Cloudy with a Chance of Silver Iodide

Did you know we can control the weather?

Weather modification has been going on since the 1940’s in the United States!  Water is needed by every living thing, so this is an important topic that could drastically change our water resources.  This modification is used to control precipitation amount in areas that have depleted water resources due to growing population, urbanization, climate change, changes in land, and pollution in rivers.  One way of increasing (or decreasing in certain circumstances) precipitation is through cloud seeding.  The southwest United States and Mexico especially have looked into this new technology.

What is cloud seeding?

Cloud seeding is a type of weather modification that started in 1946 in Massachusetts.  It has been used throughout the world but especially in semiarid regions such as Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand.  California and Idaho within the United States have used cloud seeding for some time.   Possible uses include increasing precipitation amounts (drought relief), preventing hail damage, clearing fog, and reducing storm intensity in such things as thunderstorms, tornadoes, and tropical cyclones.

How does it work?

Researchers already know a small amount of the available moisture in clouds is made into precipitation.  Cloud seeding can help increase this amount by dispersing special aerosols or very cold materials into specific areas of clouds.  These chemicals once in a cloud, form ice crystals that create either snow or rain.  The most commonly used chemicals are dry ice and silver iodide due to their great ability to increase the formation of ice crystals.  Studies have found shallow, winter mountain clouds are the best for seeding and show 10-50% increases in precipitation over several hundred square miles.

Check out this cool video for a visual explanation!

How is cloud seeding measured?

 The process of creating precipitation is complex and can take many paths. This leads to research difficulties in success, quantification, etc.  Studies show conflicting results with increases, decreases, or no effect in regions.  It is hard to obtain accurate measurements due to the lack of understanding within this system and the difference in each trial.

Cloud seeding, in general, is a very controversial topic. 

What are the advantages cloud seeding?

As you may have noticed, this type of weather modification has tons of pros!

First you have the obvious one: WE CAN MAKE IT RAIN. In various places, rain is considered a very crucial source of water. In cases of areas with extreme drought we can fight back and give people what they need to survive. In addition to getting people water, there are other positive externalities.

Think about this, long periods without rainfall can cause drought, drought damages land and kills crops, without crops for food, the area may suffer from a food famine.

If we can use cloud seeding to prevent drought, then we can also use it to nourish the land and produce crops. Cloud seeding would be very beneficial to developing areas where they can improve their land and produce more crops. Furthermore, if more crops are produced then they would be able to improve their economic situation as well.

In general, successful cloud seeding would improve the living conditions of originally inhospitable areas.  

In addition, there is the fact that cloud seeding can actually be used to influence large storms such as tornadoes. Obviously, this would be a he asset because natural disasters can be prevented and damage caused by these storms can be reduced.

So why is it that there is so much controversy over this type of weather modification????

The main drawbacks of cloud seeding center around the fact that the process is not widely understood, and all of the possible consequences have not been fully studied.  Since the process of cloud seeding involves introducing chemicals into the air, society’s main concern is if and how plants and animals will be affected.

In the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act, silver iodide is classified as a hazardous material (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 1972). According to the report, if the chemical enters the ground or a body of water in a particularly high amount, it can damage the environment and affect the health of humans.

Even if cloud seeding does not use a high quantity of chemicals, studies still need to be done on what long term exposure might cause in areas that use cloud seeding frequently. One use may be okay, but constant use in areas that do not receive much rainfall may cause a buildup of chemicals that will have currently unforeseen consequences.

Yet another source of contention in the study of cloud seeding is the more basic question of whether cloud seeding even works. The answer is:            Maybe?

 It has yielded results in some areas, but failed in others. This inconsistency is uncomfortable for many people, and makes the process seem like a waste to many to those who could fund it.

After all the doubt, why is it practiced?

Well, first things first, people love to use technology to solve problems. Not that it's a bad thing, after all there is plenty of technology that has benefited man kind. But you can't argue that we often depend far too much on it. People who believe in what is known as the technological critique believe that technology will solve our problems. But what about the problems that result from that? Can we keep simply using technology to fix everything, including the weather?

