The Analysis of the Poem To his Coy Mistress Essay

The Analysis of the Poem To his Coy Mistress - Essay Example However, the lovers have no such time. ‘Seize the day,’ or carpe diem, in Latin, is how the phrase is translated. However, it literally means, ‘pluck the day.’ One must take the day at its face value and use it to its fullest extent. In other words, seizing the day, we must not waste a moment and/or take it for granted at all. Friendship, however, was an altogether entirely different animal. Friendship is particularly an interesting theme which Shakespeare the depths of which he was able to plumb. Before one every gets into a love relationship or a marriage, it’s important to be prepared in one’s mind, and spirit, for a relationship. One needs to have confidence in one’s friendships first. Friends have to know how to love themselves. This may seem like a no-brainer, but loving oneself is the first step to learn how to love someone else. One should love oneself unconditionally, just the way one is. One must, ultimately, love oneself, firs t and foremost. It’s not being selfish, it’s not being self-centered; one must simply be convinced of the fact that everyone deserves love just as much as anyone else. Loving oneself encompasses so much more than just liking oneself. Additionally, one must earn how to love others. In addition to loving oneself, and being one’s own friend, one must also learn how to love other people. ... One wants to be an emotionally strong person. One should show that one is strong enough to handle relationships by conveying one’s sense of emotional maturity. One must come into one’s own by realizing what is the childish way to handle a situation, and what is the grown-up answer to a problem. Once one takes accountability for one’s actions as a fully-functioning human being, then and only then can one be completely emotionally honest with oneself as well as other people. Without this kind of strength and understanding, it will be difficult to be in a relationship that will last for any length of time. The main importance of this poem, and the factor ‘why we should care,’ is because this poem is a call from the past to recognize the elemental nature of human life: that life is short, and—whether we have friendships and/or lovers, we should learn to cherish both because time passes quickly and, at any rate, is most definitely passing by at a r ate that is faster than we might expect. At the end, climaxing, the poet Marvell clearly states, â€Å"Let us roll our strength†¦into one sweet ball/†¦tearing†¦Through the iron gates of life.†2 Then he talks about making the sun stand still, and yet make it run. Marvell has shown, in this poem, the various epochs of life, why lovers should ‘seize the day,’ and the true meaning of life—that we should live it fully because we never should take our days for granted because we don’t know when it will end. Marvell’s poem speaks to the beauty of nature, the everlasting wonder of love, and touches upon so many chords that strike within us. Ultimately, he touches our hearts by reminding us that

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission Essay Example for Free

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission Essay It is my opinion that if given a choice between a robotic and a manned space based exploration, it is better to execute a robotic mission. It is not worth the cost and risk for humans to simply explore space, except when the goal is specifically colonization. First, a manned mission would be much more technically complicated than a robotic one outweighing any incremental benefit resulting from a human presence. Second, the financial cost of manned missions to overcome the complications is not worth the projected costs. Third, funding robotic missions are indirect investments in aiding the current human condition. That is, the cost saving from robot missions could help relieve current issues here on earth. Lastly, pushing the boundaries of the unknown will always be fascinating to humans, but we would be pushing current human boundaries to explore much further past the moon, with our current technology. Advancements in robot technology can allow us to take the next step in advanced space missions. Some would argue the opposite; some would say that manned missions are essential to quench our curiosity and thirst for uncovering the unknown, our desperate search for answers about the universe, and to find life beyond our planet. There are specific advantages to robotic exploration over human space missions. Space is a dangerous place for humans in many ways; there are many factors working against long term human space travel. There is harsh radiation, zero gravity and the element of time to consider. Radiation, in form of cosmic rays (high energy particles) and other high-energy radiation emitted from our sun, breaks down DNA in our bodies (0), leads to major complications, and poses the largest threat to human space travel. Extended zero gravity exposure leads to bone destiny loss and weakened organs because our physiology evolved having gravity. Time is also a factor against human space travel; we simply cannot go fast enough and live long enough to make it. If we went 123,000 mph with current plasma engines (1) to the closest star, Proxima Centauri – 4. 22 light years away (2), it would take 23 thousands years (2. 1). We cant live that long but robots could possibly go faster and need no protection from anything except sensitive equipment. Robots don’t need to come back, they have no families and we can build new ones. As questions are asked about the cosmos we develop new detectors, telescopes, and probes to answer those questions safely, quickly, and with accuracy. Human space missions are extremely expensive, unsafe, and inefficient(3) compared to robotic ones. A manned mission would most likely involve advanced life support systems, ample social interaction that means more people, food, oxygen, radiation protection, constant exercise, etc. with all systems being mostly self-sustaining or replenishing. This is all equals to weight, cost, time, and research. Also, the effects of zero-gravity and cosmic radiation have not been studied in depth and the long term exposure, could be detrimental(4). Also, the effects on the mind, in the long term, we know little about. (5) Constant isolation and confinement could drive any crew mad. (5. 