FrankenFoods

Koh's Blog Thoughts

Koh’s Blog Thoughts

After reading my blogs from the beginning of the course, I realized that I started to have more to say in the later ones. At first, I was sort more reserved and sort of held things back. I think that I was simply aware that other students would be reading my blogs and had to comment on them, so I sort of stayed away from expressing my actual point of view on certain subjects. As I got more into the books, I start to show more interest in the subject because of my increasing knowledge and growing opinion. I really liked my blog on David Maywhoor because I was really irritated with his presentation. During his whole lecture, I kept getting tired of him telling us the problem that exists and never giving a solution. I was just so annoyed with his complaining about something and lack of action because talking to us about it wasn’t going to fix the logging issue that he presented to us, so why would he be wasting his time with us when he could be looking for an alternative. This really got me going and my opinion is shown in the post. My least favorite blog is my post on the first reading of Lost Mountain. I mostly didn’t like it because of how it didn’t seem to spark any interest in my readers. Everyone that commented simply said, “I agree…” and didn’t have much else to say that I didn’t already say. I think that this sort of reflected my lack of depth in the post. They weren’t discussing much because I don’t think I wrote anything very noteworthy. However, as the reading of Lost Mountain progressed and we started to have more discussions in class, my blogs started to develop more and I began including more of my own thoughts in the blogs. I think that this is because I started to become more comfortable with the people that would be reading my blogs. In my later comments, I started to include my opinion more on the subjects that people talked about in Lost Mountain. In the second section of reading Lost Mountain, I commented on a few people’s posts how I thought really thought on the issues. Specifically, on Chelsea Stoner’s blog, it is apparent that I have a pretty solid opinion on the matter of the people staying in their hometown that is being destroyed from mountain top removal. I feel like others have had a similar experience as I have had in that comments in later posts seem more opinionated and offer further discussion on the blogs. After watching the movie “Food, Inc” and then blogging about it along with the first part of the reading, I noticed that people were really getting into the subject matter and thinking more into the problems that were presented in the film. It was good to see that others were getting just as interested as I was about the food industry and how much is actually affects us indirectly. This was cool because the comments began to become more of a discussion because people’s opinions were more prominent than previous posts. This most certainly helped with the course readings because it allowed for me to see other people’s opinions and even raised awareness to things I missed in the reading. The film, I think, should have been shown after the reading because I started to lose motivation to read supplement to something that I just watched. It would be better if we’d watched it after reading because the whole time we would read the book, we’d want to watch the movie that it hypes up. Overall, the blogs were a good learning tool that enhanced my learning of the environmental issues covered in class. It took a different route in teaching us how to form and express our opinions.

Argument Bibliography

Argument Bibliography

Avasthi, Amitabh. GM Crops: Pest Resistant Crops better Than Insecticide Use, Analysis Says. 07 June 2007. Web. 7 Feb 2010. <http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2007/06/gm_crops_pestresistant_crops_b.html>.

Domingo, Jose. “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, p. 721-733.

Roseboro, Ken. Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”. January 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2010. <http://www.thenon-gmoreport.com/articles/dec08/gm_food_safey_testing_inadequate.php>.

Sakko, Kerryn. The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods. Web. 7 Feb 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html>.

Smith, Jeffrey. Spilling The Beans. May 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2010. <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2989>.

Weintraub, Arlene. “Salmon That Grow Up Fast.” BusinessWeek (2006). Web. 31 jan 2010. < www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_03/b3967111.html>.

Argument Outline

Thesis: Although biotechnology companies have posed a solution for “world hunger,” GM foods have not proven to be healthy to humans. With such little evidence to show their safety, they should not be used to feed humans until further testing has been done.

I. Introduce to the audience the methods used to alter genes of different species

A. transgenic plantation

B. beneficial claims

II. This paragraph will talk about the lack of research there is on GM foods and make the assumption that biotechnology companies are hiding the negative effects from the public.

A. Biotech Companies do not allow for independent studies

B. Why can’t we study what we eat?

III. Appealing to the audience is going to be the goal here in revealing that two-thirds of the food that is sold in the stores has GM ingredients in them. How can we continue to eat foods that have not been proven to be healthy? Are we okay with simply eating whatever poison is put in front of us?

