Chemical Overuse

Here is a discussion post that I created for my biology class.

Chemicals can be useful in that they can eradicate disease carrying and crop destroying pests. But there may be ways to do this that do not involve chemicals. In terms of crops, natural predators can be introduced to eat the pests, as long as these predators are native to the areas they are being introduced to and won't disrupt the ecosystem. Praying mantises have long been favored for eating pests such as potato bugs. Ladybugs eat aphids. And dragonflies consume mosquito larvae.
Another problem with chemicals is the fact that they don't discriminate between which bugs are helpful and which are pests. They kill everything. Populations of natural predator insects have been badly damaged by the widespread use of chemicals to control garden pests and weeds. The time may be right to start re-introducing these natural predators and to cut back on the use of chemicals to control pests.
The chemicals used are not healthy for animals either, and this includes humans. If enough of them are introduced into the system of a larger animal such as a human, over time they will begin mutating cells into cancer cells. The lymph system will be overwhelmed, unable to trap and destroy all of these cancer cells, and the affected organism will develop cancer. And, as in the case of DDT, the shells of birds in areas exposed to the pesticide over a long period of time became thin and fragile due to mutations.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
"Exposure to DDT, DDE, and DDD occurs mostly from eating foods containing small amounts of these compounds, particularly meat, fish and poultry. High levels of DDT can affect the nervous system causing excitability, tremors and seizures. In women, DDE can cause a reduction in the duration of lactation and an increased chance of having a premature baby. DDT, DDE, and DDD have been found in at least 441 of the 1,613 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
Cutting back on the use of toxic substances in agriculture will reduce contamination of ground water and may in the long run reduce the incidence of cancer.

Bedbugs

I was reading where the incidence of bedbug infestation has been on the rise in the United States and it crosses class barriers. It seems to be due to increased international travel and decreased use of certain pesticides. On the upside, these pesticides are carcinogenic, so less is better. Also, bedbugs, though vile, are generally not vectors for disease the way fleas, ticks and mosquitoes are.

I work in an upscale retirement community and we do have folks here who still travel frequently. We have had a few instances of bedbugs. The interesting thing about bedbugs is that they do not hide in mattresses the way many people think. They hide in the cracks of the bed, or in surrounding furniture. There are nontoxic powders containing diatoms that can be sprinkled in the cracks of furniture.

My ex husband rides the bus that comes from the airport when he comes to visit our son on the weekends. A couple of times bedbugs have hitched a ride on his backpack. I've eradicated them using this type of powder a couple of times. But it's kind of like a Stephen King story. They come back. I'll know they're back when I find itchy bites on my arms. Bastards!

For all their persistence, bedbugs are not high on the intelligence scale. At work last night I was doing something on the computer. I turned around to look at my lab book and there, bold as brass, sat a bedbug. Right in the middle of the lab book. Big sucker it was too. (For a bedbug, big is about the size of a pin head.) Had gotten fat and happy feasting off the blood of the elderly and was now coming to see me. I grabbed a Kleenex, plucked it off my book, and squashed it. That will teach it to be cocky!

It's nice to know that there are non-poisonous methods of dealing with these miniature vampires. Perhaps my next book should be titled Night of the Bedbug. Now that's a real vampire, and a real nightmare!

Thumb Dominance Experiment

DOMINANT THUMB EXPERIMENT

ABSTRACT
The hypothesis of the experiment states that when people clasp their hands, the thumb of the dominant hand may overlap the thumb of the non-dominant hand. The experiment is conducted to determine whether there is a correlation between which thumb is on top when the hands are clasped and hand dominance.

HYPOTHESIS
In theory, the thumb of the dominant hand should be on top when the hands are clasped.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND TESTING
Fifty volunteers were located to participate in the study.

PROCEDURES
The subjects were asked to state which was their dominant hand, then to clasp their hands together and see which thumb ended up on top.

SUMMARY OF DATA
SUBJECTS NUMBER % OF TOTAL SUBJECTS
Right handed with right thumb dominant (7) 14%
Right handed with left thumb dominant (34) 68%
Left handed with right thumb dominant (4) 8%
Left handed with left thumb dominant (5) 10%
Total number of experimental subjects (50) 100
Number of subjects per category divided by total subjects 100

RESULTS
As is shown in the table, 68% of subjects were right hand dominant with left thumb dominant. 14% were right handed with right thumb dominant. 10% were left handed with left thumb dominant and 8% were left handed with right thumb dominant. The majority of people in the world are right handed and that was reflected in this experiment. It is interesting to note that overall, thumb dominance is seen to be the opposite of hand dominance. This is overwhelmingly true with the right handed subjects. However, in the left handed subjects, a small majority had left thumb dominance. It is uncertain why this would be the case.
Overall, the hypothesis that thumb dominance should match hand dominance was disproven. However, the question remains as to why it appears that in left handed persons, thumb dominance generally matches hand dominance.