Posts

Pills, Pills, Pills

This assignment could not have come at a better time because my family gathered for a barbeque over the weekend. At the barbeque, I had the opportunity to ask several family members and friends about their knowledge regarding the medications that have been prescribed to them by a physician. Many were not on a daily drug regimen therefore I asked them to explain the indications and side effects for common over the counter (OTC) drugs such as Tylenol, Aleve and aspirin.

To my surprise, about seventy percent of the people for which I sampled (n=14) were knowledgeable about their personal daily medications. This did not apply to OTC drugs or drugs they were unfamiliar with. They were able to explain what their medication was for, discuss the common side effects they had personally experienced, and also name both the generic and trade name for each. Their extensive knowledge on their medications can be explained in part, because they have been able to successfully manage their chronic diseases for years or because they have work closely in the medical or healthcare field.

pills box

On the other hand, the remaining twenty percent (n=6) had a difficult time explaining medication indications, side effects or the contraindication for some of the more common OTC drugs. Reoccurring key themes included 1) following physician orders without question, 2) inability to recall the information or 3) simply never bothered to look them up. The identification of side effects did not pose too much of a problem because lets face it seems that every medication can cause stomach pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Measuring the proper dosing was a bigger problem than I thought. A couple of people mentioned eyeballing what they assumed to be a teaspoon verse a tablespoon for liquid medications. Others even admitted to taking more than what the label clearly stated. My grandmother referred me to my father who helps her manage her medications. Unfortunately these examples are not uncommon, especially for individuals whom English is not the primary language or are no longer unable to manage their health conditions due to their age as in the case of my grandmother. Fortunately, this assignment opened the discussion about medication safety and proper drug management in my family.

Homeopathic and herbal medications are very common in Mexican heritage and culture. Many of these remedies have been passed down from generations to generation and are built upon hope and faith. I can remember my grandfather going to the back yard to cut aloe vera leafs to treat minor cuts instead of going to the store to by Neosporin. My grandmother is known for grinding several herbs together to make remedy teas for our ailing sore throats. Unfortunately many of these alternative treatment measures have not proven to work or provide better results. Some herbal medicines can in fact be toxic and result in detrimental effects including death. Nonetheless, these traditions have been strongly ingrained and will continue to be performed for years to come.

Automédication #4  / Self medication #4

Roger & Me

In a recent article, University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket claims that the Netflix series “House of Cards” is “the worst show about American Politics. Ever” After elaborating his list of grievances about the show, Masket proclaims: “…if you want to understand American politics, watch just about anything else.”

In 2001 I was invited to participate in the World Affairs Conference at the University of Colorado. The WAC is unique in several regards. Participants are assigned to panels with minimal regard for their expertise. Sessions are valuable for the ability of the panelists to provoke passions, and promote vigorous discussion with the audience. For decades, the World Affairs Conference has attracted prominent individuals who pay their own way to Boulder for the week. Attendees are not paid. This year the Conference celebrates its 67th year.

Among the half-dozen panels scheduled for me was one titled: “The West Wing: Civics for the Masses.” The panel was scheduled for one of the largest rooms at the conference; at least 400-600 people were there, and there was not an open seat in the house.

But they were not there to hear me speak.

Kelly WAC 2001

On stage I was joined by Richard Aregood, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and then-Editor of the opinion page of the Philadelphia Daily News; and Roger Ebert, also a Pulitzer Prize winner, and nationally-renowned movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. For many years Ebert attended the conference, paying his own way, and spending four days deconstructing a movie that he selected, on a first-come-first-seated basis. The sessions were always packed.

As it turns out, the organizers chose the right panelists for a discussion of The West Wing. Aregood admitted to having seen one episode; Ebert none. Upon hearing of my upcoming conference, my then-student John Celock recorded some episodes on video tape for me to watch. I managed to watch three episodes; two more than my Pulitzer-winning compatriots, and three more than I could stand.

My conclusion: It was the worst depiction of American politics I had ever seen. From the lionization of the presidency, to the utter contempt of the West Wing staff for Congress, there was nothing about the show that was a “civics lesson.” And I told the audience.

They did not like it. Not one bit.

What I failed to realize, in retrospect, was that there was not a question mark at the end and of the panel title. It was a declarative statement: West Wing was, in fact, a civics lesson, and the 400 people in the audience would not accept any other conclusion.

Ebert, of course, was far more savvy than the professor from Niagara University. Noting my disdain for the show, and the audience’s displeasure with my critique of it, he remembered for them the letters he received from archaeologists complaining about the inaccuracies in “Indiana Jones.” One should never listen to the criticisms of an expert, he told them. And then, as the love of the audience swelled for him, he promised them that, based on their deep love for the show, he would go back an watch every episode of The West Wing.

The applause was thunderous.

For 90 minutes I was Roger Ebert’s foil. The loved him, and hated me (at least it seemed that way). It was as good as it could get. I loved being the foil. Especially in Boulder.

To this day I have seen only three episodes of The West Wing. I have seen every episode of House of Cards. For my love of Kevin Spacey I choose to remember Roger Ebert, and suspend disbelief. House of Cards is an atrocious depiction of American politics, but great Shakespearean drama.