1) We currently don’t even have spacesuits that protect against radiation. (6) Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley’s chief scientist said, â€Å"What’s affordable is not safe; what’s safe is not affordable. †(7). A robotic mission would not encounter any of these problems and risks. The space shuttle had a price tag of about $450 million per mission and today unmanned payload cost about $12,000 per pound. (8) Most of this cost is associated with the fuel it takes to escape Earth’s orbit which is burned upon take off. The less weight expended the less fuel is required for takeoff, thus saving money to make it worth these endeavors. Assuming we do not colonize the location we plan on exploring, we would want our fellow space explorers to return home to their families safely. This would require a mission plan home, this is more than one mission, an increase in cost and preparation, making a returning virtually impossible. (8. 1) Robotic space missions could directly address and change human conditions on Earth. The possibilities of immediate results on Earth are enticing, new technologies found through the research of problems encountered could lead to advanced propulsion technologies that could give us more efficient methods of travel here on Earth and possibly end our use of fossil fuels. Reaching and exploring asteroids could lead the way to learning how to divert one here on Earth(9). Possible colonization of new worlds can first be explored by robots, giving us an understanding of our true environment and helps us expand, as the human race; not any specific nation or country but for humankind as a whole. Finding new resources from asteroids, moons, and worlds in our solar system could give us a new era of economic stimulus, growth, and hopefully peace. By 2030 we human on Earth will be consuming the resources of two planets annually (10), this is a scary thought and we must prepare for the possibility of expanding our horizons to the new frontier, united as one people for the common good. Some opposing cases have been argued that it is essential for manned missions to be funded. It is very possible for us to reach Mars in one month (11) with a proposed 123,000 MPH plasma engine. This makes it imperative to do so immediately. With less and less standing in our way to colonizing our solar system, we must see these new frontiers with our eyes. New technologies researched for the survival of colonies in space, could bring many positive effects on Earth, such as closed-loop sustainable habitats would give the poor around the world, enough food. 12) This would not be possible, if we sent robots, since they don’t eat. The necessity for manned missions could inadvertently allow us to discover new technologies that will, assuredly help us on Earth. There even is the possibility of a one-way journey for a single candidate to colonize Mars. (13) This would reduce risk, cost, and the lives of other potential settlers. Since, there is no longer the competition of nations to reach space, like the space-race between USA and Russia, but today we work together, â€Å"Like a club of developers. (14) In conclusion, I feel that a robotic mission is the way to explore space. The cost, risk, and benefits gained from a manned mission are just not worth it, when compared to a robotic one. Although, the possibility of many technologies arising from the research aimed toward at solving current hurdles of successful manned missions, we should not to bear the risks associated with them since, robots are extension of ourselves. Endnotes 0: http://schoolworkhelper. net/2011/02/nasa-mission-to-mars-probes-design-dangers/ 1,11,14.

Oil Blends Against Aedes Aegypti (Linn.) and Anopheles Dirus

Oil Blends Against Aedes Aegypti (Linn.) and Anopheles Dirus An in vitro study of the bioefficacy of essential oil blends against Aedes aegypti (Linn.)  and Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison) by using membrane feeding apparatus Nutthanun Auysawasdi1, Sawitri Chuntranuluck1, Vichien Keeratinijakal2,  Siriporn Phasomkusolsil3 and Silas A Davidson3 Abstract This study was performed to determine the bioefficacy of plant essential oils on Aedes aegypti and Anopheles dirus. Repellency was determined by measuring reduction in feeding and mortality. A novel in vitro bioassay apparatus was developed that had a sausage-casing membrane feeding system. Mixtures of three essential oils were evaluated: turmeric (Curcuma longa), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), and orange (Citrus aurantium). The oils were mixed in pairs or all together at equal volume for a total of 10% volume and then formulated with 90% virgin coconut oil. Complete formulations were evaluated with and without an additional 5% vanillin. The formulations were applied to the sausage casing membranes and female mosquitoes provided (expose) blood meals (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4 h) to assess the percentage repellency over time. The results showed that the strongest repellency was at shorter exposure periods. For Ae. aegypti, the strongest feeding reduction was with the turmer ic and eucalyptus combination and with the addition of vanillin (97.6-99.6%). For An. dirus, the strongest repellency was when all three oils were combined (98.4-99.6%). Vanillin increased the effects of repellency and mortality for all formulations and demonstrated an increased potential to enhance the bioefficacy of essential oil repellents. This study also demonstrated an in vitro membrane feeding system that can be used to screen essential oils. Keywords: Aedes aegypti, Anopheles dirus, Essential oil, Repellent, Membrane feeding system Introduction Mosquito-borne infectious diseases, such as dengue fever and malaria, are increasing each year, which may be due to the effects of global warming and climate change (Aguiar 2011). Dengue virus is primarily transmitted by Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes and is the primary vector throughout the global distribution of dengue (Guzman et al. 2010). Malaria is transmitted by anopheline mosquitoes and the primary vectors are unique to different geographical locations. Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison) is considered one of the most important vectors in Thailand and Southeast Asia (Sinka et al. 2011). Both of these diseases are difficult to manage because there are no available vaccines, and in the case of dengue, there are no therapeutic drugs (Halstead 2014). Efforts to control these diseases often focus on vector control and preventive strategies to minimize mosquito bites. The use of topical insect repellents applied to the skin is a proven method to reduce mosquito bites. There is a long history of using plant derived extracts to reduce mosquito bites. However, since the development of modern synthetic repellents in the 1940s, natural repellents have been largely replaced by synthetic chemicals (Debboun et al. 2006). Currently there is a renewed interest in using plant-based insect repellents due to concerns about safety and the preference for products that are considered more natural (Gerberg et al. 2007). Several essential oils and volatile compounds from a multitude of plants have been found to possess repellent properties against arthropods (Curtis et al. 1990). These plant derived chemicals often repel mosquitoes, but there is a wide variability between mosquito species (Kumar et al. 2011). Compounds that repel mosquitoes have been found in the following plant families: Graminae (Pushpanathan et al. 2006), Labiateae (Odalo et al. 2005), Lamiaceae (Ansari et al. 2000), Myrtaceae (Phukerd Soonwera 2014), Poaceae and Rutaceae (Trongtokit et al. 2005), Umbelliferae (Erler et al. 2006), and Zingiberaceae (Tawatsin et al. 2001). This study evaluated essential oils from the plants turmeric (Curcuma longa L., Family:Zingiberaceae), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus Labill, Family: Rutaceae) and orange (Citrus aurantium L. Family: Myrtaceae). It is known that turmeric contains the chemical ar-turmerone that is repellent to arthropods (Su et al. 1982). The eucalyptus plant contains important active ingredient such as 1-8, cineole, ÃŽÂ ±- and ÃŽÂ ²-pinene that can repel various mosquito species (Yang et al. 2004). Mosquito repellents are often tested by using the arm in cage technique (World Health Organization 2009). This method allows mosquitoes to feed directly on human volunteers and has several disadvantages, such as the pain and discomfort associated with mosquito feeding, the requirement for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the limited number of candidate repellents that can be screened at one time (Deng et al. 2014). Even though the direct evaluation of repellents on human skin remains essential for evaluating repellents, artificial membrane feeding systems can serve as a useful alternative when pre-selecting candidate repellents (Luo 2014). The use of artificial membrane feeding systems is largely dependent on the types of membranes, including animal tissues, Parafilm-M ® films, and collagen membranes (Friend Smith 1987; Pothikasikorn et al. 2010). This paper evaluated the efficacy of essential oils from turmeric rhizomes (TU), eucalyptus leaves (EU) and orange peels (OR). These oils were evaluated individually in a previous study using the arm in cage method compared to the synthetic repellent DEET (N,N-diethyl 1-3 methylbenzamide 25% w/w; KOR YOR 15) (Auysawasdi et al. 2016). This study looked at the same three chemicals but combined them in mixtures to determine if there was a synergistic effect. Also each mixture was evaluated with or without 5% vanillin extract. Vanillin was added because other studies have found that it extends the amount of time that certain natural products are effective against mosquitoes (Tawatsin et al. 2001). Materials and Methods Mosquitoes rearing Ae. aegypti and An. dirus were reared in the insectary of the Entomology Department, Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS), Bangkok, Thailand. The photoperiod was maintained at 12 h light/12 h dark with a temperature of 25 ±2 °C and a relative humidity of 60-80%.Filter papers containing eggs of Ae. aegypti were placed in plastic trays (30ÃÆ'-35ÃÆ'-5 cm) with 2,500 ml of distilled water and larvae were provided fish food tablets (HIPPO ®). After one day, newly hatched larvae were diluted to about 500 larvae per tray for density and population. For An. dirus, approximately 150 eggs were added to a plastic tray and larvae provided fresh powdered fish food until pupation. The pupae of both species were collected and placed in holding cages until adult emergence. Freshly emerged adults were allowed to feed on soaked cotton pads containing a 5% multivitamin solution ad libitum. All testing was performed using five to seven day old post-emergent females that w ere denied sugar and only provided water for eight hours before testing. Preparation of plant essential oils Extracts from many of the plants are available commercially. Eucalyptus leaf oil (New Directions Aromatics Inc.,USA), Orange peel oil (New Directions Aromatics Inc., USA) and Vanillin (Borregaard Industries Ltd. Company, Norway) were purchased from Chanjao Longevity Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand. Extracts from the turmeric plant were not available commercially. Therefore, turmeric rhizomes were collected from Suwan Farm, Pak Chong, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Essential oils were extracted by water distillation (Charles Simon 1990). The different essential oils were blended at equal ratios for a total volume of 10% and then mixed with virgin coconut oil (Agrilife Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand) using a vortex mixer (Vortex-Genie ®2, Scientific Industries, Inc., USA) (Table 1). The coconut oil was chosen because it created a formulation similar to what would be applied to human skin. All formulations were kept at room temperature before testing. Repellency assay by feeding membrane apparatus Repellency of essential oil blends was examined for Ae. aegypti and An. dirus under laboratory conditions using a membrane feeding system.Fifty 5-7 day old female mosquitoes were selected and placed in plastic cups (8 cm dia. ÃÆ'- 8 cm high) covered with netting. A membrane feeding system was used with a sausage membrane stretched over a standard membrane feeder with a surface area of 3.14 cm2 (r=1) and secured with a rubber band. Before feeding, either 10  µl of each mixture or 10  µl of coconut oil (negative control) was pipetted onto the sausage-casing membrane and spread evenly with the tip of the pipette. The treated membranes were allowed to dry and mosquitoes provided blood meals (exposed) at eight different time intervals (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4 