·       HOW MUCH JUNK IS IN SPACE?

WHY SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT JUNK SPACE?

Junk space is the collection of defunct man-made objects in space such as old satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments from disintegration, erosion, and collisions.

Ø  According to the NASA, there are about 18,000 objects in orbit of greater size than a ball baseball; 300.000 greater than a currency, and million even smaller size(among them, the 150,000 pieces as large as a produced lump of sugar when the Chinese demolished one of their late satellites in 2007). This generation of remainders still will proliferate more when the fragments greater than a baseball ball collides  against objects of greater size, creating a still greater sweepings cloud.

Ø  The amount of junk space will continue growing without control, and the calculations predict that for 2055 it will be impossible to send any space mission without impacting  against  these objects, unless it is developed and it executed a plan to get rid of them. Many of the objects will move away slowly and others will fall to the Earth, like it has already happened in several opportunities. In spite of the small size of most of fragments, the vertiginous speeds which are put under, they do of a these serious threat to any mission that can be carried out in the future next. From 1991, three collisions in the Earth orbit because of the space sweepings have been registered at least. These collisions will be multiplied and, simultaneously, they will increase the objects dangerous in orbit. The mathematical progression calculated by the experts bases in more than 18 shocks to the year will be the number of accidents produced by these scrap irons stops within two centuries.

Ø  Space junk can linger in orbit for many decades at very high altitudes and continues to build up as more is produced. As more and more space junk accumulates around Earth, the likelihood that it will collide with functioning satellites increases dramatically. These collisions can take place at the speed of thousands of miles per hour, so even a collision of a tiny fragment can be disastrous and destroy a spacecraft worth billions of dollars. Every time a collision occurs, thousands of new pieces of debris can be formed. Nowadays, space junk is being produced at a faster rate than it can burn up in the atmosphere. The existence of space junk affects our daily lives more than we know it. Nearly a hundred tons of space junk falls from orbit every year. Most of it falls into the vast ocean or just burns off in the atmosphere. However, some of this space junk falls in populated areas and causes damage, so we should worry about junk space because in the future hundred of junk space will damage the Earth.

 ADRIANA GODILLOT BUENO 2ºC

COULD A COCODRILE SURVIVE IN THE ARTIC ( MARCOS)

- ¿Puede un COCODRILO sobrevivir en el Ártico?


Sí, pero probablemente no en el corto plazo. El Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático estima que la temperatura media del aire del planeta podría calentarse hasta en un 11,5 ° C a finales de siglo. Como resultado, el mundo podría ser más caliente de lo que era hace 55 millones de años

La determinación de cómo las distintas especies, ecosistemas y mucho menos enteras, responderán al cambio climático rápido es difícil en el mejor, sin embargo. En las mismas regiones donde los científicos encontraron restos de champsosaurs, también encontraron fósiles de su alimento favorito: tortugas. cocodrilos de hoy en día sin duda podría ser cómodo en un norte más cálido, pero sólo si la presa y los ecosistemas necesarios para apoyarlos proliferan allí también.

El aire del Ártico puede calentar, pero lo más probable es todavía un montón de hielo en los inviernos. Incluso los modelos climáticos agresivos estiman que es probable que tome miles de años para que las capas de hielo que desaparecen durante todo el año, por lo cocodrilos de sangre fría tendrán que esperar al menos ese tiempo para ir a los polos.

WHY NOT THROW NUCLEAR WASTE INTO A VOLCANO?

WHY NOT THROW NUCLEAR WASTE INTO A VOLCANO?

The question, why not throw nuclear waste into a volcano, has been answered.

Unfortunately, the lava of the volcanoes isn´t hot enough to reach the melting point of some materials.

Lava in the hottest volcanoes tops out at around 2,400 ºF, so, materials such as zirconium, which has the melting point at 3,371º, don´t melt, and the problem begins there, waste would be in the lava until the volcano erupts.

A regular lava flow is hazardous, but the lava pouring out of a volcano with the nuclear waste would be extremely radioactive. Eventually it would harden, turning that mountain´s slapes into a nuclear wasteland for decades to come. And the danger would extend much farther. During a big eruption, ash and gas can shoot six miles into the air and afterwards, circle the globe several times, and with that we´d all be in serious trouble.

With the radiation of the ashes in the air, it would produce more air pollution and as a consequence of that, the percentage of illnesses like lung cancer would increase, causing a higher number of deaths.

WHAT´S THE BIGGEST THING´S CARNIVOURS PLANT WILL EAT? QUEEN OF HEARTS

WHAT´S THE BIGGEST THING´S CARNIVOURS PLANT

WILL EAT?

QUEEN OF HEARTS

Is a tropical pitcher plant endemic to the Philippine island of Mindanao.  It is closely allied to   N. truncata and was once considered a dark, highland form of this species.

The pitchers of N. robcantleyi are exceptionally large, reaching 40 cm in length and 10 cm in width. The inflorescence, can reach  2.5 m long, it is the tallest among known  in Nepenthes species.

