New Nanomaterial Produces Clean Energy Hydrogen Fuel from Seawater.

 

O'Neill, Mike. “New Nanomaterial Produces Clean Energy Hydrogen Fuel from Seawater.”

 SciTechDaily, 14 Sept. 2021,

 https://scitechdaily.com/new-nanomaterial-produces-clean-energy-hydrogen-fuel-from-seawater/

    The article, “New Nanomaterial Produces Clean Energy Hydrogen Fuel From Seawater”,

 by professor Mike O'Neill at University of Central Florida, explains that a new material

 was designed to produce hydrogen fuel from seawater.

 The material can split normal seawater into oxygen and hydrogen, and take the hydrogen to make

 a clean energy fuel. The Hydrogen can then be converted into electricity and used in fuel cell

 technology that generates water and makes an “overall sustainable energy circle”,

 according to Yang Yang, an associate professor in UCF’s NanoScience Technology Center.

 The material is thin-film, with nanostructures made of nickel selenide, iron and phosphor.

  This combination has finally produced the difficult-to-achieve seawater electrolysis with stability

 for more than 200 hours. 

    This creation has major effects on society because it is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels

 that are causing climate change and many other issues that society is worried about. According

 to the U.S department of energy, “Hydrogen is a form of renewable energy that—if made cheaper

 and easier to produce—can have a major role in combating climate change.” When fossil fuels are

 used, they release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which trap heat

. The issue of climate change and global warming is one of our society’s major worries, and trying

 to fix what we have don’t to our earth is one of society’s biggest struggles. Seawater electrolysis is

 a potential help to solve this problem, and up till now it seemed almost impossible. Previously,

 the oxygen evolution reaction competing with the chlorine evolution reaction has created serious flaws in the electrolysis, as well as high costs. But the team of scientists at The University of Central Florida’s NanoScience Technology Center, have conquered this issue. Yang Yang, a key researcher there states “The seawater electrolysis performance achieved by the dual-doped film far surpasses those of the most recently reported”. 

        This article was very well written and well structured. Mike O'Neill did a great job of creating a

 sense of importance around the topic, by explaining how these scientists created something that could 

potentially solve a problem we all care about. However, the article was poorly sourced. The author only

 referred to the University of Central Florida team of researchers and scientists, instead of using other

 sources to bolster their credibility. To improve the article, the author should find different sources and

 either prove or disprove his points to make the article stronger. 

 

posted for M. Brandes 

Reopening Old Wounds

 

Kilgannon, Corey. “Reopening Old Wounds”: When 9/11 Remains are Identified, 20 Years Later.” The New York Times, September 6, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/nyregion/9-11-ground-zero-victims-remains.html?searchResultPosition=1

The New York City Medical Examiner's office recently identified one of 2,753 ground zero victims in the 9/11 tourist attack. They identified the victim as Dorothy Morgan, who had “disappeared into the rubble of the collapsed towers” that day, and now, 20 years later, her bone fragments matched DNA sent by her family, Dante and Nykiah Morgan. Ms.Morgan as well as others questioned why this was an ongoing examination due to the fact that all of these victims were killed 20 years ago. The attack on 9/11 is the biggest missing persons case in the nation, with detectives sorting through 22,000 bone fragments lost in the rubble, with the goal of identifying the victims. Scientists explained that in order to find the DNA from the bones, they would have to collect them using a precise process. Wearing concealed suits to make sure the environment was sanitary and not leaving any other DNA behind, they scrape a bone with a razor and clean it using a set of detergents. Next, they crush the bone to make a fine powder and then use it to match DNA to the DNA sent in by each victim’s family.

New discoveries have been made over the past 20 years, but some argue that they should stop the search because it is giving families of the victims “false hope." Rosemary Cane, a mother of a 35-year old firefighter who died in the attack and got her son's identified remains in 2002 said, “They should ask us if, ‘At this stage, do you want us to continue the testing?’” she said. “I think it’s giving a lot of people false hope who are sitting and waiting for remains”(Killagannon). But many scientists that work on this ongoing case claim that they will continue this search no matter how long it takes. “We committed back then to do whatever it takes, as long as it takes and that’s what we’ll continue to do,” said Dr. Barbara Sampson, Chief Medical Examiner of New York City. Credit… Anna Watts for The New York Times (Kilgannon). Another woman, Nykiah Morgan has had her mother’s remains identified but she faces the issue of reliving her mother’s death now, 20 years later. She explains, “It’s almost like reopening old wounds. Over time, you feel like you’re getting better and then this happens 20 years later and you’re dealing with it all over again” (Kilgannon). 