A. Appeal to logos on why we would eat something we have no idea what it really is

IV. Reveal how genes that produce toxins are put into plants. When we eat these plants, we are not only eating those unhealthy toxins, but the genes can also alter ours.

A. Bt gene is put into crops to fight off insects

B. We are eating toxin producing genes that could potentially be harmful

V. Studies done on animals

A. Studies done on female and male rats and livestock have shown to mutations to their reproductive systems and the cause of infertility.

VI. Pose the idea that by altering the genes of the food we eat, we are altering our own genes. By eating something that is meant to kill off something else we will end up killing ourselves.

A. If we cannot prove that GM foods are healthier, how do we know that they aren’t killing us?

VII. Make the claim that biotechnology companies are controlling what we eat with their monopolizing growth in our economy. Eventually everything we eat is going to be altered with who knows what. In order to stop this we need to support local markets, grow our own food, etc.

A. Monsanto nearly owns the entire corn market and controls the prices

B. Support local businesses to keep them from monopolizing with altered foods

VIII. Conclude that we can make a difference in a few different changes in our lifestyle. Nothing gets changed without individual change, so we can either submit to a monopolizing biotechnology company, or we can be healthy contributors to not only ourselves but to our economy as well.

Food Inc. Part 3

The third readings were interesting in that they sort of gave us different perspectives. They were aimed at different audiences to help the reader understand more clearly what is going on within the food industry. I liked the part where he talks about “questions for a farmer” because it immediately tied me into the text as he sort of leads me to think of questions that I should consider when purchasing foods from the store. He suggests that I buy local foods, foods in season, grow my own food, and to just question where the foods come from and how they are raised. This strategy of putting me on the spot makes me feel like I can make a difference without having to really reach out to extreme measures. However, something that could be a bad strategy to the reading was that at some points it seemed too fact based. Sometimes I would lose interest in the amount of facts presented to me with my little amount of background knowledge of the subject. This specifically happened in the “Sustainable Table” section for me. I didn't really like Joel Selatin's section because I felt like I was being talked down to or like I was living an awful life. At times, he seemed like he was better than me, which was a turn off in the reading because I lost interest in what he had to say. He does make a good point, however when he mentions how these huge food industry companies have no incentive to stop monopolizing over smaller farmers and markets. This was done to make the audience believe that there is no stopping them without us decreasing our consumption of the products that they produce. Although some parts of the reading get dry and boring, I find that it is a good supplement for those who are really interested in subjects covered in the movie. It’s offers many persuasive essays about a problem, and actually gives ways that we, as consumers, can help without having to be a radicallist.

My Side of The Argument

In my argument essay I will be writing about my opinion against GM foods. I will explain the negative effects that genetically modified foods have on humans and the environment. I will also cover how there hasn’t been proper testing done before released into the public market. Since the majority of the foods we eat contain GM products or ingredients, it is important that we make sure that they are healthy. I will provide examples of some testing that has been done along with their results, and then mention how many have had trouble in conducting further research. The logic behind “you are what you eat” may also be a point that I may try to cover in my essay as well, being that if we are eating cows that eat GM corn, then we are essentially eating an altered food that hasn’t been proven to be healthy. My argument will focus on appealing to pathos and logos as I try to expose the less appealing side of GM foods.

Food Inc. Part 2

The second part of the reading is very informative but extremely boring, which is why the movie, to me, was way more effective than this book. However, these pages brought to my attention things that I hadn't necessarily thought of before or had seen in the movie. At the beginning of the reading, he talks about how our government manipulates the oil industry with the use of ethanol, which derives from corn. It was interesting to see how they would rather use more ethanol in motor fuel than the corn to feed those in need. It surprised me to see that "the grain required to fill a 25 gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feed one person for a full year." This is outrageously inefficient and immoral when you think about the many starving children there are in this world. Another part I liked about the reading was when he talked about how our food industry gives off tons of greenhouse gasses and harmful pollutants to our environment. Animals, that eat fertilized grains, come from farms that are constantly sprayed with insecticides and other chemicals that contaminate our water. Making these chemicals is also terrible for our environment in that gasses are released into our air, which leads to global warming. Then, once the farm animals are slaughtered, the meat gets transported from one place to another, using diesel-fueled trucks that emit tons more of greenhouse gasses. Buying from these big companies rather than a local market contributes to several different ways that destroy our environment. He provides us with multiple ways to help prevent this from happening: purchase foods from local markets; buy in bulk; use reusable bags; and avoid foods that have been processed. As someone who doesn't really know much about the subject, I feel like I can be an environmentally friendly consumer by doing a few simple things when shopping for groceries.

