Radioactive Aging-part 1

Radiocarbon dating was first developed in 1947. It is used to determine the approximate ages of dead organisms, artifacts, rock formations, and so on, by measuring the amount of Carbon-14 they contain. The method is possible because Carbon-14 is an isotope. An isotope (try to remember high school chenistry class) is an atom with a differing number of protons and neutrons, so it is unstable. Each atom has protons and neutrons in the center with electrons on the outside. Isotope's half-lives are the time it takes for one-half of the radioactive material to decay. Carbon-14's half-life is 5,730 years. It takes another half-life for the next half of Carbon-14 to disintegrate and so on.

All living organisms absorb Carbon-14 during their lifetime by breathing and eating. After an organism dies and becomes a fossil, Carbon-14 continues to decay without being replaced. To measure how much Carbon-14 is left in a fossil, scientists burn a small piece. Radiation counters are used to detect the electrons given off by decaying Carbon-14 as it turns into nitrogen. The amount of Carbon-14 is then compared to the amount of a stable form of carbon, to determine how much radiation has decayed and to date the fossil.

Stem Cells-again

The issue at hand...well not at hand but on November 7th is very specific...it says, "Allow federal funding for the extra 300,000 embryos in in-vitro clinics right now."

I have yet to hear a sensible answer why these cells should be thrown away rather use them for research. I have heard-NO ABORTION. Well, for an abortion to take place there needs to be a woman present. We are talking about embryos created in a lab for a couple having trouble getting pregnant on their own. Extra embryos are created if possible to make sure a viable embryos is created to implant in the woman. The rest are either saved for the possible creation of a sibling, put up for adoption, or discarded with the signed consent of the would-be parents. All of these options are given to the couple...they decide the fate of the embryo.

So how moral is it to fill a garbage bag with these embryos or use them to possibly alleviate suffering of a living, breathing child or adult?

Jackie Wellman
www.jackiewellman.com

Stem Cells...Again

How moral is it to throw something in the garbage as opposed to possibly helping millions of suffering Americans?

Embryonic Stem Cells can morph into any type of tissue in the body. That is why they are more useful than adult stem cells. Of course some wonderful things can and will happen with adult stem cells but their use is limited. For example, the pancreas does not have adult stem cells so to help someone with diabetes make the cells needed to create insulin embryonic stem cells would be needed instead of adult stem cells.

The fact of the matter is that no abortion is involved or no cloning. The issue at hand is the 300,000 frozen embryos in in-vitro labs that are waiting to be discarded...should they be destroyed and used for research or just destroyed and thrown away. Hmm.... Makes no sense to just destroy them for no reason, does it? For an embryo or a fetus to be aborted it must first be in a woman's body. There is no cloning. The issue you are voting on November 7th is very specific about only using those extra embryos in in-vitro clinics that are to be discarded. These embryos are 3-5 days old and were created with about several others to make sure a live or several live embryos were available. They are created by taking a man's sperm and a woman's egg inside a test tube. A couple embryos are then implanted in the woman with a hopeful end result of a bouncing baby. The couple now has a choice concerning the extra embryos. They can put them up for adoption...very low sucess rate if there is freezing involved...many do not choose this option for different reasons. Another option is save them for the possible creation of a sibling. Another option is to discard them or donate them for research. The embryos that are signed away for the garbage are frozen until we get this figured out. Now since there is no adoption for these embryos, the only option is disposal, what is the sensible reason for not using them for research? There is no other option. Those who say there is are lying to you to get your vote. It's kind of like saying, "Vote for me, I will lower your taxes and it turns out that you have to make over $330,000 a year to get your taxes lowered. I bet not many readers of this blog make over $330,000 a year.

America has a responsibility to it's citizens. It needs to help those who need it.

Jackie Wellman
www.jackiewellman.com

Why the Christian Right is Wrong

This is from Robin Meyers book Why the Christian Right is Wrong. Mr. Meyers is a United Church of Christ minister.

"To cultivate and energize its political base, the administration has embraced tactics that many of us consider antithetical to religion -- hatred, paranoia, arrogance, greed, and the fine art of demonizing the other -- all in the name of a penniless rabbi from Nazareth who preached love, faith, humility, generosity and the nonjudgmental acceptance of the other."


Robin Meyers


Jackie Wellman
www.jackiewellman.com

The Truth

The study of evolution puts into perspective our relative insignicant existence and our enormous impact on the Earth. People who deny evolution must have a hard time swallowing the fact that humans are just a teeny tiny portion of what there is in the 13.7 billion-year-old universe. We are just a microscopic speck. Those people seem to like the theory with humans at the center of the universe or at least the geocentric theory with the Earth being the center. The Copernican theory or the heliocentric theory declared that the Earth revolved around the Sun, therefore the sun is the center of the universe not the Earth. Literal interpretation of the story of creation from the beginning of the Bible goes right along with the flat Earth method of thinking.

