#section 0001

The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2014 went to Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano, and Shuji Nakamura “for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy saving white light sources”(Press Release). Their discovery lead to the creation of LED light bulbs that combines red, green, and blue light-emitting diodes to create white light. LED light bulbs are more energy efficient and last longer than regular light bulbs. It is projected that LED light will help over 1.5 billion people that rely on solar power and other off the grid energy sources due to its low power requirements (Press Release).  

Gregory Glasgow Seminar Report

Nathaniel Morra Nathaniel’s project revolved around the assessment of air quality in various locations around Harrisonburg. The purpose of these tests was to determine the air quality in indoor locations versus outdoor locations. To determine the air quality, Nathaniel used Draegr tubes. These are small devices that can be used to assess the concentration of a certain chemical in the air. The Draegr tubes that he used tested for NO2, formaldehyde, SO2, and carbon monoxide levels. Nathaniel’s experimental methods posed a few problems in how accurate they could actually measure. For example, many of his results stated that there were negative quantities of certain toxins in the air. In response to this, he interpreted the negative numbers to be an indication of a positive presence of the toxin. In conclusion, Nathaniel found that indoor air contained slightly more toxic than outdoor air. However, the differences between indoor and outdoor air were very small and it is not known if they would actually pose health risks.

Erin DeGutis Erin’s project revolved around monitoring the energy usage of solar panels through an app that she coded herself. She told the class that her project was inspired by one of her family members asking her about solar panels and how they could be used to offset the cost of certain household amenities. From there, she decided to further explore this issue and develop an application. The app itself was built on android. It involved entering in your location and number of solar panels owned to determine the amount of power you would most likely receive from them. Unfortunately, the application did not take temperature fluctuations and other factors that could potentially have led to different results then what her algorithm produced.  

Research Summary for the Technology and Natural Science Domain

  Gregory Glasgow, Section 001

  Questions

·         What is hydraulic fracturing? How does it work?

Hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting natural gas from solid shale reservoirs typically found between 5,000 and 10,000 feet below ground level. To begin, a vertical well is drilled down to just above the reservoir. Then, the well is drilled horizontally so that it is as fully surrounded by the gas reservoir as it can be. Once the hole is drilled, the rock is mechanically fractured or “stimulated” by pumping thousands of gallons of water into the well. (U.S. Department of Energy, “How is Shale Gas Produced”) This releases natural gas that has been stored in the shale where it can be collected at the surface and sold.

  ·         Why is there so much gas in the Marcellus shale?

Marcellus shale can trap more natural gas than other rocks and minerals because of its relatively low density. This means that there are very small holes in the shale that can house deposits of natural gas. Materials with a higher density aren’t as porous and therefore cannot store gas. (U.S. Department of Energy, “How is Shale Gas Produced”) Also, natural gas can be found in Marcellus shale because organic matter was “compressed and heated…forming hydrocarbons” inside the rock itself. (Soeder, 2009)

  ·         How would a pipeline be built in the county? Where would it go? What effect would it have on land and animals?

Pipelines are built by utilizing multiple teams of people that have 30 to 100 mile stretch of land. Each team is responsible for digging a trench and physically laying the pipe into the ground. Any wildlife such as trees, foliage, nests of mammals etc. would be destroyed in the process. The total length of the pipeline can reach to over a thousand miles and can travel from Texas to the Northeastern United States. (INGAA, 2015)

  ·         How is the waste water dealt with?

There are a few ways that waste water is disposed of. “10 to 20 percent” of the water injected into the ground is actually forced back up to the surface as more and more water is pumped into the ground. (U.S. Department of Energy, “Shale Gas 101”) Also, some of the waste water can remain in the ground and be “absorbed by the shale formation.” (U.S. Department of Energy, “Shale Gas 101”) The majority of the waste water actually is recycled and is pumped back into the ground. The final two options for fracking companies are simply pumping the waste water back into the ground and leaving it there, or they can treat it and dump it back into nearby bodies of water. (U.S. Department of Energy, “Shale Gas 101”)

    References

  "Shale Gas 101." Energy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. http://energy.gov/fe/shale-gas-101#faq_11