Food Inc. Part 1

I thought that Food, Inc was a great film in that it provided viewers with tons of testimonials of people that are greatly affected by the food industry. I liked that the movie more showed how our government was doing wrong in basically forcing people into buying and selling certain foods. There were a few sections that stood out to me in particular, the first being how the two farmers were to not speak of their methods of raising their chickens. It always seems odd when a company doesn't want the general public to know certain information. Another part that stood out to me was how the woman who lost her child from bad meat was unable to speak her own thoughts about what had happened. These companies are basically controlling people with fear of a lawsuit. The seed cleaner had to settle with the GM food company for providing a service to farmers as his business. It's sad to see how easy it is for these big companies to own people's lives as if they are slaves. It appeals to the audience's emotions when they hear the stories of people that are simply trying to make a living but are being forced to submit to the demands of multi-million dollar companies. Another part that struck interest to me was the part where they would show a politician and their government role, then show how they were associated somehow with the food industry. This helped viewers realize that this isn't just a food problem, it's a government problem where our country is being run by greed, the same greed that has led to the inhuman treatment of people all around us. The best part of the film, however, is that it doesn't simply state a problem and explain why something is bad. At the end it provided the a segment where the audience could read ways to help fight the monopolizing food companies.

The first reading of the book was a nice supplement to the movie because it not only helped give a little background of the movie, but it also provided things that may have been missed. It talked more about other problems that have risen from foods that are unhealthy. In the interview he mentions how "the obesity epidemic is now costing us $100 billion a year. The medical costs imposed by the fast food industry are much larger than its annual profits--expect the industry isn't paying those medical bill." They are basically accountable for weight problems like diabetes, which people get from "cheap" foods that end up creating huge medical bills. It's almost like an investment for ones health to spend the extra dollar and time on foods that are healthy rather than eating a quick dollar menu burger. I also liked the part where he talks about how Mcdonald's and other meat packing companies were denying any information about their place of business but that "workers at fast foods restaurants and meat packing plants were eager to talk..." This just continued to hit the spot for me in that it only seems like people are sick of the treatment that these companies give their employees because there is something going on that isn't something we, as consumers, want to hear.

Paraphrase This

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.

In order to help sustain the lives of pigs, chickens, and cattle that live in filth, it is necessary that they feed on antibiotics. In fact, nearly 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are used to feed these animals. Unfortunately, without the benefits of such antibiotics, our meat production could not possibly keep up with our needs because of how the pharmaceuticals aide in speed growth.

GM Foods

Genetically Modified Foods

The average person eats nearly 1500 pounds of corn a year either by itself or indirectly. It’s what the cows, chickens, and pigs eat, it’s what is in anything containing high fructose corn syrup, and it’s in ethanol, or grain alcohol, that we drink every weekend. There simply isn’t a way to get around it, almost everything we eat is made up somehow of corn. At 1500 pounds a year, with 304,059,724 people living in The United States, we as a nation consume roughly 456,089,586,000 pounds of corn a year. With the help of genetically modified food, we are able to provide for this large amount of people to eat what they do everyday. Genetically modified foods are a necessity to our lives in that they offer us benefits that are astronomical.

There are two popular methods of genetic modification, cisgenesis, where genes are transferred from one organism to another similar one, and transgenesis, where a gene can be taken from anything and put into whatever we want. The idea is to find a gene that can produce a desired result, and insert it into the organism to make it better and more efficient. The extraction of a gene is also possible in that they can remove it so that it no longer hinders the organism’s productivity (Kang).