hours) after application. A water feeding jacket was used to maintain the temperature of the feeding system at 37 °C. Approximately 1.5 mL of refrigerated (25 °C) human blood (Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thail and) was added to the glass feeder and allowed to warm to 37 °C. Then screened plastic cups of 50 female mosquitoes were allowed to feed for five minutes undisturbed. After the 5-min interval the membrane feeder was removed and unengorged mosquitoes were removed. Fully engorged mosquitoes and provided a sugar source and maintained in their containers in the insectary at 25 ±2 °C for 24 hours and then the number of dead mosquitoes counted. Data analysis Each mixture of essential oils was replicated five times (n=5) andresults presented as the mean  ± standard deviation (SD). To assess the significance of differences among groups, data were analyzed as a complete randomized design (CRD) with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncans multiple range test (DMRT). A p-value of For comparison, percentage repellency was calculated for each test using the following formula: % Repellency = ÃÆ'- 100(1) Where A is the number of mosquitoes that did not feed on the treated membrane and B is the total number of mosquitoes exposed. Feeding was calculated as: % Feeding = ÃÆ'- 100 (2) Mortality was calculated as: % Mortality = ÃÆ'- 100(3) Mortality per hour = (4) Where D is the number of dead mosquitoes 24 hours after blood feeding, F is the total number of mosquitoes which fed on treated membranes, and h is the period of time that the extracts was left on the membrane. The number of mosquitoes which not feed on the membrane of each formulation was used to calculate the repellency per hour after application by the following formula: Repellency per hour = (5) Where A is the number of mosquitoes that did not feed on the membrane and h is the period of time that the extracts was on membrane. Results The efficacy of various formulations of selected essential oils (10% Total volume) with and without 5% vanillin, are presented in Figure 1. Shorter exposure times consistently resulted in lower feeding rates of both Ae. aegypti and An. dirus to all formulations. Feeding rates increased over time after application of formulations to the membranes. The addition of vanillin decreased feeding rates for all formulations. The greatest reduction in Ae. aegypti feeding was with the turmeric and eucalyptus mixture (TU:EU, Figure 1c). The greatest reduction in An. dirus feeding was with turmeric, eucalyptus, and orange mixed together (TU:EU:OR, Figure 1f). Mortality rates are also shown in Figure 1. Mortality rates were decreased based on time after application of formulations to the membranes. The greatest and most consistent mortalities for Ae. aegypti were the mixtures of TU:OR with and without vanillin (Figure 1a) and the mixture of EU:OR with vanillin (Figure 1d). The greatest mortality for An. dirus females was with the mixture of EU:OR with vanillin (Figure 1h). The percentage of repellency of all formulations against Ae. aegypti decreased with increasing exposure times (Table 2). The strongest percentage of repellency without vanillin was observed with the mixture of TU:EU (90.8-98.4%), followed by EU:OR (89.6-98.8%), and TU:OR (84.8-98.8%). The lowest percentage of repellency was observed for the mixture of all three plant extracts (TU:EU:OR, 81.2-94.8%). The percentage of repellency for all essential oil combinations with vanillin was not statistically different between any of the formulations without vanillin. The mixture of TU:EU provided the most repellency at 3.5 and 4 hours with and without vanillin. There were no statistical differences between the repellency of any formulations against An. dirus with or without vanillin, except for EU:OR+vanillin after 3 hours (Table 3). The highest percentage of overall repellency was observed for the combination of all three plant extracts (TU:EU:OR) and with the mixture of TU:OR. Overall, there were a positive correlation for formulations that produced the most repellency and increased mortality (Figure 2). For both Ae. aegypti (Figure 2a) and An. dirus (Figure 2b), the ratio of mortality per hour of formulations with vanillin was greater than without vanillin. Similarly, the repellency per hour of the four formulations with vanillin was stronger than without vanillin. Discussion Essential oils can have a significant effect on mosquito feeding rates (repellency) and mortality. For all formulations, exposure at 0.5 h after application of plant extracts to the artificial membrane resulted in greater repellency and higher mortality. Whereas, at 4 h after application there was increased feeding (decreased repellency) and lower mortality. These are consistent with many other studies demonstrating that plant extracts are volatile and lose their efficacy over time after application (Reifenrath Rutledge 1983; Rutledge Gupta 1999). The different mixtures led to different outcomes. The combination of TU:EU resulted in the highest repellency for Ae. aegypti, whilethe combination of all three essential oils (TU:EU:OR) gave the least repellency. Currently, the combination of all three extracts (TU:EU:OR) provided the greatest repellency against An. dirus. These results showed that the two mosquito species have different responses to the three plant-derived essential oils tested. It also demonstrated that the efficacy of each formulation is based on the compatibility of active ingredients and these compounds produce different effects when combined together. There are other reports showing that essential oils from plants are synergistic. Nerio et al. (2010) reported synergistic actions many plant essential oils used in this study that increased the repellency of formulations that would be expected from individual essential oils. Liu et al. (2006) found that the repellent activity of mixing essential oils from Japanes e mugwort (Artemisia princeps) and cinnamon (Cinnamomum camphora) was greateragainst Sitophillus oryzae and Bruchus rugimanus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) than that elicited by individual oils. The results also showed that the addition of 5% vanillin significantly decreased feeding rates and increased mortality. Studies have shown that vanillin reduces the evaporation rate of active ingredients and therefore extends the protection