It is a wonderful piece of art. That was Roger Ebert’s point.

If one is interested in a more real-to-life depiction of American politics in action, I suggest a show from 2003 titled Mister Sterling. Starring Josh Brolin as an appointed Senator from California, this “modern day Mr. Smith goes to Washington” captures quite a few of the details about American politics more accurately than House of Cards or the West Wing.

Then again, it lasted for only 10 episodes and is now long forgotten. Politics and great art do not necessarily go together. Just ask the ghost of Richard III.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CI Projects Selected for the 2015 CSU Student Research Competition

The Student Research Steering Committee selected ten undergraduate research projects to compete in the CSU Student Research Competition. Each campus is allowed to send up to 10 teams to the competition. The 10 projects were selected by an interdisciplinary committee of CI faculty. A total of 17 total entries were received.

Students submitted a 5 page research summary that was evaluated by two anonymous outside faculty reviewers, and the members of the selection committee. Papers were judged based on the quality of the research, and the ability of the author(s) to communicate their work to an interdisciplinary audience.

This year’s competition will be held at CSU San Bernardino, May 1st and 2nd. Students compete based on their written research summary, and an oral presentation to an interdisciplinary panel of judges. Travel for students is supported through funds from the State Lottery, student fees through the Instructionally Related Activities committee, and funding from the CI Foundation.

The 10 projects are:

  • Amanda Dellacort and Ashley Genovese (Business): “MAMMU and Social Business Fashion: Scarves as Symbols of Innovation for Latvian Mothers” Faculty Mentor: Maria Ballesteros-Sola
  • Cameron Embree, Gradon Faulkner, Kevin Scrivnor, and Fred Contrata (Computer Science): “CI Rainbow: An Infrastructure for Environmental and Wildlife Monitoring” Faculty Mentor: Andrzej Bieszczad
  • Gradon Faulkner (Physics) “Optimization of Associative Memory” Faculty Mentor: Geoff Dougherty
  • Shane Kennedy, Joshua Mytych, Katlynn Carter, and Stephanie Soriano (Biology): “Targeting Growth and Invasiveness in Cancer Cells” Faculty Mentor: Nitika Parmar
  • Jiovana Hermosillo (Chemistry): “The Effects of Coacervation on Polyelectrolyte Complexes” Faculty Mentor: Erin Lamb
  • Robert Camin and Lisa Marie Clark (Political Science): “Birds of a Feather: Congressional Foreign Travel and the Decline of Bipartisanship” Faculty Mentor: Sean Kelly
  • Cassandra Ludwig (Sociology): “The Relationship Between Ventura County Commission for Women and Ventura County Board of Supervisors” Faculty Mentor: Matthew Cook
  • Jason Amurao, Cesar Rivera, and Miguel Velazquez (Nursing): “The Effect of Using Mobile Technology for Patient Education on Nursing Student Self-Efficacy” Faculty Mentor: Jaime Hannans
  • Corie Hill and Amber Kramer (Chemistry): “Determination of Total Mercury in the Top Three Consumed Seafood Products in the United States” Faculty Mentor: Simone Aloisio
  • Andrew Carrillo and Grant Crater (Political Science): “You’ve Got to Support the Team: Partisan Fund-Raising and Assignments to the House Appropriations Committee” Faculty Mentor: Sean Kelly

The ad hoc selection committee was composed of: Matt Cook, Nitika Parmar, Mary McThomas, Luis Sanchez, Cindy Wyels, Jason Miller, Colleen Harris-Keith, Colleen Nevins, and Sean Kelly. Please direct questions about the competition to matthew.cook@csuci.edu.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

From the folks back home

Posted from Cerritos, California, United States.

Hi Pirates!

I am anxiously awaiting your adventures in NOLA. Keep in mind that anybody can read this so remember to communicate is if you were talking to an audience full of people who want to enjoy this experience with you.

its going to be the 10th anniversary of Katrina, so it’s a significant time.

have a wonderful trip Pirates!

Landlubber

 

 

Fracking – good for energy, bad for groundwater

Fracking (hydrofracking) is a largely talked about issue these days.  Getting the stores of natural gases out of the bedrock is helpful and highly useful for the energy needs of the planet.  With petroleum reserves running low, natural gas extracted through fracking has become a very large portion of the total energy for the United States, as well as other parts of the world.  This is good for keeping energy costs from skyrocketing, but the environmental impacts are just now beginning to be understood.

Despite gas company claims that they recover all of the fluid they use during the fracking process, when fracking fluid is pumped down into the wells where natural gas is stored deep in the bedrock, some of the fluid (10-40%) makes its way back up the well boring and leaches out into the surrounding soil.  Through the soil, which is usually unsaturated (lacking moisture content) in the areas where natural oil deposits are located, the fracking fluid can flow outward and is currently seen making its way into aquifers.  This doesn’t sound so bad, until you learn about the components of the fracking fluid.  Natural gas companies will tell you that the majority of the fluid is just water, which is in large part true.  But since the natural gas is held up in pores in rock hundreds of thousands of years old, and deep within the earth, water alone is not usually enough to dispense the gas from it’s stored locations.  To address this purpose, gas companies mix a variety of compounds (surfactants) meant to make the water slipperier, which allows the water to better displace the natural gas in the porous rock.  These surfactants are being found in aquifers near fracking sites, as well as a variety of other compounds that had previously been locked up in the bedrock with the natural gas.