People have various opinions on whether GM foods are safe for humans, morally just, or even unfair to other food producing industries. There are claims that GM foods are against God in that we shouldn’t alter God’s creation. Others say that we are becoming guinea pigs in an experiment and that we really don’t know what we are eating because there hasn’t been proper testing on GM foods (Hall). There are also people that fear of a monopoly in the food industry that could drastically change the prices in the foods that are modified. The largest company that produces GM foods is called Monsanto, which can account for 91 percent and 97 percent of the world’s share in GM soybean and maize respectively. The fear is that a company like this will dominate the market and have complete control over food prices (O’Brien).

Although there is much skepticism on food that has been altered genetically, the benefits most certainly outweigh any negative claims. Many plants that get genetically modified, like corn and soybean, are altered so that they are more resistive to pests and prosper in conditions that they wouldn’t normally. This is such a great advantage in that not only is crop growth no longer weather dependent, but it doesn’t take environmentally harmful chemicals to keep them growing unharmed. The genes of animals, like salmon, can even be modified for rapid growth. These two examples alone are reasons that would tremendously help with the poverty issues around the world.

Bibliography

Hall, Angela. “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMO’s.” The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.

Kang, JX. “Why the Omega-3 Should go to the Market.” Nature Biotechnology Print.

O’Brien, Robyn. “The Monopoly of the Food Supply: Price Inflammation and One Corporation’s Allergy to Labels.” 07 May 2008. Web. 30 Jan 2010. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12154.cfm.

Weintraub, Arlene. “Salmon That Grow Up Fast.” BusinessWeek (2006). Web. 31 Jan 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_03/b3967111.html.

A Forest Returns

A Forest Returns was a nice change of pace in that it was a happier story about an environmental issue. I was surprised at how much of an impact this guy made on the tree growth in Ohio. I never realized that most of the state we live in was logged, and that the forests we have now are the second wave of tree life. It was interesting to see that our government had programs that gave people work to do by having them plant all these trees. In today's society, I don't think that our government would ever do that because we are so money-driven that it would cost more to have people individually plant forests than it would to hire one person and a machine to do just as much. However, in 1935, it was a good thing that they helped restore the habitats of many animals that were destroyed in the logging process.

David Maywhoor

I liked David Maywhoor's presentation in that it was informative on how he stands against logging and prescribed burning, but I would've liked to hear a little more about his solution to the problem. I didn't know that prescribed burning even existed before today, and he did a great job explaining why it is so bad, but what should we do instead? Sure, logging is bad because it causes sluffing of the layers of earth, but what should we do instead to get our wood? It's easy to state a problem and say why it's wrong, but creating a solution to the problem should be the the focus. His speech was good in that it presented me with facts that made me think of alternatives to logging and burning. I would imagine that if we would use less wood to build things, like our houses that he mentioned, then the demand for wood would decline, which would then cut down on logging. So, as a solution to the problem he presents, I would say he should put efforts in wood alternatives rather than telling people they should stop logging and burning, because unless people have a reason to stop, they won't. Overall, I liked his presentation because it was very informative and showed he was knowledgeable on the subject, but I felt like I was left hanging.

Research Prospectus

After searching through a few topics that seemed very over-played in the category of writing papers on environmental issues, I started to explore solutions to environmental problems. In this search I came across the solution of genetically engineered foods. Many people are against the idea of eating something that could somewhat be considered unnatural, but there are many benefits to genetically modified foods (GM foods). Foods can be cross-bred with others to create foods that are more nutritious, deliver vaccines, and even plants that can produce different plastics. This sort of engineering can help the world in so many different ways. The opposing side to GM foods will say that there will be a food production monopoly over many small food vendors and farmers, unknown side effects, and simply that this will cause much stress to plants and animals.
Another topic that I have considered is solid waste. It seems very obvious, but I don't think that the general public is involved as much as it should be in recycling. People just aren't aware of how much trash gets thrown into landfills, which obviously takes up a lot of space. With recycling what we can, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run. Landfills are getting full and cause contamination in groundwater and burning it would release hazardous toxins into the air. The opposing side will say that recycling cuts many jobs, but this makes no sense to me because in increasing our recycling, we will just create more jobs in the recycling business. Not only will recycling do that, but recycled products are always cheaper than the original products. So what do we do? I never really recycle, so this subject to me seemed interesting to cover.

