuz rockets.

Moon, Meriella. "Engadget | Technology News, Advice and Features." Engadget. AOL Inc., 17 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/17/elon-musk-spacex-internet/'>.

Elon musk, CEO of SpaceX and his $10 billion commitment to future development of rocket technologies would serve as more reliable partners for the Europeans without the problems of external politics playing hampering relations. Especially in a time where most countries are not willing to even spend more than a few hundred million on their space programs.

Cooperation with Russia on space missions as described by the Nature article doesn’t even seem to have the backing of member states in the ESA. Though the plan was the only viable option presented at the time many alternatives were not even discussed even when nations with significantly better relations with Europe currently such as Japan were mentioned as having plans for moon missions as well. The idea of a joint moon missions with Russia seems to stem from the 20 year collaboration on the international space station during times when relations were not so strained and both organizations had significant funds to make these joint missions. European reliance on outdated Russian Soyuz rockets would be better solved by working with different companies or countries that already have significant knowledge of rocketry to develop or buy more efficient, modern rockets such as the ones being made by SpaceX.

Overall the ESA cooperation with Russia seems like an out dated policy considering the rise of more viable partners for space exploration. Especially amidst growing strain on the relations between Russia and the rest of Europe.

Genetically Modified Organisms Annotated Bibliography

Hello FutureWolfTech readers! I am currently working on a much larger post that will focus on the ongoing controversy of Genetically Modified Organisms. Many believe that great limitations are evident in this field, such as reoccurring nutrient deficiencies in GMO fed animals , while other authors believe that the possibilities are infinite especially when pertaining to world hunger. Others argue that the safety of the consumer (in cases of GMO produce) is highly jeopardized because of the lack of knowledge in this area. In the coming week, I hope to tackle these claims in a way that you no longer have to sit on the fence in these strenuous debates.

"Nature." Kept on a Leash 517.7535 (2015): 517. Nature. International Weekly Journal of Science. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

The author argues genetically modified organism pollution is a very evident problem in the progressing society. The evidence includes that GMOs can be synthesized to where they cannot exist without certain proteins. This allows these GMOs to be regulated, such that the protein is removed when wanting to denature. This is highly relevant to my topic because GMO pollution is a pertinent problem to my subject.

"Nature." Tribal Gathering 509.7499 (2014): 509. Nature. Http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/tribal-gathering-1.15165. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

The author argues that the world of modifying organisms DNA is highly underdeveloped and needs to be researched further. The evidence includes that their are many missing information that cannot be explained by current genetics. He includes two examples that indicate current experiments that cannot be explained. This is important to my topic because it shows GMOs are currently limited with todays technology.

"ProQuest." GMOs: What Are They? 29.3 (2014): 20-24. Nature. Http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1545045515?pq-origsite=summon. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

The author argues GMOs are most useful in the term of the produce market. He includes that they have substantially lowered the occurrence of deaths from hunger. Also he includes that in Africa they have altered South Africa White Corn to have larger supplements of vitamins. This pertains to my topic because it shows the worldwide progress of GMOs.

"Economic and Political Weekly." GMOs Needed 12.3 (2014): 1-2. Nature. Http://www.lexisnexis.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=365197&sr= HLEAD(GMOs Needed) and Date Is 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

The author argues that GMOs are an absolute necessity in the agricultural world. Like the previous author, he believes that produce is key to the developing world. He includes that the area used in GMO farming has increased 100-fold from 1.7 million hectares to 173 million hectares worldwide. This is also important to my topic because it shows that progress is being made substantially worldwide.

Klore, Keith. "The GMO-Suicide Myth." Issues in Science and Technology 30.2 (2014): 65-70.ProQuest. NCSU Libraries. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1505355562?pq-origsite=summon

The author argues that the recent “poisoning” of produce caused by farming GMOs is a myth. He pleads that the rallies consisted of radicals that were against GMOs in general, rather than the actual issues. He really does not have too much evidence supporting his claim other than the interview of the starter of the campaigning. This involves my topic because it takes on the debate of if it is worth furthering knowledge in or not.

Future Computing Annotated Bibliography

Hi there, this post just contains some preliminary research I'm doing for an upcoming post. This upcoming post will contain information about computing, its limits, and the advances required to get there. However, in general I'm hoping to argues against the claim that engineers should focus on pushing silicon-chip computing to its limits rather than focusing on alternatives to silicon-chips.


"Future Computing." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/future-computing-1.15704>.

The author argues that we need to focus not on alternative methods of computing, but rather on reaching the end of usefulness of our current silicon-chip based computing. The author argues this through references to other, longer, more scholarly texts. One of these texts discusses how pushing the limits of technology in the past have led to leaps in advancement in areas related to that technology. The other text discusses the theoretical limits of computing.


Miodownik, Mark. "Perfectly Imperfect Silicon Chips: The Electronic Brains That Run the World." The Guardian. The Guardian, 22 Sept. 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/22/silicon-chips-electronic-brains-of-world>.