Second, we as people have a tendency to focus solely on the benefits with no regard for the environment whatsoever. Like a 'growth machine', we  are so concerned with expanding more, controlling more, improving more, that we tend to forget what resources we are destroying. 

Another point of controversy has to do with freedom. Since cloud seeding is hard to calculate we can not pin point exactly where the rain will fall. What if when we treat one area with cloud seeding, it rains on another? And what if they don't want cloud seeding treatment? We would be taking away the freedom of one area for another places benefit. Is that even fair?

Cloud seeding has been widely debated since its creation, and the main issue stems from the fact that nobody actually knows what the long-term effects of cloud seeding could be. Funding and support for the process is low, because people do not know what could happen, and because people don't know what could happen, funding is low. It is a vicious cycle, that does not seem to be coming to an end.

So how do we put a stop to this? How can finally make a decision about cloud seeding?

Well, it seems like the only logical option is to actually test it. But then new problems arise, where do we test? How long? Who should fund it? Obviously we can NOT just pour rain over a populated area and watch what happens. Instead, we have to fully understand the problems and dynamics of cloud seeding. After understanding the problem then we can work on a solutions that are solid and beneficial.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

Battan, Louis. 1962. "Cloud Physics and Cloud Seeding.". Garden City, New York. Anchor Books

Bruintjes, Roelof T. 1999. "A Review of Cloud Seeding Experiments to Enhance Precipitation and Some New Prospects." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80 (5): 805-820.

“Cloud Seeding.” Issues & Controversies. Infobase Learning, 8 Mar. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2015. <http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recurl.aspx?wid=98756&ID=2016>.

Daniel Rosenfeld and William L. Woodley, 1993: Effects of Cloud Seeding in West Texas: Additional Results and New Insights. J. Appl. Meteor., 32, 1848–1866.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. (1972).

MacCracken, J. G., and J. O'Laughlin. 1996. "California Cloud Seeding and Idaho Precipitation." Journal of Weather Modification 28: 39-49.

2010. "Planned Weather Modification Through Cloud Seeding: An Information Statemment of the American Meteorological Society.".Boston, Massachusetts. American Meteorologist Society 

Hypertrophication shouldn't exist.

Hypertrophication Should Not Exist

By Warren Palmer

In the Greek dialect, Hypertrophy means "excess nourishment". In particular, this problem relates to the complex process of how groundwater run-off leads to dead zones in nearby bodies of water. A dead zone is a hypoxic environment which contains little to no oxygen. The catalyst for this process is algae, and it makes its presence known once an "algae bloom" occurs. Such an event does not happen out of nowhere however, as something must happen beforehand that will give cause to it's occurrence.

The main culprit for this issue is humankind itself, as it is from our agricultural and urban runoff that allows such consequences to manifest. The phosphates and other nutrients that are carried from the run off into the ocean through the water cycle. The algae, or phytoplankton, are given an abundance of nutrients that allows them to multiply well beyond their normal limits. The carrying capacity of the aquatic environment cannot sustain the algae, as oxygen is depleted from the ecosystem when an algae bloom occurs. 

The algae is not the causal variable in this equation, as it is only the visible environmental consequence that we initially witness. The algae are what consume the chemical nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. They are able to grow and multiply exponentially because of this, despite their short life span. Eventually the algae die off and sink to the sea floor. Bacteria on the sea floor break down this algae, yet due to the sheer volume that is delivered to the bottom, there becomes an excess of bacteria as a result. Organisms have evolved over millions of years in our Earth's oceans to be prepared for only regular or normal amounts of dead algae to fall to the seafloor. This emphasizes the point that human intervention, whether intentional or not, will almost always have a negative impact on our planet's fragile ecosystems. 


Hypoxia is the depletion of oxygen within an environment, however this is not the only problem, as some species of algae produce toxins that can be very harmful to the environment. This phenomena is called "red tide" as the algae take on a red or brownish color, which concentrate in shallow water, usually close to a shoreline. Red tides in the  Gulf of Mexico are a result of high concentrations of algae that are normally harmless in low concentrations. Due to the algae blooms however, the algae are in a much higher concentrations. The toxins they produce paralyze the central nervous system of the fish so they cannot breathe. Red tides can also have health effects on those who are exposed to it. Particularly, those who consume shellfish that have been affected by red tide can cause eye and respiratory irritation. 