Part Three

Berry Wendell describes the mind in two different ways, rational and sympathetic. Rational, he says, is thinking about profit and doing what it takes to make it. The sympathetic mind is about "wholeness" where it favors nature and how it takes its course. The coal companies are seeing the mountains with the rational mind where they see a source they need to make money, they find out how to get it, and they make their profit, whereas the people neighboring the mountain are more sympathetic in that they want to the mountain to be how it was. The sympathetic mind realizes that everything needs something else for a reason, the wolf is needed to kill the deer, because the deer eat the vegetation, which feeds other animals and is home to others.

Reece talks about how the coal companies just simply don't care about the nature in the mountain and that they make the excuse that "it's already fucked up anyway" based on some locals' litter and decide to mine it. Reece then mentions how the companies decide that the soil that gets dug up has "no monetary value" and "sees no value at all," thus appealing to the rational mind. He says that the coal companies are planting grass instead of trees for reclamation, burying streams instead of tunneling for coal, and constantly polluting the air with no regards to nature, but only for the money that they are making. Reece also takes the sympathetic mind when he talks about how the land of the mountain is a macro-organism and everything living on the mountain takes part in the life of it. Everything needs something else indirectly for the life of the mountain to be healthy.

To quote a significant part of the Conclusion, I thought that the following was interesting: "And while the United States produces twice as much carbon dioxide as Russia, Bush made it clear in the presidential debates that he would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it could 'cost American jobs and stifle economic growth.' In other words, short term decision making will continue to rule the day, though the long term effects of those decisions could be disastrous." This is interesting because it seemed like the entire book was based on it. The coal companies have mined the tops off of mountains thinking nothing of how they're effecting the wildlife that lives there. Sure, having more coal is better for having energy right now, but if we are getting rid of these plants and animals' habitats, then later on, we are going to see worse consequences. He mentioned how when the wolves were dying off, there were more deer, which meant there was less vegetation, which mean that other animals were dying because they had less to feed on. In thinking purely of the short term, we are forgetting that there is always an indirect relationship between us and what we are destroying. And by signing the Kyoto Protocol, there wouldn't even necessarily be a stifle in economic growth because with more regulation on something that is harming our environment, there would be more incentive to find ways to create energy that are more ecologically friendly and less wasteful.

Pages 85-162

Throughout the book Erik Reece does a fine job in appealing to the emotion of his audience through not only his words, but through the words of others. Many examples of difference situations are explained that help the reader relate to the experiences of others. He does this so that we, as the audience, feel sympathy for the people that coal excavating has drastically affected. He also gives examples of how the coal companies just don't care about these people and that even after their efforts to seek help, no one listens.

He gives is a story called "Before the Law" that was a pretty good description of the people that drink polluted water, breathe coal dust, and people that have simply been flooded out of their homes due to poor strip mining regulations. He talks about Steven Griles, and how he took advantage of the SMCRA in that the mining permits say "to the extent possible," meaning there really was no enforcement in their "efforts" to prevent water contamination. He basically made sure that they could do whatever they really wanted, but have documented that there was regulation when really there wasn't. Another complaint that people had in McRoberts was that the their houses were basically in shambles due to blasting. Several houses and churches has sunk foundations, bowed walls, roof tears, and coal dust covering every inch of their homes. The coal companies simply did not care what they are doing to these people and simply say "You've got an old trailer. Nothing lasts forever." Hearing some of the provided stories makes it hard to even listen to argument from the other side because of how corrupt Reece makes the system seem.

These examples are sickening to think that people have no morality and can only think of the money that they are making instead of the people's lives that they are destroying. With all of the testimonials, it's hard to even think about being on the opposing side. This way of introducing other people's perspectives helps the reader think that it's not just the author that feels this way, and that in fact, many people are affected by strip mining.