time (repellency) (Tawatsin et al. 2001). It is believed that vanillin changes the volatile composition of essential oils and also has an effect on the gustatory processes of mosquitoes (Lee et al. 2010; Ali et al. 2012). In this study the effect of vanillin was often more evident at increased time after application. It is recommended that vanillin be considered included as an ingredient for future natural product repellents. Finally this study presented a unique method to evaluate repellent formulations using a sausage membrane casing as part of a membrane feeding system. The arm in cage method has been used to evaluate many essential oil formulations (Choochote et al. 2007). While the arm in cage method is the gold standard for evaluating repellents, a membrane feeding system offers several advantages in that it can be quickly performed, standardly replicated, and does not require human volunteers. (Huang et al. 2015; Cockcroft et al. 1998). This method could be developed to rapidly screen, evaluate, and select the most promising formulations before they are tested on human volunteers. Acknowledgments This study is a research collaboration between the Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand and the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS), Bangkok, Thailand. The authors are deeply grateful to the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Science (AFRIMS) for facilitating and supporting the research. Finally, the authors thank the insectary staff; Kanchana Pantuwattana, Jaruwan Tawong, Nantaporn Monkanna, Yossasin Kertmanee, Weeraphan Khongtak and Sakon Khaosanorh for teaching and supporting this work. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. References   Aguiar M (2011) The effect of global warming on vector-borne diseases: Comment on Modeling the impact of global warming on vector-borne infections by E. Massad et al. Phys Life Rev, 8, 202-203. Ali A, Cantrell CL, Bernier UR, Duke SO, Schneider JC, Agramonte NM, et al. (2012) Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) biting deterrence: structure-activity relationship of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids. Journal of Medical Entomology, 49, 1370-1378. Ansari M, Vasudevan P, Tandon M Razdan R (2000) Larvicidal and mosquito repellent action of peppermint (Mentha piperita) oil. Bioresource Technology, 71, 267-271. Auysawasdi N, Chuntranuluck S, Phasomkusolsil S Keeratinijakal V (2016) Improving the effectiveness of three essential oils against Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison). Parasitology Research, 115, 99-106. Charles DJ Simon JE (1990) Comparison of extraction methods for the rapid determination of essential oil content and composition of basil. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 115, 458-462. Choochote W, Chaithong U, Kamsuk K, Jitpakdi A, Tippawangkosol P, Tuetun B, et al. (2007) Repellent activity of selected essential oils against Aedes aegypti. Fitoterapia, 78, 359-364. Cockcroft A, Cosgrove J Wood R (1998) Comparative repellency of commercial formulations of deet, permethrin and citronellal against the mosquito Aedes aegypti, using a collagen membrane technique compared with human arm tests. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 12, 289-294. Curtis C, Lines J, Lu B Renz A (1990) Natural and synthetic repellents. Appropriate Technology in Vector Control, 75-92[Elz Ã‚ ¤1]. Debboun M, Frances SP Strickman D (2006) Insect repellents: principles, methods, and uses, CRC Press. Deng W, Zhu N Mo J (2014) In vitro bioassay methods for laboratory screening of novel mosquito repellents. Entomological Science, 17, 365-370. Erler F, Ulug I Yalcinkaya B (2006) Repellent activity of five essential oils against Culex pipiens. Fitoterapia, 77, 491-494. Friend W Smith J (1987) The study of insect blood-feeding behaviour: 1. Feeding equipment, physical and endogenous factors, dose effect analysis, and diet destination. Memà ³rias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 82, 11-17. Gerberg EJ, Novak RJ, Debboun M, Frances S Strickman D (2007) Considerations on the use of botanically-derived repellent products. In: Gerberg EJ Novak RJ (Eds.) Insect Repellents: Principles, Methods and Uses. Guzman MG, Halstead SB, Artsob H, Buchy P, Farrar J, Gubler DJ, et al. (2010) Dengue: a continuing global threat. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 8, S7-S16. Halstead SB (2014) Stumbles on the path to dengue control. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 14, 661-662. Huang TH, Tien NY Luo YP (2015) An in vitro bioassay for the quantitative evaluation of mosquito repellents against Stegomyia aegypti (= Aedes aegypti) mosquitoes using a novel cocktail meal. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 29, 238-244. Kumar S, Wahab N Warikoo R (2011) Bioefficacy of Mentha piperita essential oil against dengue fever mosquito Aedes aegypti L. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 1, 85-88. Lee Y, Kim SH Montell C (2010) Avoiding DEET through insect gustatory receptors. Neuron, 67, 555-561. Liu C, Mishra A, Tan R, Tang C, Yang H Shen Y (2006) Repellent and insecticidal activities of essential oils from Artemisia princeps and Cinnamomum camphora and their effect on seed germination of wheat and broad bean. Bioresource Technology, 97, 1969-1973. Luo YP (2014) A novel multiple membrane bloodâ‚ ¬Ã‚ feeding system for investigating and maintaining Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Journal of Vector Ecology, 39, 271-277. Nerio LS, Olivero-Verbel J Stashenko E (2010) Repellent activity of essential oils: a review. Bioresource Technology, 101, 372-8. Odalo JO, Omolo MO, Malebo H, Angira J, Njeru PM, Ndiege IO, et al. (2005) Repellency of essential oils of some plants from the Kenyan coast against Anopheles gambiae. Acta Tropica, 95, 210-218. Phukerd U Soonwera M (2014) Repellency of essential oils extracted from Thai native plants against Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say). Parasitology Research, 113, 3333-40. Pothikasikorn J, Boonplueang R, Suebsaeng C, Khaengraeng R Chareonviriyaphap T (2010) Feeding response of Aedes aegypti and Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culicidae) using out of date human blood in a membrane feeding apparatus. Journal of Vector Ecology, 35, 149-155. Pushpanathan T, Jebanesan AGovindarajan M (2006) Larvicidal, ovicidal and repellent activities of Cymbopogan citratus Stapf (Graminae) essential oil against the filarial mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) (Diptera: Culicidae). Tropical Biomedicine, 23, 208-212. Reifenrath WG Rutledge LC (1983) Evaluation of mosquito repellend formulations. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 72, 169-173. Rutledge L Gupta R (1999) Variation in the protection periods of repellents on individual human subjects: an analytical review. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 15, 348-355. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Chareonviriyaphap T, Patil AP, Temperley WH, et al. (2011) The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic prà ©cis. Parasites Vectors, 4, 89. Spss I (2007) for windows, version 16.0. SPSS, Chicago, IL. Su HC, Horvat R Jilani G (1982) Isolation, purification, and characterization of insect repellents from Curcuma longa L. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 30, 290-292. Tawatsin A, Wratten SD, Scott RR, Thavara U Techadamrongsin Y (2001) Repellency of volatile oils from plants against three mosquito vectors. Journal of Vector Ecology, 26, 76-82. Trongtokit Y, Rongsriyam Y, Komalamisra N Apiwathnasorn C (2005) Comparative repellency of 38 essential oils against mosquito bites. Phytotherapy Research, 19, 303-309. World Health Organization (2009) Guidelines for efficacy testing of mosquito repellents for human skins. WHO, Geneva, 4 Yang YC, Choi HY, Choi WS, Clark JM Ahn YJ (2004) Ovicidal and adulticidal activity of Eucalyptus globulus leaf oil terpenoids against Pediculus humanus capitis (Anoplura: Pediculidae). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52, 2507-11. [Elz Ã‚ ¤1]It has no volume

Mary Shellys Frankenstein - A Victim of Society Essay -- Frankenstein

Mary Shelly's Frankenstein - A Victim of Society The creature Victor Frankenstein describes in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is far from a villain, at least in the traditional sense. This creature is a victim of circumstance, scarred by society, and scorned by its own creator. Contrary to the Christian belief in original sin, I sympathize with the monster's view on life when he states: "I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend" (Shelly 78). I disagree with the idea that all men are born sinners, I feel that all men are born pure and clean. It is only their future actions that make them imperfect. A true relationship between the monster and Victor never existed. Victor is similar to a man who fathers a child only for the pleasure of "doing it," ignoring the circumstances it may bring. Victor was so thrilled to see the components of his creation coming together - indeed it was truly a thing of beauty to him. But like the biological father, he is only excited over the thrill of "doing it." After the sensation and pleasure of creation ends responsibility begins and Victor, like our modern day deadbeat dads, refuses to face the consequences of his actions. Any relationship that existed between these two was simply that of usury - except the currency was not gold or silver, but fame and pride. Victor hoped to use his creation in a selfish manner, only to gain recognition for himself. So what did the creature gain from all of this? He certainly was not the recipient of any pleasure. And as far as exploitation, he never had a chance to exploit his creator, his creator only exploited and abandoned him. The monster is not merely a madman murdering random individuals; he is a creation of war, fightin... ...reature for his wrongs. Frankenstein should teach us an important lesson about our own society. We have to be careful not to assume everyone has had the same opportunity as the next man, or to assume a person is nothing more than a misfit because he stumbled into some trouble. When the creature mourns over Victor's dead body, we see he is human like anyone else. He cries, he apologizes, and he breaks down. Like going to jail . . . where a person is broke down and circumstance prompts them to ponder the situation they have fallen into. Most so-called criminals in America are not evil; they are victims of a society, situation, or lack of knowledge that has put them in that position - just like the monster. Work Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Edited with an Introduction and notes by Maurice Hindle. Penguin books, 1992

Babies Behind Bars

The rate of women being incarcerated in prisons has dramatically risen over the last decade. While these women are being locked up for crimes ranging from drug possession to murder, they often come into the prison system with children or pregnant. Nationwide, nearly 2 million children have parents in prison. The number of those with incarcerated mothers is growing rapidly. A recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the number of minors with mothers in prison increased by more than 100 percent in the last 15 years [ (Schwartzapfel, 2008) ].While some women must give up their children before or after they enter prison, a handful of women get to keep their children. These women serve their sentences at one of nine prisons that have prison nurseries. However, not all women are afforded this privilege which comes with strict qualifications. A prison nursery is a program that allows a child born to an incarcerated women to remain in the care of its mother for a restri cted amount of time within a correctional facility [ (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009) ].Prison nurseries in the United States are only open to mothers who give birth to their children while they are serving their sentence. Prison nurseries are not fairly new to the United States. In the 1950s, many women's prisons had nurseries in which infants could stay with their mothers from several weeks to two years, depending on the institution. Within two decades, every state except New York closed them. The nurseries were deemed too expensive, the mothers too ruined and the babies too precious for such an environment [ (Kauffman, 2001) ].The only program left operating was at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in Bedford Hills, New York. The Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, which is a maximum security facility, has the oldest prison nursery in the United States. Opening its doors in 1901, the pr ogram is also the largest, having space for 29 