Roughly half of the known dead zones develop once a year during the summer, as the algae are able to photosynthesize more efficiently with more sunlight hitting the surface water throughout more of the day. Scientists Robert J. Diaz and Rutger Rosenberg have counted 87 dead zones in the 1970s, 162 in the 1980s, and a total of 405 in the present day. However, despite the fact that the situation is bad now, that does not mean that it cannot get any worse. It certainly can get worse, but only if we do not ensure preventative methods that will inhibit more algae blooms from occurring in the future. 

When it comes to fixing issues in our environment, there are two options. We can employ preventative measures that deals with a potential ecological disaster before it even happens; or we can choose the alternative, which is to wait for a disaster to happen and clean up the mess afterwards. One of these solutions is much better than the other, can you guess which one it is? If you guessed the first answer, then you are absolutely right! There's only one problem - we as humans do not realize the consequential magnitude of our actions until the disaster actually happens. For this very reason, preventative methods are usually not employed in time, and as a result the environmental impact can be irreversible.

However, not every environmental issue is a lost cause. Despite the fact that many dead zones take a lot of time to return to a sustainable ecosystem, many people now agree that the ecology of our beloved shorelines and beaches can be restored. Jane Lubchenco, a leading marine biologist on ocean ecology states that there is a, "Growing threat of nutrient pollution in coastal waters around the world. The conclusion is inescapable that dead zones are now a key stressor in coastal waters." However, she also states that there is a solution to the problem. "The evidence suggest that if the spigot of nutrients can be turned off, coastal systems can recover," she says. "Doing it can be accomplished by using fertilizers more efficiently, preventing human and animal sewage from entering rivers, and replanting vegetation along riverbanks to absorb excess nutrients." 

Let's just pretend for a second that humans never existed. Knowing this, a dead zone happening from an algae bloom would be very unlikely. It is pretty evident that people, of developed nations in particular, are to blame. The microorganisms do what they do because it is natural for them. Humans are the only species that can undo what has already been done. If we do not help the environment help itself, nobody else will do it for us. 

Sources: 

Perlman, David. "Scientists Alarmed by Ocean Dead-zone Growth." SFGate. SFGate, 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 08 Mar. 2015. 

"What Is a Red Tide?" What Is a Red Tide? National Ocean Service, n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. 

Dell'Amore, Christine. "Biggest Dead Zone Ever Forecast in Gulf of Mexico."National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 24 June 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. 

"Harmful Algae." : Red Tide. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 15 May 2013. Web. 08 Mar. 2015. 

"Where Nutrients Come From And How They Cause Eutrophication." Where Nutrients Come From And How They Cause Eutrophication. United Nations Environment Program, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. 

Carpenter, Stephen R. "Phosphorus Control Is Critical to Mitigating Eutrophication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 6 Aug. 2008. Web. 08 Mar. 2015. 

"The Water Cycle." The Water Cycle. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. 

The Royal Dump

Hi guys. My name is Gilly the Guppy. There's something I'm conflicted about because I do not know if it'll turn out well or not. You see, New York started dumping old subway cars in my neighborhood. Sure, it's prime real estate and a lot of fish and coral are starting to grow and live there. I just can't decide if it's a good or bad thing. 

Would you advise Gilly the Guppy to move into the new subway car complex or not?

If you answered yes... 

