Graphene: Material of the Future

Recent photoconductor development has set the stage for some very exciting technological advances within the decade. Material and size limitations have long plagued photoconductors, any materials able to transform light into electrical impulses. Graphene, and this new process by which it is able to be formed into photoconductors, has the promise to sidestep the previous limitations imposed by older models of production. If photoconductors can make the leap from laboratory oddity to commercially viable technology, we may very well see fast as light communication in our homes within our lifetime.

While we've used Photoconductor technology for a while, they have never been this close to an average joe’s usage.

Herschel Space Observatory, which uses photoconductors
to record stars in distant galaxies. Credit

Photoconductors have been in use for some years as a tool essential to space travel, primarily due both to their speed in processing information and the low power draw of the devices. However, the near absolute zero temperatures at which prior designs made of germanium were required to operate restricted these incredible devices to the cold vacuum of space. The temperature restriction was due to the wave gap of the material making up the photoconductors. A wave gape is, simply put, the internal energy of a molecule. The molecules internal energy must be matched by energy exerted on it before the molecule will conduct electricity through itself. At absolute zero, the internal energy of any molecule is near zero, so electricity can flow unimpeded. The old photoconductors, made of germanium, needed to reduced to this low temperature to operate at any degree of efficiency.

Graphene is very stable carbon in the very hard to change shape of a lattice giving individual molecules no room for movement. This means the individual energy of each molecule is incredibly low, a good thing for conductivity.

Graphene Lattice. Credit

The low energy enables graphene to superconduct at incredibly high (room) temperature, with little resistance given to electrical signals. That is crucial in making long term, efficient devices, such as better batteries or faster phones. Current wires offer small amounts of resistance, sapping power from batteries and plugs making almost all electrical devices inefficient, wasting power. Graphene, able to conduct with near zero resistance to power supplies, can fix this waste and speed up our devices. In making photoconductors easily accessible, we may soon possess superior GPS systems, cellular phones, and even an  internet as swift as light, boasting theoretical speeds of up to 10 GiB/s.

The money poured into graphene material research  has shown new ways of developing graphene with advanced methods, most recently a method by Dutch scientists economizing production of graphene. The Dutch team grew a single atom thick lattice of graphene over a rod, a much easier to extract product than the previous flatbed growth methods. The expirement has greatly reduced the cost of a sheet of graphene, making it much more readily available for scientistsexpirementation with and business’ to implement in prototypes for consumption. By reducing the prior limitation of graphene, it’s high cost, we can only expect further and larger developments in the field.

The graphene's lattice work structure presented initial obstacles to photoconductor development. The molecule's lattice structure dispersed light and electrical impulses rather than focusing it.

Nanowire In Solution. Credit

Through further research, however, scientists have recently discovered that funneling sheets of graphene increases the amount of bandwidth it can carry and the accuracy of its transmissions from light to electrical impulses. They also discovered that an “alloy” of graphene and Cadmium Sulfide further increases the speed of their nanowire, presumably yielding those same benefits in graphene photoconductors that utilize this nanowire.

In making data more readily accessible, graphene stands to pave the way forward, bringing the internet to rural classrooms and underserved communities everywhere. As seen previously with computing initiatives computing initiatives, by increasing access to the internet we greatly vary schools curriculum and more fully engage students. Kids who would have grown up without the power of the internet to learn can benefit greatly from faster and more reliable access in a structured environment. The graphene revolution stands become the next major tech boom as well, boosting our economy in a time of need for the lower class. It is undoubtedly wise to trust this expert, who claims that the money in graphene stands to revolutionize a multitude of fields, the least of which is not computing.

Scientists, spurred on by the massive profit some see in the future of graphene, have been developing many and varied ways of overcoming the limits of todayls photoconductors and tomorrow’s materials.The natural abilities of graphene combined with new production methods and usage could drastically alter the way we think about computation in the very near future. By transforming raw graphene into efficient wires and photoconductors, we all may soon see fast as light communication in our handheld devices and computers.

Organic: What you're really eating

After boarding UNC’s campus bus, purchasing my organic breakfast bars, and happily carrying them all the way back to my dorm room, I realized that I made this far and expensive excursion to Whole Foods because of one word: organic. People nationwide, and worldwide for that matter, believe that food labeled “organic” is substantially healthier than food that lacks this description. However marketers largely mislabel foods that contain pesticides, harmful bacteria, and food-borne illnesses as “organic”, while many don’t realize that foods such as genetically modified foods have no clear drawbacks thus far.