The author argues that silicon chips are very important for how our world functions. The author supports this claim by first mentioning the precursor to silicon chips, the "hot, unreliable and bulky" vacume tubes. The author then goes on to talk about the amazingness that is the production and function of silicon chips, instilling a sense of awe in the audience.


Condliffe, Jamie. "What's Wrong With Quantum Computing." Gizmodo. Gizmodo, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://gizmodo.com/whats-wrong-with-quantum-computing-1444793497>.

The author argues that quantum computers aren't widely available because their base requirement are difficult to achieve. These base requirements include things like the fact that qubits (the data units of quantum computing) are difficult to produce and that quantum devices are difficult to scale, since they have to be isolated from the outside world. The author indicates a solution to the required isolation in the form of allowing for a margin of error. The author also presents that the computing done by quantum computers is very difficult to verify due to their probabilistic nature.


Llyod, Seth. "Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation." University of California, San Diego. University of California, San Diego, 14 Feb. 2000. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gill/SynIntSite/Resources/LloydMIT.pdf>.

The author argues for the physical limits of computing, determined from the speed of light, the quantum scale, and the gravitational constant. A word of warning on this, the limits discussed in this article are purely theoretical and would prove extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reach. The author, using a lot of terms that are quite a bit beyond my knowledge of physics to understand, calculates the maximum speed per logical operation.


Bennett, Charles, and Rolf Landauer. "The Fundamental Physical Limits of Computation." Scientific American Global RSS. Scientific American, 1 June 2011. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fundamental-physical-limits-of-computation/>.

The author argues that there are fundamental limits oh computing, based purely on the laws of physics. The author talks about how losing data costs energy and as such, most conventional logic gates cost energy (an AND gate has two inputs and one output, we lost a bit). The author follows this up by talking about a Fredkin gate that has three inputs, three outputs, and when ligned up correctly can reproduce any conventional logic gate. The author continues to present several more examples, however all these examples seem to have a single major common point, all the actions are reversable, no information is lost in the computation. The author doesn't actually seem to discuss much about their stated purpose for this article.

Fracking Bibliography

 In this Work In Progress post, I have found what I believe to be the foundation of my argument on the fracking industry and whether or not it has or proven to be worth the risk. The left-wing side of the argument is centered around the environmental impact of fracking and undisclosed information regarding its process that some believe to be unacceptable in terms of regulations.  On the right-wing side of the argument, supporters trust the companies to follow set standards while reaffirming the public that all the positives shale has produced and will do for the U.S. economy and energy freedom from other nations.

"Nature." Editorial. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.

My original article from Nature states that the EIA has new found research suggesting that many people are drastically over estimating the amount of natural gas we have in our shale formations. They state that this is dangerous due to the collapse that it could bring upon the U.S. economy who is becoming increasingly reliant on this source of energy. I believe that the main point of this article is to raise questions, possibly unnecessary ones, over the new found industry that has such potential to relieve the U.S. from its past energy struggles.


"Shale." Financial Times. The Financial Times Limited, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2015.

This article refers to the facts surrounding the argument that “the collapse of the fracking industry would be severely detrimental to the U.S. economy.” This article proves that to be false with facts such as the original, smaller investors in the industry continue to thrive while the big name companies, such as Exxon Mobil, fail when trying to enter the industry. This proves that a hit to just several companies would not be detrimental refuting one of the main arguments of the Nature article.


"Shale Economy." Bulk Transporter 76.4 (2013): 32. Business Source Complete. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

This article solely focuses on the positive economic impacts that shake fracturing does for the U.S. economy. On major fact is that by 2020, more than 3.3 million jobs would have been created since the boom of natural gas. An expected $284 billion dollar increase is to be expected in the coming years due to the U.S. buying less oil from other nations and our larger exports of natural gas. This evidence that is provided should easily convince people that the pros far outweigh the cons.


Flowers, Seneca. "Fracking Chemicals' Secrecy Questioned." McClatchy-Tribune Business News  [Washington] 13 Mar. 2014: n. pag. Print.

The author of this article comes out stating that the public has every right to know and comprehend what a company uses in its chemical solutions. I would like to counter that by just simply wondering what would happen to all the people and their jobs had a companies secret been released. There are rules and regulations for these kinds of things and I think in the end the greater good of the economy would come first seeing as we are exiting a recession and need as much help to fight debt as possible.


Smith, Nick. "Fracking Chemical Reporting Endorsed." McClatchy-Tribune Business News    [Washington] 30 July 2014: n. pag. Print.

The author of this article supports a more right-sided agenda through his argument that the state government in North Dakota has regulated the industry enough so that both parties, the companies and the environmentalists, can meet at a middle ground. He supports the 3-page letter that was written by the EPA which was then approved my North Dakota officials. He states that a possible solution in place would be that an environmental group could help oversee the regulations and report any wrongdoing so that they would feel better about what was going on and give insight into the business that you couldn’t obtain without first hand experience.