Going thought the mountains of the Philippines in search of a bizarre specie of carnivore plant, a group of British researchers discovered the plant; the world´s largest type. Until now it was an unknown plant to the world of science, this plant, eats: insects, and also devour rodents. It was in 2000 when a pair of Cristian missionaries who rammed the area reported found a ``scavenging´´ plant with unusual dimensions. This report was motivated by Stewart McPherson and Alastair Robinson decided to undertake the search.

`` The plant produces spectacular tramps that can not only catch insects, but also rodents. It is surprising that has not been discovered until the twenty-first century´´, says McPherson.

https://youtu.be/tUDiDAbY3F8?t=98

After discovering the new specie in 2007, researchers set out to dissect (analyze) this plant as well as 120 other species of caribous plants, and recently published their study in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.

The new specie, is capable of producing  a significant amount o azids enzymes that allow it to  disolve rodents before swallowin, has been named Nepenthes attenboroughii, colloquialy known as Queen of  Hearts.

If the Sun disappear today, how long would it take before Earth was uninhabitable?

If the sun disappear today, the first thing that would happen is that we would remain completely in dark, but as all we know, we would not realize at once, but exactly 8 minutes and 20 seconds later.
Spent this time since the sun disappear, we stay in the dark and leave of orbit, shot after losing his gravitational influence and the Earth would work aout shot in a straight orbit towards any direction of the space.

Several studies have been done to try to discover the answer to this question, but for the present, there is no a sure answer. The only thing that is known is the time in wich we would be late in perceiving that.
Without the light coming from the sun or from the reflection of the same one that provides the moon to us, we wouldn´t have anymore light source than the universe and the darkness followed by the most intense colds that you could imagine. Without the sun, the trees would freeze and die. The water would start freezing in all the world. The temperature of our planet would be of 0ºc, that is the point of freezing.

In conclusion, maybe not we all would die frozen by this catastrophe,but we have left of the orbit and we would be crossing the lacteal route, might find other forms of life.

Click on the image to see the video!

Why do lighting animals are so important for science?

They are important because they can be animal scientists to help human beings.

Humans rely on animals for food, fiber, labor and companionship. So it makes sense that we need animal scientists to keep these animals healthy and productive.

Animal scientists help put food on our tables. Animal scientists work with farmers to improve animal breeding, diseases and nutrition. When animals grow well and stay healthy, farmers can produce more meat, milk or eggs for our consumption. Animal scientists also work with farmers to decrease the environmental impact of animal agriculture.

Some animal scientists study animal products after harvest. They check meat quality or screen milk for pathogens. Advances in food safety keep humans healthy and increase the world’s supply of nutritious food.

Animal scientists also keep us clothed. In cold climates, people rely on wool to stay warm. Animal scientists work to keep animals like sheep and alpacas healthy.

In many parts of the world, people need animals for labor. Animal scientists work to learn more about oxen and other draft animals.

Animal scientists can protect human health. It is important for scientists to study how diseases spread between humans and animals. Scientists can also use animals as models for humans. Studying fetal development in sheep, for example, can help us understand fetal development in humans.

Animal scientists also keep our pets healthy. They tackle issues like pet obesity and breeding. And zoos rely on animal scientists to establish breeding programs, nutrition programs and help preserve exotic wildlife.

WHY ARE HENRIETTA LACKS CELLS SO IMPORTANT?

WHY ARE HENRIETTA LACKS 

CELLS SO IMPORTANT?

These cells are so important because and they've been mentioned lots of times, more than 70000 times since they were discovered in 1951 because they are the first human inmortal cells ever grown in the world.
One of the most strange thing about this cells is that they were extracted from a black woman without her knowledge, but they were extracted from a cancerous tumor she had. These cells were extracted and cultivated by George Otto Gey.
But this cells are also important for scientists because it was essemtial to developing the polio vaccine, they went up to the space in the first space missions to see what would happen to cells in zero gravity, contributed to the developments of drugs for herpes, leukemia, influenza and Parkinson's disease. and help in many scientific landmarks, like cloning,gene mapping and vitro fertolisation.
Henrietta Lacks was a tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who got cervical cancer when she was 30. A doctor at Johns Hopkins took a piece of her tumor without telling her and sent it down the hall to scientists there who had been trying to grow tissues in culture for decades without success. No one knows why, but her cells never died.

What would happen if every element on the periodic table came into contact simultaneously?