Photo by Shantel Ruiz

Many are unaware that the law permits organic farmers to use pesticides on their crops. Even more troublesome, the only limitation is that the pesticides must originate from natural sources. It is important to note that recent studies have proven at least half of these “naturally derived” pesticides to be highly poisonous and cancer-causing. Also contributing to the pesticide problem in organic farming is unanswered question of how long these organic pesticides persevere in the environment. Consequently, after an organic pesticide is no longer effective and has worn off the crops, it is necessary to use synthetic pesticides in order to keep pests away. This is effectively what many people are unaware of; their organic foods are basically being covered with the pesticides that they thought made conventional produce so unhealthy. While the use of deadly pesticides in organic farming is a developing problem, the fertilizing method is not by any means more promising.

Photo by natsides

Animal Manure, the fertilizer used by most organic farmers, is one of the reasons organic eating is not actually the healthiest choice. The past couple years have seen a new and more threatening case of E. coli 0157 disease, which has been the cause of at least 250 deaths per year in the United States. Because organic farmers are hesitant to use chemical washes, pasteurization, or chlorine water on their crops, there is no alternative to animal fertilization. In essence, organic farmers refuse to ensure the absence of bacteria on their crops. Another noteworthy detail is that farmers are required to compost the animal fertilizer for about two months at 130 degrees F in order to kill any bacteria that may be living in the manure. However recent studies have determined that this is inadequate; it takes a longer period of time and a higher temperature (about 160 degrees) to really ensure the death of any bacteria that may be residing in the compost. The above aspects of organic farming are important to understand, however the most relevant issue is the fact that the public is being mislead as to what the label “organic” really entails.

Photo by Kevin Krejci

The number of people who continue to embed organic foods into their daily lives is stunning, given that many have made a permanent lifestyle change even though they are unaware of the details or repercussions of this change. Evidently, the majority of these people are confused and unclear about what organic foods contain and, ultimately, what they are allowing themselves and their families to consume. The USDA currently allows the label “organic” to be printed on foods that are, in reality, only 95% organic. Even worse, there is another classification that allows food with only 70% organic ingredients to bear this confusing label. In addition, there is always the occasional pest or insect infestation forcing farmers (both organic and conventional) to cover crops in pesticides that you and your families are unaware of. Ultimately, the public is being lied to when labels read “organic” if it is in fact the case that some ingredients in the product are not completely organic.

Photo by Farmanac

Although there is no real solution to this false advertising of foods, the public is capable of looking with more caution at what they purchase and what they consume. It is possible to an extent to educate ourselves on the foods that truly contain pesticides and bacteria, and we can then see that maybe organic foods aren’t the better or healthier choice in today’s world. We can also see that not everything we hear about other types of food (genetically modified food) is accurate. The most important thing is to try and be educated and aware of what you are consuming as often as possible. No matter whether the food is genetically modified, organic, or conventional, unfortunately in today’s technologically advanced world there is no way to be positive of its ingredients.

Works Cited

Entine, John. "Supply Chains." Organic Food – What Is an 'organic' Label Really Worth? N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013. <http://www.ethicalcorp.com/supply-chains/organic-food-–-what-‘organic’-label-really-worth>.

Avery, Dennis T. "Hudson Institute." Hudson Institute. N.p., 1 Nov. 1998. Web. 30 Sept. 2013. <http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details>.

"Pestcides in Organic Farming." Pestcides in Organic Farming. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2013. <http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html>.

Antibiotics: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Photo by Christian Guthier

In 1998, Denmark did something completely unheard of thus far in the meat industry. Denmark’s government recognized that the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals leads directly to an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. This realization led Denmark to voluntarily restrict the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock feed through national taxes and surveillance systems. Even though antibiotic resistant bacteria pose a tremendous threat to human health, and it is necessary for governments to strictly regulate the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock feed, it is still important to acknowledge that antibiotics play an essential role in both treating infections in livestock and ensuring that humans are consuming safe meat. Therefore, the United States needs to carefully monitor antibiotic distribution and usage among farms to ensure that antibiotics act as a remedy to infection rather than a means of capital.

Not long after farmers began using antibiotics therapeutically—to treat infections in livestock, they discovered that these same antibiotics have a much more profitable effect. Farmers first discovered this effect when they fed chlortetracycline, a common antibiotic, to chickens. This caused the chickens to grow much faster (Butaye, Devriese, and Haesebrouck 175-188). Ever since their discovery, farmers have embraced this idea and have been using antibiotics in poultry and in livestock feed at an alarming rate. Instead of using antibiotics for its original purpose—to treat infections, farmers use the antibiotics for the sole purpose of fattening their animals.