Dear Gilly the Guppy,

All wires and electronics are stripped out of the subway cars and they are scrubbed down to ensure all oil is removed before dumping into the ocean.  This way you and other animals won't be harmed by the oil or get tangled in the wires and electronics in the cars! This can become a home for you! It helps create new reefs; artificial reefs have 400 times more food than the natural sand bottom. This means more food for you! Also, by dumping the subway cars in the ocean, it keeps them out of the landfills. Unfortunately, there is a lot of concern about land space and we don't really have space on land for much more in the landfills with how much trash we dump anyway. We tried to offer the subway cars to other countries, but they didn't want them. This way,  you get them and a new home. Plus it's not really taking up that much room. Think about it. The ocean covers more than 70% of the planet but humans have explored less than 5% of it! The surface area that we could actually dump a subway car on is minute to how much surface area of the oceans there actually is. We are unable to reach the majority of the ocean floor. Not to mention, it provides shelter from predators. They attract shrimp, mussels and crabs, giving you new friends to hang out with. Also, it would help humans out! In Maryland, cable cars were dumped similarly to the subway cars in order to attract fish and eventually bigger game fish like dolphin fish, marlin and tuna for recreational fishermen to catch. For Maryland, recreational fishing is a billion dollar industry in Maryland. This could really help New York's economy by creating recreational fishing. Also, this artificial reef is publicly funded, unlike most artificial reefs. This shows that the government cares about where these cars are going and is a national issue. I believe that for you, Gilly, this sounds like a great idea. You and your family should definitely move into the subway car complex! 

If you answered no...

Dear Gilly the Guppy,

This is unfair that subway cars got dumped into your neighborhood without your permission. We have no way of asking you if you want the cars, and we have no right to use the ocean as our dumping ground because we are running out of places to dump things on land. There's a reason that no other countries would take the subway cars; why should we dump it on your home? We didn't do that to the other countries because we can't, so why should we be allowed to do it to you? Reefs are declining, and artificial reefs can be helpful to you and other fish. However, not every type of artificial reef is good. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission says that in order to considered a good artificial reef material, it must have function, stability, durability and compatibility. There are better things to make artificial reefs with, but the government doesn't want to spend extra money on that because unlike most artificial reefs, this is publicly funded. Unfortunately, a study done of Philadelphia subway cars dumped in 1990 showed that after 20 years, they collapsed in the ocean. It is not long enough to help because it take 10 years for things to really start growing in the subway cars. 10 years after coral and reef starts to grow, the cars will collapse, most likely damaging the coral. A technology critique of this issue would imply that the temporary solution of generating new reef is a temporary fix that will only result in the collapse of the subway cars and will need more technology to fix this. This is our waste. We have this waste because of the treadmill of production: with new advancements in technology came new subway cars. The majority of the subway cars are not broken, just out of date. New advancements in technology will always occur over time and will continue to advance leaving the outdated products to be disposed of. The metal could corrode away to hurt sea life. The most important problem is the fact that most the subway cars dumped have asbestos in the walls for sound and insulation. Asbestos has been linked to multiple types of cancer; the most well known cancer linked to asbestos is malignant mesothelioma. Asbestos is a group of minerals, similar to Mercury. This could lead to a similar problem with Mercury poisoning, such as Minamata Disease that was prevalent in Japan in the 1900's. Nearly two thousand people died from mercury poising from the shellfish and fish they were consuming, not to mention the animals that died from consumption of the leftovers. This disease became congenital and was passed down to many generations. Do we want to risk the same thing happening with asbestos, which has already been linked to cancer? No. This is our environment and we do not want poison it. This is related to environmental agency, a concept that says that the environment is not a given; we shape the significance it has on our daily lives. If we can prevent poisoning fish that could lead to the death of fish and animals that consume fish, we should. We need to be aware of the growth machine, a concept that demonstrates how humans have no regard for nature or the possible outcomes associated with our actions. We have seen how poisoning fish with a mineral can be extremely detrimental to fish, humans and other animals consuming the fish. We know asbestos is linked to multiple types of cancer. We need to recognize the possible outcomes associated with our actions and take responsibility for our consumption. I do not recommend that you move into the subway car complex, Gilly, because it was wrong that we dumped it in the ocean.

Mattie Borders, Lauren Harrison, Taylor Kashman

1. Asbestos Exposure and Cancer Risk." National Cancer Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
2. "How Much of the Ocean Have We Explored?" How Much of the Ocean Have We Explored? N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
3. Hurdle, Jon. "New York Subway Cars Find New Life on Ocean Floor." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 17 May 2008. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
4. Kennedy, Randy. "End of Line for Subway Cars: The Ocean Floor." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2001. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
5. "The Annals of Occupational Hygiene." The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
6. "The Submerged Subway Reef." Scientific American Global RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
7. "Our Waste Matters." Our Waste Matters. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.