  “How is Shale Gas Produced.” Energy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/how_is_shale_gas_produced.pdf

  Soeder, Daniel J. "Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale."" (2009): n. pag. USGS. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

With risk comes reward. Well, that is what many stock market books say, but can that be applied to science as well. Innovation is the goal of many scientists, whether by money, success, awards, or a spot in the history books. The risk of disaster is always on the minds of scientists as they try new ways to innovate in their field. Disaster and Innovation seem to go hand in hand in new experiment because there is no way to 100 percent predict the outcomes. Innovations do not always warrant disaster but scientists must be aware that tragedy could strike at any time.

Einstein’s theory of relativity was an innovation that questioned the norm and that reached almost all fields of science.  It did not bring about collateral damage when he thought of the theory or when people tested the theory. To test the theory of relativity the scientists did not have to use dangerous equipment or put themselves in hazardous situations. This way of testing kept the experiments out of risk from disaster. The innovation helped bring about more innovations in the scientific world.

In other fields of science there is always risk of disaster. Space exploration is one of those fields that always has a risk for disaster due to the use of explosive materials and the lack of control of variables once one exits the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists and Astronauts know there is always a risk of disaster from the time the space shuttle launches to touching back down to earth. When the Challenger exploded the engineers and managers knew there was a risk with the O-rings, but they decided to continue with the scheduled launch. Exiting the Earth’s atmosphere was a profound thought even at the beginning of the 20th century, but through innovation Space programs have Astronauts now spending six months to a year in the International Space Station. The Challenger explosion was a disaster, but it showed that NASA was not invincible and that extra safety precautions should be added to the standard safety plan to keep the disaster from happening again.

The medical field is always changing with new technology and discoveries. There is not a standard that has not been changed and improved in the medical profession. Doctors and researchers must keep up to date with new medicines and techniques to help their patients. Medical professionals do not always agree with which treatment is the best for patients, and these disagreements can cause a rift in the field. A major argument in the medical field is weather or not “alternative medicines,” such as vitamin supplements and plant medicines, are helpful in the long run to patients.

           “Vitamins and Supplements: Do They Work?” is an article in the U.S. News and World Report that cited studies done throughout the country on the use of certain types of vitamin supplements.  The newspaper article states that studies have concluded that many of the supplements that were recommended to prevent cancer, such as antioxidants and vitamin E, actually slightly increase a person’s risk of certain cancers. Other supplements, such as Calcium and vitamin D, have been found to strengthen bones and increase life expectancy.

Though the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force will not state its opinion on multivitamins, many researchers, such as David Schardt, say that multivitamins are "a very inexpensive insurance policy”. 1 Others disagree and state that multivitamins can cause an increase risk of cancer.

The back and forth debate on supplements is similar to the Vitamin C debate in Chapter 3 of Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch’s book Dr. Golem: How to Think About Medicine, “Alternative Medicine: The Cases of Vitamin C and Cancer.” Dr. Linus Pauling believed that Vitamin C supplements were a cure all way for cancer. When he tried to publish his findings, he was met with resistance from the medical community. The medical professionals in the medical field did studies about the effects Vitamin C had on cancer patients, but the studies came up inconclusive. Though they disregarded his research, Dr. Pauling maintained that vitamin C is helpful for humans to maintain a longer and healthier life.

The newspaper article illustrates how the alternative medicine debate is still going on in the medical community, and how studies are trying to determine conclusive data but are coming up with conflicting results.

Wetmore and Winner have many corresponding and conflicting arguments to how artifacts are used in daily life. The two authors agree that technology has had a profound effect on all cultures. They agree that technology is needed to improve and advance human life. They both state that humans put different values and politics on technology and other artifacts. This is about the closest they come to agreeing between the two articles.

Wetmore writes about how the Amish have separated themselves from the “English” culture of technology and only use the bare necessities of technology to maintain a living. Winner does not mention limiting technologies, but how political parties have put values on certain artifacts. Wetmore writes how the Amish use certain technologies to keep the community together, while Winner writes about how certain inventions have completely changed some fields of work, especially in the agriculture sector.