Why are so many farmers following the example of giving antibiotics to healthy livestock? The answer is simple. Antibiotics are actually effective in promoting growth among livestock. Scientists believe this is the case because antibiotics allow for better absorption of the food’s nutrients. While researchers are not exactly sure why antibiotics have this effect, there are a few hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. One is that the antibiotics better protect the food nutrients from being destroyed by bacteria. Another is that antibiotics prevent intestinal bacteria from producing toxins that may interfere with nutrient absorption. A third hypothesis is that absorption of nutrients improves due to a thinning of the intestinal barrier. Lastly, a reduction of intestinal infections might lead to this growth increase (Butaye, Devriese, and Haesebrouck 175-188). Even though it may seem like a much more cost-efficient way to feed animals, if this misuse of antibiotics continues there will be severe consequences for humans.

The use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed will eventually lead to a rise in the number of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistant bacteria pose a dangerous threat to humans because they have evolved and adapted over time to survive, even when treated with the strongest antibiotics. Already, Some bacteria have evolved so extensively that certain bacterial infections simply cannot be treated. As farmers increase their use of antibiotics and bacteria populations living inside the animals become more resistant to those antibiotics, the transmission or spreading of bacteria from the farm animals to humans poses a much greater threat to our health. Antibiotics that at one time effectively treated infections are now ineffective and useless. This is why it is important, now more than ever, to stop the blatant misuse of antibiotics on farms.

Photo by Gene Hunt

A great example of a country that has taken this first step is Denmark. In 1998, Denmark began its voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. In order to make sure that farmers were in compliance with this voluntary ban, Denmark implemented a national tax on animals for which the antibiotic was used. By 2000, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters was effectively prohibited for all swine. By 2006, antibiotic use was prohibited in all swine, cattle, poultry, and rabbits. As early as 1995, Danish legislation put into effect many laws including a ban on avoparcin—a commonly used growth promoter antibiotic, and a restriction on the sale of medications by veterinarians. The 1998 voluntary removal of these growth promoters in poultry, spurred more action on behalf of the Danish government. Now, antibiotics can only be used if they are aimed at treating a disease in the animal. Not only that, but veterinarians can no longer profit from or directly sell the medications to the farmers, and they must record and report every time they provide any antibiotics. This legislation ensures that farmers are only using antibiotics for their intended purpose. It is clear that Denmark has successfully taken the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

However, as I said before, antibiotics do have an intended purpose as well as an important function on the farm that shouldn’t be overlooked. Even though farmers misuse antibiotics, they are still vital in guaranteeing that humans are eating non-infected meat. Antibiotics treat and prevent bacterial infections that might develop in an animal’s body. Because of this, humans are less likely to contract harmful infections and diseases when eating the animal’s meat. The use of therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed has been approved by the FDA for more than 40 years now and has helped with human health and with animal mortality rates.

The question now is not how to ban the use of antibiotics on farms, but how to make sure that farmers are only using antibiotics for therapeutic purposes. In Denmark it was easy because all of its farmers were a part of one single organization called the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. This unique organization was a great way for every farmer in Denmark to come together and discuss the rules and regulations for antibiotic use. This organization was one of the main reasons for Denmark’s success. In the U.S., the drug companies do provide the FDA with information regarding the amount of antibiotics that are sold to farmers. However, sometimes these reports leave out important information like the purpose of the antibiotic as well as which animals are being treated.

Photo by NIAID

Because there is such a lack of information about antibiotic use on farms in the U.S., it is time for the government to require more detailed reports. The government should demand more of veterinarians to make sure that sick animals are in fact being treated with the appropriate dose of antibiotics. The government should also require farm inspections to make sure that the animals have decent living conditions because sometimes it’s the incredibly small and dirty pens that cause the bacterial infections in the first place. It’s simple—if the animals are less likely to get sick because of their living environment, then farmers will use less antibiotics. The U.S should also be tracking any possible strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and ban the use of those antibiotics on farms. American farmers should also follow Denmark’s example and join together in one single organization so that they can discuss important matters concerning antibiotic usage in farm animals.

While it is critical that we understand the risks of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it is still important to recognize that antibiotics are necessary for protecting human and animal health. In order to maintain the effectiveness of antibiotics in the treatment and prevention of infections in animals, the U.S. needs to pay closer attention to what is happening on the farms. If we don’t carefully monitor antibiotic usage and ensure that antibiotics are only being used for their intended purpose, then our very own health is at risk.


Works Cited

Butaye, Patrick, Luc Devriese, and Freddy Haesebrouck. "Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Used in Animal Feed: Effects of Less Well Known Antibiotics on Gram-Positive Bacteria." Clinical Microbiology Reviews. (2013): 175-188. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/>.