mother/infant pairs. Women live with their babies in bright rooms stuffed with donated toys and clothes.During the day, while the women attend DOC-mandated drug counseling, anger management, vocational training and parenting classes, their children attend a day care staffed by inmates who have graduated from an intensive two-year Early Childhood Associate vocational training program (Schwartzapfel, 2008). Qualifications to participate in the program are stringent. Several aspects of a woman’s past are examined before she can participate in the nursery.This includes determining who is going to have custody of the child, if the mother has a history of involvement with the child-welfare system, the length of her sentence, past episodes of incarceration, and the nature of her crime. Women who have committed arson or who have a history of child abuse are not eligible for the nursery. At Bedford Hills the infant can stay for up to 18 m onths if the mother will be paroled by then, otherwise the child must leave the facility at 12 months of age (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009).There are currently prison nursery programs in nine states: California, Illinois, New York, Nebraska, Washington, Ohio, Indiana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Many of these programs started within the last few years. These programs are relatively rare and focus on the concept of the bond formed between mother and child within the first two years of life. Taconic Correctional Facility, also located in Bedford Hills, New York, was the second facility to host a prison nursery program. Opening in 1990, it models the first program; the qualifications and length of stay for infants are similar.However, Taconic only houses 15 mother/infant pairs. Nebraska opened its prison nursery program in 1994. The Nebraska Correctional Center for Women, located in York, Nebraska, hol ds 15 mother/infant pairs. Infants are allowed to stay up to 18 months in the Parenting Program. To participate in the nursery the mother must give birth while in state custody and not have a violent criminal record. She also should not have any serious mental health concerns. A screening committee reviews each case before women are placed in the nursery.The mother must be able to complete her sentence by the time the child is 18 months old to be eligible (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009). Four years later, Pierre, South Dakota opened its prison nursery in the South Dakota Women’s Prison. The Mother-Infant Program is the only prison nursery that doesn’t have a limit to how many infants can stay. However, it has the shortest length of stay being thirty days. Women who give birth while in custody are allowed to participate in the program as long as the mother's crime was non-violent in nature.Al l expenses related to the baby's care are the responsibility of the mother, including health care expenses. Mothers keep their infants in their cells. Other women at the facility are able to take classes to become babysitters and the mothers are able to choose who they would like to act as their babysitter. The Washington Correctional Center for Women in Gig Harbor, Washington, opened its doors to a prison nursery in 1999. To qualify for the Residential Parenting Program, the mother’s sentence must be completed within three years of giving birth. The women must also be classified as minimum custody and be convicted of a non-violent offense.The program houses 20 mother/infant pairs and allows the infants to stay up to 36 months (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009). Marysville, Ohio implemented its prison nursery at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in 2001. The program houses 20 mothers and up to 21 infants . Infants stay for a maximum of 18 months. To qualify for the Achieving Baby Care Success Program, women must give birth while in state custody and cannot have a violent criminal record. Women must attend family training courses, adhere to rules and be in good mental and physical condition.Only women who are serving a sentence of 18 months or less at the time of delivery are eligible. The Moms and Babies Program at Decatur Correctional Center in Decatur, Illinois started in 2007. The capacity for the program is 5 mother/infant pairs with infants staying up to 24 months. A woman must have committed a non-violent offense and be within two years of release after giving birth (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009). The more recent nursery programs were started in the last four years.Indiana, California, and West Virginia were the last states of the nine to implement prison nurseries. Because the programs are newer, various changes are still being made. In 2008, Indiana Women’s Prison, in Indianapolis, Indiana, established its prison nursery. The Wee Ones Nursery Program houses 10 mother/infants pairs and 4 nannies. To participate in the program the child must be born in custody and the mother must be eligible for release by the time the child is 18 months old. Mothers and nannies who have been convicted of child abuse or a violent crime are not eligible to participate. The final two prison nurseries started in 2009.Corona, California started its Mother-Child Reunification Program at California Institution for Women. The program can hold up to 16 women: 10 with infants and 6 who are pregnant. Like most programs, the infants stay up to 18 months. After women spend up to 18 months in the nursery they will be transitioned onto parole or into a community-based program such as the Community Prison Mothers Program. In addition to the planned nursery, the facility runs a child-visiting program and mother-father mediation program. All pregnant women are placed in this institution and other women can request to be sentenced or transferred here.West Virginia’s Lakin Correctional Center for Women, located in West Columbia, has the KIDS Unit program. KIDS, Keeping Infant Development Successful, is available to pregnant women who are within 18 months of release or parole. The nursery is made up of modular homes located outside the prison’s perimeter fence. To participate in the nursery the mother must not have been convicted of a sex crime or a crime against a child and must be free of disciplinary write-ups (Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative, 2009).Many experts believe that prison