I chose to review this article because just a few days ago it was 9/11, exactly 20 years after the terrible attack. This discussion of whether the search should go on has been answered by many, but still to this day, researchers continue to identify lost subjects, which may be causing more pain than relief. So should the investigation continue?

Through this long journey which the agency and victim’s families have taken together, they have created a bond of trust, assuming that the scientists will try their best to identify the missing subjects, while the families will try to stay optimistic and patient. After not finding any matches for a while though, the agency started to lose hope, causing the families to do the same. Due to COVID-19, the scientists had to shift focus to the global pandemic, but later in the same year, they managed to pick the investigation back up. The agency understood that this topic was very sensitive; doing their job was a hard task with lots of pressure, and many people relying on them to succeed. The agency stayed emotionally connected with the community by attending Family Day every September 10, where they would offer updates to the victims of loved ones.  As Ms. Desire described it, “You’re usually not emotionally attached, but with the World Trade Center, it became personal — you talk to the families, there’s hugging and crying…”(Kilgannon). To this day, families stay united and gain support from one another over the loss of their loved ones, and this investigation is one thing that keeps them optimistic. 

One way this article could be improved is it could have more examples of how the community is dealing with the tragedy today. This could be done by discussing more events that go on such as support groups or more stories of how the agency has affected families personally. Another way this article can be improved is by showing how the community has come together after the attack, and how this relationship is sustained to this day. This improvement could be made by including simple stories showing the connection of one family to another and how they supported each other through this difficult time. 

This article is very strong and detailed, giving a lot of insight into not only how the agency conducts its experiments, but also how it affects the outside community. The author was able to show multiple points of view in this article, one from the agency, another from the victims’ loved ones. This allowed the readers to expand their thinking beyond one perspective, ultimately giving more context to the story. Some weaknesses shown were how the author didn’t connect with the reader. The whole focus was on showing the stages which this program had been working through, but the author didn’t take time to connect with the reader and really leave a mark at the end of the article. I would recommend asking questions to the reader, which would allow them to engage with the article more than they would if they only had to read the data provided. 

From this article, I have learned that even through tragedies, the support of one another can bring a whole community together, even if this impact lasts a lifetime. This makes me realize that humanity can get through almost anything, as long as we stay strong together, we can stay united as one.

posted for K Bodell 

New class of habitable exoplanets represent a big step forward in the search for life

The central idea of the article, “New class of habitable exoplanets represent a big step forward in the search for life,” by Science Daily, is that Scientists have discovered new types of planets that could be habitable but aren’t similar to earth. The article got straight to the point, by explaining what these planets are. According to the article, they are called “Hycean” planets which are hot, ocean-covered planets with hydrogen-rich atmospheres. The article also stated that astronomers have mostly looked at earth-like planets but researchers from the University of Cambridge believe that the Hycean planets are more promising. Another thing that the article said that was interesting was that the Hycean planets are different from the Earth-like planets but could still be habitable. They are said to be 2.6 times larger than earth and have atmospheric temperatures of about 200 degrees celsius. I thought that this article was very interesting because it shows that there are planets that could be habitable out there and that we could find biosignatures of life outside of our solar system in about 2 or 3 years possibly. 

This impacts us because we could possibly live on a different planet one day and this just gets us one step closer. We could also end up finding life on other planets that are habitable. Some problems that could occur is that we don’t know exactly what’s out there. There could be so many factors that we don’t even know about like certain conditions on the planet or dangerous life but as our technology progresses we will continue to learn more and more about space and what’s out there.

Overall, this article was very well written. Although it could have gotten into more detail about how this affects us, it gave lots of information about the planet and what astronomers have been looking at. I would have like to know more about how we could possibly inhabit these planets, but it was very interesting to read and gave readers insight on what the future could look like.

University of Cambridge. "New class of habitable exoplanets represent a big step forward in the search for life." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 August 2021. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210825211220.htm>.

Pfizer vaccine becomes fully F.D.A. approved

pfizer-vaccine-approval-fda.html

Lafraniere, Sharon, and Noah Weiland. “F.D.A. Fully Approves PFIZER-BIOTECH’S VACCINE, a First for A Covid-19 Shot.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/health/pfizer-vaccine-approval-fda.html . 