Page 1-85

Erik Reece explores the mountain tops of Kentucky and explains what the extraction of coal is doing to our environment. He explains how it is an issue that continues to go ignored and that something needs to be done. Every year wildlife habitats are destroyed, leaving many animals and plants that dwell in high altitudes vulnerable to other predatory species. He also mentions how the moving water regions have been harmed, which then affects plants like the liverwort that multiply by with the help of water droplets. Not only has our coal mining hurt the wildlife, but Reece mentions that ways it hurts us as well. The sulfur the is released into the air leads to acid rain which causes respiratory problems, mercury can lead to birth defects, and CO2 leading to global warming.

Reece used to work in a coal burning power plant and has seen how that affects the environment, and now he is out seeing the results of the beginning of the coal burning cycle. His dad was an engineer for the power plant and worked on the scrubbers that helped contain gases from escaping into the air. Reece talks to several people in order to uncover the truth behind the chemicals that do leach out into the environment. He likes to use very descriptive words and sarcastic remarks to emphasize his points and then provide us with examples of problems that people have come across in relation to the coal extraction. This method sort of made me feel like theres no way I could possibly be on the other side of his argument. Hearing the story of Blanton and how basically all of her friends and family had died because of the chemicals leaching into the water and air, and how "Almost nobody in Dayhoit lives past fifty-five" helped me emphasize a lot more with her story and support Reece's view.

After reading this portion of the book I have been pulled more towards Reece's side. Mountain top removal is something that we should definitely try to regulate more. I still really haven't been convinced completely in stopping it because whether or not we like it, coal is definitely a huge source of energy for us. Until we can find more efficient ways of alternative energy sources, there isn't much we can do as far as not using coal completely. Regulating the way that they are dumping waste and doing a better job of restoring the areas are things that need to taken care of.

Clean Coal

When first opening each website in their own different windows, I noticed that the “This is Reality” site seemed much more interesting than “America’s Power.”

Though I initially had no interest in clean coal, I began scanning through the more interactive “This is Reality” website where they keep giving facts about the faults in clean coal. Knowing that coal is a fossil fuel that gives off many gases that are harmful to the environment, I could only see myself agreeing with the facts being presented in front of me. The site gave many reasons why coal burning is harmful, and even revealed that even after all of the advertising of clean coal, there’s not one power plant that stores its global warming pollution. They talk about how we need to invest more in solar, geothermal, and wind sources because they are not only efficient, but are renewable sources that do not emit the CO2 that burning coal does. These facts appeal to logos right away after the comment about there not being any plants that use the CC as claimed.

Flipping over to “America’s Power,” I was presented with reasons why coal is good for us. They try right away to appeal to the every day person and how they use electricity for video games, tv, and charging cell phones, so that we can’t say we aren’t indirectly using the coal ourselves. Tons of numbers are thrown around to make it seem as though things were being done to make our lives better with the use of coal. It is easy to even see a more localized view of how much coal energy is used by state so that we can more easily relate the how much coal we really use. There’s a fun little game where you can provide power to your house using different means of energy sources and the run different kinds of common household items. This serves to appeal to the logic of how using coal would give us more energy than any other source.

Both sites appeal to the average person in that they are trying to get us to use logic to reason with them. Many environmental councils and federations sponsor “This is Reality,” which to me seems as though they may be leaving things out, because to me these people always seem a little radical in their views, and not too much was said that I couldn’t have already guessed. “America’s Power” was set up in more of a legit looking website that appealed to me more and seemed more credible rather than a website that I could’ve put together. Overall, I would have to say that “America’s Power” seemed more like it was explaining to me facts with things to back up their claims as “This is Reality” just seemed like a website that Joe Dirt made because he doesn’t like power plants to burn coal.

English Day 1

Hi, my name is Michael Koh and I'm from Akron. I am a Junior and I am studying Mechanical Engineering. Things I like to do include snowboarding, wakeboarding, and working out. I have an Engineering Co-Op, or Internship, with Component Repair Technologies in Mentor, Ohio. This is a company that repairs commercial jet engine components when they have been worn or gone through stress that would hinder performance. There really isn't much interesting to say about myself as I am just a regular college student doing the regular college student thing.