The surfactant components as well as the particles that have been mobilized from deep within the rock bring up a whole new problem for environmental impact monitoring.  Each gas company uses a different mixture of surfactants, and the recipe for them is considered a trade secret, so they do not have to disclose them to the EPA or local agencies whose duty it is to monitor the surrounding areas for contamination.  Without knowing exactly what compounds are in the fracking fluids, it is impossible to monitor the movement of those compounds to ensure they do not end up in public water sources.  During water treatment for mass consumption, a series of methods are performed to remove pathogens and toxins that might be present in the water to ensure public safety for water consumption.  But without knowing what compounds are being introduced to the aquifer where the water is being drawn from, it is impossible to accurately develop methods of removing them all from public water.  For the same reason, it is increasingly difficult to ensure proper removal of all compounds that may be brought up from the bedrock from hundreds of thousands of years ago.

On top of other issues that fracking introduces to many areas of the country / globe, these chemical contaminants are of growing concern.  Without regulations on what chemicals are used, or the practice of collecting the fluid after use, it is impossible to initiate proper cleanup methods to ensure the safety of the public water supply.  Natural gas currently provides between 20-30% of the energy in the US, but at what cost?  What toxins is the practice of fracking introducing to the public domain?  And what energy source will replace natural gas when the stores run out?

Meet a SURFer: Christopher MacMahon

“It is the big “F” word that nobody ever wants to discuss. You rarely hear it at forums or conferences, nor will it make an appearance in published work: failure. In today’s environment society tends to view things in the absolute; either one is a failure, or one is a success. Yet research is often fluid, constantly evolving and changing, and an absolute is all but impossible.” Meet SURFer Christopher MacMahon and read about his thoughts on the role of failure in historical research.

Christopher MacMahon


Christopher MacMahon is a history student His interest is in Nineteenth Century American borderlands and plans to obtain a doctorate in history. Click to read his essay “The Role of Failure in Historical Research”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

What is up with H.R. 5, Student Success Act?

f7cd6f79-9739-45f6-a141-c726bafd8322

As I grow into the amazing world of education, I am constantly immersed with new knowledge. This includes the important role the Federal government has in the educational system. As a young Chicana and future educator being informed of legislative changes in education is of great importance to me. It has been my experience that teaching comes with great responsibility. The role of a teacher is not solely based in the classroom, it is his/her active duty to also participate with the community at large. The personal is political. For this reason, I explore how legislation affects the future of all students.

Recently, I came across a letter made to the U.S. House of Representatives by the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), and the Hispanic Education Coalition (HEC).  This letter brought me to seek further knowledge on H.R. 5, the Student Success Act that has been re-introduced to the House as of February 2, 2015. Currently, this bill is still pending passage. Both the NHLA and HEC are opposing this bill and stated, “H.R. 5 violates these principles by block granting Title III programs for English learners, removing performance targets for the academic achievement of Latinos and English learners, and removing accountability for the achievement and learning gains of Latinos and English learners.”

Several concerns arise as I review H.R. 5 and other articles. The controversy can be summed in two topics: funding and the reduced role of the federal government in education. This is a major impact as local districts and states rely on Federal funds for important before/after school programs. Most of this programs include English Language Leaners (ELL) and children with disabilities.

Additionally stated in H.R. 5, funds that are granted to schools are designed to follow low-income students to a school of their parent’s choice. According to a National Review article, “These funds will follow low-income children to the district school or charter school of a parent’s choice. DOES NOT allow a private choice (even when the money is not allowed to go to private schools, leading it to charter schools is one preceding step.”

As a student that grew up in various underserved communities, I am aware on the difficulty of moving to “better” neighborhoods. I have also witnessed my own students face similar challenges. It is not only almost impossible to afford but transportation becomes a major problem. I had to reflect and ask myself, if this is leading towards to the privatization of our educational system? Will students living in poverty have the same advantages in school choice as those that are not?

My take on this is not about supporting or opposing H.R. 5. I simply reflected on my research that indeed, the personal is political. I have no doubt that many “affluent” individuals can identify this. My concern arises from those that are underserved and uninformed. How can a seven year old understand he/she depends on a political agenda? When will parents have the time to read through a 600 page bill while working endlessly to make ends meet?

Rep. Kline whom introduced the bill, stated directly from the House floor: “the legislation eliminates ineffective or duplicative programs so that each dollar makes a direct meaningful and lasting impact in classrooms”.

There is not right or wrong answer. Neither am I seeking to diminish the important role that our government has in many successful educational programs. I do not expect anyone to take my side or vice versa. Let me simply refresh politicians, teachers, parents, and all other advocates that the heart of the matter in education should always be students. Whether it is a five year old in kindergarten or a high school senior. Students are and should be the center of attention. Real change in education rises from the passion to do better for future generations, not placing a tag price on supporting them.