In the article, "F.D.A. Fully Approves Pfizer-BioNTech's Vaccine, a First for a Covid-19 shot," Sharon LaFraniere and Noah Weiland break down the United States' latest hope for curtailing the Covid-19 virus: the F.D.A.'s approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine for people 16 and older. It is the first and hopefully not the last of the vaccines to become approved by the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.). According to the authors, the F.D.A.'s decision comes just 97 days after the company submitted the last of what regulators said were hundreds of thousands of documents. Opposed to what the impatient public may think, 97 days is less than half the time it usually takes officials to make such a decision. Though regulators did not skip any steps to reach a conclusion, instead were working around the clock, nights and weekends. To earn the approval of its vaccine from the F.D.A., Pfizer had to submit data from 44,000 clinical trial participants. Half of the 44,000 participants received the vaccine; the other half received a placebo. According to the F.D.A., the data showed the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing disease. This was a 4% efficacy drop from the rate in December when the vaccine was cleared for emergency use. Though, the decrease demonstrated the fact that researchers had more time to catch people who became sick. LaFraniere and Weiland, throughout the article, described what the decision means for the United States, shedding light on both the positive and negative impacts of the Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine becoming F.D.A. fully approved. The positive: F.D.A. will likely encourage civilians to get vaccinated and allow for vaccine mandates, as the approval proves there is no scientific evidence against the vaccine. The article says, "A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation...found that three of every 10 unvaccinated people said they would be more likely to get vaccinated with a shot that had been fully approved," (LaFraniere and Weiland). On the contrary, the negative impact of the approval, which is outweighed by the positives, is that it may release a wave of demands from vaccine recipients who want their doctors to prescribe booster doses. Though, the impact of a third dose is still unknown by health experts. More than one million Americans have been able to land themselves an extra shot; with F.D.A. approval, the demand for a booster shot could become uncontrollable. 

The full vaccine approval could not have come at a better time. The United States effort to flatten the curve has been crushed by the Delta variant. As of Sunday, August 29th, 2021, the seven-day average was 1,008 daily deaths, per the New York Times database. However, these numbers are set to improve with an increase in vaccination likely to occur, as all fears of the vaccine should be limited by the F.D.A’s decision. For example, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the current F.D.A. commissioner, announced to reporters, "The public can be confident that this vaccine meets the F.D.A.'s gold standard for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality that we require for an approved product," (LaFraniere and Weiland). The faster the rate of vaccination rises, the sooner normalcy will occur. The sooner the entire country can be in school, go to the office, out to dinner, travel without having to worry about Covid-19 constantly. The idea that you won't have to debate whether or not your sore throat is a covid symptom or the seasonal cold is so taunting yet so possible with this vaccine. The approval of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine is even causing happiness on Wall Street. Shares of Pfizer climbed 2.5 percent; higher vaccination rates in the United States would not only be good for health but also would be an economic positive going forward. 

LaFraniere and Weiland's article was well written, the overall message of the article was crystal clear. It was very informative right from the start; by the 4th line, the approval effects were beginning to be discussed. The piece was well researched, featuring both statistics and quotes from experts. Experts such as Dr. Jesse L. Goodman, a medical professor at Georgetown University who was once chief scientist at the F.D.A. The article was unbiased and neutral, displaying both the pros and cons of the vaccine becoming fully F.D.A. approved for ages 16 and older. The authors explain in some detail the F.D.A.'s process to approve this vaccine; however, more information would have enhanced the article and readers' understanding. The process is quite interesting and complex, and as a reader, I am left with some questions. Questions such as: what is the difference between emergency use authorization vs. approval? Does this affect whether or not someone should receive a booster shot? If the writers were to rewrite this article, these questions and answers should be included throughout the piece. It would also be favorable for the reader's knowledge to have a timeline of the F.D.A.'s approval process.

A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html

Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html. 

In the article “A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth” the author explains how with $15 million of private funding, a new company, (Colossal), wants to achieve a big goal: bringing thousands of woolly mammoths back to Siberia. Author Carl Zimmer explains how t Colossal will support research in Dr. Church’s labs(a biologist at Harvard Medical School.) They are attempting to add genes for mammoth traits, into elephant DNA, like dense hair, and the thick fat required to survive in a cold environment. The team at Dr. Church’s labs narrowed down on 60 genes, by analysing woolly mammoth genomes, such as their high-domed skull. They are planning on making an elephant embryo with its genome modified, by removing DNA from an elephant egg and replacing it with mammoth-like DNA, hopefully producing a mammoth-like creature. Many scientists are very doubtful that this is possible, and raise questions on the ethics of this experiment. Is producing an animal we know so little about, humane? These scientists believe that as of now, bringing back a mammal that went extinct thousands of years ago is too ambitious.