nurseries increase the bond between mother and child and lowers recidivism rates. Chandra Villanueva, Policy Associate at WPA and author of the report commented, â€Å"Prison nursery programs keep mothers and infants together during the critical first months of infant development, and the research shows that these programs produce lower rates of recidivism among participating mothers. † (Women's Prison Association, 2009).Researchers studying prison nurseries found that â€Å"infants who lived with their mothers for a year or more in the prison nursery program were significantly more likely to be securely attached in spite of their mothers’ insecurity than those who were released earlier. † â€Å"Development of an attachment relationship is a long and fragile process and requires ongoing supports for mothers raising infants in prison nurseries, for future alternate caregivers living in the community, and for the children who will ultimately experience a multitude of environmental risks. † (Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl, 2010).On the other hand, some believe that babies don’t belong in prison, for their primary role is punishment and rehabilitation. Not to mention that the programs are expensive, averaging about $24,000 a year per infant (Schiavocampo, 2010). As the number of incarcerated women continues to grow, we can expect to see the number of prison nurseries growing as well. Because the programs have been deemed successful, other states may start implementing them into their prison systems. This gives the mother some form of responsibility while she is incarcerated without separating her from the child.However, we should focus more on keeping women out of prison than creating more nurseries. Bibliography Byrne, M. , Goshin, L. , & Joestl, S. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of attachment for infants raised in a prison nursery . Attachment and Human Development, 375-393. Kauffman, K. (2001). Mothers in Prison. Corrections Today, 62-65. Mothers, Infants and Imprisonment: A National Look at Prison Nurseries and Community-Based Alternative. (2009, May). Retrieved from Women's Prison Association : http://www. wpaonline. rg/pdf/Mothers%20Inf ants%20and%20Imprisonment%202009. pdf. Schiavocampo, M. (2010, April 13). Reporter's notebook: A look at babies behind bars. Retrieved from The Grio: http://thegrio. com/2010/04/13/reporters-notebook-a-look-at-babies-behind-bars/. Schwartzapfel, B. (2008). Lullabies Behind Bars. Retrieved from Ms. Magazine: http://www. msmagazine. com/Fall2008/LullabiesBehindBars. asp. Women's Prison Association. (2009, July 13). Prison Nursery Programs a Growing Trend in Women’s Prisons. Retrieved from Corrections. com: http://www. corrections. com/news/article/21644.

Coopetition: “united we stand, divided we fall” Essay

When in 2004 I spoke in illywords magazine about coopetition, many people thought I had used a neologism. We said, that coopetition is not short on dissociated thinking as it entails being co-operative and competitive at the same time. It seemed to be absurd! Nowadays it would be hard to conceive a world divided with walls or any kind of barriers. What’s needed instead is bearing into mind and putting into practise the old but nevertheless true motto †united we stand, divided we fall† when we handle with a good idea that requires a strong commitment together with a considerable outlay of financial and human resources. Professor Yaneer Bar Yam, expert of complex models and President of the New England Complex System Institute said that in the near future ten billion of human beings will be linked one another in an ongoing exchange process able to create a sort of â€Å"hyper-individual† whose creative potential is at this point in time still inconceivable. I am firmly convinced that human evolution should benefit from the mutual exchange even if competitive. Today we celebrate the 7th billion new born. We are not so far from what professor Bar Yem predicted, but I have the feeling that we still face great competition and less cooperation in our way of working and living. Is there any young person or group of young people that is using the concept of coopetition in their life, studies or work? I’d like to hear your voice. Coopetition is a very interesting term. It brings to mind an aspect of business that you may not align with the seemingly cut-throat nature of the coffee wars. Yet, I found an article I enjoyed in The Economist (again!) recently titled â€Å"Head Barista† on that very subject. You would think a person in Andrea Illy‘s position, as captain of the family business that was started in 1933, would be shaking in his Italian leather boots about the rise of Starbucks over the past decade. He is not. He views this as healthy coopetition. He is quoted in Economist article as saying â€Å"Eight years ago people talked of coffee as a commodity; now, nobody does†. In a fast-paced world of drive-through swill, Illy stands out even more today as a distinct brand. In fact, as you can see their â€Å"Beauty has a Taste† tagline is perfectly aligned with what their brand represents and the expectation they have set. Illy espresso machines are pieces of art. And, their specially crafted limited-edition Espresso cup sets can fetch as high as several hundred dollars each. Many editions are already highly valued collector items. Why do I care about Illy? Well, I start each and every day with a home-brewed shot of espresso – albeit in a Starbucks Barista machine (if anyone at Illy wants to send me one of theirs to do a comparison test, I’d happily comply). That being said, I like my Starbucks a whole lot too. So, if you love coffee they way I do and know the difference between brews and beans, Illy is simply one of the best. They come by it honestly as the Economist article reveals, â€Å"Mr. Illy is a chemistry graduate – at university he wrote a thesis on the â€Å"Quality of Espresso from a Chemical Perspective†. Want to bet his Dad helped him a bit with that paper? The next phase for Illy is to open â€Å"Espressamente Illy† cafes worldwide as â€Å"advertisements for the brand† as well as remaining focused on sending a clear message that Illy produces coffee â€Å"according to the highest ethical standards† in terms of the fair-trade market. Andrea, if you are ever in Toronto, or plan to open an Espressamente Illy here, I’ll be there with cup in hand. Mr. Illy, you make good coffee.