Why Appearance is Actually Everything

You're walking into the store, a typical day of grocery shopping. What's the first thing you notice? Do you notice the clean isles? The easy to reach shelves? Do you take a moment to think about how easily organized the store is, how welcoming everything is from the colors to the smell?

If your answer is: yes, then you are not alone! In fact, everybody, whether they know it or not, relies heavily on their senses when shopping.

Think about this:

 Would you shop at a store with dimmed light? Crowded shelves? What about at a store with pealing paint on the walls?

Do you even realize how much control markets have over you?

Chapeter 8 of Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel gives its readers a good look at just how much care a store (like walmart) takes to attract, and control, its customers.

First, let's talk about the mood of the market. Stores in the market create environments that make customers feel welcome. They keep the lights bright and  floors clean because one bad visit really can drive away customers.AND, since stores are always competing, they have to be in tip top shape!

Even the organization of the store is important. They need to provide their customers with huge signs and large isles so that they can make their way with relative ease. They want their customers shopping experience to be easy and stress free.

Temperature is another important factor in a store. By controlling the temperature, stores can basically decide how long they want customers to shop. Would you stay long in a cold store in the dead of winter? Would you shop longer in a cool store in the hot summer?

By controlling lighting the store can draw your eyes to certain products. Look even further and you will see that even the color of the lights are chosen carefully. They want their products to look as appealing as possible.

The whole idea of markets trying to controls consumers through the mentioned tactics is known as the science of  "atmospherics" . Basically, that means the markets we shop in are using our own senses to increase their own profit. It seems a little ridiculous but its a fact that we as people are highly sensitive to our surroundings. The markets know that if they want happy shoppers, they have to play on our senses.

So Next time you take a trip to the grocery store, take a moment to observe your surroundings. Use your senses and see how purposeful everything is. What catches your attention?Why? Look around and see just why appearances are actually everything.

Wal-Mart vs. Kroger

            It’s a Sunday afternoon at home and you are feeling a little hungry, so you get off the couch to go to the kitchen. In hopes for something appealing to jump out at you in the fridge or pantry, you end up disappointed when the fridge and pantry are both bare. It is that dreaded time of the week again… to go get groceries for the week. You jump in your car and you are already faced with the decision, Kroger or Wal-Mart?

            Wal-Mart is known for its low prices and everyday guarantees. Although the prices are typically the lowest in town, the lines are usually long and the customer service is usually terrible. But look on the bright side, Wal-Mart also has all of your household and clothing items you may need too! 

Kroger is a great place to shop if you are a proud owner of the Kroger Plus Card (A card that keeps track of money spent and points earned in hope to receive discounts in the future). Another great aspect of Kroger stores is the taste-test area throughout the stores, which in the end usually influence the customer to buy that exact item. After thinking through all of your options you go with Wal-Mart since there are some other things you need to pick up while you’re out also.

            You walk into Wal-Mart and are all of the sudden greeted by usually a man or woman that Wal-Mart sticks there to give off a good first impression. You get passed them, get your cart and you look around… As soon as you walk into the store many on sale items on the first selves you see surround you. These items are usually As Seen on TV items or soda stacked up in a cool shape or image to get your attention. 

You are already tempted to buy things that you didn't even come to the store for! You are starting to think if Wal-Mart was a bad decision. 

In Chapter 8 of Stuffed in Starved, Raj Patel writes, "Walmart is the world's largest corporation, responsible for 2 percent of US GDP and owner of the second-most-powerful computer after the Pentagon." Wal-Marts across the country and even in the world are taking over big and small towns. 