I chose this article because of how interesting and impossible this idea seemed to me. When diving deeper into this topic, I was very fascinated to learn how this would impact our world. Bringing mammoths back could potentially help the environment. The tundras of Siberia are quickly warming and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and in the time of the woolly mammoths, these tundras were mostly grassland, but now, they are dominated by moss. Some scientists speculate that woolly mammoths were ecosystem engineers, breaking up moss resulting in maintaining the grassland, knocking down trees, and providing fertilizer. In addition, new forms of genetic engineering and reproductive technology could come out of this experiment. For example, scientists could help save species under threat of disease by providing it with genes for resistance to a pathogen, or species could be given genes to better tolerate drought and heat from climate change. With climate change and habitat degradation, this could have a big impact!

Overall, the article is very well written. The author uses concise vocabulary and writes with a nice flow, making it easy to understand. I especially liked how the author used quotes from multiple different perspectives, making the writing not slanted one way or the other. I am very interested to see if there will be an update on this experiment!

New Studies Show Covid-19 Immunity In Certain Individuals

 Doucleff, M. (2021, September 7). New studies find evidence of 'superhuman' immunity to covid-19 in some individuals. NPR. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/07/1033677208/new-studies-find-evidence-of-superhuman-immunity-to-covid-19-in-some-individuals.

I read an article covering the topic of immunity to covid-19, which according to recent studies, can be found in certain people. The article got right to the point, starting off by stating that some individuals have such a strong immune response to the virus that they are able to produce antibodies at rapid rates. I thought this was quite interesting since some people have a much harder time fighting off the virus. A recent study performed by Paul Bieniasz and his colleagues showed that these individuals could not only fight off multiple variants of the vaccine (including the first variant, SARS-CoV-1), but they could also challenge future variants. Then the article began to explain who this immunity occurs in, those who caught the coronavirus in 2020 and were then vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. According to another study included in this article, antibodies from those with immunity can even neutralize a variant that was made to be resistant to such. When antibodies from those who had been vaccinated or those who had the virus at one point were tested against this variant, there was no chance at defeating it. The article ends by claiming that those who are getting the vaccine recently are having similar antibody growth. If everyone were to get vaccinated along with getting a booster shot, we can assume that the antibody production would grow higher, allowing more individuals to have a chance to gain immunity.

This article could have a great impact on society as it may convince more of those who aren’t vaccinated to take the opportunity to get vaccinated and possibly become immune to the virus. Since more people would be getting vaccinated, this could lead to stopping the spread of Covid-19.

Overall, this article is very well written. While it may not have gone into very much detail about the different studies performed, it did explain the data collected and got right to the point. I would have liked to hear more about the number of people this has been tested on and the studies about how recent vaccines showed a higher antibody production rate, but this article is still very informative.

 

                  "Cold plasma could transform the sustainable farms of the future"

By: Steven Ornes

The article starts off by telling us about a physicist called Stephan Reuter who uses his knowledge of energy and matter to improve upon medical technology. He was then invited to a greenhouse in Quebec to help the greenhouse reduce its carbon footprint. The article then goes on to tell us about fertilizer, and nitrogen, and other important things that plants need. Reuter talks about how if the greenhouse wants the fertilizer to truly be green, they need it to be renewable. The article then talks about what plasma is and about how it is used in everyday things like lamps and computers and other things. The article then talks about how plasma could be used as fertilizer instead of ammonia, the same sort of experiments led by Biochemist Alexander Volkov showed that plants that used the plasma as the fertilizer grew at a much faster rate.

This article has a big effect on society because it is telling us about people who are trying to reduce the carbon footprint of growing food on a commercial scale. This is a big step in reducing the world's carbon footprint which is another big step in saving the earth until or if we find another suitable planet or place to live on.

Some pros about the article are that it had a lot of details and it backed up every claim it made with lots of quotes and research data. Another pro was that it used certain pictures to help convey some of the ideas which I found helpful. One big con that I noticed was that the article was too long and didn't get to that point right away, they used too many details and I found myself bored because of all the useless info that was in the article.

posted for G. Smart by C. Ippolito