Technology Affects in Our Schools

Does technology interfere with classroom learning? Yes It does.

According to teacher survey regarding technology in schools (Washington Post 2013):
• Nearly 90% of teachers felt technology has created a distracted generation with short attention spans.
• 60% felt it hindered writing and face-to-face communication.
• Almost 50% felt it hurt critical thinking and ability to do homework.
• 76% felt students were conditioned to find quick answers.

Technology is changing the way students learn, and not for the better.
In another survey, University students were asked how often they use their cell phones while in class for non class related uses. The average student reported such use eleven times daily. 15% of students used their cell more than thirty times during class, this activity comes at a price in learning. In a study, students who sent text messages while watching a lecture had exam scores 19% below those who did not text .
With all this data we can see the affects technology has on students and our learning capabilities. We need to react soon and find the right solution, remove phones from our requirements to have on us.

The Forbidden Nuclear Energy


Nuclear Energy use to play a vital role in the past, but now you don’t hear much of the topic. The main things you hear about is the dangers of nuclear power plants, so how dangerous are they? People speak about large amounts of hazardous waste being produce. This was true at one point but there have been revolutionary changes revolving the left-over waste from nuclear power plants. “Nuclear power engineering is connected with the closed NFC, which provides the renewal and regeneration of nuclear fuel resources.” (Myasoedov, B. F., Kalmykov, S. N., Kulyako, Y. M., & Vinokurov, S. E. 2016.) That alone should be enough to help convince environmentalist that nuclear has become cleaner and will benefit our communities. The construction of Nuclear facilities has come to a slow pace since Chernobyl, is it from the fear or just not efficient type of source. I have taken a closer look at this issue and came across some amazing results, the main reason is cost of construction makes nuclear generating station in effective. The fuel is cheap but building costs are higher which in turn makes the average KW/H more expensive then other conventional ways we produce electricity. “whereas reactors ordered during the 1950s took on average about five years to build, whereas reactors ordered during the 1970s took on average 14 years” (Davis, L. W. 2012).  So why has this happened, Studies have shown that the paper work involved is so much it makes filing permits that much harder. In other parts of the world another study about benefits of nuclear generating station, stating the use and construction would bring exponential amount of jobs and growth to a community. “Each plant employs around 700 workers with a payroll cost of $40 million per year” MISLA, R. (2015).


That is a lot of potential income for smaller communities to help fund Civil projects. Environmentalist still have there say that nuclear is bad but what else could be wrong they have improved the usage of fuel, and brings large amount of jobs to the community; the problem they say implementing more nuclear reactors would “will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions” (Can we do without nuclear energy?. 2012). I do not agree with this because in this journal they talk about how much C02 gasses a nuclear reactor can reduce compared to the alternative coal and gas generating stations. “There are alternatives to nuclear, but at a price accounted for 41% of global energy-related C02 emissions in 2010” (Can we do without nuclear energy?. 2012).  Would nuclear energy benefit? I most definitely would like to think it would especially since there is a way to reuse the used-up fuel, making nuclear practically a renewable resource with very little environmental gasses.




MISLA, R. (2015). Nuclear energy: A promising alternative for the economy and the environment. Caribbean Business, 43(22), 25-26.

Myasoedov, B. F., Kalmykov, S. N., Kulyako, Y. M., & Vinokurov, S. E. (2016). Nuclear fuel cycle and its impact on the environment. Geochemistry International, (13), 1156. doi:10.1134/S0016702916130115

Can we do without nuclear energy?. (2012). OECD Observer, 100-101.

Davis, L. W. (2012). Prospects for Nuclear Power. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 49-66. doi:10.1257/jep.26.1.49



I’m sure everyone has heard of gluten and these dreaded carbs that are horrible for you, but where do they come from and how is there such a large cry about this. I take a closer look into the technology that has forever changed our health.


We need to first figure out why and where to get a sense of the new technology and uses. In the 1930s the first bit of flour began to be developed into enriched wheat four adding nutrients into the wheat to help replace the ones removed by taking the Bran and Germ out.

But why remove the Bran and Germ of the Wheat? In the industrial revolution this was the only way to help preserve flour. Being unable to transport flour for long distances the shelf life was very short for flour.

Today we can link several cases of Gluten Allergies to the fact of having to much of these “Enriched wheat flour”. The body can not break down the complex carbohydrates with out the use of the bran and germ. So why is it still removed to this day. Profits is the main reason why, we have all this technology to preserve foods different foods but we do not use them. The Flour companies don’t want you too. Because there capabilities of mass producing bread and flour would come to a halt with a large profit loss. This discovery of a way to remove the bran and germ was put back into the wheat we would be living a healthier life. I say we use our new age technology to preserve the natural bread; place the bread in the freezer, or fridge.


Wind Turbines how bad are they?


Today we see these wind turbines going up all over the country side. Many have complained and praised so what is the problem with these wind turbines? They produce non polluting energy is that not a good thing? Well to some it is not and we will look at why people disagree with the construction of wind turbines and why overall they are not that bad as people say.


The terrible things reported on Wind Turbines

  • Noise
  • Visual Impacts
  • Bird/Bat deaths
  • Magnetic Fields Produced


If we didn’t have Wind Turbines for a alternative way to produce energy, we would have more generating stations being built. What does this mean? Well lets look at the bigger picture of the complaints.

  • Noise- If we built a Generating station you will have noise still from the operations nessery to operate the generating station.
  • Visual impacts- Instead of large Wind Turbines you would have a large concrete building with smoke stacks.
  • Death of Birds/Bats – A large building with smoke stacks will have a larger impact on the Bird and Bat population as seen in the chart provided by U.S. NEWS AND REPORT.bird deaths
  • Magnetic Fields – Any kind of generating station will produce a magnetic field. There is no way around this.

So at the end of the day is Wind Turbines are not a terrible way to generate clean energy compared to the alternative ways. Every complaint someone has made against Wind Turbines has been proven that Wind Turbines is the right answer today for creating clean energy.