Whether it was the Big Bang of God snapping his fingers, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The entire universe has been dated with presicion to the ripe old age of 13.7 billion years old. THe age of the earth is not a guess based on the age of a few rocks. Over the last thirty years many laboratories all over the world have come to the same conclusion.

Age is determined by combining absolute dating (calculating radio active decay) and relative dating. Relative dating is determining age by observing what rock strata lie above and below. Strata are the specific layers of rock in a formation. Rocks are in certain layers and so are fossils. THe deeper you dig, the more primitive the fossils are. Stratiography is the study of the layers of the Earth's surface.

Creationists argue that you cannot achieve order from chaos. The comparison of evolution to standing on a chair and dropping a deck of cards was actually given to me. What does 52-card pick up have to do with the world evolving? I can just see some preacher doing this and his congregation gasping at the delusional realization that evolution was just plain wrong. The answer to the argument that you cannot achieve order from chaos is that it is very possible, just add a little work. An example would be cleaning your garage (chaos) X you cleaning it (energy) = a clean garage (order). Throwing a deck of cards on the floor and then picking them up by adding some energy would create order. Just add a little energy and things start to happen. The sun provides our world with a constant source of energy. The sun makes plants grow and become edible. Animals eat those plants. Other animals eat the animals that ate the plants. Life goes on and is constantly evolving.

A short-time ago it was commonly believed the universe was only 6,000-10,000 years old. Unrealistic creationists actually still believe this. By the 19th century, with the new science of geology, we now know for certain that the Earth is closer to being 4.5 billion years old. Some creationists interpret the Bible's story of creation literally. They believe that the universe and all that is in it have been created by divine intervention. Basically, it is a refusal to see the facts. How can anyone with any sense dispute the truth?

Jackie Wellman
www.jackiewellman.com

Real Threat

It is a shame that we have spent billions of dollars in Iraq and accomplished very little when the real threat appears to be North Korea and Iran.

Questions

Questions have always been on my mind and never answered to my satisfaction. The desire was always present, the longing to accept and believe. In fact, it was very strong. I always felt that something was missing, some integral part, since I did not feel like others did about faith. I could not understand why I had such a hard time with the whole religion thing. I never understood how something could be fully believed when proof to the contrary was right in front of the eyes. Blind faith over intellectual reasoning seems non-negotiable.

The questions constantly plagued me; some even silly. If there is a heaven, would't it be overcrowded by now? What about all of those babies and people born of other religions, besides Christianity, do they go to hell? Does anyone, who is sane, actually believe in purgatory? Why, if religion is good, do so many people die in the name of religion? Why can't women be priests? Why can't priests marry? It seems obvious to everyone but Catholics that something is wrong with the priest system since there are so many child molesters in the priest system. What is wrong with birth control? Isn't birth control better than unwanted babies? The Catholic Church or any other form of religion opposing birth control seems to say...we are opposed to using common sense. Why is there so much resentment toward the Jews? Jesus was Jewish. How can "God's plan" include my son getting Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia? What kind of a plan is that? Nothing I want any part of. Could religion just be a way of dealing with some type of loss or suffering? Can't you just say a prayer whereever or whenever, why does it need to be in church on a Sunday? Does God listen better on Sundays? Why do some people just assume that only the best people go to church every week? I found a perfect response to that one in a book called What's The Difference by Fritz Ridenour. It said, "Going to church on a regular basis no more makes you a Christian than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger."

On a search for answers was where I decided to go. I tried church many times, even taught a little Sunday School. Church seemed to serve a purpose for many, a bond with others who think the same regarding religion, at least. I never actually felt good about going; I was more concerned with the yard work that I could be getting done during the service. My husband's family church is Episcopalian, so communion was every Sunday. Whenever, I take communion, my main concern is getting back to my seat before someone notices my limp. It was clear to me that I was not feeling like I should about church. What was wrong with me, that church was not as fulfilling to me as it was for others? I never got past the point of going because that was what I should do instead of what I wanted to do.
I just never really understood why I should be in church Sundays mornings as opposed to anywhere else. Is that going to make me a better person?

It seems that many of the people who make it a point of being church goers were not such Good Samaritans the other six days of the week. Does one day, out of seven make up for the other six? Do some people really think that it is justifiable to sin if you go to church and ask for forgiveness? I always thought it was the other way around; we all sin, some more than others...you pray for forgiveness and try to correct the behavior. Not attend church once a week so you can sin all you want

Jackie Wellman
www.jackiewellman.com