There are two ways to go about testing this, neither of which are practical. One requires the energy of dozens of Large Hadron Colliders. The other could yield a cauldron-full of flaming plutonium. Both, however, would probably create carbon monoxide and a pile of rust and salts rather than a cool Frankenstein element.
If you toss single atoms of each element into a box, they won't form a super-molecule containing one of everything, explains Mark Tuckerman, a theoretical chemist at New York University. Atoms consist of a nucleus of neutrons and protons with a set number of electrons zooming around them. Molecules form when atoms' electron orbitals overlap and effectively hold the atoms together. What you get when you mix all your atoms, Tuckerman says, will be influenced by what's close to what.
Oxygen, for example, is very reactive, and if it is closest to hydrogen, it will make hydroxide. If it is nearest to carbon, it will make carbon monoxide. "That random reactive nature applies to pretty much all elements," Tuckerman says. "You could run this experiment 100 times and get 100 different combinations." Certain elements, such as the noble gases, wouldn't react with anything, so you'd be left with those and a few commonly found two- and three-atom molecules.
Ramming the atoms together at 99.999 percent the speed of light—the top speed of particles in the Large Hadron Collider, at the CERN particlephysics lab near Geneva—might fuse a few nuclei, but it won't make that cool Frankenstein element. More likely, they would meld into a quark-gluon plasma, the theoretical matter that existed right after the universe formed. "But they would last for a fraction of a second before degrading," Tuckerman says. "Plus, you'd need 118 LHCs—one to accelerate each element—to get it done."
The other approach, as explained by John Stanton, the director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Texas, would be to toss a pulverized chunk of each element or a puff of each gas into a sealed container and see what happens. No one has ever tried this experiment either, but here's how Stanton thinks things would play out: "The oxygen gas would react with lithium or sodium and ignite, raising the temperature in the container to the point that all hell would break loose. Powdered graphite carbon would ignite, too. There are roughly 25 radioactive elements, and they would make your flaming stew a little dangerous. Flaming plutonium is a very bad thing. Inhaling airborne radioactive material can cause rapid death."
Once things calmed down, Stanton says, the result would be as boring as the atoms-only scenario. Carbon and oxygen would yield carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Nitrogen gas is very stable, and would remain as is. The noble gases wouldn't react, nor would a few of the metals, like gold and platinum, which are mostly found in their pure forms. The things that do react will form rust and salts. "Thermodynamics wins again," he says. "Things will always achieve equilibrium, and in this case that's a mix of common, stable compounds."

How can you make snow at home?

             

Make natural snow at home is imposible, unless your house doesn´t have roof, or you pick up the plastic balls that are inside boxes that contain fragile materials, throwing them to the air and seeming to snow. Other option is to create artificial snow through cannons that produce it. There are two types of this cannons: Artificial snow cannon and fan cannon. The fan cannon needs electricity to activate a fan and a little compressor. Also you save more money using this type of cannon. For creating artificial snow with this cannons is necessary to have large quantities of water. To make snow at home with this machine, there are two options:

First - introduce the cannon in your house and activate it.

Second - open the window and the cannon can introduce snow at home.

There are also small sprays that are sold in shops, specially in Winter, that contain artficial snowflakes.

Another form to make snow at home, is to take fire extingishers and use to appear is snowing. I know is stupid to do this, as well as the  plastic balls, but I think it´s a good idea to simulate you´re in the mountains, so you do not have to move anywhere.

CAN YOU SHOOT A GUN IN THE SPACE?

CAN YOU SHOOT A GUN IN THE SPACE?

FIRST I´M GOING TO EXPLAIN HOW GUNS WORK.

These guns  are shoot by a gunpowder that ignited and sends a profiled bullet  along a tube called gun canon. Larger weapons have lined guns, a set of spiraling grooves are cut or made on the inner surface of the barrel and the bullet is guided in a quick twisting motion that sends it spinning around its axis in a flight path more accurate what he would or would need otherwise.

EXAMPLES OF GUNS

AK-47

                                                                                                        REVOLVER

           

    FAMAS

                                                                                                                 M4A1

OF COURSE NOT
The first thing we think is that as in space there is no single air, the gunpowder does not have the required oxygen to ignite, and therefore nothing happens.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS

THE SPECIAL BULLETS THAT HAVE OXYGEN AND ALL THEY NEED TO IGNITE BUT THEY GO SO SLOW.

MY OPINION

GUNS ARE THE WORST THING HUMANS CREATE BECAUSE WE USE IT TO KILL ANIMALS OR OTHER HUMANS AND WE SHOULD USE IT OF A MECHANISM OF DEFENSE AND NOT A WAY TO KILL BECAUSE YES.

LINK OF A VIDEO OF THE BEST GUNS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woz8jjkrd0

BY BENJAMIN MUÑOZ.

Why do mosquitoes bite some people more than others?

Why do mosquitoes bite some people more than others?

-Mosquitoes choose their victims on the basis of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by breathing and not, as popular belief, by the "sweetness" blood, as revealed in a study published recently in Nature. "

A human being produces approximately one kilogram of CO2 every day, and every time you exhale - about 13 times per minute - emits more than 100 milligrams of this gas. Mosquitoes detect a current pulse of CO2, which deduced that there is behind "fresh blood" to suck. “Issued by breathing carbon dioxide is higher in adults on children, and its amount varies depending on diet and exercise that will follow.

In fact, entomologists at the University of Florida (USA) have developed these insect traps that emit carbon dioxide as one would an animal or person.

-The lactic acid that we emit breath or sweat also attract these insects. The highest persons and pregnant women emit more lactic acid and CO2, so are "white" perfect mosquitoes. " People who just did intense physical exercise are also very attractive to insects.