Say NO to Genetic Engineering

In August of 2013, 400 Filipino farmers stormed the government-owned golden rice fields and annihilated about a quarter of the research facility, in order to save their own crops from contamination. Golden rice is a genetically modified version of white rice that contains beta-carotene, which serves as an effective Vitamin A source. Farmers in the Philippines were worried that elements of these genetically engineered crops would reach their own crops through cross-pollination, possibly concocting adverse side effects. Examples such as this disaster illustrate one of the many potential hazards and issues that revolve around genetically modified food. Because of its difficult application to a multitude of food, the extensive testing that must occur before approval, and potential chemical side effects and harms, the costs of genetic engineering outweigh the few benefits, most notably disease-resistant crops. These obstacles may perhaps cause more social unrest and affect what we as humans eat, in the future.

Golden Rice Compared to White Rice
Photo by IRRI Images

One of the biggest issues with genetic engineering is that it is difficult to apply to a myriad of foods. To understand why this is, it is critical to first understand the basics of how genetic engineering works, in a biological sense. The process consists of manually removing a DNA segment from one organism and inserting the segment into another organism so that the organism in a sense can inherit the trait that the DNA carried. Small segments of DNA are called genes and genes are essentially what are extracted from organisms with the desired traits for cloning. The gene can be modified and then transferred into the desired organism through the process of transformation. For someone who does not have a strong biology background, this simple overview may cause them to wonder what the problem is then, if the process is so straightforward. Well, I am here to tell you that there are several complications that arise during the transformation of genes.

The way genes work in an organism, is that they interact with each other, in order for chemical and physical processes to occur. Each organism has a unique set of genes so every organism operates in very different ways as it is. In genetic engineering, a gene with a desired trait is extracted from some random organism, but will behave differently based on the genes around it, meaning that the behavior of the inserted gene really depends a great deal on the organism that it is inserted into. For this reason, it becomes difficult to apply genetic engineering to a variety of organisms, or foods in this case. Just because a gene with a certain trait works successfully in one organism does not mean that the same will occur in another organism due to varying genomic makeup. This phenomenon explains why genetic engineering is often times considered so unpredictable.

Retrospectove Model of Genes
Photo by UCL Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Another issue that stems from genetic engineering is that of its potential chemical side effects and harms. Just to allude to the seriousness of this topic, history does not necessarily support genetic engineering and its side effects. In 1989 and 1990, a genetically engineered dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, took the lives of more than 30 human beings and disabled/afflicted more than 1500 others. Genetically engineered bacteria were used to make the supplement and the bacteria were somehow contaminated in the process. Through the alteration of these bacteria, the blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, was also caused.

The misfortune with the dietary supplement produced in Japan is just one of many incidents of how genetically altered foods can cause chemical harms and effects. The reason that such occurs goes back to similar reasons that genetic engineering can’t be applied to all foods easily. A lot of the process depends on the surrounding genes and their behavior as a result of the inserted gene. When the inserted gene does not necessarily “agree” with those surrounding genes, such chemical effects are possible and can negatively impact the future foods that we as human beings consume. The other issue at hand is that often times to facilitate the transformation process, bacterium such as E. Coli are used. The benefit of using such bacterium is that they are relatively inexpensive to use, however they always leave the possibility of becoming contaminated. This contamination can also lead to adverse unwanted chemical harms. Essentially, the process of genetic engineering is too prone to hazardous outcomes and hence is unreliable.

E. Coli Petri Dish
Photo By: Anthony D'Onofrio

Finally, the extensive testing that must occur during the process of genetic engineering is one of its greatest disadvantages. This stems directly from the reasons discussed before. Because genetic engineering can cause too many potential side effects in food, it must go through years of testing and approval before it can even be considered being sold in the market. This is indeed a positive thing, however there is a major drawback. Even after the years and years of testing and money spent, there is the potential of the genetically engineered food still being harmful. For example, going back to the Japanese dietary supplement in the example before, the sample was created by the third largest chemical company in Japan, meaning that a reputable company that likely tested their product multiple times and went through rounds and rounds of approval still messed up. Despite all of this testing, the unreliability of genetic engineering made it all worth nothing. No matter how much testing occurs, there is always the possibility of flaws and hazards.

Ultimately, genetic engineering is not worth the time, effort, and money that go into it because the potential benefits do not outweigh its costs. The genetic engineering debate is a growing one in the world today and has gotten to the point that there are instances of public upheaval such as those as recently as August of 2013 in the Philippines. This social unrest will only continue to grow until the problems of genetic engineering are either solved or the process as a whole stops. Even if there is the possibility that one day scientists can create disease resistant and herbicide resistant crops, the chances that they have no detrimental effects are little to none. Because of undesirable consequences, it may be in the best interest of the human race to put an end to genetic engineering.

A Positive Future
Photo By Luke P. Woods