Wal-Marts across the nation are literally taking over. Did you know that $36,000,000 is spent per hour, yes.. PER HOUR, at Wal-Mart?! Also, 80% of Wal-Mart's products come from China..  How do you feel about getting your groceries at a place the imports 80% of their goods from China? We all know we get such cheap products at Wal-Mart, but are we getting the best quality food in their grocery stores? Would it be more beneficial to spend more money at Kroger or a Whole Foods Market and get quality products? Many Americans debate of this topic and this video below may help you decide. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SozZHZAWS64)

In the end, you are probably going to continue to shop at the supermarket that you have your whole life, or the one your parents shop at all of the time. Whether it is Wal-Mart or Kroger, you will find that both stores have their advantages and disadvantages. Supermarkets everywhere are known for different specialities. It is up to you to decide what would be better for you in the long run... Shopping at a cheap supermarket or shopping somewhere that you know you will receive quality goods. 

Works Cited:

Patel, Raj. "Chapter 8." Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Pub., 2008. N. pag. Print.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SozZHZAWS64

Cody the Couch Potato vs. Freddy Fitness

Cody the Couch Potato and Freddy Fitness are planning on having dinner together. Unfortunately, they cannot decide where to eat. Freddy wants to eat at the dinner table but Cody doesn't want to miss his television show. Freddy is upset because he knows the statistics that show that eating in front of the television is causing obesity. Cody just doesn't want to listen. 


Will Freddy Fitness be able to convince Cody the Couch Potato to eat at the dinner table?

Freddy: Cody, I really want to be able to spend quality time with you while we eat because we haven't seen each other in a really long time. Let's go to the grocery, prepare a healthy meal and sit down at the dinner table and eat it together.

Cody: That takes too much time! I'll miss my show! Let's just order a pizza and watch my show instead.

Freddy: Haven't you heard that eating in front of the television can cause weight gain? 

Cody: I seriously doubt that's true. You're too obsessed with fitness, Freddy. It's okay to eat in front of the television. Regardless of where you eat, you're still sitting down. We can even make the meal if you're that set on it; I just don't want to miss my show.

Freddy: Really, Cody, it's true! It could help prevent Type II Diabetes. A study in Clinical Nutrition showed that people with Type II Diabetes eat faster than other people and fast eating is linked to weight gain. It takes 20 minutes for your body to realize it's full and when you eat fast, you eat more because you're body can't recognize it's actually full that quickly. When you eat in front of the TV, you eat faster because you aren't paying attention to your food, just to the screen in front of you. Another study published in Appetite illustrated that people who watch TV or read a newspaper rather than just focusing on their meal snack more than others after lunch time. Furthermore, when you eat mindfully, you tend to eat only when you're hungry. Eating in front of the TV distracts you and you continue eating even when you're full. 

Cody: Really? C'mon. It can't be that big of a deal to my health!

Freddy: Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, looked into how many people are eating in front of the television and found that "six in ten US households watch TV while eating" (270). More and more people in the US are obese and overweight. In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they found that eating while being distracted not only makes you eat more at that meal but also makes you eat more later on. A review of 24 studies by British researchers showed that people eat as much as 25% more food later in the day if they eat their meal in front of a television or some other distraction. More than one third of adults in the United States are obese! That's 78.6 million people, Cody! And those statistics don't even include those adults who are considered overweight! More than two thirds of adults aged 20 and older are considered overweight. Being overweight can cause many health issues; it causes heart disease, stroke, Type II Diabetes and some types of cancer. The medical cost of obesity in America is over $147 billion dollars annually. Families need to make a change in order to prevent obesity and weight gain. So many children are eating in front of the television which is leading to rising numbers of children who are overweight. The television can be fun occasionally, but according to Raj Patel, "the television's interaction with food has cemented a modern way of eating" (270). Not many families eat at a dinner table together, enjoy food and each other's company. Instead, they are sitting in front of a TV, mindlessly eating more than what is necessary to fill them up.

Cody: Wow, Freddy, I had no idea! I'll record my show and will watch it some other time- NOT when I'm eating!

Works Cited:

Patel, Raj. "Chapter 8." Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Pub., 2008. N. pag. Print.

"Obesity and Overweight." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

 US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

 "Distracted Eating May Add to Weight Gain - Harvard Health Blog." Harvard Health Blog RSS. N.p., 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

 Innes, Emma. "Why Eating in Front of the TV Makes You Fat: You Consume 25% More LATER in the Day without Realising." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

 "Adult Obesity Facts." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.